I
decided to do something completely different today after watching a
Russian TV serial on Leon Trotsky which provided me with an
opportunity to reassess the 1917 Bolshevik revolution and Trotsky's
role in it.
I
got an email from You Tube saying they were blocking it on copyright
grounds. Neverththeless it is still there, for how long I do not
know.
This
is a signal to go over to Bitchute and give them a chance.
Leon
Trotsky - his role in the Bolshevik revolution and world history
I suggest watching this in conjunction with this BBC documentary that has been removed from the BBC archives but survives on You Tube
In
part, it is the psychological portrayal of a man who has rejected
God, morals and family to bring about a revolution, whether or not
the people want it or not.
Originally Lev (Leiba) Bronstein, he takes his name from his jaller who says the only way to
power is through the inculcation of fear in people – an idea
Trotsky takes to heart.
He
is willing to do anything to create the revolution he craves even if
it means killing the very people in whose name he is acting.
Part
of the narrative is his dialogue with Stalinist Frank Jackson who
turns out to be Ramon Mercader, sent by Stalin to assassinate
Trotsky.
The
Wikipedia article is critical of some of the historical facts in the
film, portraying it as reflecting the ideology of the Russian State.
Trotskyism
and its idea of permanent revolution and internationalism (compared
to the nationalism of Stalin) have in their own way become popular in
the West with modern day Trotskyists making the easy transiton from
“proletarian internationalists” to today's neo-conservatives.
Given
the extent to which some on the left in the West continue to call for
the toppling of Assad in Syria (a goal they share with Western
governments), is Trotskyism the new neo-conservatism?
At
the start of his book, The Global Minotaur, on the whys and
wherefores of the global financial and economic crisis, which swept
the world at the beginning of 2008, former Greek Finance Minister
Yanis Varoufakis ruminates on “that state of intense puzzlement in
which we find ourselves when our certainties fall to pieces, when
suddenly we get caught in an impasse, at a loss to explain what our
eyes can see, our fingers can touch, our ears can hear.”
The name for this psychological condition, he reveals, is aporia, a
state of befuddlement that has been much in evidence when it comes to
the chaos and tumult that has engulfed the Middle East these past few
years. Here, Karl Marx’s admonition that, “The
history of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains
of the living,”
has never been more apposite.
History
in the right hands is like a flashlight helping to penetrate the fog
of obfuscation that shrouds the issue of war and conflict in the
present. However, in the wrong hands it is a crutch employed to
support a paucity of analysis and critical thinking. In other words,
there is a marked and crucial difference between drawing a conclusion
from the facts and applying a conclusion to those facts. Those who
fall into the latter category do so out of opportunism or ignorance,
though when it comes to the fate of nations both are deserving of
equal contempt.
A
recent example of the former came in the shape of British Labour MP
Hilary Benn’s speech in the UK Parliament, making the case for
British airstrikes in Syria. Hilary Benn, who by some ludicrous turn
of events is Labour’s current shadow foreign secretary, constitutes
an impeccable and irrefutable rejoinder to the proponents of the
hereditary principle, given that he happens to be the son of the late
and great Tony Benn. The speech he made was heralded across the
political spectrum from right to ‘fake’ left as a tour de force
that bore comparison with Churchill’s legendary ‘fight them on
the beaches speech’ after Dunkirk.
The
adulation he received was in large part over his assertion that
British airstrikes, carried out let’s not forget in violation of
the country’s sovereignty, would be in keeping with the tradition
of the International Brigades that fought in the Spanish Civil War.
Such a foul example of historical revisionism would be difficult to
beat, one made worse by the fact that those British men and women who
heeded the call to aid Spain in its struggle against fascism in the
1930s did so in defiance of the government of the day’s policy of
non intervention – i.e. appeasement – thus sealing Spain’s
fate.
Hilary
Benn, the very definition of a first rate second rate man, regaled
the Commons and the country at large with a scream from the bowels of
mediocrity, willfully dissing the heroism, principle, and courage of
people who stood against the vile opportunism he represents.
However,
even more insidious than the likes of Benn are those on the left who
would have us believe, even after the disasters to befall
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya before it, that in Syria today there are
forces fighting against the government that are deserving of our
support and solidarity. They would have us believe that something
approximating to a revolution is raging in Syria, taking place
somewhere in between the carnival of head chopping by sectarian
fanatics and resistance to them on the part of nonsectarian forces in
the shape of the Syrian Arab Army and its allies.
Like
latter day John Browns such voices, wielding a copy of Trotsky’s
Permanent Revolution in one hand and a one-way ticket to irrelevancy
in the other, unleash verbal broadsides of calumny at any who dare
question the intellectual and ideological idiocy they parade with the
kind of gusto one associates with the infantile disorder of a type
well known.
For
such people ideological templates are all the rage, employed as a
convenient opt-out of the obligation to come up with a concrete
analysis of a concrete situation. Revolution is but a parlor game as
they relive 1871, 1917 or 1968, the years bandied around like
connoisseurs of champagne discussing a favorite vintage.
And
don’t they just hate it when that bubble of smug complacency in
which they reside is penetrated by the facts, pitching them into
paroxysms of apoplectic indignation and self righteousness as they
take to the blogosphere to deliver thunderous denunciations and
biblical injunctions against those who dare blaspheme their ultra
left nostrums and fantasies. It is hardly an accident that many of
the most noxious disciples of neo-conservatism once inhabited the
ultra left. Both have in common a religious attachment to the
subjective factor when it comes to shaping societies, regardless of
the catastrophic consequences wrought. Material conditions – a
product of real world conditions and specificities – are a trifling
detail, reduced to the status of minor inconvenience in the messianic
scheme of things. Rather than herald the onset of societal collapse,
chaos, conflict, and mayhem are the conditions out of which Utopias
are forged.
To
paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “Puritanism
is but the whine of the hypocrite.”
John
Wight has written for a variety of newspapers and websites, including
the Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London
Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal.
The
cautious and considered HR McMaster is leaving the White House to be
replaced by one of the most polarizing, irascible figures operating
in contemporary national security circles: Former UN Ambassador John
Bolton.
Bolton,
who recently penned an op-ed in the Wall
Street Journal arguing
that a preemptive strike against North Korea would be both legal AND
desirable, is widely believed to be one
of the most interventionist figures to ever hold a senior position in
the US government. Case
in point: Before 9/11, Bolton helped found a group calling for the
unilateral overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Rand Paul declared that Trump
was wrong to trust someone who is "unhinged as far as believing
in absolute and total intervention."
So
it should hardly come as a surprise that Bolton
plans to shake up the National Security Council staff when he arrives
in the West Wing. Foreign
Policy reports
that Bolton, Trump's third NSA in 15 months, is preparing to begin
firing staff and replacing them with his own allies, as well as a few
allies of former NSA Michael Flynn, who share Bolton's hawkish views.
As
one might expect, the
Obama holdovers and McMaster loyalists will be the first to go. But
they won't be the only ones: Those targeted for removal include
officials believed to have been disloyal to President Donald Trump
- especially those who have leaked about the president to the
media.
"Bolton
can and will clean house," one
former White House official said.
Another
source said "He is going to remove almost all the political
[appointees] McMaster brought in."
A
second former White House official offered a blunt assessment of
former Obama officials currently detailed or appointed to the
NSC: "Everyone
who was there during Obama years should start packing their shit."
The
circumstances surrounding McMaster's departure will only embolden
his successor to make sweeping changes. As FP reports,
McMaster was reportedly planning to hang on for a few more months,
but a recent leak about Trump's decision
to congratulate Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
McMaster’s
departure may have been hastened by leaks emanating from the White
House. Two sources familiar with the matter said McMaster was going
to stay on until early summer.
But
when the Washington Post reported this week that Trump had
congratulated Putin in a phone call on his fraudulent election win
— after receiving written briefing materials from the NSC
instructing him not to congratulate Putin — the president reacted
furiously and blamed McMaster. The story caused Trump to speed up
McMaster’s departure, the sources said.
Bolton
is already in talks with certain longtime advisors and is likely
preparing to offer several of them jobs in the West Wing. One
such advisor is Matthew Freedman, a Republican consultant who
previously advised Bolton at the State Department and the United
Nations. Freedman and many other Bolton allies are pushing
the incoming national security advisor to make sweeping changes
(changes that will, of course, benefit them).
On
Thursday evening, just hours after Trump tapped him for the job,
Bolton held a call with longtime advisors, including Matthew
Freedman, a Republican consultant who once advised Bolton at the
State Department and the United Nations. Freedman is currently
helping manage the transition, according to a source familiar with
the call.
"Freedman
is a very political guy that Bolton likes," one Republican
source said. "He
is overly ambitious about cleaning house."
Freedman
disputed that account, saying he was not aware of the Thursday
phone call. "I can tell you there is no list," he said.
Another
source close to Bolton said it was premature to be talking about
personnel changes.
While
Trump might object to Bolton's mustache (the president has a distaste
for men with facial hair), the two at least see eye to eye on policy
issues.In
a way, Bolton could be considered a "proto-Trumpian" figure
due to his criticism of the United Nations and the European Union -
positions that Trump has also embraced
Bolton's
friends believe this closeness will allow Bolton to make swift
changes at the White House. Indeed, Bolton's allies already have two
names that should be at the top of Bolton's list of staff to fire:
Deputy NSA Nadia Schadlow and former McMaster deputy Ricky Waddell.
Among
the officials Bolton’s allies are urging him to fire is Nadia
Schadlow, currently the deputy national security advisor for
strategy. Schadlow was the primary author of the administration’s
recently released National Security Strategy, which was viewed as a
surprisingly mainstream document that reaffirmed many traditional
U.S. foreign-policy positions. Another official likely to be targeted
in a Bolton purge is McMaster’s deputy, Ricky Waddell.
It
wouldn’t be the first purge to follow a change in Trump’s
national security advisor. When Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster replaced
retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in the job last year, McMaster
systematically eliminated officials seen as loyal to his predecessor.
According to four sources close to the White House, those so-called
"Flynnstones" - advisors loyal to Flynn - are
believed to be plotting their return to the NSC.
Whether
Bolton will sign off on the staff purge his allies and advisors are
pushing is less clear, though he has been insistent about ousting
so-called Obama holdovers."You
could easily say that people close to Bolton want these people to
go," one
source said. Other sources stress that Bolton, a veteran bureaucratic
infighter, makes his own decisions.
A
source close to Bolton cautioned that any staffing changes would take
time, given the need to process security clearances. That means
Bolton will likely be stuck with his current staff for the May summit
meeting between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
Trump
and Bolton have reportedly discussed staffing changes since at least
last July, when Bolton was offered the job as McMaster’s deputy - a
position currently held by Waddell. Trump told Bolton that the deputy
job would lead to the top post, but Bolton declined,saying
he’d rather wait until he was offered the national security advisor
job.
However,
there are two factors that Bolton's allies believe could make life
difficult for the former ambassador to the UN.
Another
is whether he manages to get along with Chief of Staff John Kelly -
very much a supporter of the establishment view of American foreign
policy. Bolton also has Trump's ear, which could lead to tensions
between the two men. Since he arrived in the West Wing, Kelly has
proven incredibly effective at keeping his job, and has helped
dispatch many West Wing rivals.
Bolton
will need to tread carefully if he wants to outlast his two
predecesso
The
U.S. polity and media now acknowledge what we reported on
December 21. The U.S. announcement to build up a 30,000 strong PKK
army in north-east Syria was a disaster. It prompted Turkey to
initiate its attack on YPG/PKK Kurds in Afrin. It threatens do drive
it out of NATO and into Russia's open arms. It gives the Syrian
government new leverage against the Syrian Kurds.
Under
Turkish threats to attack U.S. forces in Syria the Trump
administration had to
pull back-
at least in its rhetoric. Independent of who rules Turkey the country
will never acquiesce to an armed Kurdish entity on its southern
border. The U.S. should have know this.
This
failure of the Trump administration's plan has prompted a new push
from neoconservative propagandists for a full U.S. war on Syria and
its allies. The lobby shop of the Kagan family, the Institute For The
Study of War, had its junior staff pen an op-ed for Foxnews to argue
for a new study object:
The
U.S. must rapidly change how it is executing policy in five key
areas.
Russian
military bases. ...
Acceptance
of Bashar al-Assad. ...
Syrian
“de-escalation.” ...
The
“peace” process. ...
Iran
and al Qaeda. ...
The
hinted at solutions, couched in vague language, are for 1. nuke them,
2. kill him, 3. stop it, 4. who cares, 5. destroy 'em all:
The
U.S. must face reality in Syria. It must recognize the threat Russia
poses. It must acknowledge the limits of its current partners on the
ground. It cannot put faith in a diplomatic charade. It must
implement a real strategy against al Qaeda and Iran. And it must
recognize the value of American
action over
American rhetoric. ... It will take
a long time and a hard struggle to
achieve any outcome in Syria that the U.S. should be willing to live
with. It is time to focus on it, devote resources to it, and prepare
to do so for a long time.
"For
a long time" sounds to me like a multi decade occupation of the
Syrian battlefield and the adjacent areas. I doubt that any
politician who wants to be reelected will vote for that.
It
is not useful to quote the nonsense but here are some of the rhetoric
figures it uses:
...
the will and leverage needed to lead a solution to the Syrian crisis
- defend U.S. interests - confronting the ongoing terrorist threat -
Iranian expansion - Bashar al-Assad’s brutal aggression -
on-the-ground influence - herculean effort - a contingent that wants
to cut and run - a real plan - fundamental flaw - a lack of
sufficient leverage on the ground ...
After
having set the scene for a massive U.S. occupation of Syria, Rogin
claims that "nobody is advocating" a "large increase
in U.S. troops". His advice then is to do more of the stuff that
evidently just failed: stick to the Kurds, pay some Arab tribes (aka
former ISIS), arm rebels (aka al-Qaeda) in Idleb. But then comes the
real blopper:
the
Trump administration should raise the pressure on Assad, Russia and
Iran, including through sanctions, the
credible threat of U.S. force and
whatever else might persuade them.
Now
what please is a "credible threat of U.S. force" against
those three countries? And might they have the capability to credibly
threat back? Who will win the thermonuclear war over the Tanf desert
base in south-east Syria?
A
year into Trump’s presidency, his administration is saying the
United States has a long-term interest in Syria. The next step is to
match those words with action.
I
have no doubt that the two op-eds were coordinated. More of this kind
will likely come. The common theme is "action" and - while
not openly said - they demand a larger U.S. war over Syria. The
unmentioned beneficiary of such a war, next to the weapon producing
financiers of those writers, would be Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The
neoconservative writers and their op-eds should be ignored. But the
war on Iraq has shown that there is some serious political power
behind them. Now someone in the White House will have to pick up
those arguments and try to convince Trump with them. Who will that be
and will s/he be successful?
Trump
To Release New US Strategy: Will Neocons Cheer?
Foreign
affairs analyst Jim Jatras joins today's Liberty Report to discuss
the new US National Security Strategy scheduled to be released next
week. Big changes? New approach? We'll discuss...
Iran
has been in neocon crosshairs for a very long time. U.S.
Presidential Administrations come and go, Democrat and Republican,
but the neocon script has remained the same.
President
Trump, voted in as an "outsider," has adopted the insider
script.
Today's
speech in Saudi Arabia was crafted by Trump's neocon Senior Policy
Advisor Stephen Miller.
“Baghdad
is liberated,” he
wrote for
his FrontPage Magazine in April 2003. “In the days to come let us
not forget that if it were not for one man, and one man alone—George
Bush—the people of Iraq would not be celebrating in the streets and
pulling down Saddam’s statues today.
… We
have entered the era of a new civil war between the forces of freedom
and the powers of Islamo-fascist and communist darkness, and once
again the left is clearly determined to take its stand on the other
side. The good news is that America is back. Our military has
performed superlatively. Our leadership has stood tall. We ourselves
can celebrate over this and look confidently toward what lies ahead.”
Long
story short...Trump may be a different face, but the neocon goal has
remained the same.
Here's
the relevant part of today's speech about
Iran that
neocon Stephen Miller
wrote for Trump:
But
no discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without
mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three—safe
harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for
recruitment. It
is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the
region. I am speaking of course of Iran.
From
Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists,
militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and
chaos across the region. For
decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror.
It
is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the
destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders
and nations in this room.
Among
Iran's most tragic and destabilizing interventions have been in
Syria. Bolstered
by Iran, Assad has committed unspeakable crimes, and the United
States has taken firm action in response to the use of banned
chemical weapons by the Assad Regime -- launching 59 tomahawk
missiles at the Syrian air base from where that murderous attack
originated.
Responsible
nations must work together to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria,
eradicate ISIS, and restore stability to the region. The
Iranian regime's longest-suffering victims are its own people. Iran
has a rich history and culture, but the people of Iran have endured
hardship and despair under their leaders' reckless pursuit of
conflict and terror.
Until
the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations
of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for
terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just
and righteous government they deserve.
Neocons
are patient.
They
always keep their eyes on the prize.
Democrats....Republicans...."Outsiders"....
Neocons
write the script.
Meanwhile,
our lives, our safety, and (of course) our wallets are always at
their beck and call.
America's
foremost expert in international affairs, having served under 5
Presidents, instrumental in the Camp David accords, in addition to
playing a key role in regime changes around the globe for
decades, Dr.
Steve Pieczenik exploded
with rage on the Alex Jones show yesterday -- warning Trump and his
team that war crimes would follow if they pursued a neocon agenda of
war in Syria, which the American people do not want. "This
is a warning to our generals, Mcmaster, and others, who think they
can do a regime change in Syria. Number one, that will not be
possible, not with the military, not with all the forces you have and
not with the quality of the soldiers you have, the generals. Any
notion of a regime change through force is both absurd or criminal.
The issue of Syria and Assad have no national security interests to
us at all. This will be an incredible dereliction of duty if we go to
war in Syria." He
then warned Mcmaster and Mathis directly, saying that he will "come
forth, and be tried for criminal activity, as will Mathis."
"There
is no reason to put our men and women in harm's way for oil
pipelines, or whatever nonsense that is military industrial complex
thinks we need to do to get in the middle east. We have no interest
in the middle east."
"There
is no cause for war."
"Again,
we're going through the nonsense of the neocons."
Dr.
Pieczenik made his first public appearance in more than 30 years
during the Presidential elections, saying in no uncertain terms that
he represented a faction of the American intelligence community
that would
not allow Hillary Clinton to become the next President.
Moreover, he claimed to be part of an organization that released the
Podesta emails to Wikileaks. Interestingly, the mainstream media
continues to ignore the good Doctor -- in spite of the fact that is
resume is anything but conspiratorial. He is the real deal.
At
one point in the interview, he got so heated that Jones had to cut
him off when he threatened legal action against the President.
"If
this goes any step further, this is a warning to our generals, to our
President, and anyone involved. Once again, we will react quite
vociferously and strongly. This is grounds for all types of legal
action against the President."
He
further elaborated on the situation in Syria as a war that is
unwinnable, describing how the Assad family was firmly
entrenched and could not be displaced by American forces, who have
'no idea what they're doing.'
"The
people I know in the military are increasing their force structures
to the degree that there is no strategy whatsoever. If you have no
strategy, and regime change isn't a strategy, do not go to
war."
"The
President needs to understand, if he goes to war, that's his problem
and we will have a major blowback, domestically. Our military is not
prepared for this type of war. Our generals have no idea what they're
doing."
A
confused Jones, obviously caught off guard by the acrimonious tone of
Dr. Pieczenik, asked what had changed from Friday to cause him to
issues these warnings.
Pieczenik described, from a
psyops point of view, the things he learned over the weekend
that caused him to worry.
"But
once I hear, and I understand there are more forces placed there over
the weekend, there was artillery placed in there. And in fact, they
are creating in the White House, what we call a dichotomy or two
messages." "You
have a purposeful confusion."
Posts
