Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the USA) who sincerely think of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely mislead people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives.
During our conversation you stated the following:
- The USA needs a military
- One of the reasons why the USA needs a military are regimes like the North Korean one
- The USA has a right to intervene outside its borders on a) pragmatic and b) moral grounds
- During WWII the USA “saved Europe” and acquired a moral right to “protect” other friends and allies
- The Allies (USSR-US-UK) were morally superior to the Nazis
- The Americans brought peace, prosperity and freedom to Europe.
- Yes, mistakes were made, but this is hardly a reason to forsake the right to intervene
I believe that all seven of these theses are demonstratively false, fallacies based on profoundly mistaken assumptions and that they all can be debunked by common sense and indisputable facts.
But first, let me tackle the Delphic maxim “know thyself” as it is, I believe, central to our discussion. For all our differences I think that there are a number of things which you would agree to consider as axiomatically true, including that Germans, Russians, Americans and others are roughly of equal intelligence. They also are roughly equally capable of critical thinking, personal investigation and education. Right? Yet, you will also agree that during the Nazi regime in Germany Germans were very effectively propagandized and that Russians in Soviet Russia were also effectively propagandized by their own propaganda machine. Right? Do you have any reason to suppose that we are somehow smarter or better than those propagandized Germans and Russians and had we been in their place we would have immediately seen through the lies? Could it be that we today are maybe also not seeing through the lies we are being told?
It is also undeniable that the history of WWII was written by the victors of WWII. This is true of all wars – defeated regimes don’t get to freely present their version of history. Had the Nazis won WWII, we would all have been treated to a dramatically different narrative of what took place. Crucially, had the Nazis won WWII, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the German people would have shown much skepticism about the version of history presented in their schools. Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.
You doubt that?
Just think of the number of Germans who declared that they had no idea how bad the Nazi regime really was. Even Hitler’s personal secretary, Traudl Junge, used that excuse to explain how she could have worked for so many years with Hitler and even like him so much. There is an American expression which says “where I sit is where I stand”. Well, may I ask – where are we sittting and are we so sure that we have an independent opinion which is not defined by where we sit (geographically, politically, socially and even professionally)?
You might ask about all the victims of the Nazi regime, would they not be able to present their witness to the German people and the likes of Traudl Junge? Of course not: the dead don’t speak very much, and their murderers rarely do (lest they themselves end up dead). Oh sure, there would be all sorts of dissidents and political activists who would know the truth, but the “mainstream” consensus under a victorious Nazi Germany would be that Hitler and the Nazis liberated Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists.
This is not something unique to Germany, by the way. If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don’t reproduce. As a result, the modern Russian historiography is heavily skewed towards whitewashing the Soviet crimes and atrocities. To some degree this is a good thing, because it counteracts decades of US anti-Soviet propaganda, but it often goes too far and ends up minimizing the actual human cost of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia.
So how do the USA compare to Germany and Russia in this context?
Most Americans trust the version of history presented to them by their own “mainstream”. Why? How is their situation objectively different from the situation of Germans in a victorious Third Reich? Our modern narrative of WWII was also written by victors, victors who had a vested reason in demonizing all the other sides (Nazis and Soviets) while presenting us with a heroic tale of liberation. And here is the question which ought to really haunt us at night: what if we had been born not Russians and Jews after a Nazi defeat but if we had been born Germans after an Allied defeat in WWII? Would we have been able to show enough skepticism and courage to doubt the myths we were raised with? Or would we also be doubleplusgoodthinking little Nazis, all happy and proud to have defeated the evil Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists?
Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated. No wonder that we, Jews and Russians, don’t particularly care for that kind of genocidal racist views. But surely we can be humans before being Jews and Russians, and we can accept that what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for others. Sure, Hitler was bad news for Jews and Russians, but was he really so bad news for “pure” (Aryan Germanic) Germans? More importantly, if we had been born “pure” Germans, would we have have cared a whole lot about Jews and Russians? I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. I don’t recall any of us shedding many tears about the poly-genocided (a word I coined for a unique phenomenon in history: the genocide of all the ethnicities of an entire continent!) Native Americans! I dare say that we are a lot more prone to whining about the “Holocaust” or “Stalinism”, even though neither of them ever affected us personally, (only our families and ethnicity) than about the poly-genocide of Native Americans. I very much doubt that our whining priorities would have been the same if our ethnicity had been Lakota or Comanche. Again, I hope that I am wrong. But I am not so sure.
Either way, my point is this:
We are hard-coded to be credulous and uncritically accept all the demonization of Nazis and Soviets because we are Jews and White Russians. Careful here, I am NOT saying that the Nazis and Soviets were not evil – they definitely were – but what I am saying is that we, Jews and Russians, are far more willing to accept and endorse any version of history which makes the Nazis and Soviets some kind of exceptionally evil people and that, in contrast, we almost instinctively reject any notion that “our” side (in this case I mean *your* side, the American one since you, unlike me, consider yourselves American) was just as bad (if only because your side never murdered Jews and Russians). So let’s look at this “our/your side” for a few minutes.
By the time the USA entered WWII it had already committed the worse crime in human history, the poly-genocide of an entire continent, followed by the completely illegal and brutal annexation of the lands stolen from the Native Americans. Truly, Hitler would have been proud. But that is hardly all, the Anglo invaders then proceeded to wage another illegal and brutal war of annexation against Mexico from which they stole a huge chunk of land which includes modern Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico! Yes, all this land was illegally occupied and stolen by your side not once, but TWICE! And do I even need to mention the horrors of slavery to add to the “moral tally” of your side by the time the US entered the war? Right there I think that there is more than enough evidence that your side was morally worse than either the Nazis or the Soviets. The entire history of the USA is one of endless violence, plunder, hypocrisy, exploitation, imperialism, oppression and wars. Endless wars of aggression. None of them defensive by any stretch of the imagination. That is quite unique in human history. Can you think of a nastier, more bloodthirsty regime? I can’t.
Should I even mention the British “atrocities tally”, ranging from opium wars, to the invention of concentration camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc. etc. etc.?
I can just hear you say that yes, this was horrible, but that does not change the fact that in WWII the USA “saved Europe”. But is that really so?
To substantiate my position, I have put together a separate PDF file which lists 5 sources, 3 in English, 2 in Russian. You can download it here:
I have translated the key excerpts of the Russian sources and I am presenting them along with the key excerpts of the English sources. Please take a look at this PDF and, if you can, please read the full original articles I quote. I have stressed in bold red the key conclusions of these sources. You will notice that there are some variations in the figures, but the conclusions are, I think, undeniable. The historical record show that:
- The Soviet Union can be credited with the destruction of roughly 80% of the Nazi military machine. The US-UK correspondingly can be credited with no more than 20% of the Allied war effort.
- The scale and scope of the battles on the Eastern Front completely dwarf the biggest battles on the Western Front. Battles in the West involved Divisions and Brigades, in the East they involved Armies and Groups of Armies. That is at least one order of magnitude of difference.
- The USA only entered the war a year after Stalingrad and the Kursk battle when it was absolutely clear that the Nazis would lose the war.
The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would be defeated and that their real motive was not the “liberation of oppressed Europe” but to prevent the Soviets from occupying all of Europe. The Americans never gave a damn about the mass murder of Jews or Russians, all they cared about was a massive land-grab (yet again).
[Sidebar: By the way, and lest you think that I claim that only Americans act this way, here is another set of interesting dates:
Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 6 and 9, 1945
Soviet Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: August 9–20, 1945
We can clearly see the same pattern here: the Soviets waited until it was absolutely certain that the USA had defeated the Japanese empire before striking it themselves. It is also worth noting that it took the Soviets only 10 days to defeat the entire Kwantung Army, the most prestigious Army of the Japanese Empire with over one million well-trained and well-equipped soldiers! That should tell you a little something about the kind of military machine the Soviet Union had developed in the course of the war against Nazi Germany (see here for a superb US study of this military operation)]
Did the Americans bring peace and prosperity to western Europe?
To western Europe, to some degree yes, and that is because was easy for them: they ended the war almost “fresh”, their (stolen) homeland did not suffer the horrors of war and so, yes, they could bring in peanut butter, cigarettes and other material goods. They also made sure that Western Europe would become an immense market for US goods and services and that European resources would be made available to the US Empire, especially against the Soviet Union. And how did they finance this “generosity”? By robbing the so-called Third World blind, that’s all. Is that something to be proud of? Did Lenin not warn as early as 1917 that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism”? The wealth of Western Europe was built by the abject poverty of the millions of Africans, Asians and Latin Americas.
But what about the future of Europe and the European people?
There a number of things upon which the Anglos and Stalin did agree to at the end of WWII: The four Ds: denazification, disarmament, demilitarisation, and democratisation of a united Germany and reparations to rebuild the USSR. Yes, Stalin wanted a united, neutral Germany. As soon as the war ended, however, the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West Germany, they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services, their rocket program and to subvert the Soviet Union. Worse, they immediately developed plans to attack the Soviet Union. Right at the end of the WWII, Anglo powers had at least THREE plans to wage war on the USSR: Operation Dropshot, Plan Totality and Operation Unthinkable. Here are some basic reminders from Wikipedia about what these operations were about:
Operation Dropshot: included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.
Plan Totality: earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.
Operation Unthinkable: assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. (…) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.
[Were you aware of these? If not, do you now wonder why?]
I am not making these things up, you can look it up for yourself on Wikipedia and elsewhere. This is the Anglo idea of how you deal with Russian “allies”: you stab them in the back with a surprise nuclear attack, you obliterate most of their cities and you launch the Nazi Wehrmacht against them.
I won’t even go into the creation of NATO (before the WTO – known in the West as the “Warsaw Pact” – was created in response) or such petty crimes as false flag terrorist attack (Operation Gladio).
[Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 “Bologna massacre”, the bombing of the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead, over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder why you never heard of this?]
The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab, that the Cold War was an Anglo creation, as was the partition of Europe, and that since WWII the USA always treated Europe as a colony form which to fight the “Communist” threat (i.e. Russia).
But, let’s say that I am all wrong. For argument’s sake. Let’s pretend that the kind-hearted Americans came to Europe to free the European people. They heroically defeated Hitler and brought (Western) Europe peace, prosperity, freedom, happiness, etc. etc. etc.
Does this good deed give the USA a license for future interventions? You both mentioned WWII as an example and a justification for the need for the USA to maintain a military large enough to counter regimes such as the North Korean one, right? So, let me ask again,
Does the fact that the USA altruistically, kindly and heroically liberated Europe from both the Nazis and the Soviets now grant the moral legitimacy to other, subsequent, US military interventions against other abhorrent, aggressive or evil regimes/countries out there?
If you reply “no” – then why did you mention it as a justification?
If you reply “yes” – then please forgive me for being so obtuse and ask you for how long this “license to militarily intervene” remains valid? One year? Five years? Maybe ten or even seventy years? Or maybe this license grants such a moral right to the USA ad aeternam, forever? Seriously, if the USA did liberate Europe and bring it peace and happiness, are we to assume that this will remain true forever and everywhere?
I also want to ask you this: let’s say, for the argument’s sake, that the moral license given by the US participation in the war in Europe is, truly, forever. Let’s just assume that, okay? But let me ask you this: could it be revoked (morally, conceptually)? Say the USA did something absolutely wonderful in Europe. What about the subsequent horrors in southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle-East. How many murdered, maimed, occupied, terrorized, bombed and otherwise genocided “non-West Europeans” would it take to outweigh the putatively “happily liberated” Europeans which, according to you, grant the USA the license to intervene? Even if the US in Europe was all noble and pure, do the following seventy years of evil mass murder worldwide really count for nothing or does there come a point were “enough is enough” and the license can be revoked, morally speaking, by people like us, like you?
May I point out to you that your words spoken in defense of a supposed need for the USA to maintain a military capable of overseas operations strongly suggest that you believe that the USA has a moral right (if not a duty!) to conduct such operations, which means that the post WWII atrocity-tally of the USA is not, in your opinion, sufficient to elicit a “enough is enough” reaction in you. Are you sure that you are comfortable with this stance?
In theory, there could be another reason to revoke such a moral license. After all, one can have the moral right to do something, but not necessarily the capability to do so. If I see somebody drowning in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to jump in the water and try to save this person, do I not? But that does not mean that I have the strength or skills to do so. Right? So when you say that the USA needs to maintain a military capable of protecting friends and allies from rogue and dangerous regimes like the one in North Korea, you do imply that besides having the right to extend such a protection the USA also has the capabilities and the expertise to do so?
And what is the evidence for that, may I ask?!
I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting “our friends and allies” and are you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter? Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US “Congresspersons”? Would you trust them? So where do you see honest and competent “saviors of others” in the US polity?
Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans, and their allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a record?!
Is insanity not repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results?
Now I hear the reply you gave me to this point. You said “yes, mistakes were made”.
I don’t think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are “mistakes” (how would you react if somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made “mistakes”?). But there is something even more insidious in this notion of “mistake”.
How would you define “success”?
Say the US armed forces were not only good at killing people (which they are), but also good at winning wars (which they ain’t). Say the USA had been successful in not only invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in fully pacifying these countries. Say the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been successfully defeated, their economy had bounced back, and democratic regimes put in power: capitalism everywhere, 100 channels on each TV, McDonalds in every Afghan villages, gay pride parades in downtown Kabul, gender-neutral toilets in every mosque, elections every 4 years or so and not a single shot fired, not a single bomb going off? Would that be a “success”?
I pray to God and hope with all my heart that your reply to this question is a resounding “no!!”. Because if you answered “yes” then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. Yup, I mean that. Why? Because your notion of “success” is the spiritual, psychological and cultural death of an ancient civilization and that makes you, quite literally, an mortal enemy of mankind as a whole. I can’t even imagine such a horror. So I am sure that you answered “no!!” as every decent human being would, right?
But then what is a “success”? You clearly don’t mean the success as defined by your rulers (they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time over and over again!). But if their idea of “success” is not yours, and if you would never want any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become a victim of such as “successful” military intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of “success” to have the means to be “successful” in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical record shows that they can’t even achieve any type of “success” even by their own definition, nevermind yours?!
Did you notice that nowhere in my arguments above did I mention the fact that the USA has never asked people (as opposed to local Comprador elites) whether they wanted to be saved by Uncle Sam or not? Neither did they ask the American people if they wanted to go to war, hence all the well-known false flags from the “remember the Maine”, to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, to the “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, to September 11th: every time a lie had to be concocted to convince the American people that they had to go to war. Is that really people power? Is this democracy?!
Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the “Yankee go home” slogan.
This letter is already way too long, and I will forgo the listing of all the reasons why the USA are pretty much hated all over the planet, not by the ruling elites, of course, but by the regular people. And when I say “the USA” I don’t mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino, James Taylor or the Bill of Rights or the beautiful country called “the USA”. But the regime, as opposed to any one specific government or administration in Washington, the regime is what is truly universally hated. I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even in France, Greece or Latin America. But the hate for the Empire is quasi universal by now. Only the political elites whose status, power and well-being is dependent on the Empire do, in fact, support the Empire and what it stands for. Everybody else despises what the USA stands for today. And every military intervention only makes this worse.
And you want to make sure this continues? Really?
Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.) from defeat in Syria. How is that for a moral stance after 9/11 (that is, if you accept the official narrative about 9/11; if you understand that 9/11 was a controlled demolition in which al-Qaeda patsies were used as a smokescreen, then this makes sense, by the way).
By the way – who are the current allies the US are so busy helping now?
- The Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia
- The Nazi regime in the Ukraine and
- The last officially racist regime on the planet in Israel
Do these really strike you as allies worth supporting?!
And what are the American people getting from that? Nothing but poverty, oppression, shame, hatred, fear and untold physical, psychological and moral suffering.
These are the fruits of Empire. Every Empire. Always.
You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life? What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal?
Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx’s Marine husband lived in a nice house with all their material needs taken care of? You added “compare that to Russian servicemen”. Well, you clearly are not aware of how Russian soldiers live nowadays, under your hated Putin, but that is besides the point. The question which I wanted to ask you then and which I will ask you now is this: is the comfortable lifestyle granted to US Marines good enough a reason to be a Marine – that is being part of the very first force called in to murder innocent people and invade countries? Do you even know what Marines did to Fallujah recently? How much is a human soul worth? And it is really your belief that being a hired killer for the Empire is an honorable way of life? And should you think that I am exaggerating, please read the famous essay “War is a Racket” by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine could achieve in his time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket, does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from the Wikipedia entry about the Marine Corps: (emphasis added)
The Marine Corps was founded to serve as an infantry unit aboard naval vessels and was responsible for the security of the ship and its crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions and defending the ship’s officers from mutiny; to the latter end, their quarters on ship were often strategically positioned between the officers’ quarters and the rest of the vessel.
Does that help you identify their Nazi or Soviet counterparts?
Of all people, is it not we, Jews and Russians, who ought to recognize and categorically reject the trappings of Empire and all the rationalizations used to justify the subservient service to Empires?
I believe that history shows beyond any doubt that all Empires are evil, inherently and essentially, evil. They are also therefore equally evil. Shall I explain why?
Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression (that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law, think of it!). In the the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the ultimate crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they “come with the territory”, they are not the exception, they are the norm.
The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say “enough is enough”? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?
Re Gladio (since you mention it): LaRouche and his organization published a ton of stuff on Gladio “back when.” And since: about other false flag ops. And we have seen what they did to him.
“maybe it is time to find new friends?”
If we both agreed on everything then one of us wouldn’t be necessary.
Nope, there is strength in numbers.
“Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force.”
~ Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”
Why do you believe that the point of existence is disagreement?
Tolstoy said that ” All happy families are alike. All unhappy families are unhappy in their own way.”
You can apply that to individuals as well.
A “truly” awesome letter. But I fear useless to change the audience the letter was directed at. It will
be (as I figure you meant it to be) useful for others that read it. But if the people you sent it to are Russian Jews,it fails. To be a Russian and a Jew from the ex-USSR and not know “beyond any doubt at all” who it was that defeated the nazis is beyond comprehension. Not “wanting” to accept that is one thing.That I can understand. But not in their hearts and brains “knowing” the truth,I can’t accept. You are dealing with people that, while probably nice people on an individual level. Have made the choice to go to the “dark side”. To “drink the koolaid” as the modern saying goes. There is no coming back from that. Once having “willingly” accepted the Western propaganda,and become the modern day version of Quislings,or Hiwi,you don’t change by being shown the truth. They already know the truth.They just don’t want to accept it.It took the nazi defeat in WWII to break the spell of the nazi version of “exceptionalism” (the Herrenvolk),its the same with all “true believers” of an ideology. Sadly,words alone,are not enough I’m afraid. I keep trying with people I know as well.But once the mind is set.Its almost impossible to get through to them. My only success has been with those only at the start of their brainwashing.And considering ,as you say,your friends made the conscious choice to embrace the US. Their brainwashing would be already complete.
The Soviet Jews who came West under the ‘Free Soviet Jews’ slogan did so at the cost of their honor and possibly their eternal souls. To get out, they collaborated with Zionism and the CIA to blacken the reputation of the USSR and Russians. The price of admission to the West was to claim that Russians were anti-Semites and they were a persecuted minority. Both statements were lies and they knew it.
I believe that their growing ill-repute indicates that just possible they were damned in aeternam “unto the fortieth generation” as their holly book says, and can never be trusted again.
In aeternum means forever. No ‘frothiest (sorry, fortieth) generation’. There is no Purgatorium. “These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matthew 25:46).
Thanks Saker for voicing your realizations and experience about “human minds”.
Because this is really about how people use their brain.
If we would concentrate on WHAT is a brain, HOW it works, What we put into it, and then ask the question “Who AM I?”, maybe we would see more “intelligent humans” running things.
Saddly, in our Western societies, we’re too busy consuming entertainment rather than questioning what we are perceiving.
To “master the mind” is my point. How do we do that? What is it?
If we don’t know how this brain of ours works, then we fill it with our BELIEFS and deductions and end up no better than Germans, Russians, Americans, Syrians…
The unconscious built-in automaton behavior is really animalistic: aggressor-victim.
Who is ready to take 100% responsibility because he/she has claimed back his/her 100% power of co-creator?
For that, we have to become aware of “other realities” and have DIRECT experiences of such… otherwise it remains BELIEFS. And belief systems are created in the brain.
I DARE believe in the goodness of human beings. It’s a question of CHOICE.
Freedom of choice remains our greatest gift as creators on this beautiful planet.
What’s about the history told from Antony C. Sutton https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton? His historical researches shows:
– Without help from the US the bolshevik Revolution would have fail
– Without help from the US Hitler couldn’t be successful politically and military. The US helps the German army til 1942. Without this help the German army would have collapsed. Much of the plants producing weapons for the US-Army belongs to US-German company and where not bombed flat like the city’s.
The conclusion of all this: the successful bolshevik Revolution, the rise of Hitler and his army where the work of US-Citizen, US-Financiers. The USA is guilty of ALL the atrocity brought by the bolshevik Revolution and Hitler over Europe and is not the nation who brought peace, the opposite is the truth. The US-Politics is responsible for approx. 200 million death until 1975 (Chapter 12 of “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler”).
His last researches leads him to look after the order skulls&bones which shows that behind all these acts a demoniac plan to form history. The USA is for sure and by far the most evil empire that human kind has ever seen. The support of Hitler was the plan to destroy Germany as a rising leading culture. Hitler was the argument for war against Germany, to destroy it and then subject this nation. And while the Bolshevik has to do the main part of this risky work, the US and allies bombs the German cities flat:
“Not much of this documentary has to be true in order to reach the conclusion that what the Americans, British, and above all the Soviets did to Germans during the war and in the war’s final days and, worse, after the war, dwarfs in its inhumanity and illegality everything the Nazis did. More Germans died during the two years after the war than died in fighting the Americans and British during the war. Mass exterminations of Germans and systematic rape of German females as young as eight years old were going on during the Nuremberg trials. What happened to Germans fit the program for the genocide of Germany advocated by the Jewish US Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morganthau.” http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/14/hellstorm-the-documentary/
Correction: “the plants producing weapons for the US-Army…” it should be “the plants producing weapons for the German Army…”
Finally, the US and Allies appeared to be the “good guys” who liberate and bring peace to Europe, legitimating them morally to be the leading world power. The German feels guilty for decades until now and are unable to other politics than to follow the USA. A truly ingenious plan accompanied with well functioning propaganda.
Europe is the continent who should be a moral example standing up for the western value. That would implies to oppose the USA. But western Europe can’t do this on the base of all the historic lies. The “shift” points to Russia as the rising new morally legitimate power who will gently (so far possible as Putin shows) but firmly (and slowly deadly as seen with Syria) hit back the evil empire. Hope, this transition will be as much peaceful as possible. It would be an illusion to believe, a new power would be just all good… But it can’t be much worse than what the USA have done and now this are still a threat to humanity. I see no sings of so much demoniac evil in Russia, in contrary, there are much sings of real heart-touching qualities. These are the qualities which brought Russia, never overreacting to the provocations, now in this favorable position in face of a agonizing Empire, who always tried to maintain his power with evil plans like Gladio-terror, 9/11 or the never executed Operation Northwood (9/11 and the downing of MH17 can be seen as sort of recycling of the idea of Operation Northwood).
“Without help from the US the bolshevik Revolution would have fail… Without help from the US Hitler couldn’t be successful politically and military. The US helps the German army til 1942.”
The thing about controlled opposition is that efforts are always made to prop it up indefinitely. Yes, Schmid, the Soviet Union played Eurasia to “the West’s” Oceania for almost 70 years. Al-Qaeda and its spin-offs have been around for 30 years and counting; they get called “moderate rebels” and magically end up with American TOW anti-tank missiles. Ukraine’s “Neo-Nazis” have gotten US aid, military “advisers,” and debt “deals” from the IMF since Nuland, Soros, and the rest built them up three years ago.
Yet NSDAP Germany is flattened within 12 years with the bankster cartel arming the Soviets to do it…? Isn’t that kind of treatment reserved for legitimate opposition?
“The support of Hitler was the plan to destroy Germany as a rising leading culture.”
World War 1 already did that. Wasn’t Hitler a big reason Germany rose above the banksters’ Weimar Republic in the first place…? You may as well argue that Putin is part of a plan to destroy Russia after rising it above the banksters’ Soviet Union…
Maybe a reason some people don’t stand up against the empire is because they don’t see any good alternatives. Even if they did admit that their leadership has fallen to the dark side, they may also believe that everyone’s leadership has done so. At that point, why turn on one’s own bad leaders simply to align with other bad leaders…? “Better the devil you know” and whatnot…
Mostly agree, thanks for your comment.
“You may as well argue that Putin is part of a plan to destroy Russia ” – Until now there is no sign of such a plan, it looks rather then the opposite https://www.thenation.com/article/does-putin-really-want-to-destabilize-the-west/ . He had plenty of occasions to engage Russia into a devastating war, the US have offering him a lot of them. But he acts very smart to minimize the damages and maximize the effectiveness of his responses to the provocations.
“Maybe a reason some people don’t stand up against the empire is because they don’t see any good alternatives.” Good point. As I say, it would be an illusion to believe, an other power would be only god. As I see it, the USA was (is) a evil driven Empire that couldn’t be worse an do more harms. Russia will probably stand up for other value. Examples of good or at least not plain evil leaders are perhaps Alexander the Great, Gorbachev, Charles de Gaule, JFKennedy…
In case you missed it: http://bit.ly/2f6xPNS
lays it out in detail – with sources..
Britain was the prime mover, with assistance from the US.
IMO one cannot have any real understanding of the world as it is today without an appreciation of Guido Giacomo Preparata’s work. The machinations are quite clear to see.
I wouldn’t expect its thesis to be taught as history by western schools.
Follow up by the author:
Thank you for this information. I didn’t know Guido Giacomo Preparata, glad to know an other historian coming to the same conclusions! Sutton as historian taking his job very seriously is also strong relying on sources. He comes after many years of research to this conclusions he didn’t thought about at beginning. This make his work so authentic.
LZ99 agrees…G G Preparata’s work is Number One stuff.
Signalling probably solid history is served up via wiki…if they say a fella’s a “revisionist” it’s generally an indication that there’s a bit of meat on his words…so to say.
Not, mind you, what they desire to achieve…
with due respect the Saker needs to watch the documentary “the greatest story never told” Hitler has been demonized by the same tribe who owns the media…. and hollywood…the bolsheviks were headed by that same tribe who were primarily responsible for millions of deaths of christian russians..have you not read the gulag archipelago? it was the same tribe who orchestrated the 9/11 false flag which they used as the excuse for the never ending war on terror hoax you described…
I have seen all that, and read it all too
what I wonder, did you even bother reading what I wrote
or bother looking around this blog to see what I post?
zionist Israel firsters are deeply embedded in Trumps inner circle led by his son in law…Hitler was trying to prevent what has happened in America, England, Australia along with most of the european countries…a zionist dictated policy designed to benefit one nation above all others…watch the documentaries 9/11 war by deception and decades of deception by ryan dawson and hellstorm the real nazi genocide
“Hitler was trying to prevent what has happened ” – What Hitler did was just plain evil, just doing what the masters behind him intended: help to destroy Germany, as Churchill openly repeats. Hitler isn’t a victim, he has to stand for all his crimes. Perhaps he was not aware what really was going on. But this doesn’t excuse him for what he has done.
The ending of movie “white tiger” Friend, hosts Herr H in, presumably, Hell, explaining himself…worth the time to hear…
one word is enough to debunk the whole argument your friends make, saker. the word is: “9/11”. all anyone needs to do, is a bit of homework, so to speak. and then to take it from there. end of discussion.
I read this article on the Unz Review. I agree with it pretty much in entirety. America has confected a bogus history to cover up centuries of racism, wartime atrocities and crimes against humanity all committed in the service of allowing a tiny minority of uber capitalists to control the resources of, not only North America, but of most of the world. It has no right to feel so holier than thou, endlessly pat itself on the back as “exceptional” and thereby take unlimited prerogatives for itself while condemning and casting judgment on its natural competitors which it sees fit to slander, catagorise as “enemies,” subvert economically, and even attack on the battlefield.
Nazi Germany basically destroyed itself (claiming a few million additional Europeans as victims), as did the Stalinist Soviet Union. European colonizers of what is presently the United States methodically exterminated, enslaved or subjugated native Americans, black Africans and Latin Americans across the North American continent over the course of more than three hundred years. Hitler and Stalin were pikers in comparison. What’s more, the self-proclaimed “exceptional” country is still at it, spreading its tentacles around the globe in its non-stop wars for global hegemony. Now the targeted groups that serve to excuse this monstrous behaviour are Muslims and Russians. Same modus operandi, different venues.
Saker, you were entirely on point when you said in your article that America’s history has been so expertly and methodically revised to mask over the numerous atrocities underlying its creation and maintenance that its people cannot, indeed will not, recognise they reality though the evidence is easily attainable. The point is proved by the enormous resistance and criticism you are receiving on the forum at Unz. Most of those people, who might otherwise hunger for justice, simply cannot admit the nature of the beast when it comes to their own government and its documentable history. I sure hope the reception for your essay is more favorable here.
I am not a Russian, or of Russian heritage, but I sure sympathize with the Russians and the people that Russia tries to protect, at great cost and risk, from rapacious American military adventurism.
“Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable.” No time left for debating that. Let’s just agree that the answer is a resounding ‘yes’.
I offer two illustrations of the very strong moral/ethical points made by Saker and backed, as always, by reams of evidence.
One is a quote from Heinrich Boll’s ‘Group Portrait With Lady’ in which the protagonist who is in the process of losing everything except his conscience and soul says: “It amazes me how people will do the right thing even when it is to their advantage.” You can substitute ‘say’ for ‘do’ in this particular application.
And, vis a vis Saker’s chance acquaintances during his stay in Purgatory, the ex-Russians, Russian Jews, wandering Jews, etc. who have adapted to their new homeland, which of course they will also betray when the opportune moment arrives, I offer this by Dylan Moran talking about it in Moscow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0L5sEc4Vkk
There are two facts I keep coming across which tend to favor Russia in any of its manifestations, even the Western-sponsored aberration called ‘Soviet’ Russia, over the USA:
1. The USA has 20-30% higher rates of clinical insanity than Russia (The Lancet Medical Journal estimated an overall 46% twenty years ago).
2. Russians have an approximately 10%, IQ advantage over the citizens of the USA. (I expect many other nations do as well).
The above explains a great deal of the reality which leads the USA to consistently win both the Most-hated Nation and the Greatest Threat to World Peace Prize year after year.
Genug ist GENUG.
Here’s an excellent article by ‘Collapse’ Orlov on the current state of the USA and its failing international dominance:
Military Defeat as a Financial Collapse Trigger – The Epic US Fail in Syria
To describe the situation in the simplest terms possible: the function of the US military is to intimidate other countries into letting the US buy whatever it wants by printing US dollars as needed, essentially robbing the rest of the world at gunpoint. Once their ability to intimidate the world into submission is gone so will be their ability to endlessly fleece the planet. And once that ability is gone all that will remain of the “richest country in the world” is a pile of worthless paper.
When precisely that moment arrives is anyone’s guess, but you shouldn’t need to time it exactly provided you can plan for it.
I think you over simplify, but I agree with a lot, if not most about what you say. But how the heck did the White Russians attain such a vast land empire about three times the size of the US? Also, explain why do you live here?
why the FUCK should I explain anything to you?! Who are you to ask that? More importantly, how is the fact that I live in the USA to be germane to anything
The arrogance of such questions always blows my mind
@Leibniz’s approach was his own. It was, nearly certainly, not inspired by any in the long list of imaginary deities.
Half baked knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.
“Leibniz’s intellectual training was squarely in the tradition of Scholasticism and Renaissance humanism; his background, then, was of Aristotelianism, Platonism, and orthodox Christianity”.
He was a critic of the ‘Barbaric physics’ of Newton.
The article of Saker was indeed brilliant but as always i have to say : none of us are perfect. Sad i have make some objections to claim of Saker like this:
“The Soviet Union can be credited with the destruction of roughly 80% of the Nazi military machine. The US-UK correspondingly can be credited with no more than 20% of the Allied war effort.”
Well this is common myth created during Soviet era and repeated for last 7 decades. While it is certainly true that some 80% of DECEASED GERMAN SOLDIERS died in eastern front we must remember that
1) irreplaceable military personal losses are not just “killed in action” (KIA) or “died in wounds” (DIW). Actually most of German WW2 irreplaceable losses were: captured (POW) or “missing in action” (MIA).
2) according most of reliable studies of German military losses ( unlike highly questionable study by Rydiger Overmans) tens of times more German soldiers surrendered to Western Allied forces in west and Mediterranean than were killed in battleground. Before May 1945 over 4 million German soldiers had been captured by Western allied.
3) the proportion of German munition production during WW2 is poorly known both in Russia and even in west. Actually figures studied by German war historians were underlining how largely that production was concentrated on air and sea warfare. According the brilliant study of Phillips Payson O’Brien (Cambridge series of book: “How The War Was Won”) hardly more than 30-32% of German munition production was targeting land war. O’Brien based on German primary sources got these amazing confirmed figures: aircraft 44-45%, ammunition 26 %, navy vessels 10%, weapons 9%, combat armor (AFV, of all kind) average 6.5%, vehicles 2.5%, half tracks 1.5%
4) 65% of German AFV losses, 25% of Luftwaffe combat aircraft losses and less than 10% of German Kriegsmarine losses were caused by Soviet military forces in Eastern Front. Actually when Germany produced totally 117 000 aircraft, less than 13 000 of those aircraft were lost in Eastern Front in COMBAT (note that minority of aircraft losses generally in WW2 were combat, for instance less than 40% of Soviet losses too were in combat). Aircraft production took average 7 times bigger share of German munition production than building combat armor. Including armament and ammo of aircraft that share took average half of German munition production. Most of that was lost in war against Western Allied.
5) The battle value of German land warfare machine especially in Eastern Front was pretty low. Average German infantry division in east had (maximum) 500 trucks but over 5 000 horses. As we can see here it was not that much different than that of Napoleon some 130 years earlier. German munition production is telling the truth: German army had low priority in German war production.
6) Western Allied air and sea power had played more crucial role than Soviet Union (and later Russia) has ever admitted. For instance even as early as in fall of 1943 less than 20% of German fighter aircraft was deployed to Eastern Front. From late 1943 to end of the war some 12-14% of German anti aircraft artillery were in east. Western Allied mostly forced Luftwaffe to pull its air cover from east. None can deny these facts. Even in 1943 some 6 000 German aircraft was prevented to be produced because Allied bombing campaign. In spring of 1944 USAAF/RAF destroyed 85% of German aviation fuel production capacity and 50% of other fuel production and sent German war machine to free downfall.
7) Only weapon Germans really had to shake allied on its core was their U-boats. In this perspective i have also make this conclusion: both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were lacking strategic air and sea power with that German tiny group of U-boats making exception. On the other hand Americans had ability to destroy enemy war production before it was deployed to battleground.
8) Eastern Front was actually not German highest priority in WW2. The number one priority above all was securing German war production and German cities and towns. Eastern Front was secondary front compared to so called “super battlefield” which consisted Atlantic and all air above it and western Europe including of course Germany.
9) Eastern Front warfare was primitive, backward and material losses easily and fast replaced by munition production. According to numbers of German war production: in every month all material of 23 divisions was replaced by new production. For instance all German material losses during July-August 1943 in whole Eastern Front (including aircraft too) took just 3.5% of 1943 war production.
10) The art of military warfare is not actually killing enemy. And certainly not when treating POW’s in a terrible way as Germans and Soviet forces did. Instead it’s much better to persuade enemy to stop resisting. That’s the way Western Allied did it. They destroyed German mobility for effective warfare. The destroyed German air cover. They destroyed German will to resist.
Conclusions. Hitler and Stalin were both men of the past. They never had idea what modern strategic warfare would be. In many ways they were waging a 1914-18 war once again. You don’t have to be surprised that they got what they wanted. If it’s true what study of Russian Military Academy is suggesting that Soviet military personal losses were 14 241 000 deaths you have to start thinking: how great The Great Patriotic War actually was at all and what part did it play on collapse of Soviet Union four decades later.
@”Eastern Front was actually not German highest priority in WW2. The number one priority above all was securing German war production”
That is precisely why Hitler and Stalin were waging a 1914-18 war once again.
Russia was indeed the German Lebensraum. All the German ingenuity and technical prowess for the war production were based on the Russian resources (petrol in the first place) and it was absolutely vital for the Germans to secure them in order to wage a successful war against the Anglo-Americans, which was their ‘highest priority’.
That was the reason of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact of 1939 and of the German–Soviet Axis talks of October-November 1940, which proposed USSR to join the Axis explicitely against ‘the capitalist West’. Such statements as: “”there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies”, “neither we nor Italy have anything in common with the capitalist west” and “it seems to us rather unnatural that a socialist state would stand on the side of the western democracies”, have been uttered by Ribbentrop.
That’s why the German-Soviet economic relations reached an unprecedented high in 1939-40. The Anglo-Americans worked overtime to sour the German-Soviet relations and cut Germany from Russian resources. Germany vacillated between plans to attack the Soviet Union, or to offer them part of a deal like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Eventually Germany made the same mistake (against which Bismarck warned) as the Kaiser in 1914, prompted by their overconfidence in the superiority of German warfare.
The Germans lost definitively the war when they have been cut from the Romanian petrol in August 1944. It was the lack of fuel that stopped the Ardennes offensive.
Do you actually know that just 22% of German fuel was based on imports in early 1944? The main German source were synthetic fuel. E.g aviation fuel was 92-93 % synthetic.
As we can see Soviet proganda has brilliantly fooled even westeners believe in that Ploesti myth.
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the Soviet-German Axis talks are too inconvenient for the Holocaust and ‘Antifascist’ myths also.
The illusion that the synthetic fuel was really enough to efficiently supplant the real stuff is a myth on a par with the myth that ‘shale oil’ can supplant the real stuff, or that the American liquefied gas could supplant the Russian gas. That supposing that the production of synthetic fuel in 1945 was the same as at the beginning of 1944. Between May and September 1944, Allied bombing reduced German synthetic fuel production by 85 percent. Ironically, a major production plant for synthetic rubber and fuel was at… Auschwitz, which was duly bombed by the Allies starting at 20 August 1944 until 26 December 1944 (incidentally they destroyed and the ‘gas chambers’).
And if Ploesti was a ‘myth’ why was it under constant Allied attack since 12 June 1942 until 19 August 1944? Many elderly Romanians still have vivid memories of “one of the most heroic episodes in the history of military aviation”. Why the British and the French mounted in April 1940 a secret operation to destroy the Ploiesti installations and to block the traffic of petrol on the Danube by mining it, in the eventuality of the conclusion of an accord between Romania and Germany for deliveries of petrol? The British-French convoy was intercepted by the Romanians as well as the saboteurs (British).
It was too hard for you to make true confessions that Ploesti was not even near “as crucial” as common Soviet myth makers had claimed.
That the war destroyed both Empires – Nazi Germany and Soviet Union – is still poorly understood, masked by the remarkable abilities of Stalin to fool the world into believing that his fantasies were real. He not only built castles in the air, he persuaded people to live in them.
I have to say something about Stalin and Great Patriotic War itself. As General Volkogonov observed, in warfare there’s a ” fundamental principle of the military art, namely that the objective should be gained at minimal cost in human life.” By that rather basic standard, Stalin was, as the general points out, “ignorant”.
Import answer from Frankie to highly selective article written by Saker.
FDR has been blamed by right wing for 72 years been to naive when feeding the bear, been to naive when trusting Stalin’s Soviet Union. But on the other hand Putin era Russians have blamed the west backing Hitler “behind the scenes”. In fact 2/3 of Soviet heavy industry even before Lend Lease was Made in U.S.A.
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact also is still inconvenient event for those fallen in love to myths and legends of Great Patriot War saga. Official Soviet version of WW2 is really lacking some hard facts and pushing agenda not so much backed by reality.
Good history lesson, if a bit selective. Remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? The prevailing view was Stalin couldn’t be trusted.
Thanks for writing this. The biggest problem I see is that far too many people, especially generation X , Y, etc., who are tomorrow’s leaders, won’t be able to get past the first few sentences of your article, even if they wanted to. The main barriers to assimilating this important information goes beyond mass media propaganda. The primary enemy is low literacy, low attention span, low critical thinking, the systematic dumbing down and drugging of the masses by the global elite via a goverment controlled “educational system” led by “psychiatric experts” who do the bidding of the global elite. Psychiatry was Hitler’s greatest ally, providing him not only with “scientific reasoning” for his actions, but also medication for himself. He is quoted as attributing his great success to his doctor Theodor Morell who had him drugged up for years on meth, coke, oxy, downers, etc. Psychiatry of course is part and parcel of the CIA, all military, and terrorist groups, and systematically extended its influence and control into the US educational system and the public at large. Now they are targeting infants as lifelong consumers. There are already over a half million children under 5 years old on Xanax, Klonopin, Ativan, Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta and more. Yes. This is true. They also created the opioid epidemic and its “solution”, suboxone, basically legal heroin. Please educate yourself on this. Check out CCHR.ORG
This is one of those very important pieces that one wishes everyone, especially if they are American or support the Empire, would read, re-read and absorb deeply. There is nothing left unsaid. It is perhaps on of the most powerful letters I think I have ever read and describes comprehensively the nature of the Empire.
In this article you have all the right arguments.
You stand on the moral high ground with your arguments.
But only if you se things from the point of Logic (logos)
To se things from the point of Logic, you’ll have to be trained to use your sense of Logic.
Such training is a big part of the teaching of Christianity.
The most golden rule of logos being: Treat others, as you want to be treated by them.
The Problem is that not all people are taught to use Logos as a way of thinking.
Some are taught that hypocrisy is a way to overcome your flaws.
Some are taught that Might = Right.
Some are taught that one mans death is another mans bread.
Some are taught that they are more important than their fellow man.
Some are even taught that sexual conduct with children below the age of 3years, are normal.
So how can an intelligent logic thinking man argue, to convince his fellow man that he is wrong?
You can’t use logic arguments against people who have lost their logic way of thinking.
But one thing all people acknowledge and accept (even if they are not able to think logically) is the teaching of consequence. However for some people only when the consequence arrives.
I guess Trump is operating a consequence based administration.
Trump say: Give me you suggestions to solve the Gas attacks in Syria.
Top CIA guy say: I suggest that we bomb the Syrian military.
Trump say: OK
When the consequences arrives: worldwide damnation of the Trump Administration.
Top CIA guy gets fired.
Result: one less Top CIA guy to influence the President, with stupid ideas.
Trump say: Give me your suggestions of speech to the UN general assembly.
MIC Top Guy say: I suggest that you threaten North Korea with obliteration, and slander Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela as being Rough states.
Trump Say: OK
When the consequences arrives: worldwide Damnation of the Trump Administration.
Top MIC guy gets fired.
Result: one less Top MIC guy to influence the President with stupid ideas.
I suspect that the Trump approach may take some time to create peace on earth.
It would be much less painful and quicker to fix, if all people possessed the ability to think logical.
But they don’t: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukKQw578Lm8
Wasn’t the Russian conquest of Siberia equivalent to the US conquest of America? They are the same thing, and employed the same means.
Name me ONE SINGLE nation, ethnic group whom the Russians genocided.
What is so offensive is not your ignorance
But your arrogance
The US is 20-some years into its war on the poor, brought to fruition by the Democrats. The overall life expectancy of the US poor already fell below that of every developed nation. US liberals call on us to protect the advantages of the middle class. Talking about the significant work that goes into pitting us against each other by race is virtually forbidden. The proverbial masses have been divided and conquered. The wealthy elite rest back easy.
It takes an unbiased mind capable of independent thinking to read sense in the Saker’s
Wonder how many Americans have that virtue.
Too much power in the hands of a people lacking in wisdom is deadly dangerous
I am thankful that you articulated all of this so brilliantly as I intend to pass it along to similar type friends of mine. Also, let’s note that empire grows out of some economic fundamentals that hold it is quite all right for a few people to hold vastly disproportionate amounts of land and natural resources. So to put things right we have to start with a fundamental question of who should own the earth, or rather, how should the earth be held? This is a land tenure question that is deeply related to human morals and ethics but never clarified under current forms of democracy. I would love to have a conversation with the Saker about this given his left libertarian leanings, I would put him in line with a golden thread of perennial wisdom teachings on land that I rather doubt he is aware of.
And the best of the best
The British did not invent concentration camps.