Day: October 26, 2017

The New Terrorist-Industrial Complex


The administration of Pres. Donald Trump is considering whether to disallow the sale of Boeing passenger planes to Iran.  This hideous addendum to the horrendous P5+1 deal with Iran, where the U.S. was the most important signatory, was another one of Pres. Barack Obama’s expressions of “goodwill” to the murderous, anti-American regime of crackpot ayatollahs.  Jonathan S. Tobin, writing at the time of the transaction with Boeing, tells us, “Not only has Boeing gotten into bed with terrorists, the same can be said of those who are counting on all the new business ties changing the nature of a terrorist regime.” 

Presumably, having a big business deal with a terrorist nation (Iran is still on the U.S. State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism) does not, per the American left, make us complicit with terrorism; rather, it is a way of ameliorating “tensions” and “strains.”  Nonetheless, the American left is still fond of quoting Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address caution that the U.S. constitutional republic faces threats from the “military-industrial complex.”  In light of this precedent, perhaps we may consider the “Boeing exception” as ushering in a new age: that of the terrorist-industrial complex.   

This shift, whereby global business interests, the government of the United States, and our P+5 partners all collude with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, is ominous for Europe and the U.S., as well as for the stability of the Middle East.  And the implications extend even farther than that.  This deal portends a great shift in the moral-ethical climate of the entire planet.  The entire power elite of the world is hereby going beyond mere greedy excess or dealing first and foremost in terms of expediency.      

The deal with Boeing is the essence of the yetzer hara (bad tendency of mind or spirit) that Solomon Schechter wrote about in a couple of wonderful books.  The deal and its “exceptions” reek of the moral poison that comes from violating the Commandments “Thou shall not bear false witness” and “Thou shall not covet.”  It also reflects a failure to follow a New Testament teaching wholly consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures: “You cannot love both God and mammon.”  Please be forewarned: God will not be mocked.

Who says humans are basically good?  It is a fiction.  Were we good, there would be no need for the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament).  There would be no need for a Christ.  The prophets and the forefathers would have no relevance.  There would be no need for prayer, study, tzedakah (charity), mitzvoth (good deeds), blessings.  There would be no need for repentance (tshuva).  There would be no need for grace and mercy.  There would be no need for atonement, for the Cross.  Anything honorable and worthy is honorable and worthy only in contrast with what is not honorable and worthy.  If expedience were the standard, then there would be no room for the moral, honorable, or worthy.  

Years ago, when this writer was an officer in the Product Communications Division of Bankers Trust Co. (BTCo.) in New York City, I was taken on a tour of the offices that maintained the accounts of foreign banks.  My guide explained that the bank held deposits from Libya.  When asked how the bank could accept those deposits when there were so many terrorist acts by Libya, he answered, “Whatever their international behavior, we still officially have diplomatic relations with them, so it’s legal.”      

Later, a friend who was a vice president of Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith related that he had complained to his boss about certain lies being told to their customers and was told in no uncertain terms, “It’s not illegal to lie!”

In both cases, law was perceived as driving ethics rather than the other way round.  This is the complete reversal of Judeo-Christian values, where natural law drives legal constructs.  The Law of the Great Lawgiver, Almighty God, is paramount in all dealings on the face of the Earth.  Otherwise, our very raison d’être is denied.  There is a Higher Law on which our “natural rights” and daily social intercourse (both customary relational behaviors and those behaviors formalized into legal codes) are based.  The Iran deal and the Boeing exception represent a quantum leap forward in the suppression of godly Truth.

The industrial-terrorist complex now emerging with implications for the world may be destructive far beyond even the fate of individual states.  It may be a leap forward toward an even darker revelation.  In an amazingly prophetic story by Isaac Bashevis Singer entitled “The Gentleman From Cracow,” about life in the village of Frampol, where “the food was scarce and the water foul,” one day, a young Jewish man, a doctor, arrives in a carriage drawn by eight horses.  He told the villagers that his wife and baby had just died in childbirth, and his rabbi had advised him that his melancholy would disappear in Frampol.  He begins to spend a lot of money in the town, and the town prospers as never before.  He finally decides to marry one of the local women.  On the day of the wedding, “the gentleman from Cracow reveal[s] his true identity.”  Who is he?  Singer reveals him to us: “He was no longer the young man the villagers had welcomed, but a creature covered with scales, with an eye in his chest, and on his forehead a horn that rotated at great speed. His arms were covered with hair, thorns, and elflocks, and his tail was a mass of live serpents, for he was none other than Ketev Mriri, Chief of the Devils.”  Can it be that the prosperity for Iran and for the other beneficiaries of the deal, including Boeing, is but the prelude to a darker revelation?  

The new terrorist-industrial complex may be a lurching forward toward a sinister revelation.  As much evil as we have already seen emanating from the terrorist regime of Iran, and its confreres throughout the Sunni world, events even more horrible are waiting to emerge.  A more hideous, diabolical panorama of nightmarish hatred may is on the horizon.  People are being murdered in Florida nightclubs, on the streets of Nice, at parties for workers who care for special-needs disabled persons in San Bernardino, and at wholesome public events like the marathon in Boston.  Our ordinary citizens by the thousands were turned into dusty bone fragments in a matter of minutes on 9/11.  How could it get any worse?  Yet great creative minds like Isaac B. Singer remind us that it can.

Permission for the Boeing deal must be withdrawn in order for the U.S. to begin to recover the moral high ground.  We cannot promote economic advancement for the enemies of the West and the U.S. with the puerile observation that this will better our employment statistics.

The administration of Pres. Donald Trump is considering whether to disallow the sale of Boeing passenger planes to Iran.  This hideous addendum to the horrendous P5+1 deal with Iran, where the U.S. was the most important signatory, was another one of Pres. Barack Obama’s expressions of “goodwill” to the murderous, anti-American regime of crackpot ayatollahs.  Jonathan S. Tobin, writing at the time of the transaction with Boeing, tells us, “Not only has Boeing gotten into bed with terrorists, the same can be said of those who are counting on all the new business ties changing the nature of a terrorist regime.” 

Presumably, having a big business deal with a terrorist nation (Iran is still on the U.S. State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism) does not, per the American left, make us complicit with terrorism; rather, it is a way of ameliorating “tensions” and “strains.”  Nonetheless, the American left is still fond of quoting Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address caution that the U.S. constitutional republic faces threats from the “military-industrial complex.”  In light of this precedent, perhaps we may consider the “Boeing exception” as ushering in a new age: that of the terrorist-industrial complex.   

This shift, whereby global business interests, the government of the United States, and our P+5 partners all collude with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, is ominous for Europe and the U.S., as well as for the stability of the Middle East.  And the implications extend even farther than that.  This deal portends a great shift in the moral-ethical climate of the entire planet.  The entire power elite of the world is hereby going beyond mere greedy excess or dealing first and foremost in terms of expediency.      

The deal with Boeing is the essence of the yetzer hara (bad tendency of mind or spirit) that Solomon Schechter wrote about in a couple of wonderful books.  The deal and its “exceptions” reek of the moral poison that comes from violating the Commandments “Thou shall not bear false witness” and “Thou shall not covet.”  It also reflects a failure to follow a New Testament teaching wholly consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures: “You cannot love both God and mammon.”  Please be forewarned: God will not be mocked.

Who says humans are basically good?  It is a fiction.  Were we good, there would be no need for the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament).  There would be no need for a Christ.  The prophets and the forefathers would have no relevance.  There would be no need for prayer, study, tzedakah (charity), mitzvoth (good deeds), blessings.  There would be no need for repentance (tshuva).  There would be no need for grace and mercy.  There would be no need for atonement, for the Cross.  Anything honorable and worthy is honorable and worthy only in contrast with what is not honorable and worthy.  If expedience were the standard, then there would be no room for the moral, honorable, or worthy.  

Years ago, when this writer was an officer in the Product Communications Division of Bankers Trust Co. (BTCo.) in New York City, I was taken on a tour of the offices that maintained the accounts of foreign banks.  My guide explained that the bank held deposits from Libya.  When asked how the bank could accept those deposits when there were so many terrorist acts by Libya, he answered, “Whatever their international behavior, we still officially have diplomatic relations with them, so it’s legal.”      

Later, a friend who was a vice president of Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith related that he had complained to his boss about certain lies being told to their customers and was told in no uncertain terms, “It’s not illegal to lie!”

In both cases, law was perceived as driving ethics rather than the other way round.  This is the complete reversal of Judeo-Christian values, where natural law drives legal constructs.  The Law of the Great Lawgiver, Almighty God, is paramount in all dealings on the face of the Earth.  Otherwise, our very raison d’être is denied.  There is a Higher Law on which our “natural rights” and daily social intercourse (both customary relational behaviors and those behaviors formalized into legal codes) are based.  The Iran deal and the Boeing exception represent a quantum leap forward in the suppression of godly Truth.

The industrial-terrorist complex now emerging with implications for the world may be destructive far beyond even the fate of individual states.  It may be a leap forward toward an even darker revelation.  In an amazingly prophetic story by Isaac Bashevis Singer entitled “The Gentleman From Cracow,” about life in the village of Frampol, where “the food was scarce and the water foul,” one day, a young Jewish man, a doctor, arrives in a carriage drawn by eight horses.  He told the villagers that his wife and baby had just died in childbirth, and his rabbi had advised him that his melancholy would disappear in Frampol.  He begins to spend a lot of money in the town, and the town prospers as never before.  He finally decides to marry one of the local women.  On the day of the wedding, “the gentleman from Cracow reveal[s] his true identity.”  Who is he?  Singer reveals him to us: “He was no longer the young man the villagers had welcomed, but a creature covered with scales, with an eye in his chest, and on his forehead a horn that rotated at great speed. His arms were covered with hair, thorns, and elflocks, and his tail was a mass of live serpents, for he was none other than Ketev Mriri, Chief of the Devils.”  Can it be that the prosperity for Iran and for the other beneficiaries of the deal, including Boeing, is but the prelude to a darker revelation?  

The new terrorist-industrial complex may be a lurching forward toward a sinister revelation.  As much evil as we have already seen emanating from the terrorist regime of Iran, and its confreres throughout the Sunni world, events even more horrible are waiting to emerge.  A more hideous, diabolical panorama of nightmarish hatred may is on the horizon.  People are being murdered in Florida nightclubs, on the streets of Nice, at parties for workers who care for special-needs disabled persons in San Bernardino, and at wholesome public events like the marathon in Boston.  Our ordinary citizens by the thousands were turned into dusty bone fragments in a matter of minutes on 9/11.  How could it get any worse?  Yet great creative minds like Isaac B. Singer remind us that it can.

Permission for the Boeing deal must be withdrawn in order for the U.S. to begin to recover the moral high ground.  We cannot promote economic advancement for the enemies of the West and the U.S. with the puerile observation that this will better our employment statistics.



Source link

Swamp-Shrink Rising at the Crack of Don


There are two kinds of ethical offenses a psychologists might commit: objective and subjective.  An objective transgression happens when a psychologist is knowingly dishonest to other people, and a subjective error occurs when a psychologist succumbs to being dishonest with himself.  Objective errors of omission happen when a psychologist fails to meet minimal standards of care while performing professional activities; objective errors of commission occur when a personal motive leads a psychologist to misuse his position for personal gratification.

Subjective errors occur when psychologists are dishonest with themselves about how their own biases, beliefs, and interests might affect professional judgment.

Psychologist John Gartner has committed all three ethical offenses in psycho-diagnosing the current president as an out-of-control “malignant narcissist” and in declaring President Trump psychologically unfit to serve.  It has been widely noted that Gartner committed an objective error of omission by applying a clinical diagnosis without directly interviewing the subject of his assessment.  Regarding an objective error of commission, Dr. Gartner is seeking fame and wealth in malpracticing against the most famous person in the world.  Gartner is fundraising based on his diagnosis.  He also refers to himself as “a maverick” for vilifying Trump.

A left-wing psyclopsian thinks he’s a maverick (like his gynecist mommy) because he has the courage to pathologize Trump?  Just who is out of touch with reality?

John Gartner’s dishonesty with himself is his most serious offense, and it typifies the imprisonment of the entire field of clinical psychology in self-imposed anti-God, left-wing captivity.  This subjective offense violates the American Psychological Association (APA)’s code of professional conduct:

Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists[.]

Ethics guides the application of moral consciousness to technical problems.  Cults cannot inspire morality, and the APA is an anti-moral cult that exhibits little or no scientific objectivity regarding political or moral questions.  John Gartner’s voodoo diagnosis of a political leader is the priest-craft of that cult.

Dr. John Gartner practices psychology in the wealthy, fetid swamp waters of Towson, Maryland.  He smeared President Trump with one of the ugliest labels in the psychiatric nomenclature: malignant narcissism.  The clinical features of this personality disorder include persistent sadism, aggression, and anti-sociality.  It is a ludicrous label for the president, who is a law-abiding teetotaler.  No lawyered up lady or gentleman has ever even attempted to rifle through Trump’s extremely deep pockets secondary to allegations of aggression or abuse.  Most importantly, he is a successful father, grandfather, leader, and CEO, which is not possible for people with malignant personality disorders.

Dr. Gartner is campaigning to have the president removed from office based on senseless incantations about Mr. Trump’s mental incapacity.  Perhaps Gartner suspects that 62 million flyover Americans, whom his favored candidate labeled deplorable, have mental problems or are so stupid that they would be duped by a cruel, deranged incompetent.  He knows nothing about them, either.

Regarding Dr. Gartner’s clinical acumen, psychiatrist Allen Frances, who authored the standard criteria for narcissistic personality, dismissed people like Gartner who use the label against the president.  “I don’t see them as knowing much about diagnoses.”

The evidence Gartner offers that President Trump is paranoid and grandiose is that Trump believed that his campaign was being secretly surveilled, and that the huge crowds at his rallies were a sign of his popularity.  Again, it is Gartner who suffers from grossly impaired reality testing.  It is an established fact, reported by CNN among other outlets, that Trump’s staff was electronically surveilled by the Obama administration during the campaign.

In addition to not interviewing his diagnostic subject, it is unlikely Dr. Gartner attended Trump rallies.  If he had, even he might have observed that those enormous rallies were not focused on Trump’s personality, but rocking with love for America, the Constitution, and the preservation of freedom.

Dr. Gartner casts himself as “a rebel with a cause,” as, he believes, was his mother.  His pride in his mother’s early National Organization for Women (NOW) activism explains why he is intolerant of diversity of political opinion today.  It also parallels how the American Psychological Association lost moral relevance in American life.  In 1969, when our swamp-shrink was a lad of ten, his mother Diana Gartner tricked her way into the last bastion of sex-based exclusivity – male-only hours at a New York bar.  Was she fighting for equal rates of alcoholism between men and women?

Like many psychologists, Gartner seems incapable of respecting viewpoint diversity regarding what they term feminism, which is why he is replicating his mother’s toxic inhumanity.  In truth, Diana Gartner is grandmother of 100 million tiny corpses.  By1969, American women and girls had all the rights they needed to live godful, joyful lives.  NOW undermined that freedom because it was about not feminism, but gynecism.  Gynecism promotes the radical dehumanization of women by reducing them to soulless objects of biological functionalism.  The primal cause of gynecism and the central focus of NOW is the bio-functionalist doctrine of the disposability of the unborn.  Mrs. Gartner believed that little Johnny in her womb was precious, but little Johnny in another womb was waste product.

At the end of her life, NOW founder Betty Friedan lamented that the organization was dominated by abortion rights.  Mrs. Friedan did not understand the mental imprisonment of submitting to the absolute fallacy of denying human identity to a human individual.

The APA descended from being a scientific body to a blood cult by composing mind-numbing chants and spells to inculcate abortion theory while calling them scientific research.  Through the decades, that spiritual regressivism was followed by relative fallacies such as homosexual supremacy.  Speaking of ethics, to their shame, there will be not a peep from the American or California Psychological Associations regarding that state’s recent decriminalization of the intentional spreading of HIV, including to children.

Absolute ignorance demands absolute mental obedience.  It destroys objectivity, reason, and compassion.  The American left wing, the Democratic Party, the APA, and its member John Gartner crouch in that narrow cell of absolute and relative fallacies that perpetuate the unremitting hate of their closed minds.  It is why they cannot rationally debate issues, but rage about nonexistent racism, sexism, homophobia, blah, blah, blah.  It is why John Gartner violated the ethical principles of his profession to psychobabble against Donald Trump.

There are two kinds of ethical offenses a psychologists might commit: objective and subjective.  An objective transgression happens when a psychologist is knowingly dishonest to other people, and a subjective error occurs when a psychologist succumbs to being dishonest with himself.  Objective errors of omission happen when a psychologist fails to meet minimal standards of care while performing professional activities; objective errors of commission occur when a personal motive leads a psychologist to misuse his position for personal gratification.

Subjective errors occur when psychologists are dishonest with themselves about how their own biases, beliefs, and interests might affect professional judgment.

Psychologist John Gartner has committed all three ethical offenses in psycho-diagnosing the current president as an out-of-control “malignant narcissist” and in declaring President Trump psychologically unfit to serve.  It has been widely noted that Gartner committed an objective error of omission by applying a clinical diagnosis without directly interviewing the subject of his assessment.  Regarding an objective error of commission, Dr. Gartner is seeking fame and wealth in malpracticing against the most famous person in the world.  Gartner is fundraising based on his diagnosis.  He also refers to himself as “a maverick” for vilifying Trump.

A left-wing psyclopsian thinks he’s a maverick (like his gynecist mommy) because he has the courage to pathologize Trump?  Just who is out of touch with reality?

John Gartner’s dishonesty with himself is his most serious offense, and it typifies the imprisonment of the entire field of clinical psychology in self-imposed anti-God, left-wing captivity.  This subjective offense violates the American Psychological Association (APA)’s code of professional conduct:

Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists[.]

Ethics guides the application of moral consciousness to technical problems.  Cults cannot inspire morality, and the APA is an anti-moral cult that exhibits little or no scientific objectivity regarding political or moral questions.  John Gartner’s voodoo diagnosis of a political leader is the priest-craft of that cult.

Dr. John Gartner practices psychology in the wealthy, fetid swamp waters of Towson, Maryland.  He smeared President Trump with one of the ugliest labels in the psychiatric nomenclature: malignant narcissism.  The clinical features of this personality disorder include persistent sadism, aggression, and anti-sociality.  It is a ludicrous label for the president, who is a law-abiding teetotaler.  No lawyered up lady or gentleman has ever even attempted to rifle through Trump’s extremely deep pockets secondary to allegations of aggression or abuse.  Most importantly, he is a successful father, grandfather, leader, and CEO, which is not possible for people with malignant personality disorders.

Dr. Gartner is campaigning to have the president removed from office based on senseless incantations about Mr. Trump’s mental incapacity.  Perhaps Gartner suspects that 62 million flyover Americans, whom his favored candidate labeled deplorable, have mental problems or are so stupid that they would be duped by a cruel, deranged incompetent.  He knows nothing about them, either.

Regarding Dr. Gartner’s clinical acumen, psychiatrist Allen Frances, who authored the standard criteria for narcissistic personality, dismissed people like Gartner who use the label against the president.  “I don’t see them as knowing much about diagnoses.”

The evidence Gartner offers that President Trump is paranoid and grandiose is that Trump believed that his campaign was being secretly surveilled, and that the huge crowds at his rallies were a sign of his popularity.  Again, it is Gartner who suffers from grossly impaired reality testing.  It is an established fact, reported by CNN among other outlets, that Trump’s staff was electronically surveilled by the Obama administration during the campaign.

In addition to not interviewing his diagnostic subject, it is unlikely Dr. Gartner attended Trump rallies.  If he had, even he might have observed that those enormous rallies were not focused on Trump’s personality, but rocking with love for America, the Constitution, and the preservation of freedom.

Dr. Gartner casts himself as “a rebel with a cause,” as, he believes, was his mother.  His pride in his mother’s early National Organization for Women (NOW) activism explains why he is intolerant of diversity of political opinion today.  It also parallels how the American Psychological Association lost moral relevance in American life.  In 1969, when our swamp-shrink was a lad of ten, his mother Diana Gartner tricked her way into the last bastion of sex-based exclusivity – male-only hours at a New York bar.  Was she fighting for equal rates of alcoholism between men and women?

Like many psychologists, Gartner seems incapable of respecting viewpoint diversity regarding what they term feminism, which is why he is replicating his mother’s toxic inhumanity.  In truth, Diana Gartner is grandmother of 100 million tiny corpses.  By1969, American women and girls had all the rights they needed to live godful, joyful lives.  NOW undermined that freedom because it was about not feminism, but gynecism.  Gynecism promotes the radical dehumanization of women by reducing them to soulless objects of biological functionalism.  The primal cause of gynecism and the central focus of NOW is the bio-functionalist doctrine of the disposability of the unborn.  Mrs. Gartner believed that little Johnny in her womb was precious, but little Johnny in another womb was waste product.

At the end of her life, NOW founder Betty Friedan lamented that the organization was dominated by abortion rights.  Mrs. Friedan did not understand the mental imprisonment of submitting to the absolute fallacy of denying human identity to a human individual.

The APA descended from being a scientific body to a blood cult by composing mind-numbing chants and spells to inculcate abortion theory while calling them scientific research.  Through the decades, that spiritual regressivism was followed by relative fallacies such as homosexual supremacy.  Speaking of ethics, to their shame, there will be not a peep from the American or California Psychological Associations regarding that state’s recent decriminalization of the intentional spreading of HIV, including to children.

Absolute ignorance demands absolute mental obedience.  It destroys objectivity, reason, and compassion.  The American left wing, the Democratic Party, the APA, and its member John Gartner crouch in that narrow cell of absolute and relative fallacies that perpetuate the unremitting hate of their closed minds.  It is why they cannot rationally debate issues, but rage about nonexistent racism, sexism, homophobia, blah, blah, blah.  It is why John Gartner violated the ethical principles of his profession to psychobabble against Donald Trump.



Source link

The Deep State, Then and Now


W. August Mayer has written another excellent book, Uncle Joe, FDR and the Deep State. While the book can be an educational and compelling read in itself, this reviewer recommends that it be read as a companion book to Islamic Jihad, Cultural Marxism and the Transformation of the West, written by the same author.  Mr. Mayer, the webmaster of Pipelinenews.org, again shows his expertise in the field of national security by discussing and analyzing the history of the West in the past century and how it has brought us to present day conditions.

Relying, though not exclusively, on two impeccable sources, the VENONA documents* and the Soviet archives, the latter made available to the public for a brief period under Boris Yeltsin shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, Mr. Mayer details the Soviet penetration of the White House under the four administrations of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  So broad and wide and deep was this penetration that the White House might have been reasonably considered during this time Soviet-occupied territory.

Actually there were many conditions that facilitated this state of affairs.  To name but a few: FDR’s naïveté with regard to the USSR; the massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy enlarging the opportunities for penetration; the benign view of Communism held by FDR and, actually, by much of the nation; the USSR’s frequently expressed determination to communize the world; and much of the media who, like today, turned a blind eye to events.

The VENONA documents were not declassified until 1997, though much of what they contained could come under the heading of “suspicions confirmed.”  Much of VENONA had previously been exposed through the testimony of American Communist Party defectors Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers.  VENONA vindicated them and, to a lesser extent, the late Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.  Both impeccable sources should have made headlines and been the subject of numerous discussions and featured news.  With the exception of the conservative media, they were never given the attention they deserved, as if the mainstream media were using silence to render them insignificant.  Have you ever heard a liberal say, “By golly, Alger Hiss was a communist after all”?

The president often expressed to those around him his admiration for the ruthless dictator of the USSR, Joseph Stalin, and referred to him continuously as “Uncle Joe.”  FDR had dreams of co-ruling the world with Stalin after World War II ended in a  a sort of Pax Soviet-Americana.  Joseph Stalin had only dreams of crushing the world under the Soviet boot.  To FDR, he and Uncle Joe were best buds; to Joseph Stalin, FDR was a useful idiot, a term used often by Communist Party members to refer to non-party members who could be willingly duped.  To FDR, being president of the United States for four terms was not enough to sate his ego.  Being co-President of the world would be the ultimate satisfaction.

Most Americans are familiar with the term “Deep State” in the current incarnation – a sort of shadow government staffed by unelected persons existing in parallel with the current government, occasionally intersecting with it, with the purpose of undermining the legitimate government and eventually bringing it under complete control.  The author’s sweep of history points out the Marxist-Leninist roots of the Deep State.  Indeed, V.I. Lenin, through his use of “dual power,” created a Deep State subsequent to the Bolshevik coup.

The book begins with a critique of the Deep State.  “It is massive structurally, consisting of a network of supremely arrogant, highly intelligent and very powerful embedded senior level government employees as well as elite institutions and their leaders who justify their behavior through a process of reasoning that conflates ends and means, creating a ‘unity of opposites,’ a term that is entirely consistent with the Marxist dialectic, regardless of whether its practitioners are aware of it by that name or not.”

Mr. Mayer continues with an example of a current Deep State active measure.  This concerns the “dossier” described to Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) by former U.K. ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood.  This dossier was compiled by a former (or then-current – it is a matter of debate) MI6 agent, Christopher Steele.  Senator McCain was interested, and, with his version of patriotism on full display, he saw to it that the “dossier” reached the office of then-FBI director James Comey.

The “dossier” contained information damaging to the candidacy of candidate Donald J. Trump.  The “dossier” has some suspicious origins, but I will leave further revelations about it to the reader.  Hint: Not far down the line, Clinton money was involved. 

The reader will enjoy Mr. Mayer’s critique of Director Comey’s actions.  A deconstruction of the popular wisdom vis-à-vis the Second World War and its aftermath should intrigue the reader as a student of history.      

While history teaches about the Lend-Lease program that rescued the USSR, it was not the benign anti-Nazi policy its advocates purported it to be.  The testimony of Major George “Racy” Jordan,  who coordinated with the USSR the Lend-Lease program, revealed it to be essentially controlled by the Russians, including the transfer of nuclear material, which appears to coordinate time-wise with the atomic bomb project. 

When World War Two ended, America was a different nation from what it had been, more accustomed to a nanny state and too war-weary to realize that the USSR was the only true winner.

Bringing us to the present, the author cites the behavior of internet social forums and their de facto censorship of news by their selection of what they will permit, albeit they claim adherence to a moral code.  YouTube’s definition of ‘Islamophobia” (a Muslim Brotherhood concept that has penetrated mainstream language) is dangerously close to the definition of blasphemy under sharia law. 

The author describes the degeneration of the Democratic Party from a liberal and internationalist institution, with a different perspective, surely, than the GOP, but with patriotic motivation, to the present day, where it has moved hard left and has virtually declared patriotism an aberration.

The unexpected election of Donald J. Trump must have been traumatic to the Deep State.  With a new sheriff in town, and one they could not intimidate, extreme measures would be called for.

In describing Marxism-Leninism, the author shares with the reader an insight that very rarely surfaces even with those who are experts in the field.  He recognizes the siren song, the appeal to what is fundamental in the human psyche – a utopian dream.  Whittaker Chambers described Communism as the second oldest religion in the world, begun by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden with the whispered words: “Ye can be as gods.”

Mr. Mayer’s book is a monograph and a synopsis dealing with salient points of the history of the West in the past century.  It should be read by any interested in understanding the antecedents of the present world situation.  Those in the teaching profession should make it available to their students as an adjunct to their texts.

If we do not heed the words of W. August Mayer and others who have alerted us to the very same situation, then all we hold dear will fall to the children of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin and their convenient bedmate, Islam.  It will be a very long time until the sun comes up again

* From the years 1943 through 1948, the United States was able to intercept and decode some of the communications between the USSR and its embassy in Washington, D.C.  These decoded messages became known as the VENONA transcripts and were declassified in 1997.

W. August Mayer has written another excellent book, Uncle Joe, FDR and the Deep State. While the book can be an educational and compelling read in itself, this reviewer recommends that it be read as a companion book to Islamic Jihad, Cultural Marxism and the Transformation of the West, written by the same author.  Mr. Mayer, the webmaster of Pipelinenews.org, again shows his expertise in the field of national security by discussing and analyzing the history of the West in the past century and how it has brought us to present day conditions.

Relying, though not exclusively, on two impeccable sources, the VENONA documents* and the Soviet archives, the latter made available to the public for a brief period under Boris Yeltsin shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, Mr. Mayer details the Soviet penetration of the White House under the four administrations of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  So broad and wide and deep was this penetration that the White House might have been reasonably considered during this time Soviet-occupied territory.

Actually there were many conditions that facilitated this state of affairs.  To name but a few: FDR’s naïveté with regard to the USSR; the massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy enlarging the opportunities for penetration; the benign view of Communism held by FDR and, actually, by much of the nation; the USSR’s frequently expressed determination to communize the world; and much of the media who, like today, turned a blind eye to events.

The VENONA documents were not declassified until 1997, though much of what they contained could come under the heading of “suspicions confirmed.”  Much of VENONA had previously been exposed through the testimony of American Communist Party defectors Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers.  VENONA vindicated them and, to a lesser extent, the late Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.  Both impeccable sources should have made headlines and been the subject of numerous discussions and featured news.  With the exception of the conservative media, they were never given the attention they deserved, as if the mainstream media were using silence to render them insignificant.  Have you ever heard a liberal say, “By golly, Alger Hiss was a communist after all”?

The president often expressed to those around him his admiration for the ruthless dictator of the USSR, Joseph Stalin, and referred to him continuously as “Uncle Joe.”  FDR had dreams of co-ruling the world with Stalin after World War II ended in a  a sort of Pax Soviet-Americana.  Joseph Stalin had only dreams of crushing the world under the Soviet boot.  To FDR, he and Uncle Joe were best buds; to Joseph Stalin, FDR was a useful idiot, a term used often by Communist Party members to refer to non-party members who could be willingly duped.  To FDR, being president of the United States for four terms was not enough to sate his ego.  Being co-President of the world would be the ultimate satisfaction.

Most Americans are familiar with the term “Deep State” in the current incarnation – a sort of shadow government staffed by unelected persons existing in parallel with the current government, occasionally intersecting with it, with the purpose of undermining the legitimate government and eventually bringing it under complete control.  The author’s sweep of history points out the Marxist-Leninist roots of the Deep State.  Indeed, V.I. Lenin, through his use of “dual power,” created a Deep State subsequent to the Bolshevik coup.

The book begins with a critique of the Deep State.  “It is massive structurally, consisting of a network of supremely arrogant, highly intelligent and very powerful embedded senior level government employees as well as elite institutions and their leaders who justify their behavior through a process of reasoning that conflates ends and means, creating a ‘unity of opposites,’ a term that is entirely consistent with the Marxist dialectic, regardless of whether its practitioners are aware of it by that name or not.”

Mr. Mayer continues with an example of a current Deep State active measure.  This concerns the “dossier” described to Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) by former U.K. ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood.  This dossier was compiled by a former (or then-current – it is a matter of debate) MI6 agent, Christopher Steele.  Senator McCain was interested, and, with his version of patriotism on full display, he saw to it that the “dossier” reached the office of then-FBI director James Comey.

The “dossier” contained information damaging to the candidacy of candidate Donald J. Trump.  The “dossier” has some suspicious origins, but I will leave further revelations about it to the reader.  Hint: Not far down the line, Clinton money was involved. 

The reader will enjoy Mr. Mayer’s critique of Director Comey’s actions.  A deconstruction of the popular wisdom vis-à-vis the Second World War and its aftermath should intrigue the reader as a student of history.      

While history teaches about the Lend-Lease program that rescued the USSR, it was not the benign anti-Nazi policy its advocates purported it to be.  The testimony of Major George “Racy” Jordan,  who coordinated with the USSR the Lend-Lease program, revealed it to be essentially controlled by the Russians, including the transfer of nuclear material, which appears to coordinate time-wise with the atomic bomb project. 

When World War Two ended, America was a different nation from what it had been, more accustomed to a nanny state and too war-weary to realize that the USSR was the only true winner.

Bringing us to the present, the author cites the behavior of internet social forums and their de facto censorship of news by their selection of what they will permit, albeit they claim adherence to a moral code.  YouTube’s definition of ‘Islamophobia” (a Muslim Brotherhood concept that has penetrated mainstream language) is dangerously close to the definition of blasphemy under sharia law. 

The author describes the degeneration of the Democratic Party from a liberal and internationalist institution, with a different perspective, surely, than the GOP, but with patriotic motivation, to the present day, where it has moved hard left and has virtually declared patriotism an aberration.

The unexpected election of Donald J. Trump must have been traumatic to the Deep State.  With a new sheriff in town, and one they could not intimidate, extreme measures would be called for.

In describing Marxism-Leninism, the author shares with the reader an insight that very rarely surfaces even with those who are experts in the field.  He recognizes the siren song, the appeal to what is fundamental in the human psyche – a utopian dream.  Whittaker Chambers described Communism as the second oldest religion in the world, begun by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden with the whispered words: “Ye can be as gods.”

Mr. Mayer’s book is a monograph and a synopsis dealing with salient points of the history of the West in the past century.  It should be read by any interested in understanding the antecedents of the present world situation.  Those in the teaching profession should make it available to their students as an adjunct to their texts.

If we do not heed the words of W. August Mayer and others who have alerted us to the very same situation, then all we hold dear will fall to the children of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin and their convenient bedmate, Islam.  It will be a very long time until the sun comes up again

* From the years 1943 through 1948, the United States was able to intercept and decode some of the communications between the USSR and its embassy in Washington, D.C.  These decoded messages became known as the VENONA transcripts and were declassified in 1997.



Source link

Kevin D. Williamson and the Lumpen-proletariat


Last week, National Review contributor Kevin D. Williamson penned a lengthy attack on what he called the “white minstrel show.” Topped by a photo of a grinning Trump, the column began by discussing the phenomenon of “acting white.”

Allegedly, some African Americans deride other African Americans who work hard and try to achieve academically for “acting white.” I say “allegedly” because some researchers dispute the prevalence and impact of this phenomenon.

While researchers disagree about the magnitude of the phenomenon, the meaning of “acting white” is clear. Less studious and less responsible blacks mock harder working blacks for trying to be white: the herd resenting those who try and do better.

Kevin D. Williamson draws a parallel between blacks who complain about other blacks acting white, and populist conservatives who mock supposed elites. These conservatives, Williamson alleges, have adopted the thought patterns of the underclass, who he distinguishes from the working class.

“White people acting white have embraced the ethic of the white underclass, which is distinct from the white working class, which has the distinguishing feature of regular gainful employment.”

According to Williamson, the working class consists of responsible, taxpaying, hardworking, contributors to society. The underclass, by contrast, consists of lazy, promiscuous, substance abusers, who work as little as they can and pursue momentary pleasures at the expense of long-term goals.

The underclass resents those more successful. Rather than emulating the successful, they hate them.

In Williamson’s retelling, populists and Trumpish conservatives have adopted the attitudes of the white underclass. Instead of preaching personal responsibility, populist conservatives tell their audience that their problems are due to external forces such as trade and globalization. Instead of praising success, populist conservatives mock “coastal elites.”

Much of Williamson’s piece rings true. Most of us would prefer to blame other people for things which are probably our fault; personal responsibility is a bitter pill. Anti-elitism often comes with the baggage of anti-intellectualism, and a contempt for achievement.

But Williamson’s article also has some obvious problems. In practice, it is hard to draw a sharp distinction between the hard-working, salt-of-the-earth, working class, and the shiftless underclass. Williamson’s mother, whom he describes as underclass, earned a good income, but died in poverty because of her irresponsible behavior.

It would also be a stretch to claim that populist conservatives such as Sean Hannity have adopted the norms of the oxy-abusing, work-avoiding, out-of-wedlock, children-having underclass. Populist conservatism has problems, but an inability to pass judgment on other people’s poor life choices isn’t among them.

Despite these problems, too many anti-Trump conservatives have heaped praise on the article, perhaps because the article mercilessly skewers conservative figures they don’t like (Hannity, Ingraham, Trump, etc.). This is unfortunate because the article has another glaring problem.

Williamson ignores one of the major drivers of anti-elite resentment; namely, how badly elites behave.

The Sun, a British tabloid, interviewed Harvey Weinstein’s former limo driver. The former limo driver quit after Weinstein attacked him and broke his sun-glasses. Weinstein had arranged to pick up two prostitutes and take them to his hotel. Only, there was a problem. The girls had mistakenly gone to Weinstein’s hotel to meet him. Enraged, Weinstein demanded that his driver find the girls, and when he couldn’t, Weinstein attacked him.

The driver, Mickael Chemloul, described for the Sun what it was like to work for Harvey Weinstein.

“He recalled how the mogul once picked up a woman at a billionaire’s yacht party — while pregnant wife Georgina Chapman stayed behind at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc.


He said: “She was a good-looking girl, around 25 to 30, who had clearly had a few drinks. This was a fairly familiar sight for me, but even I was shocked when I heard her say, ‘Don’t hurt me’ in the car.


“I turned and saw her with her head in his lap and him pulling her hair.  I knew Georgina decided to stay in her room and miss the party because she was feeling tired.”


“I said to Harvey, ‘Are you sure?’ He replied, ‘Just drive to the f****** Cap’.


“When we arrived, Harvey got out with the girl and headed for another room. He was with her until 5am and left her there to go back to Georgina.


“The worst of it was that Georgina phoned me at 4.30 while I was trying to catch some sleep in the car and asked me where Harvey was.


“I was in an awkward spot. All I could think of was he had gone for a meeting with some business friends. I felt forced to lie.”

Chemloul also describes how Weinstein almost choked to death from overeating. Weinstein had undergone gastric bypass surgery, a process which limited the amount of food he could safely consume.

“Mickael recalled how Weinstein was minutes from death at Naomi Campbell’s birthday party at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc. He said: “People ran out to say Harvey was flat out on the floor and could hardly breathe.”


“Luckily for Harvey someone found a surgeon who lived nearby on the Cap D’Antibes. It appeared he had eaten so much from the buffet that it was too much for the sort of gastric band he had fitted.”


“The surgeon did a manipulation that allowed Harvey’s food to go down, so he could breathe more easily. He told me Harvey would have died within 30 minutes if he had not intervened.”


“The amazing thing was that when he opened his eyes and saw me, he said, ‘F*** you, go home.’ Then he went back to the buffet and started eating again.’’

Does this sound like a self-regulating individual whose success can be attributed to the virtues of prudence and personal restraint?

The Harvey Weinstein story contains an uncomfortable truth for libertarians and conservatives, it’s a lot easier to recover from mistakes when you have money. For the rich, the margin of error is much larger than for the poor.

In college, a lot of my friends came from lower income backgrounds. They had to work and take out student loans. It’s a lot harder to get through college when you have to work at the same time; it doesn’t leave you much free time, and if you have to drop out you might not get another chance at college.

You don’t have to be a Bernie-bro to sympathize with the less fortunate. It is true that many poor people suffer from the habits of poverty, behaving in ways that perpetuate their poverty. We can acknowledge this, while still recognizing how hard it can be to make it out of poverty. 

Last week, National Review contributor Kevin D. Williamson penned a lengthy attack on what he called the “white minstrel show.” Topped by a photo of a grinning Trump, the column began by discussing the phenomenon of “acting white.”

Allegedly, some African Americans deride other African Americans who work hard and try to achieve academically for “acting white.” I say “allegedly” because some researchers dispute the prevalence and impact of this phenomenon.

While researchers disagree about the magnitude of the phenomenon, the meaning of “acting white” is clear. Less studious and less responsible blacks mock harder working blacks for trying to be white: the herd resenting those who try and do better.

Kevin D. Williamson draws a parallel between blacks who complain about other blacks acting white, and populist conservatives who mock supposed elites. These conservatives, Williamson alleges, have adopted the thought patterns of the underclass, who he distinguishes from the working class.

“White people acting white have embraced the ethic of the white underclass, which is distinct from the white working class, which has the distinguishing feature of regular gainful employment.”

According to Williamson, the working class consists of responsible, taxpaying, hardworking, contributors to society. The underclass, by contrast, consists of lazy, promiscuous, substance abusers, who work as little as they can and pursue momentary pleasures at the expense of long-term goals.

The underclass resents those more successful. Rather than emulating the successful, they hate them.

In Williamson’s retelling, populists and Trumpish conservatives have adopted the attitudes of the white underclass. Instead of preaching personal responsibility, populist conservatives tell their audience that their problems are due to external forces such as trade and globalization. Instead of praising success, populist conservatives mock “coastal elites.”

Much of Williamson’s piece rings true. Most of us would prefer to blame other people for things which are probably our fault; personal responsibility is a bitter pill. Anti-elitism often comes with the baggage of anti-intellectualism, and a contempt for achievement.

But Williamson’s article also has some obvious problems. In practice, it is hard to draw a sharp distinction between the hard-working, salt-of-the-earth, working class, and the shiftless underclass. Williamson’s mother, whom he describes as underclass, earned a good income, but died in poverty because of her irresponsible behavior.

It would also be a stretch to claim that populist conservatives such as Sean Hannity have adopted the norms of the oxy-abusing, work-avoiding, out-of-wedlock, children-having underclass. Populist conservatism has problems, but an inability to pass judgment on other people’s poor life choices isn’t among them.

Despite these problems, too many anti-Trump conservatives have heaped praise on the article, perhaps because the article mercilessly skewers conservative figures they don’t like (Hannity, Ingraham, Trump, etc.). This is unfortunate because the article has another glaring problem.

Williamson ignores one of the major drivers of anti-elite resentment; namely, how badly elites behave.

The Sun, a British tabloid, interviewed Harvey Weinstein’s former limo driver. The former limo driver quit after Weinstein attacked him and broke his sun-glasses. Weinstein had arranged to pick up two prostitutes and take them to his hotel. Only, there was a problem. The girls had mistakenly gone to Weinstein’s hotel to meet him. Enraged, Weinstein demanded that his driver find the girls, and when he couldn’t, Weinstein attacked him.

The driver, Mickael Chemloul, described for the Sun what it was like to work for Harvey Weinstein.

“He recalled how the mogul once picked up a woman at a billionaire’s yacht party — while pregnant wife Georgina Chapman stayed behind at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc.


He said: “She was a good-looking girl, around 25 to 30, who had clearly had a few drinks. This was a fairly familiar sight for me, but even I was shocked when I heard her say, ‘Don’t hurt me’ in the car.


“I turned and saw her with her head in his lap and him pulling her hair.  I knew Georgina decided to stay in her room and miss the party because she was feeling tired.”


“I said to Harvey, ‘Are you sure?’ He replied, ‘Just drive to the f****** Cap’.


“When we arrived, Harvey got out with the girl and headed for another room. He was with her until 5am and left her there to go back to Georgina.


“The worst of it was that Georgina phoned me at 4.30 while I was trying to catch some sleep in the car and asked me where Harvey was.


“I was in an awkward spot. All I could think of was he had gone for a meeting with some business friends. I felt forced to lie.”

Chemloul also describes how Weinstein almost choked to death from overeating. Weinstein had undergone gastric bypass surgery, a process which limited the amount of food he could safely consume.

“Mickael recalled how Weinstein was minutes from death at Naomi Campbell’s birthday party at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc. He said: “People ran out to say Harvey was flat out on the floor and could hardly breathe.”


“Luckily for Harvey someone found a surgeon who lived nearby on the Cap D’Antibes. It appeared he had eaten so much from the buffet that it was too much for the sort of gastric band he had fitted.”


“The surgeon did a manipulation that allowed Harvey’s food to go down, so he could breathe more easily. He told me Harvey would have died within 30 minutes if he had not intervened.”


“The amazing thing was that when he opened his eyes and saw me, he said, ‘F*** you, go home.’ Then he went back to the buffet and started eating again.’’

Does this sound like a self-regulating individual whose success can be attributed to the virtues of prudence and personal restraint?

The Harvey Weinstein story contains an uncomfortable truth for libertarians and conservatives, it’s a lot easier to recover from mistakes when you have money. For the rich, the margin of error is much larger than for the poor.

In college, a lot of my friends came from lower income backgrounds. They had to work and take out student loans. It’s a lot harder to get through college when you have to work at the same time; it doesn’t leave you much free time, and if you have to drop out you might not get another chance at college.

You don’t have to be a Bernie-bro to sympathize with the less fortunate. It is true that many poor people suffer from the habits of poverty, behaving in ways that perpetuate their poverty. We can acknowledge this, while still recognizing how hard it can be to make it out of poverty. 



Source link

Nikki Haley's Africa Trip Is about Fixing Obama's Mistakes


This week Nikki Haley, our ambassador to the United Nations, visits two countries on the brink of becoming the world’s next failed states: South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Her trip comes as optimism for South Sudan has faded as the six-year-old nation, famously “midwifed” into existence by the Obama administration, has sunk into a civil war between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir, a member of the Dinka ethnic group, and his former vice president, Riek Machar, a Nuer. The conflict has generated the biggest exodus of civilians in the continent since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 — despite the presence of 17,000 UN peacekeepers.

Meanwhile, the DRC has just been voted onto the increasingly irrelevant UN Human Rights Council, even as president-turned-strongman Joseph Kabila has — once again — postponed elections in a bid to keep a grip on power. Elections were due to take place this year under a transitional agreement aimed at stopping renewed violence in a country torn by ethnic conflict in the central and eastern provinces, which has resulted in the displacement of more than 2.5 million people.

But Africa has more often than not been a place riven by conflict — why should America care about the fate of these two far-flung countries and why is President Trump sending Haley there when our own nation is in dire need of reform? According to the UN ambassador herself, the trip is meant to scold both leaders and make it clear to them that their behavior won’t be tolerated anymore. But unofficially, Haley’s trip is the first act in a long-standing revision of Obama-era policies, from stopping wasteful spending to cutting ties to dictators.

The U.S. is already blowing more than $2 billion per year on peacekeeping efforts in the DRC and South Sudan, money that has not stopped both countries from going down the drain. When Haley first announced in June that the U.S. had reached a deal with the UN to slash $600 million from the yearly peacekeeping budget of more than $7.5 billion, she was submerged under a deluge of criticism from liberals who said she was “gloating” over the budget cuts. But given the UN peacekeeping missions’ dismal track record, she’s done well to question what American taxpayers are really paying for.

Last month, the UN was slammed by fresh accusations that it botched its response to claims of sexual misconduct against peacekeepers in the Central African Republic (CAR). The Blue Helmets deployed there had the highest number of misconduct accusations in the world last year. Adding insult to injury, an AP investigation published earlier this year found nearly 2,000 claims of sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers over the past 12 years. Not to mention the devastating cholera epidemic brought by Nepalese peacekeepers to Haiti. Yet because of a culture of impunity and policies stipulating that contributing countries, not the UN, must carry out investigations, only a fraction of those accused were ever prosecuted.

Given such a track record, if the UN isn’t willing to reform its broken peacekeeping system, then Haley shouldn’t be afraid to dangle even more U.S. funding over their heads until they’re ready to do so.

But even effective peacekeeping will never work if Washington continues the Obama administration’s failed model of supporting aspiring autocrats — which helped bring about the predicaments we see today. In 2011, South Sudan gained independence with the robust support of the Obama administration — support that inexplicably never faltered, even years later, as the country devolved into civil war with most atrocities carried out by government soldiers. Even liberal commentators have since labeled South Sudan one of Obama’s biggest failures.

The Obama administration also missed a crucial chance to stand up for democracy in the DRC in 2011, when President Kabila won a second term in elections tarnished by allegations of vote rigging. Even in 2016, when Kabila sentenced to jail on trumped-up charges popular opposition leader Moïse Katumbi, the Obama administration failed to object loudly enough — despite the fact that the move signaled the regime’s subsequent refusal to allow a democratic transition. Katumbi, the country’s best hope for stability, has promised to return from self-imposed exile to the DRC before the end of the year to challenge Kabila, but without robust outside support, it’s an open question how much headway he can make.

This is where Haley has a critical chance to challenge strongmen like Kiir and Kabila where others have failed. In addition to pushing for reform of the UN’s peacekeeping operations, she must confront the ineffective conflict resolution approach used by the Obama administration and others before it, which accepts authoritarianism in exchange for a thin veneer of stability. She must lead a push not only for peace, but also for peacefully handing over the reins of power. And she must work with like-minded allies to hit rogue regimes where it hurts — with targeted financial sanctions. There is still time to save South Sudan and the DRC from the Obama era’s bungling before it’s too late.

This week Nikki Haley, our ambassador to the United Nations, visits two countries on the brink of becoming the world’s next failed states: South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Her trip comes as optimism for South Sudan has faded as the six-year-old nation, famously “midwifed” into existence by the Obama administration, has sunk into a civil war between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir, a member of the Dinka ethnic group, and his former vice president, Riek Machar, a Nuer. The conflict has generated the biggest exodus of civilians in the continent since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 — despite the presence of 17,000 UN peacekeepers.

Meanwhile, the DRC has just been voted onto the increasingly irrelevant UN Human Rights Council, even as president-turned-strongman Joseph Kabila has — once again — postponed elections in a bid to keep a grip on power. Elections were due to take place this year under a transitional agreement aimed at stopping renewed violence in a country torn by ethnic conflict in the central and eastern provinces, which has resulted in the displacement of more than 2.5 million people.

But Africa has more often than not been a place riven by conflict — why should America care about the fate of these two far-flung countries and why is President Trump sending Haley there when our own nation is in dire need of reform? According to the UN ambassador herself, the trip is meant to scold both leaders and make it clear to them that their behavior won’t be tolerated anymore. But unofficially, Haley’s trip is the first act in a long-standing revision of Obama-era policies, from stopping wasteful spending to cutting ties to dictators.

The U.S. is already blowing more than $2 billion per year on peacekeeping efforts in the DRC and South Sudan, money that has not stopped both countries from going down the drain. When Haley first announced in June that the U.S. had reached a deal with the UN to slash $600 million from the yearly peacekeeping budget of more than $7.5 billion, she was submerged under a deluge of criticism from liberals who said she was “gloating” over the budget cuts. But given the UN peacekeeping missions’ dismal track record, she’s done well to question what American taxpayers are really paying for.

Last month, the UN was slammed by fresh accusations that it botched its response to claims of sexual misconduct against peacekeepers in the Central African Republic (CAR). The Blue Helmets deployed there had the highest number of misconduct accusations in the world last year. Adding insult to injury, an AP investigation published earlier this year found nearly 2,000 claims of sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers over the past 12 years. Not to mention the devastating cholera epidemic brought by Nepalese peacekeepers to Haiti. Yet because of a culture of impunity and policies stipulating that contributing countries, not the UN, must carry out investigations, only a fraction of those accused were ever prosecuted.

Given such a track record, if the UN isn’t willing to reform its broken peacekeeping system, then Haley shouldn’t be afraid to dangle even more U.S. funding over their heads until they’re ready to do so.

But even effective peacekeeping will never work if Washington continues the Obama administration’s failed model of supporting aspiring autocrats — which helped bring about the predicaments we see today. In 2011, South Sudan gained independence with the robust support of the Obama administration — support that inexplicably never faltered, even years later, as the country devolved into civil war with most atrocities carried out by government soldiers. Even liberal commentators have since labeled South Sudan one of Obama’s biggest failures.

The Obama administration also missed a crucial chance to stand up for democracy in the DRC in 2011, when President Kabila won a second term in elections tarnished by allegations of vote rigging. Even in 2016, when Kabila sentenced to jail on trumped-up charges popular opposition leader Moïse Katumbi, the Obama administration failed to object loudly enough — despite the fact that the move signaled the regime’s subsequent refusal to allow a democratic transition. Katumbi, the country’s best hope for stability, has promised to return from self-imposed exile to the DRC before the end of the year to challenge Kabila, but without robust outside support, it’s an open question how much headway he can make.

This is where Haley has a critical chance to challenge strongmen like Kiir and Kabila where others have failed. In addition to pushing for reform of the UN’s peacekeeping operations, she must confront the ineffective conflict resolution approach used by the Obama administration and others before it, which accepts authoritarianism in exchange for a thin veneer of stability. She must lead a push not only for peace, but also for peacefully handing over the reins of power. And she must work with like-minded allies to hit rogue regimes where it hurts — with targeted financial sanctions. There is still time to save South Sudan and the DRC from the Obama era’s bungling before it’s too late.



Source link

Can the Political Center Hold in Europe?


The tension between political demands for self-determination on one hand and maintaining the sovereignty, the unity of a state, on the other is a historically recognizable aspect of political life.  Yet surprisingly, politics in Europe today are turbulent and unpredictable to an unexpected degree.  The tumult and chaos in countries from Britain, Ireland, and Spain to Italy and the Czech Republic, and even in Russia, allows for a question: is it an earthquake or simply a shock? Is it all a charade or the real thing?

The basic dilemma is familiar from Edmund Burke, who wrote in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.  Without such means, it might even risk the loss of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve.”

There appear to be four fundamental and interrelated problems; the challenge of a section of the population of a country to central authority; the nationalistic and populist opposition to the immigration policy of the European Union, as stressed formerly by Germany; the restriction or ban on Muslims entering the E.U., though a tough position on this was defeated in France and in the Netherlands this year; and differences and even a possible split between the more prosperous and historically democratic countries of Western Europe and the less prosperous former communist countries of Eastern Europe.

To take the most surprising issue, Russia as always is a dilemma, and predicting the past and perhaps even the present is a perilous occupation.  Now Russian TV in November 2017 is presenting a documentary on Leon Trotsky, who was brushed out of history, physically and figuratively, by Stalin.  Little is known about Trotsky by the younger generation.  Perhaps Trotsky reappears to history because of President Vladimir Putin’s explanation that he wants respect, an objective and honest analysis of Russia’s common history.  But unlike the situation in European countries, there is no serious challenge to the unity of Russia.

Elsewhere, in many countries in Europe, there is an inherent struggle between unilateral demands for autonomous self-government, and even independence, and the activities of a governing state to maintain the unity and sovereignty of the nation-state.  Countries are beset by the presence of populist, anti-establishment political parties, and the challenge of part of the citizenry to central government.  By far the most intense and volatile is in Spain with the ongoing unresolved dispute between the central government and the independence Catalan movement based on a distinct identity, language, and culture, as well as economic issues.

Irrespective of the complicated issue of Brexit and the relations between the U.K.  and the European Union, other countries have problems with some of the functions and policies of the E.U.  The most recent example is the Czech Republic parliamentary election of October 21, 2017, which resulted in unexpected gains by the Populist Party Ano (Yes), Action of Dissatisfied Citizens getting 39% of the vote compared with 24% in 2013.  The party is led by the 63-year-old billionaire Andrej Babis, said to be worth $4 billion from food, biofuel, and fertilizer companies and substantial press holdings.  Babis campaigned as an outsider, though he had been finance minister for four years.

It is not clear if Babis’s political proposals, such as abolishing the senate, indicate he is a threat to democracy in the country.  What is important is that he is unwilling to join the euro, and above all, he is critical of E.U.  migration policy, calling for reduction or end of Muslim immigration, as well as friendship with Russia.

Elements in two countries in particular, Spain and Italy, are involved in a challenge to central authority.  Political factions sometimes, like scorpions, court each other with kisses and dancing before delivering a fatal blow.  This is not the case in Spain.  Events in Catalonia have produced a political and constitutional crisis, as Catatans in a referendum on October 1, 2017 voted by over 90% in favor of seceding from Spain, but the turnout was only 43%.  Ambivalence was shown by mass violence and demonstrations, some of half a million, using pots and pans and honking cars, while those opposed to secession waved Spanish flags and shouted, ¡Viva España!  Catalan leaders hold that the actions of Madrid resemble a coup d’état against Catalan autonomy, the worst since the days of General Francisco Franco (1939-1975).  Graffiti in Barcelona read, “Franco is back.”

Catalonia has been virtually establishing a parallel government to the central one in Madrid, even to extent of establishing “embassies” in a number of foreign countries.  Madrid has the overall law, power, and resources on its side; Catalonia has enthusiastic supporters.  Will the divisiveness mean the end of Spain as a political unit?  Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy is wondering how to remove the secessionist leaders from their positions of power in Catalonia and to reinstate the legal order; Catalan lawmakers want self-determination and even a declaration of independence. 

The uncertain response of Madrid appears to be to take control of Catalonia and hold new regional elections within six months, establishing direct rule, jailing leaders of the secession movement, threatening to imprison the Catalan chief of police, and arresting the Catalan President Carles Puigdemont if he tries to declare independence following the referendum on October 1.

At the extreme, Madrid is considering implementing Article 155 of the Constitution, by which the government has the right to take “necessary measures” to get compliance.  Spanish courts have held that Catalonia is breaking the law.  Using 155 can suspend any of the self-governing powers of the 17 regions if they disobey constitutional obligations or attack the “general interests” of Spain.  Article 155 has never been invoked.  If it is used, it might cause difficulties for the maintenance of the1978 constitution, which set up the17 autonomous communities, largely to accommodate the Basque and Catalan regions.

Whatever the actions in Spain, they are a more modest counterpart to the Italian situation, though there is a difference.  Unlike the Spanish situation, the Italian referendums have been approved by the Italian constitutional court.  Demand for more autonomy have come from two regions: Lombardy, with Milan as its center, and Veneto, including Venice.  Together, the prosperous regions account for one quarter of the Italian population and 30% of economic output, thus contributing disproportionately to Rome.  Referendums in the two regions on October 22, 2017 had overwhelming approval for more autonomy: Veneto 98.1% and Lombardy 95.3%.

Though some in the two regions call for secession, in general, dissidents want more authority over a variety of issues: environment, health, education, and above all security and immigration.  The challenge for many years has come from the Northern League, Lega Nord, founded in 1991 by the poet Umberto Bossi, though apparently a relatively mild form of fiscal federalism.  For Italy, the problem is that referendums may spread to other areas, such as Liguria and Emilia-Romagna, and make unity more difficult.  No one, not even Luciano Pavarotti, is likely to sing O Sole Mio, over that.

The tension between political demands for self-determination on one hand and maintaining the sovereignty, the unity of a state, on the other is a historically recognizable aspect of political life.  Yet surprisingly, politics in Europe today are turbulent and unpredictable to an unexpected degree.  The tumult and chaos in countries from Britain, Ireland, and Spain to Italy and the Czech Republic, and even in Russia, allows for a question: is it an earthquake or simply a shock? Is it all a charade or the real thing?

The basic dilemma is familiar from Edmund Burke, who wrote in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.  Without such means, it might even risk the loss of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve.”

There appear to be four fundamental and interrelated problems; the challenge of a section of the population of a country to central authority; the nationalistic and populist opposition to the immigration policy of the European Union, as stressed formerly by Germany; the restriction or ban on Muslims entering the E.U., though a tough position on this was defeated in France and in the Netherlands this year; and differences and even a possible split between the more prosperous and historically democratic countries of Western Europe and the less prosperous former communist countries of Eastern Europe.

To take the most surprising issue, Russia as always is a dilemma, and predicting the past and perhaps even the present is a perilous occupation.  Now Russian TV in November 2017 is presenting a documentary on Leon Trotsky, who was brushed out of history, physically and figuratively, by Stalin.  Little is known about Trotsky by the younger generation.  Perhaps Trotsky reappears to history because of President Vladimir Putin’s explanation that he wants respect, an objective and honest analysis of Russia’s common history.  But unlike the situation in European countries, there is no serious challenge to the unity of Russia.

Elsewhere, in many countries in Europe, there is an inherent struggle between unilateral demands for autonomous self-government, and even independence, and the activities of a governing state to maintain the unity and sovereignty of the nation-state.  Countries are beset by the presence of populist, anti-establishment political parties, and the challenge of part of the citizenry to central government.  By far the most intense and volatile is in Spain with the ongoing unresolved dispute between the central government and the independence Catalan movement based on a distinct identity, language, and culture, as well as economic issues.

Irrespective of the complicated issue of Brexit and the relations between the U.K.  and the European Union, other countries have problems with some of the functions and policies of the E.U.  The most recent example is the Czech Republic parliamentary election of October 21, 2017, which resulted in unexpected gains by the Populist Party Ano (Yes), Action of Dissatisfied Citizens getting 39% of the vote compared with 24% in 2013.  The party is led by the 63-year-old billionaire Andrej Babis, said to be worth $4 billion from food, biofuel, and fertilizer companies and substantial press holdings.  Babis campaigned as an outsider, though he had been finance minister for four years.

It is not clear if Babis’s political proposals, such as abolishing the senate, indicate he is a threat to democracy in the country.  What is important is that he is unwilling to join the euro, and above all, he is critical of E.U.  migration policy, calling for reduction or end of Muslim immigration, as well as friendship with Russia.

Elements in two countries in particular, Spain and Italy, are involved in a challenge to central authority.  Political factions sometimes, like scorpions, court each other with kisses and dancing before delivering a fatal blow.  This is not the case in Spain.  Events in Catalonia have produced a political and constitutional crisis, as Catatans in a referendum on October 1, 2017 voted by over 90% in favor of seceding from Spain, but the turnout was only 43%.  Ambivalence was shown by mass violence and demonstrations, some of half a million, using pots and pans and honking cars, while those opposed to secession waved Spanish flags and shouted, ¡Viva España!  Catalan leaders hold that the actions of Madrid resemble a coup d’état against Catalan autonomy, the worst since the days of General Francisco Franco (1939-1975).  Graffiti in Barcelona read, “Franco is back.”

Catalonia has been virtually establishing a parallel government to the central one in Madrid, even to extent of establishing “embassies” in a number of foreign countries.  Madrid has the overall law, power, and resources on its side; Catalonia has enthusiastic supporters.  Will the divisiveness mean the end of Spain as a political unit?  Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy is wondering how to remove the secessionist leaders from their positions of power in Catalonia and to reinstate the legal order; Catalan lawmakers want self-determination and even a declaration of independence. 

The uncertain response of Madrid appears to be to take control of Catalonia and hold new regional elections within six months, establishing direct rule, jailing leaders of the secession movement, threatening to imprison the Catalan chief of police, and arresting the Catalan President Carles Puigdemont if he tries to declare independence following the referendum on October 1.

At the extreme, Madrid is considering implementing Article 155 of the Constitution, by which the government has the right to take “necessary measures” to get compliance.  Spanish courts have held that Catalonia is breaking the law.  Using 155 can suspend any of the self-governing powers of the 17 regions if they disobey constitutional obligations or attack the “general interests” of Spain.  Article 155 has never been invoked.  If it is used, it might cause difficulties for the maintenance of the1978 constitution, which set up the17 autonomous communities, largely to accommodate the Basque and Catalan regions.

Whatever the actions in Spain, they are a more modest counterpart to the Italian situation, though there is a difference.  Unlike the Spanish situation, the Italian referendums have been approved by the Italian constitutional court.  Demand for more autonomy have come from two regions: Lombardy, with Milan as its center, and Veneto, including Venice.  Together, the prosperous regions account for one quarter of the Italian population and 30% of economic output, thus contributing disproportionately to Rome.  Referendums in the two regions on October 22, 2017 had overwhelming approval for more autonomy: Veneto 98.1% and Lombardy 95.3%.

Though some in the two regions call for secession, in general, dissidents want more authority over a variety of issues: environment, health, education, and above all security and immigration.  The challenge for many years has come from the Northern League, Lega Nord, founded in 1991 by the poet Umberto Bossi, though apparently a relatively mild form of fiscal federalism.  For Italy, the problem is that referendums may spread to other areas, such as Liguria and Emilia-Romagna, and make unity more difficult.  No one, not even Luciano Pavarotti, is likely to sing O Sole Mio, over that.



Source link

RapSheetRoundup.jpg

Hollywood's Accused Harassers, Molesters, Rapists; Rap Sheet, So Far…



As the Harvey Weinstein scandal spreads like an STD throughout the entertainment industry worldwide, as the courage of those coming forward to name names inspires similar courage in others, we cannot allow ourselves to become so accustomed to the allegations that they lose their power to outrage.

Although some male victims have come forward, the alleged victims here are mostly vulnerable young women and children. Worse, so far, all of the alleged abusers are the very men whose primary responsibility in any civilized society is to protect women and children.

As a means to understand just how, yes, institutional these allegations are, here is a list (in no particular order) of the accused and their alleged misdeeds, which will be updated as needed.

Unless otherwise indicated, these stand only as allegations.

So far, 43 and counting…

Is there any doubt the entertainment industry, that Harveywood is enabling an unspeakable war on women … and children?

  1. Terry Richardson – Celebrity Photographer

Accusations of sexual harassment.

  1. Roman Polanski – Oscar-Winning Director

Admitted child rapist. Four other women claim Polanski assaulted them as minors.

  1. David O. Russell – Oscar-nominated Director

Accused of groping,on-set verbal and physical abuse.

  1. Oliver Stone – Oscar-Winning Director

Accused of groping a woman at a party.

  1. Ben Affleck – Actor, Oscar-Winning Director and Screenwriter

Multiple allegations of groping, one he apologized for.

  1. Harvey Weinstein – Oscar-Winning Producer

Removed from the board of the company he co-founded due to dozens of accusations of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, groping and rape.

  1. James Toback – Director, Oscar-Nominated Screenwriter

Over 200 sexual harassment allegations.

  1. Bob Weinstein – Oscar-Winning Producer

Accused of sexual harassing a former employee.

  1. Harry Knowles – Founder of Ain’t It Cool News

Stepped down due to allegations of sexual harassment and groping.

  1. Devin Faraci – Movie Writer at Birth.Death.Movies

Accused of sexual assault and harassment.

  1. Roy Price – Head of Amazon Studios

Resigned due to allegations of sexual misconduct.

  1. Twiggy Ramiriez – Bass Player for Marilyn Manson

Accused of raping a former girlfriend.

  1. Tyler Grasham – Talent Agent

Resigned due to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault from his male, underage clients. .

  1. Netflix – One of the Most Powerful Companies In Entertainment

Settled $1.5 million sexual harassment claim filed by a heterosexual male executive who says he was harassed by male and female superiors.

  1. Lockhart Steele – Media Director at Vox

Fired over allegations of sexual harassment.

  1. Andy Signore – Creator of Honest Trailers

Fired due to numerous allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct.

  1. David Blaine – Superstar Magician

Accused of drugging and raping a 21 year-old model.

  1. Gilbert Rozon – Judge on France’s Got Talent

Suspended over sexual harassment claims.

  1. Rupert Myers – British GQ Writer

Fired over allegations of sexual assault.

  1. John Besh – Celebrity Chef

Accused of sexual assault and harassment.

  1. Shadie Elnashai – Cinefamily Executive

Fired over allegations of rape and harassment.

  1. Hadrian Belove – Cinefamily Executive

Resigned over allegations of sexual harassment.

  1. Woody Allen – Oscar-Winning Screenwriter and Director

Accusations of child molestations. No charges were filed after an investigation.

  1. Steven Seagal – Actor

Allegations of sexual harassment.

  1. Chris Savino – Creator of Nickelodeon’s Loud House

Fired over allegations of sexual harassment.

  1. Bill Cosby – Iconic Comedian, Actor

Dozens of accusations of drugging and raping women.

Below are those accused abusers who so far remain unnamed…

  1. The pigs who preyed on 13 year-old Molly Ringwald.
  2. The monster who sexually assaulted nine year-old America Ferrera.
  3. The music executives who abused and allowed the abuse of Kaya Jones.
  4. The director who sexually assaulted 16-year-old Reese Witherspoon.
  5. The director who harassed and punished Björk.
  6. The men who sexually assaulted Corey Haim and Corey Feldman as children.
  7. The man who assaulted Terry Crews.
  8. The men who assaulted James Van Der Beek.
  9. The countless, unnamed “predators” in the fashion industry.
  10. The man who sexually assaulted 16-year-old Laura Dern.
  11. The doctor who molested a 13-year-old McKayla Maroney.
  12. The TV executive who assaulted Maureen Ryan.
  13. These harassers.
  14. This A-List animal.
  15. Lady Gaga’s abuser.
  16. Gabrielle Union’s abuser.
  17. The producer who declared a 15-year-old Jennifer Lawrence “f**kable.”

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

 



Source link