Skip to content


Latest Dark Politricks Articles

Here are the latest essays and articles written by myself for this site. I started this site with my own work and continue to write for it as much as I can. To read all my work check out the My Articles menu link. For other posts and latest news from a wide range of diverse sources please visit the news section.

Finally my electronic voting form for the Labour Leadership election arrives – how to complete it to vote for Jeremy Corbyn

August 24th, 2015
Finally my electronic voting form for the Labour Leadership election arrives - how to complete it to vote for Jeremy Corbyn By Dark Politricks Just like magic, just after I complained to Labour HQ about the lack of a voting form for the Labour leadership despite their taking of my money, the email popped into my inbox. They cannot be so thick to... [read more]

Are you a “Bunny Rabbit”? – “Yes”

August 4th, 2015
Are you a "Bunny Rabbit"? - "Yes" By Dark Politricks The other night I watched Panorama on BBC1. It was about the various torture techniques used by the Americans  during the early years of the "war on terror" on certain "high level detainees" they were holding in places such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. This of... [read more]

Why I want Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader

July 29th, 2015
Why I want Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader By Dark Politricks I watched the BBC debate on the Politics Show between the 4 Labour Leader hopefuls the other week (catch up on BBC iPlayer - This "How To" article might help overseas viewers watch it) - and I seriously hope Jeremy Corbyn wins the election for Labours new leader. The other 3 are just... [read more]

Putin’s aim to wipe out Europe as it learns of UK first strike policy

July 28th, 2015
Putin’s aim to wipe out Europe as it learns of UK first strike policy By Dark Politricks This is based on an old article but it's still very relevant. The reason I am posting is that we used to used Kaspersky Anti Virus Tools at our work, Our old CTO didn't agree with that decision and called it a big back door for Russian Intelligence - he may have... [read more]

Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper would not serve in Jeremy Corbyn shadow cabinet

July 23rd, 2015
Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper would not serve in Jeremy Corbyn shadow cabinet Fellow candidates and Chuka Umunna threaten to refuse Labour frontbench roles, while Andy Burnham says it is more important to avoid ‘factional politics’ Patrick Wintour - Political editor The Guardian I say: So Fucking What! These people are obviously "Tory Lite"... [read more]

Do Like "my articles"?

Then check out the rest. I have written essays on all kinds of topics from Climate Change to 9/11, from Israel to America, from Religion to History and from Internet Surveillence to the rise of the new high tech police state. To see all the articles I have personally written for this site you can visit the Dark Politricks articles section for a full listing.

Your help is required!

The Internet is under attack by big business and big government who are trying to control the flow of information any way they can. Using the threat of Terrorism and Cyber attacks the western world (especially USA/UK/Australian governments) are expanding their power to control internet traffic and recently Google and Verizon signed a deal that will end net neutrality.

What this means is alternative news sites like Dark Politricks and many others will find it harder to bring you the news that the mainstream media wished you didn't know about. This is because they will be either blocked by Chinese style firewalls (as Australia has already introduced) or they will be pushed down the Google rankings by special algorithms that control a sites listing.

Web servers and bandwidth costs money and articles take time to write. Whilst I try to bring you the best of the alternative news every day I have also personally written hundreds of articles for this site and you won't find many one paragraph or half hearted articles with my name at the top of them.

Please donate

Whilst you may not want to donate money to an information clearing house website that collates articles about the war on terror in one place I would like to remind you that:

  • I am asking you to help me continue my OWN writing not the collation of other articles written by others.
  • I have already been kicked off many servers and blogging sites for my own writings due to various reasons.
  • I allow my own work to be re-printed across the web without complaint. Just search Google for Dark Politricks articles that are not on this site to see for yourself. My articles have appeared in many places including Infowars.com, noliesradio.org and Policestate.co.uk and many others besides.

So to help continue my own writing I would appreciate any dontations that you feel appropriate, especially if you like one of my articles or essays. Just think of all the extra articles and links as a collection of related news stories that mean you don't have to visit hundreds of different sites each day to get your news about the world of politricks and the war on terror. All money goes towards hosting my own server (not a shared server) and prevents me having to litter the site with flashing adverts as many others do. I realise people are having a tough time in the current economic climate.

Thanks for your continued support.

Finally my electronic voting form for the Labour Leadership election arrives – how to complete it to vote for Jeremy Corbyn



Finally my electronic voting form for the Labour Leadership election arrives – how to complete it to vote for Jeremy Corbyn

By Dark Politricks

Just like magic, just after I complained to Labour HQ about the lack of a voting form for the Labour leadership despite their taking of my money, the email popped into my inbox. They cannot be so thick to not recognise that it’s theft if they have taken your money from you but don’t give you the chance to vote.

People have been complaining about being purged from being able to vote all week now with the hashtag #LabourPurge, and even Andy Burnham was on TV earlier saying: “We know Tories have signed up so we must stop them being able to vote”.

I have trouble believing any true Tory would spend even £3 when they know it might go to some horrible poor useless eater down the line.

If you have paid £3 to become a registered member to vote in the Labour leader and deputy leader election you will get an email message like the one I did below.

If you haven’t got one yet ensure you confirmed your email when you registered by checking your junk/trash email boxes for the date you registered and confirm it otherwise no emails will be coming your way.

If you did confirm it then contact Labour HQ and complain. A quick search online for #LabourPurge or “How to vote in the Labour leadership contest” will show you who to contact.

Jeremy Corbyn’s website also has details on who to ring and dates you should vote before etc.

Here is the email you SHOULD get if you paid £3 just to vote.

Dear [YOUR NAME],

You can now vote for the next Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

You can vote online and your vote must be received by 12 noon on Thursday 10 September to count.

To vote, go to http://www.labour.org.uk/ballot2015 and enter the following two-part security code to confirm your identity:

Security Code Part One: [NUMERIC CODE e.g 4654645]
Security Code Part Two: [PIN CODE e.g 2f5t]

Once you have entered your security code, the website will give clear instructions on how to cast your vote. It takes just a few moments to cast your vote online, and you can do so at any time until the ballot closes at 12 noon on Thursday 10 September.

Vote Online Now

These elections are being run by Electoral Reform Services, who have been appointed by the Labour Party as the independent scrutineer for this ballot.

If you live in London, as well as voting for Labour’s Leader and Deputy Leader, you can also vote to select Labour’s candidate for London Mayor for the elections being held in May 2016.

On the online voting site, please rank the candidates in your order of preference. You do not need to use all of your preferences, but doing so cannot harm your first-preference candidate. Click here if you want to understand more about the voting system.

Thank you for taking part in these important elections,

The Labour Party
Sent by Electoral Reform Services

Please remember to ensure Labour don’t “FIX THE ELECTION” by shuffling around your 2nd and 3rd preferences to ensure Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t get elected.

To do this you should ONLY vote for Jeremy Corbyn and do NOT give 2nd, 3rd or 4th preferences to the other candidates as it is quite logical that Labour will use this to say the alternative voting system gave more 2nd and 3rd votes to some Tory Lite candidate rather than Jeremy.

Therefore just select his name next to the box marked “1″ under the column “Voting Preference” and leave the others blank.

Remember this is to prevent a Tory Lite Labour MPs getting voted in due to a 2nd / 3rd preference votes scam

Your page should look like this.

How to vote for Jeremy Corbyn
How your web page should look after voting for Jeremy Corbyn

Remember for £3 voters you ONLY vote electronically and online. This is all done on the website > https://secure2.votebyinternet.com

Remember if the website doesn’t have “https” (SSL / Secure HTTP) in front of the domain name OR it’s not even that domain name e.g a spoofed website such as https://votinglabour.electionX2.com or something similar.

Also if the email doesn’t come from the address [email protected] then it could be a fake phising like email to make you think you have voted when you haven’t.

Remember it really is not hard at all to run freely available code to copy a websites HTML – therefore creating a fake website that looks the same as another but does nothing OR something else.

Also it is not hard at all to send emails to people with a fake “From” email address.

Therefore just be sure you are going to the right page / website and not being tricked into wasting your vote etc.

Read why I want Jeremy Corbyn as leader here.

By Dark Politricks

 

© 2015 Dark Politricks

Posted in Dark Politricks Articles, Government, Internet, Letters & Replies, Politics, Public Figures.

Tagged with Economics, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour, Labour Leader, Labour Leadership, Labour Leadership Contest, Labour Party, Left Wing, Privacy, Tories, Tory-Lite, Voting, Voting Preference.


Should Libertarians Vote Republican?



Should Libertarians Vote Republican?

Laurence M. Vance
Lew Rockwell Blog
September 1, 2015

Constitutional conservatives, Reagan Republicans, and other conservative Republicans have no use for libertarians except when it comes time for another election. Then they want the votes of libertarians. Although they shy away from the term libertarian in non-election years, they will describe themselves as libertarian-leaning when they want to sucker libertarians to vote for them on election day.

There are two things that these libertarian-leaning Republicans cant stand. The first is not voting and the second is voting for a third party.

Many libertarians simply dont vote. They know that the system is rigged. They know that you have a greater chance of being killed in a car accident on the way to the polls than of your vote making any difference. They know that there is not a dimes worth of difference between the two major parties. They know that most elections are simply contests between tweedledum and tweedledee, socialist A and national socialist B, or socialist A and fascist B. They know that even though Republicans use libertarian rhetoric, they are welfare/warfare statists just like Democrats. They know that voting for candidate D or R is like voting for Hitler to keep out Stalin or voting for Stalin to keep out Hitler. They know that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. They agree with Noam Chomsky that if voting could actually change anything, it would be illegal, with Mark Twain that if voting made a difference, they wouldnt let us do it, with Charles Bukowski that the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you dont have to waste your time voting, with H. L. Mencken that every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods, and with whoever said that voting just encourages the bastards. They know that only way to vote against crook A and crook B is to not vote. And libertarian Christians know that the Bible says: Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil (Exodus 23:2).

Many libertarians vote for a third party. Obviously, the Libertarian Party is their first choice. However, if no libertarian candidate is running for a particular office, they might vote for another third party, even if they dont agree with its platform, just to send a message to the Democratic and Republican Parties that they despise them. Democrats and Republicans both say that voting for a third party is wasting your vote since a third party has almost no chance of winning. But not only that, Democrats and Republicans both say or imply that you should never vote for a third party because it takes votes away from them. Republicans especially will point to particular elections that they say Republicans would have won if the Libertarian Party candidate had not siphoned off votes from the Republican Party candidate. What they are really saying, of course, is that Republicans would have won these elections if they werent indistinguishable from Democrats.

More than anything else, Republicans want libertarians to vote for them. They know that liberals, Democrats, progressives, and other socialists will never vote Republican. They would rather vote for an Obama or a Hillary than a Republican.

But why should libertarians vote Republican? Yes, it keeps those evil Democrats out of office. But then it just gives us evil Republicans. The Republican Party stands for everything libertarians oppose. Here are twenty-five things off the top of my head:

  1. The Drug War
  2. Gambling laws
  3. Anti-discrimination laws
  4. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System
  5. The ATF and federal gun laws
  6. Cuba sanctions
  7. Indefinite detention at Guantanamo
  8. Torture
  9. Crony capitalism
  10. Militarism
  11. Foreign wars
  12. The welfare state
  13. The warfare state
  14. The police state
  15. The national security state
  16. Food stamps
  17. The CIA, FBI, DIA, DHS, TSA, and NSA
  18. The Earned Income Tax Credit
  19. Foreign aid
  20. The U.S. global empire of troops and bases
  21. Farm subsidies
  22. Social Security
  23. Medicare and Medicaid
  24. The National School Lunch Program
  25. Pell Grants and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

And judging from the reaction of Republicans to the Iran deal, I dont think they would have a problem with killing Persians in Iran.

Are there individual Republicans who oppose some of these things? Certainly. But not many, and only a few things. But what about all the Republican talk about the Constitution, the free market, free enterprise, limited government, smaller government, less regulation, balanced budgets, lower taxes, property rights, and fiscal conservatism? Is it all just lies and hot air? In a word, yes.

Okay, okay, okay, say Republicans, enough already. But you libertarians should at least vote for a Republican for president so he can nominate conservative Supreme Court justices and Republicans in the Senate so they can confirm the nominations.

Is that so? Three of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in my lifetime that didnt turn out how Republicans wanted were:

  • Roe’v. Wade (abortion)
  • National Federation of Independent Business’v. Sebelius (Obamacare)
  • Obergefell’v. Hodges (gay marriage)

The swing vote in all three cases was a Republican appointee: Harry Blackmon, John Roberts, and Anthony Kennedy. And why did only three Republicans in the Senate back in 1993 vote against the confirmation of the most radical leftist on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Libertarians would have to be out of their mind to vote Republican.

Posted in Analysis & Review, Politics, Prison Planet Articles.

Tagged with Cuba, Democrats, DIA, Hitler, Independent Business, Iran, Libertarian Party, Militarism Foreign, Obamacare, Republicans, Senate, Supreme Court.


UNEDITED Planned Parenthood Vid: Doctors Perform Their Own Experiments on Baby Parts



UNEDITED Planned Parenthood Vid: Doctors Perform Their Own Experiments on Baby Parts

Louder With Crowder
September 1, 2015

What horrors well hear about Planned Parenthood next?

The depth of their depravity seems endless, to which the left always replies BUT, BUT the videos are heavily edited! Like somehow shipping whole babys heads in context somehow sounds better. Sure. Right.

Well, heres an unedited video that is just as reprehensible as all the others. It might not be as exciting but it continues to illustrate the horrors of Planned Parenthood. Take the time to watch it the lives of the unborn lay heavily on the heads of those who sit back and do nothing.

Not only does the video make it clear that Planned Parenthood is selling intact specimens and changing their procedure to acquire the specimens, but they are doing their own research as well. Calling Dr. Mengela?

Because some of our doctors in the past had projects and theyre collected the specimens so they do it a way that they get the best specimens.

Its almost unbelievable, like some dark sci-fi horror movie, where sick doctors are conducting experiments on babies. Only the movie would never be made, people wouldnt stand to see it. This is no fictional tale of human depravity. This is real life. Planned Parenthood needs to be shut down. Like now. If youre not sick by this point, then you are a sick person yourself. Yes, I said it.

Also shown in the video is that Planned Parenthood fudges its books to hide profits. Because they definitely, without a doubt, know profiting from baby parts is against the law.

And there are still people out there who defend Planned Parenthood. Because choice.

God help America.

Posted in Analysis & Review, Health Care, Prison Planet Articles, Television Video & Film.

Tagged with America, Planned Parenthood.


More Clinton Emails Deemed Classified



More Clinton Emails Deemed Classified

Brian Lilley
Truth Revolt
September 1, 2015

If it it wasn’t classified, now it is…..the questions around Hillary Clinton’s emails, sent through a “home brew” email server while she served as Secretary of State, continue.

The Daily Mail reports that Clinton’s former department is set to release a new batch of emails on Monday night, some of which have now been deemed classified:

The State Department said Monday afternoon that when it releases the latest tranche of Hillary Clinton’s emails tonight, ‘somewhere around 150′ of them will have been ‘upgraded to classified’ status.

The emails are expected to be released late Monday. Spokesman for the department Mark Toner briefed reporters in Washington earlier in the day:

Under intense questioning, Toner conceded that the review of about 7,000 pages of emails in the latest batch has uncovered the 150 communications ‘that have been subsequently upgraded classified.’

He emphasized that ‘the information we’ve upgraded was not marked classified at the time the emails were sent.’ But Toner seemed to hedge his bets against future decision-making inside the U.S. Intelligence Community.

‘That’s our estimation right now,’ said Toner.

Clinton has admitted that using a private email account for official government business was not the best choice but maintains it was not only legal but within departmental guidelines. That statement is up for debate and central to the three investigations that are ongoing into her communications while acting as America’s top diplomat. Several media reports have said Clinton not only sent classified but also top secret signals intelligence information across her personal account which was run from her home and routed through a company that kept its servers in a bathroom closet of an apartment in Colorado.

Meanwhile Clinton continues to claim that she never sent any classified information across the private server.

Posted in Analysis & Review, Prison Planet Articles.

Tagged with classified, Clinton, Colorado, emails, Intelligence Community, Mark Toner, State, Washington.


Mom, Is it War Yet?



Mom, Is it War Yet?

dissidentvoice.org
By T.P. Wilkinson

For me 2015 began with a suicide. I was on my way to Berlin with an early train just after midnight on 1 January. About 8 am our connecting train from Hamburg stopped approximately 25 kilometres down the line because someone had apparently gotten up early that morning and travelled to a point in the middle of nowhere to jump in front of it. Since our train was approximately 45 minutes late, this person not only had to contemplate his way to the tracks but wait perhaps impatiently for the wheeled engine of his demise to do its work.

Later, in June of this year persistent analyst and critic of US Empire, William (Bill) Blum wrote to his subscribers that he was taking a break from the Anti-Empire Report. Age and health were certainly relevant but Blum also wrote that he was:

Burnt out: After more than a dozen years of putting out the report, because US foreign policy keeps repeating itself, with the same lies, I too often find myself repeating the same ideas I’ve expressed before, often in more or less the same words.

I also feel the effect of day after day, year after year, intensively reading and seeing images of the human horrors; not just the horrors, but also the lies and the stupidity.

A month ago I learned quite by accident that one of the most precious people in my youth had already been dead three years. She had just turned 59. We had had no contact for thirty years. A year before she died I had managed to find her but the contact could not be restored before her death.

Yesterday I learned of another suicide, a former colleague from a place where I too had tried to teach in the autumn term of 2014.

All of these incidents though unrelated amplified my examination of present conditions. Those who retain some residual memory will recall that 2008, the year in which the first non-white male was appointed to the Presidency of the United States, was also the official start of what has been euphemistically called a financial crisis or the sub-prime crisis. The immediate publicly visible consequence of this was that the representatives of Goldman Sachs (both in and out of government) agreed together with the rest of the Anglo-American banking and insurance cartel to demand and receive trillions of dollars from the US government by consensus of the outgoing POTUS and the incoming mystery brand OBAMA. Since then the US regime has overthrown governments in Honduras, Libya, Egypt, and Ukraine while escalating hostilities against Syria, Russia, China and PDR Korea at least those are the obvious actions. The covert action against Venezuela and to suppress any nationalist tendencies in the Western Hemisphere continues unabated despite the distraction of overtures to the Republic of Cuba.

The situation among the European vassal states, led by Germany, has been no cause for optimism. Since 1989, Deutsche Bank has adopted the role of the Teutonic Knights by promoting the re-colonisation of Eastern Europe up to the Russian border. It is certainly no accident that the bank reputedly has the worlds largest derivative book. (A thousand years ago it would have been trading in papal indulgences.) Derivative contracts have certainly been one of the most lucrative instruments for plunder invented since the Crusades. Having returned Prussia and the Baltic to the control of the German financial elite, one could be forgiven for another moment of nostalgia.

Although the names and faces change, one of the characteristics of a class, or a ruling caste, is the manner in which it perpetuates its worldview from generation to generation. A century ago world war began ostensibly in the Balkans with the assassination of the heir-apparent to the Austro-Hungarian imperial throne. The schoolbook version of this story has been told often enough (e.g. see The Sleepwalkers, also reviewed by this author). However, the significant factors which made the subsequent four years of slaughter attractive included the consideration of Germanys elite that the only way to compete with the British Empire was to circumvent the Suez Canal by land. That meant a rail link. The best possible route for a link between Germany and the Indian Ocean was through the Balkans. The Great War put an end to this ambition and to this day the Berlin-Baghdad line only extends between Turkey and Iraq.

Fast-forward to 1989, the re-absorption of the East Elbian provinces into an enlarged German State seems inevitable. (To remove any doubts the US regime sends its veteran putsch-master Vernon Walters as ambassador to Bonn.) The liquidation of the GDR opens opportunities for the German steel and mining industries to make a significant European acquisition Yugoslavia. Drawing on old comrades in Croatia, the German foreign minister gives Belgrade a yellow card, recognising the independence of Croatia under veteran fascist Tudjman. Having ratified the dismantling of the Yugoslav Federation, the red card comes when the US and UK regimes begin to bomb Serbia. By the time Phoenix veteran Richard Holbrooke arrives to pacify Yugoslavia most of its infrastructure has been destroyed by NATO bombing and the civil war incited by Germanys yellow card. Holbrooke, who has been neutralising opponents of the US regime since his youth in the Mekong delta, helped eliminate Serbias political leadership (probably in Holbrookes terms, the Yugoslav/Serbian infrastructure ) and prepared the foundation for the US regimes central contraband distribution point in Kosovo. Of course, Camp Bondsteel also serves to control the Balkan route between Central Asia and Europe. Germany regained its privileged access to the Balkans but the interface with the Middle East is in US hands.

For the past months Europeans, especially Germans, have been obsessed with the situation just past the Balkans in Greece. Ostensibly the Greek government has qualified as a failed state within Europe itself. According to the various official stories Greece is a country maintained in luxury at EU (mainly German) expense. It entered the Euro Zone using fraudulent data in order to profit from the enormous largesse that the authorities in Brussels distribute to any country that requests it. Greeks were tricky (remember the Trojan War) and the bureaucrats in Brussels were gullible. Now that the European Central Bank and the largely German (Deutsche Bank) lenders have found hollow horses parked illegally in the rue de la Loi and the Sonnemann Strasse, they are all shocked.1 The official story of Greeces economic misery compares with the US regimes Iraq War pretext for sheer mendacity.

In fact, the entire Euro narrative is largely fraudulent like the conditions under which hands are violently wrung in Frankfurt, Brussels, London, and elsewhere. If there were any reason to doubt that the Media is little more than a mouthpiece for the financial oligarchy, then the fanaticism with which virtually all of them condemn Greeks and Russians ought to suffice.

For those who have forgotten, prior to the formal introduction of the Euro all EU members had to submit to the Commission extensive expert opinions inter alia as to their inflation rate, level of public debt, budget deficits, and exchange rate stability within Europe. Never mind for the moment why and for whom these criteria were adopted. These opinions were all prepared by private companies, especially investment banks and audit firms. In other words, every European government issued a call for tenders and awarded a firm or firms the contract to prepare the extensive documentation to be submitted to the European Commission (e.g. to Eurostat) for review and approval.2 There are two things to be considered immediately in this process, which apply to all such contracts: First is the fiction of objectivity in the private auditing firm. Second is the fiction of independence in the state or European bureaucracy. The same, it must be added, applies to the US regimes rating agencies.

Once it had been decided that there would be a Euro Zone, it would have been politically impossible for any audit firm or investment bank to render an opinion that the regime signing the accession instrument was incapable of membership in the monetary union. Secondly, the decision in Brussels to accept any regimes claims for eligibility is equally political. By that I mean an economic rationale is nothing more than an excuse for a decision that has already been made. It is a truism of big business practice that when management calls in a consultant; e.g., McKinsey, it is simply hiring a hit man. Since the Washington Consensus3 to which Europes elite also subscribes means that political and economic decisions are made solely according to the criteria adopted by the Business elite, no one should be surprised at the prevailing decision-making processes.

Part of those processes is the Old Boy system. In Britain this means the network of alumni, so-called old boys , from the major independent schools, especially the historic public schools like Eton and Harrow. In the business professions, especially law, accounting, banking, and consulting, this means the alumni of the great firms who subsequently occupy senior posts in corporations or government. These informal networks provide incentives and rewards among brothers and very occasionally sisters as they climb the spiral staircases of their careers. The corporate old boy system operates parallel to the hereditary power elite although there is often enough a personal union between members of one system and the other.

Take someone like Mario Draghi, educated by Jesuits, he was then sent to one of the US regimes equivalence of a pontifical seminary to be taught capitalist theology (aka economics) by inter alia one of its cardinal-deacons, Paul Samuelson. Whereupon he then spends time as a missionary at various university faculties in Italy, being elevated to a prefecture in the World Bank in 1984. Then he became general-director of the Italian finance ministry. In 2002, he joined Goldman Sachs (GS). In 2006 he became governor of the Banca’dItalia (Draghis father had also been a high-ranking official in the Italian central bank.) In this capacity he also joined the board of the (privately held) Bank for International Settlements. Since 2011, the GS alumnus has been president of the European Central Bank. In other words we have in Mario Draghi not only a consummate insider , but also a Goldman Sachs old boy. When Draghi became head of the Italian central bank he sold his shares in Goldman Sachs. Thus he formally had no interest conflict were Blankfeins locusts to swarm over Italy or anywhere else in Europe. The disposal of shares only avoids a formal conflict of interest. In fact, conflict of interest is a misnomer: the entire central banking system is managed by professional bankers and the capitalist clergy (economists) who attend the same schools, universities and work for the same firms in the private sector when they are not being paid directly by the State. This is more so in Britain and the US where the central banks have been privately owned and/or managed entities operating under legislative protection/monopoly.4

Return Now to Greece

The Greece we think we know except perhaps if one has spent some vacation days there– is a mythical country in Europe, a mythical continent that is actually a peninsula of the Eurasian land mass comparable to India with a fraction of the population. At the beginning of European colonial expansion, Greece was proclaimed to be the cradle of European culture. 18th and 19th century scholars located mainly at the British universities of Oxford and Cambridge and Gottingen began promoting Greece as the birthplace of the European races and the fountain of its cultural institutions.5 Perhaps it was this imagined Greece that Byron felt compelled to die defending. In 1832, however, the Hellenic Republic was dissolved and the German Wittelsbach dynasty supplied the royal house. Otto I remained king of Greece until overthrown in 1862. At this point the forefathers of the British Prince-Consort were offered the Greek crown, which they declined in favour of the Danish branch of the family. The country touted as the cradle of democracy has seen precious little of it in the past. Thanks to the so-called Truman Doctrine even the defeat of Nazism did not deliver anything resembling popular or representative democracy for another thirty years.

After combined US and UK forces defeated the Greek anti-fascists, destroying much of the country and killing thousands in the resulting civil war, Greece, together with Turkey, were sucked into the NATO vortex (1952). This helped the Greek regime to top the league tables in European military expenditure as a proportion of GDP but somehow could not prevent it from warring with Turkey over the island of Cyprus.6 As in other European dictatorships belonging to NATO, Anglo-American imperial interests have not only taken precedence over local popular will they have also assured that military budgets remain sacrosanct even after those dictatorships yielded to parliamentary government.

It is within this context that Greek fiscal policy has to be understood. No military budget can ever be financed without either a repressive tax system or a thoroughly corrupt state bureaucracy. Corrupt means that the inherently corrupt system of military appropriations and expenditure has to be controlled by those who dominate the global weapons market: international weapons manufacturers and banks.

Just as there is some truth to the story that democracy has an ancient tradition in Greece, it was the same kind of democracy naively espoused as Jeffersonian in the US namely, rule by a small, collegial elite over a disenfranchised slave majority. (It is therefore no accident that the US slavocracy has always loved the clich’s of Greek architecture and elite leisure.) However, that democracy is a sentimentality promoted by the massive ideological structure created in the 18th century and maintained to this day. It only makes sense if the entire world is seen as an economy in the microeconomic sense of dominated by private firms. Democratic governance means in effect the shareholder control based on votes proportional to ownership of private property.

In 1981 the people of Greece were again permitted to elect a parliamentary government. However, this did not end the indebtedness incurred by over thirty years of military domination, not to mention the debt forced upon Greece under Nazi occupation (money extorted by Germany). It did not end the de facto privilege of the military-industrial-banking complex in Greece which even when the most recent debt crisis arose was able to force the purchase of two German submarines.

Under these third world conditions, Greece was admitted to the EU and then into the Euro Zone. Only wilful ignorance and/or deceit could have persuaded the officials in Brussels that Greece met the financial and fiscal criteria for admission to the Euro Zone corrupt reporting to corrupt Eurostat notwithstanding.

The Greece we have to examine to make any sense out of the events since 2008 is a third world country whose link to Europe was established for racial and military reasons and whose economy has been deliberately structured as a tax haven and money-laundering outpost within the EU. What is labelled casually corruption is nothing more or less than the outward and visible form of the covert financial operations found in Luxemburg, Belgium, Netherlands and Great Britain. By default it has become Germanys largest offshore business location. All of this has little to do with the Greek working class or its rank and file civil servants (e.g. teachers, health and municipal workers). In short, the word “corruption” can only refer to damage to something healthy. There is nothing healthy in capitalism and nothing healthy in the places where this religion is most fanatically practiced.

So what is the real story about Greece the one not discussed by anyone beyond the lunatic fringe?

To understand this story we have to return to the real purpose of the European Community/Union, the imperial objectives of Christendom now ruled from the US and the competing and complementary interests of Germany.

Winston Churchill in his infamous Iron Curtain speech (May 1946) helped cement the great lie that the concessions made to the Soviet Union at Yalta regarding Eastern Europe and reparations (omitted) were, in fact, a Soviet invasion of Europe that had to be reversed. In 1948 the core of the Western European Union was formed. This was designed to bind all the newly liberated Western European countries into an anti-Soviet alliance. At that time Germany was excluded. Then the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington, created NATO. In 1950 Konrad Adenauer used parliamentary tricks to force unpopular rearmament of West Germany. Then US invasion of Korea in 1950 offered the FRG the chance for profit from enormous procurement contracts and to join NATO five years later. It could then participate in the pan-European arms industry again.

However, soon after the war had ended it became clear that control over European militaries meant control over their economies too. Hence the European Recovery Program (aka Marshall Plan), a business-based bureaucratic instrument, was formed to restructure Europes economy, first by reorganising its heavy industry.7 This led to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952. By placing European industrial cartels under a central bureaucratic umbrella, capacity was created for a trickle down effect. US occupation of Western Germany gave its corporations carte blanche to buy into those cartels and controlled corporations using cash funnelled through the Marshall Plan.8 NATO was created in 1949. Subsequently Adenauer proclaimed the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany in the US-controlled Western zone, provoking the creation of the German Democratic Republic in the Soviet occupied zone. All this made economic cooperation and reparations agreements with the Soviet Union a dead letter.

The war against Korea and former Nazi bureaucrat Ludwig Erhards recovery of masses of German capital secretly exported; e.g., to South America, in 1944 helped jump start the 60% of German industrial capacity untouched by Allied bombing. The economic miracle like the miracles of medieval Catholicism was no miracle at all. West Germany was rebuilt with massive war contracts and suppression of domestic consumption culminating in the currency reform that introduced the holy D-mark. On the one hand the FRG remained occupied by US Forces until 1989, protecting it from political and economic threats (foreign or domestic). On the other hand the recovery of the links to the Anglo-American elite including those who had supported it covertly throughout the war placed it in a unique position within Europe. This was aided by cancellation of much of German debt and persuading other countries; e.g., Greece, to forego repayment of millions extorted by the NS regime.

Just following the story this far indicates that the outrage in Germany over Greek debt is rooted in ignorance among the population and mendacity on the part of its political cadre. The German miracle was no more real than were all those crying virgins used to cheat the people ruled by the medieval Church. During the Middle Ages refusal to believe in the teachings of the Church not the teachings of Christ, whatever they may have been meant excommunication. After a year of unrepentant excommunication the Holy Inquisition was entitled to seize the faithless and burn him or her alive. Wolfgang Sch uble, Germanys finance minister, is just one of American Capitalisms grand inquisitors, his German Protestant upbringing notwithstanding.

Medieval Europe was dominated by the Roman Catholic Church properly speaking by the Roman papacy. The foundation of Christendom can be dated from the Edict of Milan (313). This established Christianity as a tolerated religion within the empire ruled by Constantine. It is therefore alleged in Catholic history that Constantine essentially granted the emergent Christian church the status of state religion, with the result that just like all German civil servants had to satisfy Nazi qualifications (including race/religion) after 1933, the Roman bureaucracy became Christianised. The Christianisation of the Roman Empire is presented by the Church as a virtue because Christianity is supposed to be virtuous. However, the more striking process was not the adoption of Christian virtue but the creation of a bureaucracy governed by a central ideology, not just military or civil rule but political-psychological control.

The Christianisation of the Roman bureaucracy did not make it virtuous. It enhanced its control by the introduction of a psychic technology which was then developed to wage political warfare throughout Europe on behalf of the bureaucratic centre Rome and its autocratic head the Roman pontiff.

Of course, Christianity existed and was preached in a variety of forms throughout the Mediterranean and the European peninsula. Any attempt to examine these or even trace the extent of Christian mission would certainly lead to challenges to my argument here but they are. in fact, beside the point. The issue here is the combination of bureaucracy and totalitarian ideology. For decades from 1917 until 1989 to be exact we have had to endure all sorts of nonsensical arguments about the Soviet Union and communism most of which can be boiled down to the assertion that communism is a system of bureaucratic dictatorship. Without even beginning to test whether there is any accuracy (let alone truth) in this statement, it is clear that Roman Catholicism began in the 11th century to become a system of bureaucratic dictatorship and tyranny run from Rome, where a dictator (pope) was elected by an oligarchy (college of cardinals) that was self-perpetuating. The principal instrument of papal control became the Holy Office the Inquisition.9

The common understanding of the Inquisition was that it was formed to enforce doctrinal conformity within Catholic Europe. However, it was really formed for two quite mundane reasons: to eliminate challenges to papal supremacy and to enrich the Church, especially the papacy. Its targets were never anyone corrupt, criminal, or violent whether lay or clerical. In fact, the only time a common criminal was pursued by the Inquisition was if he claimed a doctrinal authority for his crime or his wealth posed an attractive target for Church avarice. The details of the Inquisitions work for the consolidation of the papacy and capital accumulation requires more detail than can be presented here. The point is that beginning with the crusades against the Albigensians and Waldensians, the Inquisition was launched not because these Christians were not Catholic or not loyal to the pope. Quite the contrary their loyalty was acknowledged by Rome. The reason they were targeted for extermination is that they insisted on purging their clergy of those who comprised or participated in the infamously corrupt Roman bureaucracy of which the pope was the head. Since the pope could not and would not police and punish the massive abuse in the system, these two groups acted to purify the local church. Essentially the pope declared them to be a good example. However, he also saw that if he allowed the masses of Christians to purge the Roman bureaucracy, he would lose his power base. What we like to call corruption is actually the adhesive that maintains bureaucratic power. On one hand calling it corruption makes it sound like an exception while exercising this power within the bureaucracy gives it the colour of order, makes it seem rational.

Since the Reformation is always described as an attempt to purify the Church, sometimes by creating alternative ecclesiastical structures, too little attention is paid to the actual ideological-institutional processes themselves.

Two well-known studies have attempted to explain the emergence of capitalism under Protestant regimes.10 However, both works tend to concentrate on ethical individualism and the ideological transfer of specific Christian doctrines into the economic sphere. A body of literature has also been produced which shows the conflicts between capitalism and Christianity. Yet the Church itself is rarely viewed as an economic enterprise. I believe this is because of the reluctance to contemplate the idea that something so obvious in the USA churches that are explicitly businesses is actually the essential rather than peripheral attribute of Christendom. In fact, the reverse is also true: Business is a church. This refusal leads us to an even graver failure: the inability to recognise capitalism as a religion and economics as its theology. Both Weber and Tawney recognise the transfer from religion to capitalism. However, neither can go so far as to suggest that this was not secularisation of religion but a bureaucratic-ideological transformation of human productive relations.

This, of course, is why Marx used the word fetish so often in Capital.11 Marx was not referring to archaic traits in the sense Veblen described.12 He meant literally that the system of capitalism itself is a religious system with a bureaucratic ideology he called political economy. When Marx describes the Tudor expropriation of the monasteries he was illustrating essentially a bureaucratic struggle in which relatively minor doctrinal points were applied to defend the establishment of a kind of counter-papacy in Britain. This kind of struggle was fought between the French papacy in Avignon and the Roman papacy. On the continent, and with the help of the Inquisition, the Roman pontiff ultimately prevailed.

The Reformation is incomplete without the Counter-Reformation. Probably the most central achievement of this conflict was to suppress popular movements throughout Europe until the French Revolution. Between the Council of Trent and the Peace of Westphalia, the Roman hierarchy battled against elites concentrated in Northern Europe that were challenging the economic and political domination and exploitation by the Catholic elite Spain, Portugal, France, and the Papacy.

One of Luthers 95 Theses was a condemnation of indulgences. Luther condemned indulgences because he asserted that salvation was based on faith alone not good works. This sounds like a highly moral statement that would appeal even to most Catholics today. In fact, Luther was attacking mercantile instruments that today would be called derivatives. The trade in relics and indulgences, both real and fraudulent , was a major financing tool for the papacy and its massive bureaucracy. Notional absolution and commuted penance were packaged in documentary debt instruments just like CDOs. The sale of an indulgence, like the sale of a CDO or a swap or any of the other devices invented by banks like GS, promised a future reward based on a risk that could be hedged by payment of a premium and/or fees.

In the religion of capitalism, wealth and salvation are virtually identical. In medieval Europe, anyone who was not obviously wealthy needed at least salvation. Since the rich are generally only more psychopathic than the rest of us, many also hedged their wealth with indulgences. This created a serious debt problem in Europe quite aside from any doctrinal differences. Cancelling indulgences was not just an issue of faith. It was an issue of money and wealth. The Roman Church may have proclaimed that Christ left it infinite treasure from which it could underwrite endless indulgences but that notional treasure was not going to pay the bills of the papacy and clergy.13

Just as the Inquisition was introduced to crush the opposition to papal supremacy and the enrichment of the Roman bureaucracy in other words the business of Roman Catholicism it was enhanced in the Reformation. In the first phase, until approximately 1300, the Church was clearing Europe of any alternative Christian structures by means of open warfare. The pope did his best to recruit ambitious, pious, and greedy princes to invade the territories inhabited by heretics and subdue them militarily. This drove dissenters underground. However, it also met with resistance from princes unwilling to lose their sovereignty to those willing to work for the pope. Since outright military conquest became more difficult and expensive, the mendicant orders appeared to offer an efficient alternative. Yet their preaching was not enough. The pope needed hearts and minds. This led to the establishment of the Inquisition. To use a contemporary analogy, USIA and USAID ran civic action programmes in Vietnam, while the CIA tested various approaches for neutralising opposition; e.g., people who considered themselves Vietnamese but not South Vietnamese. The result was what became known as the Phoenix Program. This has been called a highly bureaucratised system for neutralising those who cannot be integrated into the regimes scope of control.14 In medieval Europe the Franciscans and Dominicans divided their activity between propaganda (preaching) and terror (the arrest, torture and execution of heretics). Eventually these programs became unified in the Holy Office: it basically fulfilled the same functions as the CIA, especially once the Phoenix Program had been developed.15

If we take this comparison seriously, then it is necessary to give even more weight to Philip Agees description of the CIA as capitalisms invisible army remembering too that Agee was raised and educated in Catholic institutions. Like the medieval Dominicans and Franciscans and later the Jesuits, they are sworn defenders of the faith in the service of the pontificate on the Potomac.

I began here with some events that disturbed me. They all seem at first unrelated. In fact, I do not allege any causal connection or coincidence. There are a number of theories of how change occurs in the world especially how change in the way we think about the world occurs. The notion of paradigm shift became popular in the past few decades. Until Thomas Kuhns book became a standard in the theory of knowledge, the argument I learned at school prevailed: namely, people experimented and tested until they found a test, which explained all the data they could not explain.16 Progress meant just better, more comprehensive tests. By the time I had reached university some, if not all, professors were saying that when a critical mass (who defines that?) find that there is no more to be said within a given framework paradigm then they change paradigms and start asking different questions. This sounds a lot like the sarcasm dont go away angry, just go away. Scientists cease being disappointed and simply ignore the question going away to another one (e.g. where there is more research money). People do not disprove facts; they just ignore them and look at other things. Knowledge does not speak for itself.

I was even more disturbed by two debates that continue incessantly in nearly every venue in which I occasion to listen or read: is there a new cold war? and are we on the brink of another world war? A century ago the Great War had already started. I wondered when and how did the people living at that time by that I mean those who were not making the decisions that led to and perpetuated the war or for whose benefit it was waged realise that their world was at war. Did they have to be told? Could they feel it? Was it necessary for a private in the trenches to catch a whiff of phosgene or see his mates decimated by machine gun fire to know that the battlefield he entered in 1914 15 was quite unlike anything he or his forefathers had even known? If he was an illiterate factory worker in Britain or functionally literate French peasant or a technically educated German craftsman, when did he know that the world was at war?

When I began to merely count the events of the past years, especially from 2013, I do not doubt that the world is at war in a way that appears to defy the language of those who feel it their profession to tell us what we ought to see and feel. Of course, I could begin counting in 1989 but I already have too many pupils and students who were not even born then. So because I wish to speak in terms that reach the living, I restrict my observations to the increasingly dense and anaerobic atmosphere filling my lungs too. Perhaps this gasping for air, reminiscent of a near-drowning experience in my childhood, signals to me that under water our sense of distance, of what is close and what is far, of safety and danger are distorted. Still we have to try to grasp what we can see even if its value is not yet clear if we are to recover both light and air.

  1. Rue de la Loi is the address of the European Commission in Brussels. Sonnemann Strasse is the address of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. []
  2. Should one be inclined to trust this agency charged with statistical integrity (perhaps a contradiction in terms) one might recall that about the same time as Greece was being reviewed for admission to the monetary union Eurostat was the focus of corruption scandal. []
  3. Washington Consensus is the name given to the grand strategy of economic warfare launched by the US in 1989. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and COMECON, the last ideological and political barriers to rollback were removed. On one hand NATO expansion removed the last military barriers to US global domination. On the other hand, the Institute for International Economics (founded in 1981 under Reagans pontificate), part of the vast US national security apparatus, launched a ten-point programme for political warfare to be managed by the international and multilateral banking institutions. []
  4. The Aldrich Plan, upon which the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was based, was written by the representatives of J P Morgan banks and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. J P Morgan Chase is now one of the largest banks in the world. The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946 but interestingly enough it is assigned to the Treasury Solicitor (Government Legal Department) and not to the Exchequer (UK finance ministry). Both institutions were constituted in contrast to continental central banks to operate directly in the interest of private banking rather than indirectly through government control (especially democratically exercised). []
  5. See Martin Bernal, Black Athena (1987). Bernal argues, for example, that the new discipline of Classics, which became the core curriculum of the British ancient universities and hence also the central doctrinal foundation for Britains imperial civil service was motivated more by the necessity of a European identity distinct from the non-white (African) culture of the Mediterranean than by any genuine appreciation of Greek subculture. Although Bernal criticised Edward Saids Orientalism thesis, both scholars demonstrated the imperative within the imperial elites of France and Great Britain to create what has become a massive ideological structure for developing and maintaining the doctrine of European distinctiveness and superiority that prevails today throughout the West. []
  6. Cyprus has been a strategic base for Christian control of the Eastern Mediterranean since the Crusades. It had been under from British rule from 1898 until 1960, although Britain retains two sovereign bases (like Gibraltar) on the island. []
  7. This bureaucratic instrument survives today in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). []
  8. It must be remembered that Standard Oil, Ford, GM/DuPont already had substantial interests in the main German cartels throughout WWII. The Marshall Plan which comprised loans mainly opened the rest of the economy to the major US banks, especially the consumer goods sector. []
  9. See inter alia Henry C. Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (1888) and Alexandre Herculano, Historia da Origem’e Estabelecimento da Inquisacao em Portugal (1852), translated by John C. Branner (1926). []
  10. Max Weber, Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) (1904) and R H Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926). []
  11. Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 32d ed. (1988) Der Fetischcharakter der Ware und sein Geheimnis. The term in English commodity fetishism is found frequently in the primary and secondary literature. []
  12. Thorstein Veblen, Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). []
  13. Henry C. Lea, A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church (1896), three volumes []
  14. For more extensive discussion of the Phoenix Program see Douglas Valentine, The Phoenix Program, also reviewed by this author and further articles on the US war against Vietnam… []
  15. The Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei was originally founded as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition. At the beginning of the Pope John Paul II reign, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was appointed prefect of the Inquisition, an office he held until that popes death. He was not the first head of the Inquisition to be elected pope. While in office Ratzinger presided over the purging of various forms of liberation theology from the Church, ordering Catholic clergy to withhold their support of revolutionary governments in Latin America while ignoring the assassination even of a Catholic bishop by state-run death squads. Ratzinger proved that the Roman Inquisition was still capable of disciplining any interference in the business. When Ratzinger was elevated to the papacy he appointed a US cardinal to the office. []
  16. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). []

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket in Heinrich Heine’s birthplace, D sseldorf. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa (Maisonneuve Press, 2003). Read other articles by T.P..

View the original article at dissidentvoice.org

Posted in Analysis & Review, Business, conspiracy, European Union, Finance & Economics, Middle East, Politics, Religion, Russia.

Tagged with Brussels, Christianity, European Central Bank, Great Britain, Greece, Latin Church, Leisure Class, NATO, Scientific Revolutions, South Africa, Washington Consensus3, West Germany.


Republicans Candidates Bashing Obama Over Iran Forget Bush’s Role



Republicans Candidates Bashing Obama Over Iran Forget Bush’s Role

Antiwar.com
Ivan Eland

Rather than a contest between two or three viable candidates, U.S. presidential elections have historically been a referendum on the administration holding power. With at least some awareness of this fact, Republican candidates are busy criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy and desperately trying to link Hillary Clinton, his former Secretary of State and still the most likely Democratic nominee, to it (for example, beating the inconsequential Benghazi incident to death). Obama can be faulted for many bad policies domestically for example, increased government intrusion into the health care market, a massive pork barrel "stimulus" program, and socialization of some of the big American car companies and an unneeded war to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi that has brought chaos and terrorism to that country and destabilized surrounding nations. However, Obama cannot be blamed for the rise of Iran in the Persian Gulf region and the heretofore acceleration of its nuclear weapons program.

The fifth anniversary of Obama declaring that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq had ended should make us rewind even farther back to George W. Bush’s invasion of that country, which aggravated both of these major problems with Iran. Before this invasion, Lt. Gen. William Odom (Ret.), the general that was Ronald Reagan’s blunt-talking chief of the National Security Agency, was one of the few military men to oppose what turned out to be a predictable disaster. Although many military men are well versed military operations and tactics, fewer do strategy well the late Odom was one of them. Even in the hysteria after 9/11 that led to the invasion of Iraq, Odom courageously objected to that invasion for the same reason that he had opposed the Vietnam War: such a war would help the main American adversary. In the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union, and in the Persian Gulf, it was Iran. Odom’s reluctance to fight these questionable conflicts shows that all wars are not patriotic or even smart. Odom couldn’t have been more prescient about either conflict.

And although the number of public voices objecting to Bush’s military adventure were few, many experts in the region certainly raised their eyebrows about Bush’s plan to democratize Iraq using military power and then use the example to create a domino effect in the Middle East. Iraq was probably one of the least likely candidates for democracy in the Middle East because of its historically ruthless political culture and because, as prior and subsequent events demonstrated, it is an artificial country with severe ethno-sectarian cleavages. Even when the president’s own intelligence community blew another one of Bush’s justifications for the alleged preventive military action by concluding that even if Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his chemical and biological weapons no one believed he had nuclear weapons, the only true weapon of mass destruction he was not likely to use them unless backed into a corner (read: by a U.S. invasion). The last rationale for the war was that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden and the other perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in al Qaeda, which was preposterous dissembling. And so Bush foolishly marched to war.

A war conducted for no good reason and with little thought to the predictable and adverse unintended strategic consequences fulfilled Odom’s prediction of a resurgent, yet uneasy, Iran. In the Persian Gulf, overthrowing Saddam in Iraq removed the major counterbalance to the much larger and more populous Iran. Also, Bush’s lack of respect for non-nuclear Iraq made Iran accelerate its nuclear program to keep the same thing from happening to it. Obama, with a nuclear agreement containing a good inspection regime for enforcement has now put that nuclear program in the deep freeze for at least 10 to 15 years. Even though Congress’ rejection of the agreement likely would make Iran race toward getting a bomb as the international sanctions regime fell apart, Israel and some of Iran’s other enemies, supporting such a rejection, apparently aren’t worried as much about an Iranian nuclear weapon as they are Iran’s rise as a powerful regional adversary. A nixing of the agreement might result in the United States eventually bombing Iran, which would weaken their main regional adversary.

The Republicans complain about Obama not doing enough to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb nor enough to blunt Iran’s increasing regional influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, yet one of their own George W. Bush had a big hand in aggravating these problems in the first place. On the campaign trail, Republican candidate Jeb Bush recently became red-faced and flummoxed when a college student reminded him that ISIS originated as a derivative from opposition to his brother’s invasion of Iraq. Yet another unintended consequence of that same fiasco, however, is the rise of Iran and the acceleration of its nuclear program, which the Democrats should mention to the Republicans. But Hillary Clinton may not be the best candidate to do so, because while she was in the Senate, she gleefully supported Bush’s idiotic war of aggression.

Read the original article at Antiwar.com

Posted in Analysis & Review, Middle East, Politics, Public Figures, War on terror.

Tagged with Hillary Clinton, Iran, Iraq, Jeb Bush, Middle East, Muammar Gaddafi, National Security Agency, Obama, Persian Gulf, power, United States, Vietnam War.




css.php