Saturday, May 03, 2014


We tend to speak of neocons as if they come in only one variety. What if that's not the case?

Perhaps there are two basic varieties: Neocons who hate hate HATE Russia and neocons who love love LOVE Israel (and thus reserve their greatest hate hate HATE for any Arab nation that might pose a challenge to Israel). Scoop Jackson, the original neocon, was in the first category.

So is Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The distinction is important, since Obama has been a Brzezinski-ite from the beginning. The presence of Little Zbig Man in the oval office testifies to the brevity of our political memory. Zbig used to the the most hated of all Dems -- in fact, the mere mention of his name got a standing BOO at the 1980 Democratic National Convention. (Ted Kennedy was the guy who uttered the name.)

And yet Zbig remains with us. He's still a factor. Here he is on Politico, pushing us toward war.

And here is the (much more convincing) counter-argument:
...Ukrainian troops have refused to attack their own countrymen. The mutiny has reportedly spread from elite airborne units to local police who sympathize with the protestors. The only group that’s willing to carry out Washington’s proxy war is the Right Sector neo-Nazis who helped topple the Yanukovych government. Just last week, members of this openly fascist party, commemorated “the perpetrators of the massacre of Yanova Dolina,” where “600 Poles were murdered by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in what is now Bazaltovoye. The massacre marked the beginning of ethnic cleansing in what is now western Ukraine, where tens of thousands of Poles were killed within a few months.”
Putin didn’t topple the Ukrainian government. The US State Department did. (Victoria Nuland’s hacked phone calls prove it.) And Putin didn’t violate the Geneva agreement less than 24 hours after the deal was signed by launching a crackdown on civilian protestors in the east. That was US-puppet Yatsenyuk. Nor did Putin deploy the military to surround cities, cut off their water supplies and deploy helicopter gunships to fire missiles at civilian infrastructure and terrorize the local population. That was the work of Obama’s fascist junta in Kiev. Putin had nothing to do with any of the trouble in Ukraine. It’s all part of the US “pivot to Asia” strategy to encircle and (eventually) dismember Russia in order to seize vital resources and control the flow of energy to China.
Also see Robert Parry:
Sometimes dealing with the waves of U.S. media propaganda on the Ukraine crisis feels like the proverbial Dutch boy putting his fingers in the dike. The flood of deeply prejudiced anti-Russian “group think” extends across the entire media waterfront – from left to right – and it often seems hopeless correcting each individual falsehood.
Yeah, but now there's a difference. The liberals who have bought into the propaganda must remember 2003, and the great lessons of that year. Deep in their hearts, they must be asking themselves: "Shouldn't we be on the right side of history from the start? Just once...?"

Parry goes on to assail the NYT, our newspaper of record:
However, in some ways, the worst of the New York Times reporting has been its slanted and erroneous summations of the Ukraine narrative. For instance, immediately after the violent coup overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych (from Feb. 20-22), it was reported that among the 80 people killed were more than a dozen police officers.

But, as the pro-coup sympathies hardened inside the Times, the storyline changed to: “More than 80 protesters were shot to death by the police as an uprising spiraled out of control in mid-February.” [NYT, March 5]
Beyond sloppy reporting, however, something arguably worse is playing out here, since this distortion fits with the pattern of anti-Russian bias and anti-Putin prejudice that has pervaded the “news” coverage at the Times and other major U.S. media outlets.

Rather than show some independence and professionalism, the Times and the rest of the MSM have marched in lock-step with the propaganda pronouncements emanating from the U.S. State Department.
There should be a Select Committee looking into the manipulation of American news. You want to see another rather obvious and disgusting example of media manipulation? Check out THIS shit!

When you're done that garbage, you'll need something to bring you back to reality. I've never read this blog before, but I like it...
All I see from Washington is desperation piled on incompetence: none of this has turned out the way it was supposed to and no one has any idea of what to do next. So turn the volume up, desperately clutch at any story, hysterically accuse RT of propaganda when all it’s doing is accurately quoting you, announce more sanctions based on the dopey assumption that Putin has billions stashed in the West and move military forces to irrelevant places like Poland or Romania.
To give you an idea of the level of impassioned lunacy in Washington these days, read “Stopping Russia Starts in Syria”. Essentially the argument is that Obama should bomb Syria in order to show Putin he is serious about using force. Or something. “Striking Syria might not end the civil war there, but it could prevent the eruption of a new one in Ukraine”. Gibbering nonsense, eh? And incoherently erected on idiotic assumptions. But the author is not some bizarro from the outer fringes of the Net; it is Anne-Marie Slaughter, academic and quondam director of policy planning in the US State Department and now President of the New America Foundation. Mainstream madness.
Andrey Kursov (via ZeroHedge) has a terrific analysis of the Ukrainian oligarch groups and their links to various foreign intelligence agencies. It's a lengthy but good read.

Mike Whitney also has an excellent Ukraine commentary.
Referring to your Treehugger link, the go-to-war-to-save-the-environment angle was first worked in Gulf War I in 1990 when the media was working to break us of "Vietnam syndrome," which was never explained, but I presume meant we didn't trust the government to take us into a "good" war. I remember one right-wing editorial cartoon from the day mocking "hippies" for caring less about the poor murdered children than for the oil supposedly spilled everywhere. Which was all a lie, of course, from the murdered babies on, yet curiously we still treat the New York _Times_ and the Washington _Post_ as "papers of record" despite the fact these two "respectable" outlets blatantly lied -- and would do so again with gusto during the lead up to Gulf War II in 2003.
Yes, it does seem that the United States wants to push Ukraine into total chaos and blame the whole mess upon Russia. This will put us on a total war footing and transform our society for the worse. Absolutely incredible, and terrifying. The propaganda machine is just churning out disinformation with the full cooperation of our media. It's like we've taken a time machine trip and live in the early sixties once again. This is insane.

If you want to know what Putin thinks of this, his recent three hour annual conversation with the people of Russia is very illuminating. It is a very long read.
For those who want to know about Ukraine's role in the Polish genocide of WWII, this article lays it out.
A confluence of the usual suspects. Unassimilated dual loyalist Poles (Zbig) and, reading Krauthammer's last few
"Obama is soft on Russia" pieces,
dual loyalist Zionists.
(Russia being aligned with Iran and Syria-Hezbollah.)
Many Jews, including me, are sensitive to criticism of Israel and tend to view it as anti-semitic. When critics of Israel apply a standard to Israel that is not applied to any other country, we can only conclude that the motivation is anti-semitism. Perhaps we are being overly sensitive and should recognize that criticism is sometimes justified and not mere anti-semitism. However, when aletho news has an article titled "Why do so may Jews hate Black people" and leaves the article on its main page for an extended period of time...well, I think the charge of anti-semitism is justified. The article, based on a Nation of Islam book that no legitimate scholar takes seriously, is flawed so badly that extended debunking is simply not worth the time. I understand the idea of a halo effect and a kind of reverse halo effect, someone so biased on one issue is not taken seriously on others and the fallacy of such thinking. Nevertheless, I would prefer to get my information from more reputable sources.
Not at all. Bishop Tutu, long a victim of SA apartheid has said many times, Israel's oppression against Palestinians exceeds significantly the anti-black discrimination under SA apartheid.
joseph, you posted your comment on Saturday, and now on Monday I can not find the article you mention on that site at all. There does seem to be a number of articles critical of Israel. I guess you better dismiss it out of hand then.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?