Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Paul Craig Roberts

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    9 Minutes Ago @ 08:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    582
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    608
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    762
    Thanked in
    390 Posts

    Paul Craig Roberts



    Erasing History, Diplomacy, Truth, and Life on Earth



    One of the reasons that countries fail is that collective memory is continually destroyed as older generations pass away and are replaced by new ones who are disconnected from what came before.

    Initially, the disconnect was handled by history and by discussions around family tables. For example, when I was a kid there were still grandparents whose fathers had fought for the Confederacy. They had no slaves and owned no plantations. They fought because their land was invaded by Lincoln’s armies. Today if Southern families still know the facts, they would protect their children by not telling them. Can you imagine what would happen to a child in a public school that took this position?

    Frustrated by the inability of the Union Army to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia led by West Point graduate Robert E. Lee, Lincoln resorted to war criminals. Generals Sherman and Sherridan, operating under the drunken General Grant, were the first modern war criminals who conducted war against civilian women and children, their homes and food supply. Lincoln was so out of step with common morality that he had to arrest and detain 300 Northern newspaper editors and exile a US Congressman in order to conduct his War for Empire.

    Today this history is largely erased. The court historians buried the truth with the fable that Lincoln went to war to free the slaves. This ignorant nonsense is today the official history of the “civil war,” which most certainly was not a civil war.

    A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The Confederacy was a new country consisting of those states that seceded. Most certainly, the Confederate soldiers were no more fighting for control over the government in Washington than they were fighting to protect the investment of plantation owners.

    Memory is lost when historical facts are cast down the memory hole

    So, what does this have to do with the lesson for today? More than history can be erased by the passage of time. Culture can be erased. Morality can be erased. Common sense can disappear with the diplomacy that depends on it.

    The younger generation which experiences threats shouted all around it at Confederate war memorials and street names—Atlanta has just struck historic Confederate Avenue out of existence and replaced it with United Avenue—at white males who, if they are heterosexual, have been redefined by Identity Politics as rapists, racists, and misogynists, at distinguished scientists who state, factually, that there are innate differences between the male and the female, and so on, might think that it is natural for high officials in the US government to issue a never-ending stream of war threats to Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela.

    A person of my generation knows that such threats are unprecedented, not only for the US Government but also in world history. President Trump’s crazed NATO Ambassador, Kay Bailey Hutchison, threatened to “take out Russian missiles.” President Trump’s crazed UN Ambassador Nikki Hailey issues endless threats as fast as she can run her mouth against America’s allies as well as against the powerful countries that she designates as enemies. Trump’s crazed National Security Advisor John Bolten rivals the insane Haley with his wide-ranging threats. Trump’s Secretary of State Pompeo spews out threats with the best of them. So do the inane New York Times and Washington Post. Even a lowly Secretary of the Interior assumes the prerogative of telling Russia that the US will interdict Russian navy ships.

    What do you think would be the consequences if the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians took these threats seriously? World Wars have started on far less. Yet there is no protest against these deranged US government officials who are doing everything in their power to convince Russia and China that they are without any question America’s worst enemies. If you were Russia or China, how would you respond to this?

    Professor Stephen Cohen, who, like myself, remembers when the United States government had a diplomatic tradition, is as disturbed as I am that Washington’s decision to chuck diplomacy down the memory hole and replace it with war threats is going to get us all killed.

    More Cold War Extremism and Crises


    Overshadowed by the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, US-Russian relations grow ever more perilous.
    By Stephen F. Cohen October 3, 2018

    Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at NYU and Princeton University, and John Batchelor continue their discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at TheNation.com.)
    Emphasizing growing Cold War extremism in Washington and war-like crises in US-Russian relations elsewhere, Cohen comments on the following examples:

    Russiagate, even though none of its core allegations have been proven, is now a central part of the new Cold War, severely limiting President Trump’s ability to conduct crisis-negotiations with Moscow and further vilifying Russian President Putin for having ordered “an attack on America” during the 2016 presidential election. The New York Times and The Washington Post have been leading promoters of the Russiagate narrative, even though several of its foundational elements have been seriously challenged, even discredited.

    Nonetheless, both papers recently devoted thousands of words to retelling the same narrative—on September 20 and 23, respectively—along with its obvious fallacies. For example, Paul Manafort, during the crucial time he was advising then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, was not “pro-Russian” but pro–European Union. And contrary to insinuations, General Michael Flynn did nothing wrong or unprecedented in having conversations with a representative of the Kremlin on behalf of President-elect Trump. Many other presidents-elect had instructed top aides to do the same. The epic retellings of the Russiagate narrative by both papers, at extraordinary length, were riddled with similar mistakes and unproven allegations. (Nonetheless, a prominent historian, albeit one seemingly little informed both about Russiagate documents and about Kremlin leadership, characterized the widely discredited anti-Trump Steele dossier—the source of many such allegations—as “increasingly plausible.”)

    Astonishingly, neither the Times nor the Post give any credence to the emphatic statement made at least one week before by Bob Woodward—normally considered the most authoritative chronicler of Washington’s political secrets—that after two years of research he had found “no evidence of collusion” between Trump and Russia.

    For the Times and Post and other mainstream media outlets, Russiagate has become, it seems, a kind of cult journalism that no counter-evidence or analysis can dint, and thus itself is a major contributing factor to the new and more dangerous Cold War. Still worse, what began nearly two years ago as complaints about Russian “meddling” in the US presidential campaign has become for The New Yorker and other publications an accusation that the Kremlin actually put Trump in the White House. For this reckless charge, with its inherent contempt for the good sense of American voters, there is no convincing evidence—nor any precedent in American history.

    Meanwhile, current and former US officials are making unprecedented threats against Moscow. NATO ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchinson threatened to “take out” any Russian missiles she thought violated a 1987 arms treaty, a step that would risk nuclear war. The secretary of the interior threatened a “naval blockade” of Russia. In an unprecedented, undiplomatic Russophobic outburst, UN ambassador Nikki Haley declared that “lying, cheating and rogue behavior” are a “norm of Russian culture.”

    These may be outlandish statements by untutored appointed political figures, though they inescapably raise the question: Who is making Russia policy in Washington—President Trump with his avowed policy of “cooperating with Russia,” or someone else?

    But how to explain, other than as unbridled extremism, statements by a former US ambassador to Moscow and longtime professor of Russian politics, who appears to be the mainstream media’s leading authority on Russia? According to him, Russia today is “a rogue state,” its policies “criminal actions,” and the “world’s worst threat.” It must be countered by “preemptive sanctions that would go into effect automatically”—indeed, “every day,” if deemed necessary. [These are the words of Michael McFaul, who has appointments at Stanford University which has become a friendly home for warmongers.]

    Considering the “crippling” sanctions now being prepared by a bipartisan group of US senators—their actual reason and purpose apparently unknown even to them—this would be nothing less than a declaration of war against Russia; economic war, but war nonetheless.

    Several other new Cold War fronts are also fraught with hot war, but today none more than Syria.

    Another reminder occurred on September 17, when Syria accidentally shot down an allied Russian surveillance plane, killing all 15 crew members. The cause, as is known, was subterfuge by Israeli F-15s supplied by Washington that used the larger radar image of the Russian airplane to cloak their illegal attack on Syria. The reaction in Moscow was highly indicative—potentially ominous.

    At first, Putin, who had developed good relations with Israel’s political leadership, said the incident was an accident, an example of the fog of war. His own Ministry of Defense, however, loudly protested, blaming Israel. Putin quickly retreated, adopting a much more hard-line position, and in the end vowed to send to Syria Russia’s highly effective S-300 surface-to-air defense system, a prize both Syria and Iran have requested in vain for years. [Actually, Russia has now supplied both Iran and Syria the S-300.]

    Second, if the S-300s are installed in Syria (they will be operated by Russians, not Syrians), Putin can in effect impose a “no-fly zone” over that country, which has been torn by war due, in no small part, to the presence of several major foreign powers. (Russia and Iran are there legally; the United States and Israel are not.) If so, it will be a new “red line” that Washington and Tel Aviv must decide whether or not to cross. Considering the mania in Washington, it’s hard to be confident that wisdom will prevail. [Actually, it is likely that Putin will shift the responsibility of using the air defense system to Syria.]

    All of this unfolded on approximately the third anniversary of Russia’s military intervention in Syria, in September 2015. At that time, Washington pundits denounced Putin’s “adventure” and were sure it would “fail.” Three years later, “Putin’s Kremlin” has destroyed the vicious Islamic State’s grip on large parts of Syria, all but restored President Assad’s control over most of the country, and has become the ultimate arbiter of Syria’s future. President Trump would do best by joining Moscow’s peace process, though it is unlikely Washington’s mostly Democratic Russiagate party will permit him to do so. (For perspective, recall that, in 2016, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised to impose a US no-fly zone over Syria to defy Russia.)

    There is also this. As the US-led “liberal world order” disintegrates, not only in Syria, a new alliance is emerging between Russia, China, Iran, and possibly NATO member Turkey. It will be a real “threat” only if Washington makes it one, as it has Russia in recent years.

    Finally, the US-Russian proxy war in Ukraine has recently acquired a new dimension. In addition to the civil war in Donbass, Moscow and Kiev have begun to challenge each other’s ships in the Sea of Azov, near the vital Ukrainian port city of Mariupol. Trump is being pressured to supply Kiev with naval and other weapons to wage this evolving war, yet another potential tripwire. Here too President Trump would do best by putting his administration’s weight behind the long-stalled Minsk peace accords. Here, too, this seemed to be his original intention, but it has proven to be yet another approach, it now seems, thwarted by Russiagate.

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/10/09/erasing-history-diplomacy-truth-and-life-on-earth/

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    9 Minutes Ago @ 08:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    582
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    608
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    762
    Thanked in
    390 Posts

    The Demise of the West: Part II –Western Elites Are Anti-Democratic


    Western Elites Are Anti-Democratic Paul Craig Roberts



    It is customary to speak of Western countries as democracies. In actual fact, the countries are oligarchies in which voting, which conveys the semblance that government is accountable to the people, seldom changes anything as elected officials are constrained by the power of organized interest groups.
    President Trump is the latest example. He has been blocked in his goal of reducing tensions with Russia.


    The European Union has been an anti-democratic undertaking from the beginning. Deception was the method. At first it was a free trade zone. Then a common currency. Then unified fiscal policies which means centralization and political union with formerly sovereign countries becoming provinces in a European government. Countries that voted down joining were subjected to threats and browbeating and forced to vote again by which time the media had convinced the people that they had no alternative to joining or they would be “left behind” in a backwater existence.


    Despite the facts, politicians maintained the fiction that EU member countries remained democratic and responsive to the will of their citizens. German Chancellor Merkel, who ended her career by her unilateral decision to impose a million or more illegal Third World immigrants on Germans and Germans’ resources, destroyed this fiction.


    Merkel clearly does not care what the German people think. She revealed again her total distain for democracy at a recent event of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin where she condemned those who think political leaders should listen to the will of the people. The German people, she said, are just “individuals who are living in a country; they do not define the German people.” The German people are whoever migrates to Germany as a result of the UN Migration Pact that she signed despite its rejection by the German citizens of Germany. “Nation states,” Merkel declared, “must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty.” Politicians must not listen, she said, to the will of their citizens when it comes to questions of immigration, borders, and sovereignty.


    The French president, Emmanuel Macron, backed her up. Macron declared that French “nationalism is treason.” In other words, it is treason to think that France is French. Patriotism, Macron said, is inclusion of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia into France. The way for the French to gain sovereignty is to surrender their sovereignty to the EU in Belgium and give up all control, not that any currently exists, over foreign affairs, migration, and budetary and fiscal policy.


    Merkel and Macron speak of the submission of Germany and France to the New World Order, but they do not say what they understand the New World Order to be. Their words indicate that one of its features is the replacement of the German and French populations and cultures with those of the Third World, as in The Camp of the Saints.


    In the US the New World Order means US hegemony over the world. The neoconservatives, who have controlled US foreign policy since the Clinton regime, believe that the US is “the indispensable nation” with the right and the responsibility to impose its ways on the world.


    The globalist corporations understand the New World Order to be their immunity to laws of sovereign countries.


    Others see the New World Order to be a Rothschild or other Jewish conspiracy to control the world economy and bleed it for their profits.


    With so many different meanings, it is difficult to see which conspiracy against national existence is the threat. Or is it all of them?


    Nevertheless, in the Western world, nationalism, the traditional basis of patriotism, now means, thanks to Identity Politics, “white supremacy.” According to Identity Politics, the ruling ideology in the US, white people must be disempowered and subjected to punishments for the assortment of crimes attributed to them.


    Therefore, the views in the US, France, and Germany come to the same conclusion: white people are guilty and must give up their country to others. Any protests of this outlandish requirement is proof that whites should be strung up, and they likely will be with the support of their own governments. Do we see the first signs of it here? Will this:


    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/12/...-sex-assaults/
    and this:


    http://www.unz.com/article/2018-when...n-got-serious/
    and this:


    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...-prison-threat
    lead to this:


    http://www.radiofreesouthafrica.com/...rican-farmers/



    Sources:
    https://www.kas.de/veranstaltungsber...er-demokratie-
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ew-world-order
    https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/11/me...r-sovereignty/








    GMO Panem et MSM Circensis.
    GMO Bread and MSM Circuses.

    "The German people are whoever migrates to Germany". Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams was telling us this years ago 'Ireland does not belong to the Irish, but to the people living in Ireland' - common 'liberal cultural marxism'.

    "Western Elites Are Anti-Democratic" - how could a tyrannical NWO global elite be anything else?

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    a.k.a. Godwinson SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    1 Minute Ago @ 08:10 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Fascist
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    3,575
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    548
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,028
    Thanked in
    504 Posts
    Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams was telling us this years ago 'Ireland does not belong to the Irish, but to the people living in Ireland'
    Reading those words from such a sectarian bigot as Gerry Adams is almost more than my stomach can handle

    How anyone could have ever considered this bloke to be a 'Nationalist' is truly beyond me!

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Friday, November 11th, 2016, 06:14 PM
  2. Classify English Anthropologist Alice Roberts
    By Gerlenberg in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 6th, 2011, 04:19 AM
  3. Classify Author Gregory David Roberts
    By Northern Paladin in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Friday, December 24th, 2010, 03:15 PM
  4. How the Feds Imprison the Innocent by Paul Craig Roberts
    By Verðandi in forum The United States
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, October 23rd, 2009, 06:32 PM
  5. And then came clothing and speech (Mark Roberts)
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 05:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •