William Blum
The Anti-Empire Report #145
By William Blum - Published October 2nd, 2016
Cold War, today, tomorrow, every day till the end of the world.
"Russia suspected of election scheme. U.S. probes plan to sow voter
distrust."
That's the Washington Post page-one lead headline of September 6. Think
about it. The election that Americans are suffering through, cringing in
embarrassment, making them think of moving abroad, renouncing their
citizenship; an election causing the Founding Fathers to throw up as they
turn in their graves . this is because the Russian Devils are sowing voter
distrust! Who knew?
But of course, that's the way Commies are - Oh wait, I forgot, they're no
longer Commies. So what are they? Ah yes, they still have that awful old
hangup so worthy of condemnation by decent people everywhere - They want to
stand in the way of American world domination. The nerve!
The first Cold War performed a lobotomy on Americans, replacing brain matter
with anti-communist viral matter, producing more than 70 years of functional
national stupidity.
For all of you who missed this fun event there's good news: Cold War Two is
here, as big and as stupid as ever. Russia and Vladimir Putin are
repeatedly, and automatically, blamed for all manner of bad things. The
story which follows the above Washington Post headline does not even bother
to make up something that could pass for evidence of the claim. The
newspaper just makes the claim, at the same time pointing out that "the
intelligence community is not saying it has 'definitive proof' of such
tampering, or any Russian plans to do so." But the page-one headline has
already served its purpose.
Hillary Clinton in her debate with Donald Trump likewise accused Russia of
all kinds of computer hacking. Even Trump, not usually a stickler for
accuracy, challenged her to offer something along the lines of evidence. She
had nothing to offer.
In any event, this is all a diversion. It's not hacking per se that bothers
the establishment; it's the revelations of their lies that drives them up
the wall. The hack of the Democratic National Committee on the eve of the
party's convention disclosed a number of embarrassing internal emails,
forcing the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
On September 12 we could read in the Post that a well-known physician had
called for Clinton to be checked for possible poisons afer her collapse in
New York. Said the good doctor: "I do not trust Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump.
With those two all things are possible."
Numerous other examples could be given here of the Post's near-juvenile
anti-Russian bias. One of the most common subjects has been Crimea. Moscow's
"invasion" of the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine in February 2014 is
repeatedly cited as proof of Moscow's belligerent and expansionist foreign
policy and the need for Washington to once again feed the defense-budget
monster. But we're never reminded that Russia was reacting to a US-supported
coup that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Ukraine on
Russia's border and replaced it with a regime in which neo-Nazis, complete
with swastikas, feel very much at home. Russia "invaded" to assist Eastern
Ukrainians in their resistance to this government, and did not even cross
the border inasmuch as Russia already had a military base in Ukraine.
NATO (= USA) has been surrounding Russia for decades. Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov captured the exquisite shamelessness of this with his
remark of September 27, 2014: "Excuse us for our existence in the middle of
your bases."
By contrast here is US Secretary of State, John Kerry: "NATO is not a threat
to anyone. It is a defensive alliance. It is simply meant to provide
security. It is not focused on Russia or anyone else."
NATO war games in these areas are frequent, almost constant. The
encirclement of Russia is about complete except for Georgia and Ukraine. In
June, Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, shockingly
accused NATO of "war-mongering" against Russia. How would the United States
react to a Russian coup in Mexico or Canada followed by Russian military
exercises in the same area?
Since the end of Cold War One, NATO has been feverishly searching for a
reason to justify its existence. Their problem can be summed up with this
question: If NATO had never existed what argument could be given now to
create it?
The unmitigated arrogance of US policy in Ukraine was best epitomized by the
now-famous remark of Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary at the State
Department, reacting to possible European Union objection to Washington's
role in Ukraine: "Fuck the EU", she charmingly declared.
Unlike the United States, Russia does not seek world domination, nor even
domination of Ukraine, which Moscow could easily accomplish if it wished.
Neither did the Soviet Union set out to dominate Eastern Europe post-World
War II. It must be remembered that Eastern Europe became communist because
Hitler, with the approval of the West, used it as a highway to reach the
Soviet Union to wipe out Bolshevism forever; and that the Russians in World
Wars I and II lost about 40 million people because the West had twice used
this highway to invade Russia. It should not be surprising that after World
War II the Soviets were determined to close down the highway.
The Washington Post's campaign to depict Russia as the enemy is unrelenting.
Again, on the 19th, we could read in the paper the following: "U.S.
intelligence and law enforcement agencies are investigating what they see as
a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust
in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions,
intelligence and congressional officials said."
Nothing, however, compares with President Obama's speech to the UN General
Assembly (September 24, 2014) where he classified Russia to be one of the
three threats to the world along with the Islamic State and ebola.
A war between nuclear-powered United States and nuclear- powered Russia is
"unthinkable". Except that American military men think about it, like
Cold-War US General Thomas Power, speaking about nuclear war or a first
strike by the US: "The whole idea is to kill the bastards! At the end of the
war, if there are two Americans and one Russian, we win!" The response from
one of those present was: "Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man
and a woman."
Responses from the Left to my attacks on radical Islam
It's not my intention here to resume the heated discussion about my recent
articles calling for the destruction of ISIS, which led numerous of my
readers to criticize me, some 50 of whom asked to be removed from my mailing
list, but I hope that many will find the following summary of their stated
or implied objections of interest:
1. They are religious enough to resent what they detect as my
less-than-fervent religious bent.
2. They refuse to acknowledge any Islamic motivation or context for
ISIS, labeling ISIS as no more than US/Israeli/Saudi mercenaries - end of
discussion. Or Salafi or Wahhabi sects - not really Islamic, they insist.
Islam is thus spared from any contamination.
3. They resent my not making a clear enough distinction between ISIS
and Islam in general, being particularly annoyed by my use of the term
"radical Islam" or "Islamic terrorism". (I pointed out that the West
commonly, and correctly, associated Stern/Irgun terrorism with Jews and IRA
terrorism with Catholics.)
For the record I am condemning those Muslims who engage in suicide bombings,
stabbings and other acts of murderous jihad, those who extol and teach the
glory and heavenly rewards for such acts, and those who preach that all
non-Muslims are infidels and the enemy. In this context it's no excuse to
cite the various acts of horror carried out by the US or the West,
particularly when the jihadists' targets (restaurants, theatres, stores,
passersby, etc.) usually have nothing at all to do with Western imperialism.
4. They are annoyed that I don't mention the usual list of US
atrocities in the Middle East as being responsible for all of radical
Islam's horrors, which are seen as simple retaliation. (See part 3 above.)
5. They hate US foreign policy even more than I do, a sentiment I
hadn't known was so common, or even possible.
6. I supported the use of US military force against ISIS and their ilk,
a terrible black mark against me inasmuch as such force is regarded by
leftists as the original sin and cannot conceivably be used for a good end.
But the US "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops September 16, killing and
wounding about 160, clearly lends credence to my critics.
The US election
On more than one occasion during the recent US primary campaign, Senator
Bernie Sanders was asked if he would run on a third-party ticket if he
failed to win the Democratic nomination. His reply was a form of the
following: "If it happens that I do not win that process, would I run
outside of the system? No, I made the promise that I would not, and I'll
keep that promise. And let me add to that: And the reason for that is I do
not want to be responsible for electing some right-wing Republican to be
president of the United States of America."
So instead he's going to be responsible for electing some right-wing
Democrat to be president of the United States of America. It's certainly
debatable who's more right wing, Clinton or Trump. Clinton surely earns that
honor on foreign policy. Think of Syria, Iraq, Honduras, Yugoslavia, Libya .
et al.
The revelation that the Democratic Party was secretly favoring Clinton over
Sanders is reason enough for Sanders to have broken his promise and accepted
the offer of the Green Party to be their candidate.
"Qualified" is a word one hears often in this campaign. Hillary, we're told,
is eminently so, Donald is outstandingly un-. But what does the word mean in
this context? If a candidate doesn't share your opinion on most of the
crucial issues, who cares if she or he is "qualified"? Conversely, if a
candidate shares your opinion on most of the crucial issues, should you be
concerned that she or he is "unqualified"?
Reason number 39,457 to give up on capitalism
Macy's, one of the leading department stores in the United States, has
announced it is closing 100 of its stores. Just think of all that was
involved in creating each of those stores, from design and building to
filling it with staff and goods; all soon to be gone, leaving empty shells
of buildings, eyesores for the neighborhoods, thousands of lost jobs . all
because a certain net-profit goal was not met.
Such a waste. So many empty stores, and at the same time so many unemployed
people.
Not far from so many empty houses, and at the same time so many homeless
people.
Can it be imagined that an American president would openly implore the
nation's young people to fight a foreign war to defend "capitalism"?
William Blum
The Anti-Empire Report #145
By William Blum - Published October 2nd, 2016
