The comments follow reports that the US and China may hold talks on the escalating trade conflict.
Your daily briefing on the day’s news from the FT and elsewhere
Kremlin pressing central bank for cut despite impact of sanctions and market turmoil
When the ideology of globalism is discussed in liberty movement circles there are often misunderstandings as to the source of the threat and what it truly represents. This may in some cases be by design. In the latest era of supposed “populism” led by figures like Donald Trump, an entirely new and very green generation of liberty activists find themselves hyper focused on the political left in general, but they seem to be obsessed with attacking the symptoms of globalism rather than the source. I attribute this to a clever propaganda campaign by globalist institutions.
For example, when globalism is brought up in terms of its conspiratorial influences, the name of George Soros is usually mentioned. Soros is an obvious bogeyman for liberty activists because his money can be found flowing to numerous Cultural Marxist (social justice) organizations and his influence is easily grasped and digested in that way. Conservatives like placing emphasis on Soros because he appears decidedly leftist and thus globalism becomes synonymous with leftist movements. But what about all the globalists within the political right?
Globalism has its gatekeepers in both political camps; people that manipulate or outright control political leaders and political messages on the right just as they do on the left. While someone like George Soros acts as a gatekeeper for the left, we also have people like Henry Kissinger, a globalist gatekeeper for the right. Kissinger’s close relations with the Trump administration or his long time friendship with Russia’s Vladimir Putin are brought up far less in the liberty movement these days. Why? Because this does not fit with the false narrative that the globalists are “targeting” Trump or Putin. When you examine these leaders and their ties to a vast array of globalist proponents, this claim becomes absurd.
In 2016, months before the presidential election, the globalist media outlet Bloomberg published an article which salivated over the possibility that Trump would swallow up and assimilate what they called the “Tea Party,” ultimately destroying it. At that time the media used the term “Tea Party” as code for any sovereignty or constitutional group, just as the media tried to wrap us all up in the term “alt-right” after Trump’s election.
There was a reason why Bloomberg found particular glee in the notion that Trump would absorb the liberty movement. The movement was becoming a decentralized threat to the globalist agenda, a threat that could not be easily quantified or dominated because it had no identifiable leadership. We were a movement based on knowledge and individual action. Our best “leaders” have been teachers, not politicians, and these were people that led by personal example, not by mandate or rhetoric.
The liberty movement was winning ground in every conceivable arena, from the dismantling of the mainstream media through alternative platforms, to the great push back against social justice cultism. Something had to be done.
Enter Trump, a brash pop culture icon with a flare for sensationalism. He was no statesman like Ron Paul explaining the intricacies of America’s problems in a measured way. No, Trump was like a wrecking ball, a loud and blatant message to the left that we were tired of being on the defensive and we were coming for them. But the reality was that Trump was not a necessary element of the fight. He never was. Anti-globalism and anti-social justice were already hitting the mainstream. The left was already on the run. Trump didn’t create that wave, the liberty movement did that for him, he just rode it into the White House. You’re welcome, Donald.
The problem was that Trump was not what he seemed to be to many people. With all his rhetoric against the banking elites which he referred to as creatures of the “swamp” choking Washington, Trump then proceeded to load up his presidential cabinet with elitists and globalists as soon as he was elected. These very same cabinet members and advisers went on to attend globalist meetings like the secretive Bilderberg Group AFTER Trump had been elected. People like Rothschild banking agent and Commerce Secretary Wilber Ross who officially attended in 2017, or adviser Peter Thiel who officially attended in 2018.
This was not at all surprising to me. I predicted this would be the likely outcome (along with a Trump presidency) in my article “Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement,” published in September 2016.
The point is, simply picking the side of the political right is not enough to protect activists from globalist subversion. By rallying around controlled politicians and bottle-necking our actions the liberty movement makes itself vulnerable and decidedly impotent.
So, the question arises – how do we continue to fight against the 4th Generation warfare being levied against us? Part of the solution continues to rest in our own understanding of the enemy.
I still hold to the idea that the best way to understand globalism is to study and expose the efforts of a group called the “Fabian Society,” otherwise known as Fabian Socialists. The society was founded in England in 1884 and was an extension of the “Round Table” groups being established by global elitists in the West at the time. The Fabians have been at the forefront of almost every pro-socialist and pro-globalist movement of the past century, and while they do not get as much attention as institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations or even the Bilderberg Group, their open discussions on their own motivations and goals make them a prime source of data on the psychology of our opponents.
The Fabian Society has multiple mascots which hint at the nature of globalism. One symbol of the group is an angry turtle with the slogan “When I strike I strike hard,” indicating the slow and deliberate nature of globalism and its methodical spread into every aspect of our daily lives. Another mascot they have used in the past is a wolf dressed up as a sheep, a symbol which I think is self explanatory, but to clarify – a person that appears to be anti-globalist in rhetoric or who is criticized by people like the Fabians may still be a Fabian in disguise. Their relationships with elitists will expose their true nature as a Trojan Horse.
I think that the best representation of these people and their thinking resides in their own words, however. Here are some choice quotes from past members:
…The Open Conspiracy will appear first, I believe as a conscious organization of intelligent, and in some cases wealthy men, as a movement having distinct social and political aims, confessedly ignoring most of the existing apparatus of political control, or using it only as an incidental implement in the stages, a mere movement of a number of people in a certain direction, who will presently discover, with a sort of a surprise, the common object toward which they are all moving. In all sorts of ways, they will be influencing and controlling the ostensible government.” — H.G. Wells: The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution, 1928.
“I also made it quite clear that socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.” — George Bernard Shaw, The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928
“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” — Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953
“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. … Various results will soon be arrived at: that the influence of home is obstructive… although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generatio will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen … Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism. … A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.” — Bertrand Russell: The Impact of Science on Society, 1953
“And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods.” — Aldous Huxley, “The Ultimate Revolution” March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center
Today, the Fabian Society still exists and operates as a think tank much like any other globalist think tank. Their articles and essays push the latest globalist propaganda from the erasure of national sovereignty to the promotion of gender politics and gender “fluidity.” But what can we draw from these writings and the statements of past members?
First, globalists use guerrilla-like tactics to achieve their goals and they often act slowly and quietly over the course of years or decades. The Fabian Society was named after the Roman General Quintus Fabius Maximus who famously used tactics of attrition and delay to defeat his enemies. Liberty activists need to start thinking in terms of the long game, much like a chess player does, in order to grasp the globalist agenda. The events triggered today may have intended effects which are not necessarily obvious to us now unless we consider how they relate to the greater scheme.
This is especially true in terms of economics. Globalists stage fiscal bubbles many years in advance, and use economic crisis as a catalyst for social change on a grand scale. Usually this results in ever increasing centralization of wealth and power. However, the shift of financial dominance is subtle to those who do not pay particular attention to the details. A market bubble might take a decade to develop before it is deliberately popped. In the meantime all the fundamentals are screaming that something is very wrong, but the majority of the public remains oblivious until it is too late.
Second, control of governments and political leaders is paramount to the success of globalism. The notion that ANY major political leader comes to power without globalist influence is utterly naive. Trump and his swamp creature appointed cabinet are perfect examples of this. Rhetoric is meaningless, and while such leaders may throw their base a bone now and then, in the end their actions only push the ball forward for the globalists. This may even include sabotaging their own presidency to make way for a globalist “solution.”
Third, mass psychology is a globalist obsession. All power stems from perception. Figureheads and ideological groups sometimes offer the promise of social advantage to the public without much effort on their part. The temptation of this offer can lead people to hand over their free will in exchange. But not all “progress” is actually advantageous for the masses and misery usually follows such Faustian deals with the elites. Escape is difficult.
Therefore, globalists must control the narrative at all costs. The public has to be divided as much as possible in order to keep them distracted from the guiding hand of the cabal itself. And, any group that opposes them directly has to be co-opted or destroyed. The more people focus on globalists and their organizations as the core source of social instability, the more uncomfortable they become.
Fourth, most globalist actions today rely on 4th Generation warfare; meaning, few things are exactly as they seem, ever. I suspect the success of liberty activists has forced them into more elaborate forms of theater. Nothing they do is ever simple unless you have studied the motivations and mindset of the globalists, then they become rather predictable, unoriginal and bizarrely robotic in their behavior. They appear brilliant in the execution of their agendas only because they have centuries of experience implementing the same con games over and over. They are sociopathic grifters; they are clever and without remorse, but not geniuses in any sense of the word.
For now, educating the general liberty movement and the people around us on these issues remains the best method for throwing a monkey wrench into the globalist machine. Countering their psyops should be our pinnacle task, and falling into the narrative traps they create must be avoided. They have spent a considerable amount of thought and energy trying to co-opt our efforts, and that should give everyone pause. For if we were not a true threat, why would they bother with us?
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
update: On Thursday night, after news of John Kerry’s Wednesday Hugh Hewitt Show radio interview in which he admitted meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif “three or four times” since Donald Trump took office for unauthorized discussions touching on the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump slammed the “illegal meetings” as serving to “undercut” White House diplomatic dealings with Iran.
Trump further hinted that Kerry violated the Logan Act by rhetorically asking whether Kerry is officially registered as a foreign agent.
The president tweeted: John Kerry had illegal meetings with the very hostile Iranian Regime, which can only serve to undercut our great work to the detriment of the American people. He told them to wait out the Trump Administration! Was he registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? BAD!
John Kerry had illegal meetings with the very hostile Iranian Regime, which can only serve to undercut our great work to the detriment of the American people. He told them to wait out the Trump Administration! Was he registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? BAD!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 14, 2018
Multiple conservative commentators said Kerry finally admitted to prior charges that he was conducting secretive talks behind Trump’s back aimed toward salvaging the 2015 nuclear deal.
Later in the same day as the Hugh Hewitt Show admissions, former Secretary of State Kerry appeared on FOX and was interviewed by Dana Perino.
“I think everybody in the world is sitting around talking about waiting out President Trump,” Kerry said to Perino. “You’ve got our allies, remarkably — the people that we’ve worked with the closest through the years — who are sitting there saying, ‘What’s next?'” Kerry added.
John Kerry on Syria, Iran deal, Democrats ahead of midterms https://t.co/DEtsIrgA7e
— Afringrad (@primus123456789) September 13, 2018
In reaction to the Dana Perino interview former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said on “Special Report” Kerry was likely advising Iran on how to “wait out” the tenure of President Trump.
* * *
Though he previously denied it when allegations first surfaced last Spring, former Secretary of State John Kerry has now disclosed he’s personally had semi-frequent face to face contact with top Iranian officials to discuss US-Iran relations since Trump entered office.
Kerry confirmed and explained in detail his recent meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt to promote his new memoir, Every Day Is Extra.
During the interview Kerry disclosed that he met with Zarif “three or four times” and discussed political issues and challenges between the United States and Iran in what could constitute a significant and clear violation of the Logan Act.
While it’s almost never been enforced, the 1799 Logan Act states that unauthorized diplomacy with foreign powers by private American citizens is a crime. Notably, two Trump-connected individuals that prominent Liberals and editorials demanded be prosecuted under the Logan Act include former national security advisor Michael Flynn and Trump senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner.
When asked point blank during the radio show about his rumored meetings with top Iran officials, Kerry admitted, “I think I’ve seen him three or four times,” but attempted to claim he was not trying to “coach” Iran on how to navigate President Trump’s pullout of the Iran nuclear deal.
Kerry is of course now a private citizen out of government but holds significant clout and influence with the Iran FM as the two hammered out the details of the JCPOA brokered under President Obama in the first place.
.@JohnKerry’s arrogance and repeated attempts to undermine this administration by salvaging the #IranDeal are striking. The deal was sold to Americans based on a pack of lies and deception. The President’s decision to withdraw was correct. https://t.co/QN3KQanmE1
— Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) September 12, 2018
However, by Kerry’s own explanation it looks precisely like he was doing this: “What I have done is tried to elicit from him what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better,” Kerry said. He also shared his belief that American policy in the Middle East would be much better off if the White House had stayed in the agreement, and that the global community would be more stable and secure.
It sure sounds like unauthorized diplomacy behind Trump’s back by a high ranking member of the former administration to us…
Soon after the interview, some Iran hawks in Congress took to Twitter to decry the hypocrisy of the whole thing.
I assume MSM & Dems who got vapors & cried “Logan Act!” when 46 senators & I released letter defending Senate’s treaty power will accuse @JohnKerry of Logan Act violation.
Kidding re Logan Act, a stupid, dead-letter law. Not kidding re hypocrisy. https://t.co/4Y41Mck6RO
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 12, 2018
Here’s a key part of the transcript via the Hugh Hewitt Show:
Hugh Hewitt: Okay, it’s been reported you’ve met with him a couple of times at least since leaving office as well. So you still…
John Kerry: Yes, I have. That’s accurate.
HH: And is it a half dozen times, a dozen times?
JK: No. No, no, no. I met with him at a conference in Norway. I think I saw him in a conference in Munich at the World Economic Forum. So I’ve probably seen him three or four times.
HH: Are you trying to coach him through the Trump administration’s rejection of the JCPOA?
JK: No, that’s not my job, and my coaching him would not, you know, that’s not how it works. What I have done is tried to elicit from him what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better. You know, how does one resolve Yemen? What do you do to try to get peace in Syria? I mean, those are the things that really are preoccupying, because those are the impediments to people, to Iran’s ability to convince people that it’s ready to embrace something different. I mean, and I’ve been very blunt to Foreign Minister Zarif, and told him look, you guys need to recognize that the world does not appreciate what’s happening with missiles, what’s happening with Hezbollah, what’s happening with Yemen. You’re supporting you know, an ongoing struggle there They say they’re prepared to negotiate and to resolve these issues. But the administration’s taken a very different tack. I don’t know as I talk to you today if there’s been any dialogue or sit down. I don’t think there has, which would open up any kind of diplomatic channel. And it appears right now as if the administration is hell bent for leather determined to pursue a regime change strategy to bring the economy down and try to isolate further. And I would simply caution that the United States historically has not had a great record in regime change strategies, number one. And number two, that makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for any Iranian leader to sit down and negotiate anything, because they’re not going to do it in a capitulatory, you know, situation. It’s just not going to happen.
It certainly appears that Kerry by his own admission is indeed trying to “coach” the Iranian FM on how to deal with the current White House. And the discussions clearly included chiding the Trump administration over its Iran policy while in Kerry’s own words the “open[ing] of diplomatic channels” was on his mind.
Meanwhile some Republican lawmakers have already, hours after the interview, unleashed charges that Kerry is engaged in rogue diplomacy and is undermining the active, elected administration.
It was only a matter of time before he put his foot in his mouth, and promoting his new book means we’re likely about to hear a lot more self implicating details spilled.
Today, RetailDive shines a spotlight on the Manhattan-focused Garment District’s rapid unraveling, as office spaces from other industries encroach on the highly sought after real estate.
But times have changed. New York City has lost 95% of its manufacturing workforce since its heyday in the 1950s, and a 2011 report from the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), a non-profit centered on economic growth in New York City, indicated that fashion manufacturing jobs in NYC had further declined 61% since 2001. Recently, the Garment District Alliance reported that “from March 2017 to March 2018, New York City’s apparel manufacturing industry shrunk by an additional 7.7%, a loss of approximately 1,000 jobs.” And as of August 2018, the AP estimated that only 5,000 garment manufacturing workers remained. –RetailDive
New York’s Garment District isn’t the only part of the country to suffer from evaporating jobs in apparel; In 2012, the US Department of Commerce reported that “since 1990, employment in apparel, leather, and allied product manufacturing has shrunk by 912,000 jobs, or 84 percent.” Most of the remaining jobs are located in New York, California and Texas. Moreover, textile and apparel manufacturing shrunk from 0.57% of US GDP to 0.16% from 1998 – 2015, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Preserving the district?
In February of last year, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said that it would rezone the Garment District; removing some outdated restrictions, while developing Brooklyn’s rapidly gentrifying Sunset Park district. The next month, the NYCEDC teamed up with the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) and the Garment District Alliance to provide financial incentives to companies who wished to relocate from Manhattan to Brooklyn.
This did not sit well with some people…
Outrage over rumors of a Brooklyn relocation of the Garment District led to heated debates in public forums, and in summer 2017, the Garment Center Steering Committee was formed by Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer, Council Member Corey Johnson, and Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development Alicia Glen. The committee engaged with NYCEDC, as well as New York fashion industry interests, including costume theater industry workers and the Garment District Alliance. They released a report that provided recommendations on real estate and business development that would help the Garment District transition into a more sustainable manufacturing center. –RetailDive
The plan to pay companies to move was ultimately scrapped over the outcry.
“People had it in their heads that the Garment District was being asked to move, but no one was being asked to move,” said Julieanne Herskowitz, vice president in the development department at NYCEDC. “But what was clear is that we had not sufficiently thought of the Garment District, and [Manhattan Borough President] Gale Brewer and [Council Member] Corey Johnson pushed the city to think about how the Garment District could remain a hub of fashion in the city if zoning were to be lifted. There are about 400 companies in the area, employing about 4,000 people. It’s still a critical hub.”
“We had agreed to help with relocation costs, and then Gale Brewer said she won’t support a plan that doesn’t include retaining a core in the Garment District,” said Garment District Alliance president Barbara Blair. “She didn’t want all these jobs being encouraged to leave for Brooklyn.”
Brewer’s office responded, insisting that “The whole fashion industry in New York depends on the tight-knit cluster of specialty suppliers and skilled workers in the heart of Manhattan, which is why we’re acting to keep it strong and successful,” adding “It’s not about choosing between the Garment Center or growth in the other boroughs. A strong foundation here lays the groundwork for success everywhere.”
Despite efforts to rescue Manhattan manufacturing, it seems nothing can stop the exodus.
“People think this is a neighborhood-centric issue, but it’s not,” Blair said. “We used to have 150,000 manufacturing jobs in this neighborhood, and now we have 5,000 jobs. And this is a 40-year national trend.”
Blair said that although a lot of people blame the loss of jobs on rent issues, it’s more complex than that. “It’s easy to blame the landlords, but basically a lot of their business dried up,” she said. “If designers were still producing locally, [manufacturers would] be able to pay their rent. One of the manufacturers said to me, ‘if Ralph Lauren would manufacture even 1% of his product in New York City, that would be enough to save New York City manufacturing.‘ Of course, NAFTA also had a huge impact too, back in the early 1990s. There are definitely property owners in this neighborhood who have pushed people out. But that’s not the majority.”
Certainly, some brands, such as Yeohlee, still do all their manufacturing in Manhattan. But others have moved further afield, in search of bigger spaces and a different community. Complexes such as Industry City in Sunset Park, are attracting many of New York’s young creatives. “Over the past five years, we have leased more than 1 million square feet to manufacturers, including a wide range of fashion and garment production companies,” said Lisa Serbaniewicz, spokesperson for Industry City, in an email to Retail Dive. –RetailDive
Out with the old…
While the garment district suffers, Brooklyn is flourishing. “Brooklyn is the second largest hub for apparel design [in New York City],” said Herskowitz. “The EDC manages and operates over 6 million square feet of industrial space at the Bush Terminal and the Brooklyn Army Terminal, and has been investing in these assets. And then also the Made in NY Campus, which will have a campus dedicated to the New York City fashion industry. The EDC is still actively doing that along with the city.”
At the end of the day, however, manufacturers just can’t beat the allure of that cheap, cheap foreign labor.
“There’s such a huge financial gap between overseas labor and local labor, and you could never close that gap,” said Blair. “We believe that manufacturing should be here [in New York City]. I always thought we would lose some manufacturing, but that eventually, the water would find its level. It just hasn’t yet. There’s an industry in decline that hasn’t found its footing in the new world.”
The New York Times, on September 11, 2013, accommodated Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s desire “to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders” about “recent events surrounding Syria.”
Putin’s op-ed in the Times appeared under the title: “A Plea for Caution From Russia.” In it, he warned that a military “strike by the United States against Syria will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders … and unleash a new wave of terrorism. … It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.”
Three weeks before Putin’s piece, on August 21, there had been a chemical attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was immediately blamed. There soon emerged, however, ample evidence that the incident was a provocation to bring direct U.S. military involvement against Assad, lest Syrian government forces retain their momentum and defeat the jihadist rebels.
In a Memorandum for President Barack Obama five days before Putin’s article, on September 6, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) had warned President Barack Obama of the likelihood that the incident in Ghouta was a false-flag attack.
Despite his concern of a U.S. attack, Putin’s main message in his op-ed was positive, talking of a growing mutual trust:
“A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. [Syria’s chemical weapons were in fact destroyed under UN supervision the following year.]
“I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive … and steer the discussion back toward negotiations. If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust … and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.”
Obama Refuses to Strike
In a lengthy interview with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published in The Atlantic much later, in March 2016, Obama showed considerable pride in having refused to act according to what he called the “Washington playbook.”
Clapper (far right): No slam dunk Assad did it. (Office of DNI)
He added a telling vignette that escaped appropriate attention in Establishment media. Obama confided to Goldberg that, during the crucial last week of August 2013, National Intelligence Director James Clapper paid the President an unannounced visit to caution him that the allegation that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack in Ghouta was “not a slam dunk.”
Clapper’s reference was to the very words used by former CIA Director George Tenet when he characterized, falsely, the nature of the evidence on WMD in Iraq while briefing President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in December 2002. Additional evidence that Ghouta was a false flag came in December 2016 parliamentary testimony in Turkey.
In early September 2013, around the time of Putin’s op-ed, Obama resisted the pressure of virtually all his advisers to launch cruise missiles on Syria and accepted the Russian-brokered deal for Syria give up its chemical weapons. Obama follow public opinion but had to endure public outrage from those lusting for the U.S. to get involved militarily. From neoconservatives, in particular, there was hell to pay.
Atop the CNN building in Washington, DC, on the evening of September 9, two days before Putin’s piece, I had a fortuitous up-close-and-personal opportunity to watch the bitterness and disdain with which Paul Wolfowitz and Joe Lieberman heaped abuse on Obama for being too “cowardly” to attack.
Five Years Later
In his appeal for cooperation with the U.S., Putin had written these words reportedly by himself:
“My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’ It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
In recent days, President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, has left no doubt that he is the mascot of American exceptionalism. Its corollary is Washington’s “right” to send its forces, uninvited, into countries like Syria.
“We’ve tried to convey the message in recent days that if there’s a third use of chemical weapons, the response will be much stronger,” Bolton said on Monday. “I can say we’ve been in consultations with the British and the French who have joined us in the second strike and they also agree that another use of chemical weapons will result in a much stronger response.”
As was the case in September 2013, Syrian government forces, with Russian support, have the rebels on the defensive, this time in Idlib province where most of the remaining jihadists have been driven. On Sunday began what could be the final showdown of the five-year war. Bolton’s warning of a chemical attack by Assad makes little sense as Damascus is clearly winning and the last thing Assad would do is invite U.S. retaliation.
Haley: Already knows who did it. (UN Photo)
U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, with remarkable prescience, has already blamed Damascus for whatever chemical attack might take place. The warnings of direct U.S. military involvement, greater than Trump’s two previous pin-prick attacks, is an invitation for the cornered jihadists to launch another false-flag attack to exactly bring that about.
Sadly, not only has the growing trust recorded by Putin five years ago evaporated, but the likelihood of a U.S.-Russian military clash in the region is as perilously high as ever.
Seven days before Putin’s piece appeared, citizen Donald Trump had tweeted: “Many Syrian ‘rebels’ are radical Jihadis. Not our friends & supporting them doesn’t serve our national interest. Stay out of Syria!”
In September 2015 Trump accused his Republican primary opponents of wanting to “start World War III over Syria. Give me a break. You know, Russia wants to get ISIS, right? We want to get ISIS. Russia is in Syria — maybe we should let them do it? Let them do it.”
Last week Trump warned Russian and Syria not to attack Idlib. Trump faces perhaps his biggest test as president: whether he can resist his neocon advisers and not massively attack Syria, as Obama chose not to, or risk the wider war he accused his Republican opponents of fomenting.
* * *
If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
The divergence between asset prices and incomes has historically generated problems