The Syria Strikes: A Conspiracy Theory

[Editor’s Note]

For those seeking additional information that show holes in the official narrative large enough to ferry the Titanic through, please read Jon Rappoport’s piece below [NoMoreFakeNews.com & JonRappoport.wordpress.com]:

Top Ten Reasons To Doubt Official Story On Assad Poison Gas Attack

Source: TheCorbettReport
April 14, 2017

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the Syria Strikes from the truth-telling truth-tellers in the truthful government and true mainstream news!…in under 5 minutes!!

Top Ten Reasons To Doubt Official Story On Assad Poison-Gas Attack

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 13, 2017

The sarin-gas attack story prompted the US missile strike on a Syrian runway. Here are the top ten reasons for doubting that story, and instead calling it a convenient pretext:

ONE: Photos show rescue workers treating/decontaminating people injured or killed in the gas attack. The workers aren’t wearing gloves or protective gear. Only the clueless or crazy would expose themselves to sarin residue, which can be fatal.

TWO: MIT professor Thomas Postol told RT, “I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the [US intelligence] document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun…Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real. No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.” How would a canister purportedly dropped from an Assad-ordered plane incur “crushing from above?”

THREE: Why would President Assad, supported by Russia, scoring victory after victory against ISIS, moving closer to peace negotiations, suddenly risk all his gains by dropping sarin gas on his own people?

FOUR: In an interview with Scott Horton, ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi states that his intelligence and military sources indicate Assad didn’t attack his own people with poison gas.

FIVE: Ex-CIA officer Ray McGovern states that his military sources report an Assad air strike did hit a chemical plant, and the fallout killed people, but the attack was not planned for that purpose. There was no knowledge the chemicals were lethal.

SIX: At consortiumnews.com, journalist Robert Parry writes, “There is a dark mystery behind the White House-released photo showing President Trump and more than a dozen advisers meeting at his estate in Mar-a-Lago after his decision to strike Syria with Tomahawk missiles: Where are CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top intelligence officials?”

“Before the photo was released on Friday, a source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA’s belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier — and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision.”

“After the attack, Secretary of State Tillerson, who is not an institutional intelligence official and has little experience with the subtleties of intelligence, was the one to claim that the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a ‘high degree of confidence’ that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.”

“While Tillerson’s comment meshed with Official Washington’s hastily formed groupthink of Assad’s guilt, it is hard to believe that CIA analysts would have settled on such a firm conclusion so quickly, especially given the remote location of the incident and the fact that the initial information was coming from pro-rebel (or Al Qaeda) sources.”

“Thus, a serious question arises whether President Trump did receive that ‘high degree of confidence’ assessment from the intelligence community or whether he shunted Pompeo aside to eliminate an obstacle to his desire to launch the April 6 rocket attack.”

SEVEN: As soon as the Assad gas attack was reported, the stage was set for a US missile strike. No comprehensive investigation of the purported gas attack was undertaken.

EIGHT: There are, of course, precedents for US wars based on false evidence—the missing WMDs in Iraq, the claims of babies being pushed out of incubators in Kuwait, to name just two.

NINE: Who benefits from the sarin gas story? Assad? Or US neocons; the US military-industrial complex; Pentagon generals who want a huge increase in their military budget; Trump and his team, who are suddenly praised in the press, after a year of being pilloried at every turn; and ISIS?

TEN: For those who doubt that ISIS has ever used poison gas, see the NY Times (11/21/2016). While claiming that Assad has deployed chemical attacks, the article also states that ISIS has deployed chemical weapons 52 times since 2014.

I’m not claiming these ten reasons definitely and absolutely rule out the possibility of an Assad-ordered chemical attack. But they do add up to a far more believable conclusion than the quickly assembled “Assad-did-it” story.

These ten reasons starkly point to the lack of a rational and complete investigation of the “gas attack.”

And this lack throws a monkey wrench into Trump’s claim that he was ordering the missile strike based on “a high degree of confidence.”

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Trump, Syria: A Rant

alternative news

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 10, 2017

It’s difficult for me to write this blog, not because I came late, and reluctantly, to support the Trump candidacy, but rather because in the cloud of bitterness, sadness, and outrage over the missile attacks on Syria, it’s difficult for me to articulate the full spectrum of my reasons, let alone my anger and sense of complete betrayal. In a nutshell, it appears to me that Mr. Trump is within a few decimal points of full-scale, Hillary Clinton type megalomania and insanity, and has succumbed to the same evil spirit that seems to infest all of Washington and America’s national political class. Those are strong words, and I mean every one of them in full measure (and particularly that part about the evil spirit infesting and investing Washington). And I’m just getting started.

Consider, for a moment, the chemical weapons allegations from the Assad regime’s point of view. Its military campaign, thanks to Russian intervention, was going well. Syria was winning. It thus makes no sense whatsoever for the Assad regime to risk the entire campaign by the use of chemical weapons, exposing his regime to the renewal of American and Western aggression in that country by opening it to reprisals.  He had no viable nor plausible military, nor political, nor geopolitical reason to do so, even if he re-equipped himself, or bought, chemical weapons from elsewhere. I’m not alone in this view. Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul has articulated much the same view, as have countless American talk show hosts and commentators, and even the former British ambassador to that blighted nation has weighed in, doubting the whole narrative.

Ex-UK Ambassador To Syria Questions Chemical Attack; “It Doesn’t Make Sense, Assad Is Not Mad

And not just a British ambassador or former Congressman Ron Paul:

US Congressman Surprises CNN by Backing Moscow’s Position on Idlib Attack

In this, Mr. Trump appears to have drunk the Hillary Clinton brand of Koolaid, and gallons of it at that. I cannot help but notice, as have many others, that this action was taken on April 6th, fully a century to the day that another political outsider, and unquestionably one of America’s worst presidents, the disaster named Woodrow Wilson, took this country into World War One. I’m not here to debate the merits or demerits of Mr. Wilson’s decision for war, only to point out how he, too campaigned on the slogan “He kept us out of war,” a nice way of saying “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.” Wilson, too, seemed to have a predilection for gallons of Koolaid brewed up in Colonel House’s kitchen. Lest we forget, Mr. Trump in 2013 had some very strong words about plans for American intervention in Syria:

Trumplash: Rapidly Evolving Syria ‘Policy’ Leaves Pundits And Supporters Puzzled

The Trump Administration Goes Neocon-Crazy

This Isn’t the Foreign Policy Trump Campaigned On

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/04/06/trump-versus-trumpism-syria-in-the-crosshairs/  (Copy and paste into your browser)

Oh, and let us not forget the plan that was exposed in 2013 in the British press about using a chemical weapons attack and blaming it on the Assad regime…

U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’

… and that Mr. Putin headed off that attempt by talking Syria into giving up its chemical weapons and that the UN confirmed that it had (but who trusts them?)…

Some Missing Facts about the Chemical Attack in Syria

…and that Mr. Obama’s Administration apparently accepted that conclusion and that the original chemical weapons attacks back then were subsequently shown to have evidence that they, too, had been planned and conducted by the West and its sponsored “Rebel forces”…

Pentagon Trained Syria’s Al Qaeda “Rebels” in the Use of Chemical Weapons

Evidence Calls Western Narrative About Syrian Chemical Attack Into Question

… and that there is evidence that chemical weapons were supplied to the “rebels”(i.e., radical jihadists) by the West, even implicating the aforementioned insane Hillary Clinton and our “ally”, the Ottomaniac Erdogan…

Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya’s Sarin to Syrian Rebels

Well, you get the idea.

Naturally, the whole thing is already calling forth a variety of “theories”, one of the most popular being that this was really a message to the visiting leader of China, Mr. Xi Jinping to “do something about North Korea”.  In support of this fanciful notion, we’re told that many of the Tomahawk cruise missiles didn’t even reach their target, that some are unaccounted for, and that there was heavy damage (the West’s story), or minimal damage (Russia’s story), or that there were no casualties (the West’s early story), or that four children died in the attack (Syria’s story). On top of all that, we’re also told that the Russians were warned of the attack, and that they in turn probably warned the Syrians, who both naturally moved their forces away from the operational target (and hence the minimal damage done, according to the Russians), which is a very strange way of “being tough” on “aggression” (What aggression? Syria did not attack America). Stop and ponder that one: “Hey, we’re going to attack you at such and such a time and place with this number of missiles.” Here’s one purveyor of that Chinese theory, on, of course, Alex Jones’ Infowars:

This all occurred, of course, within the context of massive staff reshuffling within the Trump Administration, with an increase of neocon influence within it, and the corresponding loss of sanity, and more importantly, the complete about-face, within a matter of mere days (by some estimates, two days) from not ousting Assad to missile strikes and the “regime change agenda” being “on” again.

In response, Russia of course has (1) lifted its rules of engagement procedures and protocols that were put into place to avoid accidental conflicts between Russian and American forces, (2) stated, through “pro-Atlanticist” Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, that this action has “ruined” (Mr. Medvedev’s word, not mine) Russo-American relations, and (3) ordered a Russian missile cruiser to the eastern Mediterranean. (Oh, and let us not forget that all this comes within days of a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, at a time when Mr. Putin was actually visiting that city. But I digress.) Here’s the links for those points.

America’s Syria strike ‘on verge of military clash’ with Russia – PM Medvedev

Russia suspends flight safety memorandum over Syria after US missile strike – Foreign Ministry

Russian warship heads toward US destroyers after strike on Syria

After the Obamacare “repeal and replace” fiasco (I seem to recall that “replace” was not part of the equation for most Trump supporters although Mr. Trump mentioned “replace” during the campaign), and the signing of the bill to allow corporations to sell private individuals’ browsing history (so much for putting the people first), a disastrous federal budget (disastrous because the question of all the missing money didn’t even enter the picture!), we have this.

So… am I feeling bitter? saddened? outraged? betrayed? You bet I am. For years I didn’t vote at all, because I could not stand nor stomach the fetid reek coming from the serpentine tar pit of the Bush-Clinton-Obama nexus. It took much for me to think that possibly, just possibly, there was a chance to reverse course. But once again the Republithugs have proven they are a fake opposition party, incapable of doing anything to roll back the federal colossus or rein in the welfare-warfare state that Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson et al. ( and yes, Nixon) bequeathed to us, not even when they control all three branches of government. My opposition to Darth Hillary was in large part because of the ruin and wreck of her foreign policy of confrontation with Russia(while, incidentally, selling it lots of uranium), of her support for “regime change” in Muslim nations like “we-came-we-saw-he-died”-(insert-cackle-here)-and-“what-difference-does-it-make” Libya, and Syria, and the whole covert agenda of funding and equipping the most radicalized, barbaric, and inhuman monsters on the planet and calling them “rebels” and even, on a few occasions, “freedom fighters”, and in general the cackling stench of death that followed her everywhere she went on her slither from Little Rock to Washington.

For the very same reasons, my patience, and support, of the Trump administration is at an absolute, and utter, end…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: Westphalia, Soft Power, And New…[Part 3]

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 30, 2017

I have to apologize for devoting much of this weeks blogs to the remarks of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, but as I indicated in part one, so many people sent the transcription of his remarks to the Military Academy of the Russian General Staff, reported on The Sakers website, that I had to comment. And certainly his remarks warrant the extended treatment, for they outline the salient feature of the Russian states political worldview and mentality in a way that few remarks from Russian leaders have. They deserve careful consideration and reflection, for the implications of Mr. Lavrovs remarks are both broad and deep, and very long-term oriented. (I hope, eventually, to do a webinar in the members area on the Russian cosmist philosophers as part of the culture webinars series, for it is in that body of work from the Russian intelligentsia that one sees clearly how closely allied culture and politics are in contemporary Russian thinking.)

In part one, I reviewed the implications of Mr. Lavrovs extended references to the Peace of Westphalia, implications that spell out certain long term objectives of Russian foreign policy. Yesterday in part two, I reviewed the soft power/culture power connection of Russia’s foreign policy to that first Westphalian emphasis. Today I would like to focus on the third area: nuclear weapons and new non-nuclear strategic weapons. Here’s the link to the article once again:

Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

I want to direct your attention today toward the end of Mr. Lavrovs remarks, and to some truly astonishing implications contained in them:

Recently, there has been a push towards forcing the nuclear states to abandon their nuclear arsenals and banning nuclear weapons altogether. It is crystal clear that this is premature. Let me remind you that it wasn’t for nothing that the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty wrote into it that the nuclear arsenals had to be fully scrapped but only in the context of general and complete disarmament. We are prepared to discuss the possibility of further gradual reductions in nuclear capabilities but only if we take all the factors influencing strategic stability into account and not just the quantity of strategic offensive weapons.

Another reason why we’re prepared to discuss this issue is the growing sense of urgency about making this process multilateral. The restrictions on nuclear capabilities which Russia and the United States have repeatedly accepted for many years have led them to a situation where, essentially, they cannot proceed doing this on the bilateral basis. (Emphasis added)

A little further on, Mr. Lavrov adds this:

The formation of a polycentric international order is an objective process. It is in our common interest to make it more stable and predictable. In these conditions, the role of diplomacy as a tool to coordinate balanced solutions in politics, economics, finance, the environment, and the innovation and technology sectors has increased significantly. Simultaneously, the role of the armed forces as the guarantor of peace has increased too.

Observe that these two statements are the logical implications of the whole soft power culture power Westphalian emphasis; in effect, Mr. Lavrov has stated that the old Cold War conceptions of armaments reduction talks – with their emphasis on bean counting the number of tanks, warheads, missiles, aircraft  – is simply no longer viable, for the other components of stability are cultural in nature, and lest one misunderstands his statements, he spells out what culture in this context means: it means the whole constellation of domestic and international political institutions, historical memory and traditions, finance and economics, technological innovation and so on.

Mr. Lavrov is correct here, for it is that constellation of factors that leads to the development of armaments and more importantly, the circumstances in which they are used. This brings us to remarks that Mr. Lavrov made in response to a question, and these are worth pondering long and hard:

To a very large extent, President Trump’s position on the majority of key issues on the foreign policy agenda, including further steps to limit strategic nuclear weapons as you’ve mentioned, has yet to be finalised. By the way, if I remember right, Donald Trump mentioned the issue of cooperation with us in this field as an example. He was asked whether he would be prepared to lift sanctions on Russia. I believe that was the way the question was formulated. He responded by saying they should see if there were issues on which they could cooperate with Russia on a mutually beneficial basis in US interests, in particular, mentioning nuclear arms control. At the same time, as you know, the US president said the Americans should modernise and build up their nuclear triad. We need to wait until the military budget is finally approved under the new administration and see what its priorities and objectives are and how these funds will be spent. As for our further conversation, I briefly mentioned in my address that we are ready for such a conversation but it should be conducted with acknowledgment of all strategic stability factors without exception. Today, those who propose implementing the so-called nuclear zero initiative as soon as possible, banning and destroying nuclear weapons and generally outlawing them absolutely, ignore the fact that since the nuclear bomb was made and this new kind of weapon began to be produced on a large scale in the USSR, the US, China, France and the UK, colossal changes have taken place in military science and technology. What is being developed in the US under the codename Prompt Global Strike are non-nuclear strategic weapons. If they are developed (and this work is moving forward very actively, with the objective of reaching any point in the world within an hour), of course, they will be more humane than nuclear weapons, because there will be no radiation, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki effect. However, in terms of military superiority, my friends at the Defence Ministry tell me the effect will be more devastating than from a modern nuclear bomb. (Emphasis added)

Note again that Mr. Lavrov has stated the Cold War Bean counting method of armaments limitations talks is not workable without a discussion and agreement on all factors – again the culture factor – are had.  Note also that in his remarks Lavrov has ruled out nuclear disarmament, even on a bilateral US-Russia basis, since (1) there are other nuclear powers, but more importantly because (2) there is a whole class of non-nuclear strategic weapons, equally destructive as nuclear weapons for bombardment purposes.

For those familiar with it, this is similar to the position that former US Army Lt. Col Tom Bearden maintains was a negotiating position of the former Soviet Union in arms negotiations, namely, that they wanted to ban weapons even more destructive than nuclear weapons, because of their sheer destructive power. The American negotiators, Bearden maintains, did not have a clue what the Russians were then talking about.

This is a crucial factor, for what it indicates is that Russia is well aware of a whole class of secret weaponizable technologies -again, alluded to by Lavrov in his previous remarks – that have to be taken into consideration. In this specific instance, Mr. Lavrov is possibly referring to the rod of God kinetic space-based orbital bombardment technologies which literally propel an inert projectile at such extreme velocities to a surface target that the impact yields a colossal thermonuclear-sized explosion, but without any radioactive aftereffects. In short, think of a nuclear war, without radioactivity.

Wars are thinkable again, and this is a de-stabilizing factor. This could also indicate that, at present, Russia is not involved in the development of a similar capability, but that if such weapons are not up for negotiation with western powers, then it will perforce have to develop them. (And there is an important side issue here, for two powers – Germany and Japan – have undertaken not to develop thermonuclear or nuclear strategic weapons, which they could easily and very quickly do. Such technologies afford an end-run around their treaty obligations, and since both are space-faring powers as well, this potentiality exists, and is yet another de-stablizing factor in Russias strategic calculations).

If one parses Mr. Lavrovs concerns here closely, it is almost as if he is stating, as openly as he can, that negotiations on nuclear weapons is almost a moot point, since technological developments is quickly rendering them obsolescent if not obsolete. Its the secret stuff that Russia is (rightly) concerned about, and it’s the secret stuff that also is a de-stablizing factor and needs to be put on the table. If one now takes the concerns of all three parts of this blog together, then what at first might appear to be a kind of random grab bag of unrelated concerns is really a well-thought out connected policy. And that policy is one which, at its central core, is uniquely based in cultural concerns. And in this, in my opinion, its light years ahead of the create a crisis and then solve it approach of the West.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

News & Views From The Nefarium – Dr. Farrell Speaks About The Implications Of The North Korean Missile Test Over Japan

Source: GizaDeathStarCommunity
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 30, 2017

Remember those North Korean missile tests over Japan just a few days ago? Good… but you may not have heard about Japan’s response. It was short, and to the point…

A Key Clue To Trump’s Presidency: American Empire

questions
Source: NoMoreFakenews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 23, 2017

That clue is embedded in a statement Trump made in his inaugural address:

“We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world… We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.”

Is Trump absolutely serious?

Does he intend, in this respect, to follow in the footsteps of Ron Paul, who helped pave the way for Trump’s success by impacting millions of Americans on the subject (among others) of American Empire and foreign conquest?

Does Trump intend to “stay at home” and abandon the long-standing policy of making war and policing the planet and toppling regimes and using the CIA to create frontiers for US corporations?

Does he intend to go up against the military-industrial complex?

Will he try to sideline slimy neocons?

In his inaugural address, Trump also said this: “We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones — and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.”

Warning: Depending on how he prosecutes that campaign, wiping out terrorism could continue to function as a cover for foreign wars launched with more traditional goals: destabilize governments and install leaders who will bend to America’s will; extend American Empire; assume the role of international policeman.

In other words, the eradication of terrorism could reinstall every motive and intent Trump says he wants to take away.

Will he dare to keep America’s overall war machine at home?

Trump should understand that, if he does indeed intend to keep this promise, untold numbers of people all over the world will rally to his cause.

And if he doesn’t, the enormous blowback won’t merely affect him; it will keep America in the same horrific bind it’s been in for a long, long time: war is money; war floats a basically bereft economy; war destroys lives; war kills hope; war keeps putting the lie to “America, the bastion of freedom for every person on Earth”; war serves the Globalist operation to invent a need for one planetary management system; war makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; war harnesses the worst impulses of soul, mind, and body, when it is launched on false pretenses.

After all, look at Hillary Clinton, warmonger par excellence. Look at what it has done to her and her followers. They can’t tell up from down.

Many times during the campaign, and since his election, Trump has said he’ll stop the insane wars of American Empire. No American president, going back as least as far as Kennedy, has made such a statement with any emphasis.

I’m not sure the American people understand what Trump is claiming he’ll accomplish here.

Given our government and its domestic partners, given the military-industrial complex, this claim is astonishing.

Does he really mean it?

Because, if he does, this is a revolution.

And therefore, we should be paying close attention. Very close attention.

Yes, we should looking at some of Trump’s appointments with a jaundiced eye. Of course. But beyond those men and their potential hidden motives, we have to look at Trump himself and what he does.

In particular, I urge the supporters of Ron Paul, who made his critique of American Empire and foreign wars crystal clear, to keep their eyes open. Those supporters, many of them, were fully aware of what Paul was saying and how revolutionary it was. For that reason, among others, they came to his side. Now they need to be watchdogs on the Trump presidency.

As I’ve written before, the movement that formed around Trump is more important than the man. I’m talking about the people who stand for both freedom and honor.

Is it possible these people have made a grave mistake? In politics, that’s always a risk. But it is no crime to want the right thing and judge that there might be a candidate who wants the right thing, too. In other words…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Who Benefits from War with Russia?


Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
January 3, 2017

There is absolutely no upside to any conflict with Russia when it comes to 99.9% of us. The fact so many pundits, anonymous intelligence officials and Hillary Clinton cultists are encouraging such an outcome based on zero publicly available evidence that Russia hacked the DNC/John Podesta and provided it to Wikileaks for the purpose of electing Trump, should be seen as the gigantic red flag that it is. So what’s actually going on? As is so often the case, it is all about money and power.

The best and most concise article I have read thus far explaining the driving influences behind all the anti-Russia/Putin hysteria was written a couple of weeks ago by Robert Parry of Consortium News. The post is titled, Making Russia ‘The Enemy’, and here are some key excerpts:

The rising hysteria about Russia is best understood as fulfilling two needs for Official Washington: the Military Industrial Complex’s transitioning from the “war on terror” to a more lucrative “new cold war” – and blunting the threat that a President Trump poses to the neoconservative/liberal-interventionist foreign-policy establishment.

Indeed, this is primarily about a failed establishment trying to maintain power in the face of repeated public catastrophes and pervasive corruption.

By hyping the Russian “threat,” the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks, who include much of the mainstream U.S. news media, can guarantee bigger military budgets from Congress. The hype also sets in motion a blocking maneuver to impinge on any significant change in direction for U.S. foreign policy under Trump…

All of this maneuvering also is delaying the Democratic Party’s self-examination into why it lost so many white working-class voters in normally Democratic strongholds, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Rather than national party leaders taking the blame for pre-selecting a very flawed candidate and ignoring all the warning signs about the public’s resistance to this establishment choice, Democrats have pointed fingers at almost everyone else – from FBI Director James Comey for briefly reviving Clinton’s email investigation, to third-party candidates who siphoned off votes, to the archaic Electoral College which negates the fact that Clinton did win the national popular vote – and now to the Russians.

Democrats now are excitedly joining the bash-Russia movement, making it harder to envision how the party can transition back into its more recent role as the “peace party” (at least relative to the extremely hawkish Republicans).

The potential trading places of the two parties in that regard – with Trump favoring geopolitical détente and the Democrats beating the drums for more military confrontations – augurs poorly for the Democrats regaining their political footing anytime soon.

If Democratic leaders press ahead, in alliance with neoconservative Republicans, on demands for escalating the New Cold War with Russia, they could precipitate a party split between Democratic hawks and doves, a schism that likely would have occurred if Clinton had been elected but now may happen anyway, albeit without the benefit of the party holding the White House.

The first test of this emerging Democratic-neocon alliance may come over Trump’s choice for Secretary of State, Exxon-Mobil’s chief executive Rex Tillerson, who doesn’t exhibit the visceral hatred of Russian President Vladimir Putin that Democrats are encouraging.

As an international business executive, Tillerson appears to share Trump’s real-politik take on the world, the idea that doing business with rivals makes more sense than conspiring to force “regime change” after “regime change.”

Over the past several decades, the “regime change” approach has been embraced by both neocons and liberal interventionists and has been implemented by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Sometimes, it’s done through war and other times through “color revolutions” – always under the idealistic guise of “democracy promotion” or “protecting human rights.”

But the problem with this neo-imperialist strategy has been that it has failed miserably to improve the lives of the people living in the “regime-changed” countries. Instead, it has spread chaos across wide swaths of the globe and has now even destabilized Europe.

Yet, the solution, as envisioned by the neocons and their liberal-hawk understudies, is simply to force more “regime change” medicine down the throats of the world’s population. The new “great” idea is to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia by making its economy scream and by funding as many anti-Putin elements as possible to create the nucleus for a “color revolution” in Moscow.

To justify that risky scheme, there has been a broad expansion of anti-Russian propaganda now being funded with tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money as well as being pushed by government officials giving off-the-record briefings to mainstream media outlets.

However, as with earlier “regime change” plans, the neocons and liberal hawks never think through the scenario to the end. They always assume that everything is going to work out fine and some well-dressed “opposition leader” who has been to their think-tank conferences will simply ascend to the top job.

Remember, in Iraq, it was going to be Ahmed Chalabi who was beloved in Official Washington but broadly rejected by the Iraqi people. In Libya, there has been a parade of U.S.-approved “unity” leaders who have failed to pull that country together.

In Ukraine, Nuland’s choice – Arseniy “Yats is the guy” Yatsenyuk – resigned amid broad public disapproval  earlier this year after pushing through harsh cuts in social programs, even as the U.S.-backed regime officials in Kiev continued to plunder Ukraine’s treasury and misappropriate Western economic aid.

Robert goes on to describe his observations from a recent trip to Moscow, providing readers with an important lesson in “perception management,” which is just a fancy name for propaganda.

I also undertook a limited personal test regarding whether Russia is the police state that U.S. propaganda depicts, a country yearning to break free from the harsh grip of Vladimir Putin (although he registers 80 or so percent approval in polls).

During my trip last week to Europe, which included stops in Brussels and Copenhagen, I decided to take a side trip to Moscow, which I had never visited before. What I encountered was an impressive, surprisingly (to me at least) Westernized city with plenty of American and European franchises, including the ubiquitous McDonald’s and Starbucks. (Russians serve the Starbucks gingerbread latte with a small ginger cookie.)

Though senior Russian officials proved unwilling to meet with me, an American reporter, at this time of tensions, Russia had little appearance of a harshly repressive society. In my years covering U.S. policies in El Salvador in the 1980s and Haiti in the 1990s, I have experienced what police states look and feel like, where death squads dump bodies in the streets. That was not what I sensed in Moscow, just a modern city with people bustling about their business under early December snowfalls.

The police presence in Red Square near the Kremlin was not even as heavy-handed as it is near the government buildings of Washington. Instead, there was a pre-Christmas festive air to the brightly lit Red Square, featuring a large skating rink surrounded by small stands selling hot chocolate, toys, warm clothing and other goods.

Granted, my time and contact with Russians were limited – since I don’t speak Russian and most of them don’t speak English – but I was struck by the contrast between the grim images created by Western media and the Russia that I saw.

It reminded me of how President Ronald Reagan depicted Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua as a “totalitarian dungeon” with a militarized state ready to march on Texas, but what I found when I traveled to Managua was a third-world country still recovering from an earthquake and with a weak security structure despite the Contra war that Reagan had unleashed against Nicaragua.

In other words, “perception management” remains the guiding principle of how the U.S. government deals with the American people, scaring us with exaggerated tales of foreign threats and then manipulating our fears and our misperceptions.

As dangerous as that can be when we’re talking about Nicaragua or Iraq or Libya, the risks are exponentially higher regarding Russia. If the American people are stampeded into a New Cold War based more on myths than reality, the minimal cost could be the trillions of dollars diverted from domestic needs into the Military Industrial Complex. The far-greater cost could be some miscalculation by either side that could end life on the planet.

So, as the Democrats chart their future, they need to decide if they want to leapfrog the Republicans as America’s “war party” or whether they want to pull back from the escalation of tensions with Russia and start addressing the pressing needs of the American people.

Meanwhile, cybersecurity experts continue to throw cold water all over the Russia hacking story that is being swallowed whole by the billionaire-owned mainstream media with little to no skepticism.

In that regard, here are some excerpts from Robert Carr’s must read, FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report: A Fatally Flawed Effort:

The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) “Grizzly Steppe” was released yesterday as part of the White House’s response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process. It adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content of those hacks to Wikileaks.

It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.

Unlike Crowdstrike, ESET doesn’t assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it. It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone. In other words — malware deployed is malware enjoyed!

If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does, that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find and use at will.

If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn’t means either that the evidence doesn’t exist or that it is classified.

If it’s classified, an independent commission should review it because this entire assignment of blame against the Russian government is looking more and more like a domestic political operation run by the White House that relied heavily on questionable intelligence generated by a for-profit cybersecurity firm with a vested interest in selling “attribution-as-a-service”.

While we’re at it, Sharyl Attkisson provided some much…

Continue Reading At: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com