Showing posts with label neo- cons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neo- cons. Show all posts

Tuesday, 6 October 2020

A dire warning to Russia

 A dire warning to Russia

The US Pentagon has a strategy to allow Russia's access 

to Iran to be destroyed in the war against Armenia prior to 

nuclear war against Russia




Hal Turner delivers his message in his usual more-than-direct method and gives a 

devastating picture of the war against Armenia, the oldest Christian country in the 

world.

He provides a strategic  analysis in which he posits that the Deep State neocons have a policy to allow for the destruction of Armenia by Azerbaijan and Turkey along with their jihadist proxies in order to cut Russia's links with its ally Iran. He says that Russia has a very short period to react strongly to this threat and come in behind their Christian brothers in Armenia.

While some of his knowledge of the history of the region shows something to be desired in its accuracy and his analysis may seem to be overblown I think that in the current situation this message would be ignored at peril and should be placed alongside everything else we know.

Whatever you do do not believe the mainstream media - even RT and Sputnik are not going to give you any clues.


Part one


He quotes an update at deagle.com which earlier predicted a decrease of the US population to 99 million.

Today I cannot get onto their website.


Part two




For background  I am reposting here a discussion I had with Margo a few months
ago about deagle.com 

Tuesday, 13 August 2019

Is the Deep State at war with itself?


Epstein Is The Deep State 

Civil War's First High-Profile 

Casualty


12 August, 2019
The "traditionalist" Neocons are going to have to decide to fish or cut bait.
I've been writing about the fracturing Deep State for the past five years:



The conflict has now reached the hot-war stage where bodies are turning up, explained away by the usual laughable covers: "suicide," "accident" and "heart attack." That Jeffrey Epstein's death in a secure cell is being labeled "suicide" tells us quite a lot about the desperation of the faction trying to protect the self-serving predators that have wormed their way into control of many Deep State nodes of power.
Here's the basic structure of the Deep State conflict as I see it. For context: The Deep State exploded in size and power during World War II. At the war's end, the proper role of the U.S. in the postwar era was up for grabs, and over the course of a few years, the CIA and other intelligence agencies were established and the doctrine of containment of the Soviet Union became the dominant narrative, a narrative that held with remarkable consistency for four decades until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
This collapse was another critical juncture, and debates over America's role in this "unipolar era" were finally settled in favor of the militarily-geopolitically activist ideology of neoconservatism (Neocons).
This globalist ideology spawned a variety of monstrous policy disasters and as a result the Neocons have been challenged by factions within the Deep State.
This Neocon Globalist camp is dominated by the amoral ideology of the ends justifies the means. This everything is allowed, anything can be hidden or justified ideology slowly spread from overseas black ops and a spectrum of interventions to the power nodes of the domestic Deep State.
The failures of Neocon globalism have ushered in another critical juncture in the Deep State. What is America's proper role in a multi-polar world that is fracturing across multiple faultlines? This juncture is a manifestation of a broader profound political disunity in America and many other nations.
As the policy disasters launched by Neocon Globalists piled up, the Neocons were desperate for domestic political allies. As a result, the "traditionalist" Neocons accepted the systemic corruption of the Deep State by degenerate, predatory self-serving elites and their enablers in the intelligence agencies, corporate media and other nodes of power.
Arrayed against this completely corrupt, degenerate camp of Neocon Globalists is a "nationalist" camp within the Deep State that grasps the end-game of Neocon Globalism, and is busy assembling a competing nation-centric strategy. There is tremendous resistance to the abandonment of Neocon globalism, not just from those who see power slipping through their fingers but from all those firmly committed to a magical belief that past success guarantees future success, i.e. doing more of what's failed will eventually succeed.
The "nationalist" faction within the Deep State is gaining ground, and now a fracture in the Neocon camp is threatening the Globalists: the "traditionalist" Neocons who accepted the systemic corruption of self-serving elites are being challenged by "rogue realists" who have finally awakened to the mortal danger posed by amoral predatory self-serving elites.
The debauchery of morals undermines the legitimacy of the state and thus of the entire power structure. As I recently noted in Following in Rome's Footsteps: Moral Decay, Rising Inequality (June 29, 2019), America's current path of moral decay is tracking Rome's collapse step for step.
Having enabled and used amoral predators like Epstein, the "traditionalist" Neocons are forced to defend the debauched and now toxic "Liberal" defenders of the Neocon Globalist Project. That they will stop at nothing is already obvious, but what's less obvious is their opponents, the "rogue realists" who understand that empires fall not from external enemies but from internal corruption and debauchery, are willing to take whatever steps are necessary to save the Republic from the self-serving elites that have infiltrated key nodes of Deep State power.
The final fracture is within the "rogue realists": one camp still believes in the Neocon Globalist Project, and simply wants to rid the Deep State of the debauched predators and their protectors. The other camp sees the two as inextricable: the Neocon Globalists are as hopelessly amoral and corrupt as the very worst they are protecting. The only way to fix the mess is to clean house by getting rid of the debauched predators and the amoral Neocon Globalists.
The "rogue realists" are attempting to use the judicial system to bring down the predatory self-serving elites, but given Epstein's "mysterious" end, it appears the Department of Justice is also infiltrated with those willing to do whatever it takes to protect the amoral, self-serving predators and their enablers.
This raises the issue that destroys democracies: who investigates the investigators? The "traditionalist" Neocons are going to have to decide to fish or cut bait: either swirl down the sewer by protecting everyone in Epstein's black book and stash of videos, or clean house before they lose it all.
*  *  *
Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. New benefit for subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics.

Monday, 24 June 2019

Update from the Persian Gulf:Iran has outwitted Pompeo and Bolton but i...


Update from the Persian Gulf:Iran has outwitted Pompeo and Bolton but is in a very tight place





Iran Chose To Take Out Drone Instead of Manned Navy Jet, lranian General Says




Starvation Sanctions Are Worse Than Overt Warfare



IRAN AND TRUMP ON THE EDGE OF THE ABYSS






Iran goes for “maximum counter-pressure”





As Trump Wants To Avoid A Shooting War, Iran Will Use Other Means To Pressure Him




PEPE ESCOBAR: War on Iran & Calling America’s Bluff




https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/24/pepe-escobar-war-on-iran-calling-americas-bluff/




Sunday, 23 June 2019

The NeoCon March To War with Iran


I like Jake Morphonius but unfortunately do not have the time to listen right through.

TARGET: IRAN - The NeoCon March To War

Blackstone Intelligence

Monday, 17 June 2019

There have been numerous warnings in plain sight of a False Flag in Iran


"Which road to Persia”: a 2009 blueprint for regime change in Iran


This is my video on this subject



Background


This is Gen. Wesley Clark talking about the neo-con plans - 7 countries in 7 years.


And Bibi Netanyahu lying to Congress about IRAQ in 2003


And Israel lobbyist, Patrick Clawson being super-honest about the plans for Iran a few years ago (2012?)





This was an excellent interpretation of the Brooking Institute's "the Path to Persia"




You can read the report HERE

Crafting a new policy toward Iran is a complicated, uncertain, and perilous challenge. Since it is an extremely complex society, with an opaque political system, it is no wonder that the United States has not yet figured out the puzzle that is Iran. With the clock ticking on Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities, solving this puzzle is more urgent than ever.

In Which Path to Persia? a group of experts with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings lays out the courses of action available to the United States. What are the benefits and drawbacks of airstrikes? Can engagement be successful? Is regime change possible? In answering such questions, the authors do not argue for one approach over another. Instead, they present the details of the policies so that readers can understand the complexity of the challenge and decide for themselves which course the United States should take.

This is the article that explains this in detail.

Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?"

Part I: The war has already begun, total war is a possibility.


Part one is HERE

Part two is HERE


"For those who favor regime change or a military attack on Iran (either by the United States or Israel), there is a strong argument to be made for trying this option first. inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country. The ideal scenario in this case would be that the United States and the international community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime reject it.

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."

Manufacturing Provocations

"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

This suggests that this option might benefit from being held in abeyance until such time as the Iranians made an appropriately provocative move, as they do from time to time. In that case, it would be less a determined policy to employ airstrikes and instead more of an opportunistic hope that Iran would provide the United States with the kind of provocation that would justify airstrikes. However, that would mean that the use of airstrikes could not be the primary U.S. policy toward Iran (even if it were Washington’s fervent preference), but merely an ancillary contingency to another option that would be the primary policy unless and until Iran provided the necessary pretext." 

The following is an excellent summation by Caitlin Johnstone
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/06/14/seven-reasons-to-be-highly-skeptical-of-the-gulf-of-oman-incident/

https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2019/06/convenient-tanker-attacks-as-us-seeks.html

Wednesday, 15 May 2019

Will John Bolton’s Dream to Bomb Iran Come True?


Will John Bolton’s Dream to Bomb Iran Come True? Ex-Iranian Ambassador Warns About U.S. Escalation




Democracy Now!

The Pentagon has reportedly drawn up a plan to send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East if President Trump decides to take military action against Iran.

The New York Times reports the Pentagon presented the proposal on Thursday after National Security Advisor John Bolton requested a revision to an earlier plan.

Bolton has long advocated for attacking Iran. According to the Pentagon, far more than 120,000 troops would be needed if a ground invasion was ordered. This comes as tension continues to escalate between the United States and Iran.

The United States recently deployed the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the region claiming there was a “credible threat by Iranian regime forces.”

Iran has announced it will stop complying with parts of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal and resume high-level enrichment of uranium in 60 days if other signatories of the deal do not take action to shield Iran’s oil and banking sectors from U.S. sanctions.

The U.S. has attempted to cut Iran off from the global economy, even though Iran has remained in compliance with the nuclear deal.

We speak with Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a Middle East Security and Nuclear Policy Specialist at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He served as spokesperson for Iran in its nuclear negotiations with the European Union from 2003 to 2005.


Wednesday, 23 August 2017

Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams on Trump's Afghanistan speech

Ron Paul Institute Statement On Trump's Afghanistan Speech





Zero Hedge,
22 August, 2017








Authored by Daniel McAdams via The Mises Institute,



Like me, many of you watched President Trump's train wreck of a speech on Afghanistan earlier tonight.

 It's nearly midnight and I am still reeling.

I guess it was too much to ask to hear him admit the obvious and draw the obvious conclusions: 

After 16 years - the longest war in US history - no one even remembers what we are fighting for in Afghanistan. 
The war is over. 
Not another American (or innocent Afghan) life for one of the most convoluted and idiotic wars in history!

Trump of 2012 and 2013 said just that. Candidate Trump said just that.
Then tonight he told us that once you sit in that chair in the Oval Office you see things differently.

What does that mean?

Once elected you betray your promises so as to please the deep state? Here's the truth that neither President Trump nor his newfound neocon coterie can deny:



1) A gang of radical Saudis attacked the US on 9/11. Their leader, Osama bin Laden, was a CIA favorite when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. He clearly listed his grievances after he fell out with his CIA sponsors: US sanctions in Iraq were killing innocents; US policy grossly favored the Israelis in the conflict with Palestinians; and US troops in his Saudi holy land were unacceptable.
2) Osama's radicals roamed from country to country until they were able to briefly settle in chaotic late 1990s Afghanistan for a time. They plotted the attack on the US from Florida, Germany, and elsewhere. They allegedly had a training camp in Afghanistan. We know from the once-secret 28 pages of the Congressional Intelligence Committee report on 9/11 that they had Saudi state sponsorship.
3) Bin Laden's group of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11. Washington's neocons attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq in retaliation, neither of which had much to do with bin Laden or 9/11. Certainly not when compared to the complicity of the Saudi government at the highest levels.
4) Sixteen years -- and trillions of dollars and thousands of US military lives -- later no one knows what the goals are in Afghanistan. Not even Trump, which is why he said tonight that he would no longer discuss our objectives in Afghanistan but instead would just concentrate on "killing terrorists."

Gen. Mike Flynn had it right in 2015 when he said that the US drone program was creating more terrorists than it was killing. 

Trump's foolish escalation will do the same. It will fail because it cannot do otherwise. It will only create more terrorists to justify more US intervention. And so on until our financial collapse. The US government cannot kill its way to peace in Afghanistan. Or anywhere else.