Donald Trump and the current state of American politics - Spring, 2016

I felt I had to come out of my hibernation to say a few words about the dazzling show we have been witnessing this winter.

This year's presidential election campaigns in the US have been a spectacle the kind of which we have not seen since the days when Rome ruled the world. This year's highly entertaining two ring circus (i.e. presidential elections in the US) has served to show us all just how much control special interests and
big money have over the political process in the US. They can no long hide the kind of people buying their way into American politics. They can no long hide the fact that the thing called "democracy" does not exist in the US, at least not in the way they want us to think it exists. They can no longer hide the fact that civil liberties (what made America unique in the world) are gradually disappearing. Also notice that increased funding for the already over-bloated US war-machine and unconditional support for Israel are the ONLY topics ALL presidential candidates, including those who claim they are not under the influence of any special interests, unanimously agree on. In fact, when on a public podium, they all seem to go out of their way to signal their subservience to Jews and their desire to allocate immense funds to the military industrial complex. In my opinion, the candidates' harsh rhetoric about Russia and Iran are intrinsically connected to their desire to win the support and approval of the two aforementioned ruling elites in the country.

It seems as if spewing hateful rhetoric about Russia and Iran, feeding the gluttonous military industrial complex and paying homage to Jews and Israel have become the litmus test all US officials need to pass before they are considered for the top job in the country. It's truly troubling how far the US has fallen since President Eisenhower's warning fifty-five years ago and President Nixon's warning forty-five years ago.

Donald Trump versus America's ruling elite

This year's two ring circus has been particularly entertaining, thanks to billionaire businessmen, real estate mogul and television celebrity, Donald Trump. When Trump first announced his candidacy last summer, none of the political pundits in the country expected him to do so well. Trump was supposed to be an interesting sideshow. Well, that was before he suddenly and quite spectacularly stole the show. It's as if Trump had been waiting and preparing all his life for this. Watching him it quickly becomes apparent that he is fully in his element. He is relishing every bit of this moment. He is enjoying himself and he is being a brilliant ringmaster. In fact, Trump knew early on in his life that he would one day seek presidential office. He actually came close to doing so in 2000. But that was not his time yet. Today is the moment he was destined for. I believe that his presidential bid was his manifest destiny, and it has become a watershed moment in American history. I should also add that discussions about whether or not Trump actually has policies are irrelevant in discussions about Trump because his attitude and his larger-than-life persona transcends political policy. Actually, Trump's presidential bid has little to do with actual political policy and more to do with his personality. Simply put: His supporters want to see Trumpian attitudes in the White House; actual policies, they surmise, can come later. Also for his supporters, a vote for Trump is essentially a vote against all the other, run of the mill politicians.

Trump was mentally preparing for today for a very long time, and he thought he had laid the proper ground work for himself. After all, he had created a business dynasty and amassed billions of dollars. He had turned his name into a national brand. He had established ties with both sides of the political isle in Washington. He had married his beloved daughter Ivanka into Judaism. His political advisers are Jewish. His campaign manager is Jewish. Yet, Jewish owned news organizations in the US are crying - “if you are a Jew, you should be very afraid of Donald Trump” and neoconservative Jewish warmongers are asking - is this the end of the West as we know it?" The anti-Trump frenzy has gotten so bad, that Max Boot, senator Marco Rubio's "foreign policy adviser" (and a well known Western imperialist, Republican, Neoconservative, Council on Foreign Relations member and Russian born son of Jewish dissidents) is even on record publicly claiming he "would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than vote for Donald Trump".

The Jewish establishment in the US and by extension everyone else within news media and government in the US remains largely against him. Consequently, the country's Neoliberal establishment (the Jewish-led left wing) is against him and the country's Neoconservative establishment (the Jewish-led right wing) is against him. Consequently, most political pundits and news media outlets in the US (mostly Jewish and/or Jewish owned) have been attacking him viciously. Why do we see this unbridled hysteria within the Jewish community? In my opinion, because unlike other presidential candidates who are willingly and enthusiastically surrendering themselves to the Jewish establishment and the international elite (European and American secret societies), Trump is seen as an independent player merely seeking to cooperate with them. This was very apparent in a talk he recently gave to a room full of influential Republican Jews. Listen carefully -
Donald Trump Speaks at Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum (12-3-15):
If one had to identify the event that turned the Jewish establishment in the US against Donald Trump, it would have to be this speech. Trump is intelligent, shrewd, aggressive, energetic, manipulating, patriotic, ambitious, entertaining, controversial, independent, charismatic, provocative and arrogant. He has name recognition. He has a lot of money, he therefore does not need and more importantly does not want financial support from anyone. He has also proven to be a populist. Consequently, millions of enthusiastic and very loyal supporters have rallied around him. Trump's message, or rather his message coupled with his aggressive attitude, has proven very appealing in particular to America's disgruntled middle-class, white Christian males; the once all-powerful demographic in America that has quite literally been dying off in recent years. Trump has suddenly and quite unexpectedly become a powerful political force, perhaps even a movement, in a increasingly polarized nation that is utterly disillusioned with Washingtonian politics. Trump has become a powerful voice in a nation put into decline by the ruling establishment in Washington and Wall Street.

The above noted attributes of Trump (coupled with the current economic and sociopolitical situation in the US) are precisely what the Jewish establishment in America and globalist interests around the world fears. From their perspective, the US is too important because the US has been a powerful catalyst with which they have been pushing their strategic agendas around the world for decades. Therefore, when it comes to Washington and American politicians, they seek total domination. In other words, the US is too wealthy, too large, too powerful, too influential in the world, and the ruling elite is too vested in the American empire to simply share power to a populist outsider who is not totally owned or controlled by them. It should also be said that Trump's populist persona, his popularity among white Christians and some of his style is also reminding his worried detractors of historic figures like Hitler and Mussolini.

From a Jewish perspective: Once a immensely popular public figure like Donald Trump, who has a following of millions of white Christians in the country, rises in American politics on a platform based on anti-establishment, anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim sentiments... it's a very small leap thereafter to the thing called "antisemitism". In my humble opinion, the fear Jews have towards Trump is primarily an instinctual fear. Consequently, although Trump has gone out of his way to pander to the country's Jewish ruling elite to gain their approval, the Jewish ruling elite realizes that Trump (and his followers) are not something they can directly own or easily control. Trump will therefore not be trusted by them. I also suspect his German pedigree is not helping him one bit. But with millions of Americans standing firmly by Trump's side, they now realize they have a serious problem on their hands. The anti-Trump hysteria orchestrated by the Jewish establishment and their lackey's throughout American society could therefore be foreseen and expected.

We therefore have a situation in the US where there is a presidential candidate who is doing his utmost best to work from within the political system at hand; a presidential candidate who is immensely popular throughout the country; a Republican presidential candidate who is drawing large numbers of Democrat and independent voters into the Republican party... but also a Republican presidential candidate that the Republican establishment (and virtually everyone else in Washington) is vehemently opposed to. Just think:
Instead of being happy that in Trump the Republican Party finally got someone that record numbers of American voters are excited about, they are viciously attacking him. Would the Republican Party rather lose the general elections with a couple of Hispanics than win with Trump? Apparently, yes.

It was an extraordinary day in American history when the Republican establishment represented by former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney officially set out to subvert the will of the American people. By doing so, the US political establishment finally revealed its true face -
Mitt Romney: Donald Trump is a 'phony, a fraud':
And it's not only Mitt Romney openly plotting against Trump -
Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders:
At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate, Plot To Stop Trump:
But ask yourselves: What about the will of the voters? What happened to that wonderful thing called "democracy" all of a sudden? A relatively well known American public figure meticulously worked his way into the political system setup by the ruling elite, but he is being attacked by the system because he is too independent and too popular? This makes absolutely no sense... well, that is until you look at the bigger picture and realize who and what controls America today.

Trump presidential bid has inadvertently revealed that even within a tightly controlled two-party system, which is in essence a closed circuit, there can be serious problems when presidential candidates exhibit traits (e.g. popularity and independence) that the ruling elite does not like to see in presidential candidates. Donald Trump (and Bernie Sanders) has also revealed just how much influence major money donors have in American politics. What we are seeing today in America are things some of us knew existed all along but had a hard time proving it to the ignorant public. Thanks to Trump (and Sanders), and as the Armenian saying goes, the shit is now coming up to the surface. 

America has become a showcase for Jews on the left and Jews on the right

What we are witnessing today is the coming of age of a new political landscape in the US. Once upon a time Anglos (WASPs) exclusively and jealously ran the country. That is no longer the case today. America's WASP class has relinquished all power to American-Jews and the international elite (a group of powerful families in Europe and in the US in which Jews also play a prominent role). American-Jews in particular have achieved near total domination in the US today.

Jews represent the American left (George Soros' Neoliberal types), Jews represent the American right (Leon Strauss' Neoconservative types). One side brings you imperial wars, along with "Judaeo-Christian" values, big business and American flags; the other side brings you imperial wars, along with abortions, feminism, multiculturalism, immigrants, welfare state and rainbow flags. Although Jews maintain close ties with their shabbos goyim known as "Christian Zionists", they remain much, much more prolific and active in America's left. The Western world has thus become a test-tube and a playground for the Jewish elite. Virtually all American politicians - both Democrat and Republican - eat from Jewish hands. Immense amounts of Jewish money finances both sides of the political spectrum in the US. They do this to essentially have a firm footing in any given political discourse. The US has thus become a showcase for Jews on the left and Jews on the right - and those in the middle getting screwed is the average American. Jewish influence in the US today is so pervasive that when the "right" fights the "left", what we essentially see is Jewish infighting. We can clearly see this unique dynamic in modern America play out when they sometimes air their dirty laundry. When disagreements are sometimes observed between the US and Israel, you can bet it is Jewish infighting. Nevertheless, regardless of what political side in the US you think you are on, you are in fact on their side. Jews are America's new ruling elite, as the following proves -

Donald Trump's beloved daughter is a "happy Jew" -
Ivanka Trump is happy to be Jewish:
The Hispanics in the bunch, Cruz and Rubio, are more Zionistic than most Jews -
Ted Cruz says: "If You Won't Stand With Israel, I Will Not Stand With You":
Senator Marco Rubio – Israel First, America Last:
Bernie Sanders is of course a Jew, but apparently he doesn't like talking about it -
Bernie Sanders Is Jewish, but he doesn’t like to talk about it:
 And many years ago Hillary Clinton claimed to be part Jewish -
Hillary Has Jewish Roots:
As the reader can see, Jews are now America's kingmakers. Jews are the Western world's holy of holies. Jews have once again managed to become their host nation's ruling class, a ruling class that the ruled can only speak about in whispers. Yet, most dumbed-down and zombified Americans (a direct consequence of American pop culture) are not aware of the Jewish hijacking of US politics. And those few that are aware, won't dare openly speak ill of it - lest they be branded as racists, anti-Semites, Nazis, fascists or haters. As the reader can see, Jews therefore have not only captured the nation's centers of power, they have also captured the American people's minds. Through the proliferation of Holocaust propaganda in recent decades, Jews have succeeded in convincing the ever-naive goyim (i.e. non-Jews) that it is a great sin to talk against or criticize Jews. Subsequently, the naive goy today wouldn't think twice about criticizing or attacking "Muslims", "Russians", "Chinese", "Arabs", "Europeans" or even "Christians"... but God forbid anyone criticizes God's chosen, the Jews.

I remain convinced that this is primarily a result of "social engineering" and mental conditioning that comes from either growing up in a Western nation or in a nation under Western influence. Through engineering tools like school curriculum, cinema, music, television programming, print media and news media, Jews have succeeded in thoroughly brainwashing the masses. That is actually how they have traditionally operated. They use cultural levers to brainwash and/or distract the masses, they use financial levers to buy officials and subvert governments. That is how they ruined Russia; that is how they ruined Germany; that is how they ruined the Middle East; that is how they are currently ruining the US. Organized Jewry plays a parasitical role in the human ecology. I say parasitical purely in an ecological sense and not as an ethnic slur.

In a nutshell: Jews stole America while Americans were too drunk, too high or too preoccupied with sex, television, shopping or baseball to notice it. Consequently, Jews today represent all that is America, in all its gore and glory. Consequently, much of what the world hates and/or fears about America today - be it its warmongering, ultraliberalism or its neoconservatism - can be traced to American Judaism. It's this Jewish nature and character - with its inherent hatred of Christians, Muslims, Europeans, Russians, Arabs and Persians - that will eventually destroy the US. The US is already in decline because subservient officials in Washington have been pursuing policies both at home and abroad that are beneficial to Jews and Israel but detrimental to the US. Looking at the American political landscape, I now feel that it's final: To be considered for high office in today's America, you have to be either fully Jewish, partially Jewish or simply more Jewish than Jewish

There is no democracy in America and the old America is dead

The following is more-or-less what the political system in the US is all about: Elections in the US is basically about two groups of well connected people competing for the empire's control panels. The system is rigged to be a two party show. Ultimately, Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin or like what an American friend of mine once said: "Same shit, different asshole". Every four years the ruling elite in the US decides what shirt the sheeple will wear, and the sheeple are then given the "democratic" choice of picking between two colors. The US political system is like a two ring circus managed by a ringmaster that the audience does not get to see. US presidents are selected to be elected by the sheeple. US presidents are tasked with being the spokesmen or salesmen for the special interests running the show behind-the-scenes. The US is run like a multi-national corporation in which the American citizenry is its work force.

Washington's greatest strength continues to be is its devilish ability to deceive even the healthiest of minds. Which reminds me of a powerful quote by the great German philosopher Goethe: "None are more hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free". Due to the sheer power of propaganda and social engineering, most Americans continue to think they are a free people. Most Americans are still under the impression that there is a functioning democracy in the US. If you are one of these sad simpletons, I ask you to please wake up, open your eyes and realize that despite what political party you “decide” to support in the US, the imperial elite in the US has already decided what kind of country you will live in. Everything else is just an elaborate show meant to distract fools.

Men like Lavoy Finicum once personified the United States of America. I am not going to pass moral judgement, but it was his kind after all that literally put the nation on the map. It was his kind that also helped the US became a superpower. Now, Lavoy Finicum is dead, murdered by his government. His kind that once ruled the American heartland unopposed is now a dying breed. In my opinion, Finicum's death symbolized the death of the old America and the birth of a new America. And this new America is in fact a "third world America". The US is no longer "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and it is definitely no longer a nation "united under God". America was stolen while Americans were busy getting drunk or high, or were just too preoccupied with sex, television, shopping or baseball. The US today is slowly (some say quickly) transforming into a massive God-less police state and a surveillance state, and the situation is getting worst with each passing year. It should be said however that due to its past momentum, accrued wealth and the fact that it remains the epicenter of the world, there continues to be some economic opportunities in the US for intelligent, creative, clever and/or lucky individuals. But even that is slowly diminishing today as wages decline, cost of living rises and the middle class shrinks. The so-called "American Dream" (a post Second World War phenomenon) is gradually turning into an American nightmare for tens-of-millions of Americans. At the end of the day, none of the big talking presidential candidates will be able to fix America's problems because the fundamental problem the US has is its imperialism, its role as a global hegemon. 

The great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once stated: "Those who fights monsters should see to it that they themselves do not become a monster”. The US failed to heed the German philosopher's advice. By defeating Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the US acquired the worst characteristics of both.

The US today is a far cry from what its founding father intended when they founded the nation. The US is no longer a republic, but a massive global empire under the control of a handful of special interests. Washington's imperial pursuits in recent decades is essentially what's wrong with America today. How so? Well, the following is one way how: It is well known that the America's infrastructure is failing, as evidenced by what we saw take place in Flint, Michigan. While the Federal government claims it does not have the funds to fix America's failing infrastructure - and boost America's economy and its middle class by creating millions of well paying jobs throughout the country in the process - it somehow has the funds - $5 TRILLION and counting to be exact - to fight hegemonic wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. 

TRILLIONS of dollars are being wasted in imperial pursuits of grandiose agendas, while the US slowly transforms into third world status, America's once famed civil liberties slowly disappear and the US, once seen as the world's policeman, is now seen as "the biggest threat to world peace".

If the political facade in the US looks a bit more professional or even somewhat more "democratic" when compared to other nations, it's simply because the US has been slowly developing and fine-tuning its closed circuit, two party political system for well over two hundred years. At its very core the US is essentially the same as all other top-heavy, authoritarian governments around the world. Ultimately, the US is too wealthy, too powerful, too large and too influential globally to allow a silly thing called democracy get in the way. Those who are therefore hoping that Washington will one day tighten it's belt, willingly abandon the business of empire (the business it's been in since the Second World War) and begin transforming the US back to being a republic are fooling themselves. Once a hegemonic predator gets to live on the top of the global food-chain, it becomes virtually impossible for it to live anywhere else. Washington willingly abandoning its imperial status is like a person willingly quitting a high paying profession on Wall Street to work at McDonald's for minimum wage. It just won't happen. Those who run the American empire will therefore never willingly allow the "people" to have a real say in American politics.

Uncle Sam has therefore evolved quite sophisticated methods to manage and/or manipulate people's will during elections without making it look too obvious. These undemocratic practices even have impressive sounding names: "Electoral College", "Super-delegates" and "Gerrymandering". And this is how crazy some of this stuff actually is -
It's crazy, it's legal, and it's undemocratic. Adam Ruins Everything explains gerrymandering:
Because Democracy! How Bernie beat Hillary but lost New Hampshire:
The above is basically the proliferation of "institutionalized corruption" in the Western world. Just think: It's not a majority of votes that puts a presidential candidate into the White House but a majority of "delegates"; and the "super-delegates" in the bunch are government insiders that basically work to close the deal and thus ensure the status quo. The system in place essentially makes it more important for presidential candidates to gain a majority of insider support than a majority of the people's votes. These processes are tools that serve to add complex layers to the political system thereby making it susceptible to insider manipulation and controlThese are the tools with which they cleverly control the people's will. This is how they oversee, manage and direct the nation's political process. This is how the system is rigged and why American politics will never be allowed to get out of its predetermined parameters. It's a very dazzling, foolproof and tightly controlled political system, but obviously not every democratic. The American political system was indeed founded by geniuses! 

We therefore had a situation where the Clinton witch and Bernie Sanders were more-or-less even in actual votes, but in the "super-delegate" count (which is the number that counts) the witch was leading Sanders by several hundred points. Two candidates were more-or-less even in the number of votes they had gotten from the voters, but the one that had "insider" support was way ahead in the delegate count. And that's not all, people from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) vet and "consult" presidential candidates -
As the reader can clearly see, the US is a top-heavy, semi-authoritarian "democracy" where the ruling establishment tightly controls the parameters of the political system. So, ask yourselves: How is this any different from the top heavy, semi-authoritarian democracies of Russia and Iran, or even Armenia for that matter? Iran also has a democracy in which the country's religious establishment tightly controls the parameters of the country's political system. The clerics in Tehran vet the political players, define boundaries of the political process and go on to administer it all from above. Similarly, Russia's FSB closely monitors the political process throughout the Russian Federation. These are done to keep society in order and politics in-line with the interests of the nation. It's also meant to keep out foreign (i.e. Western) meddling.

So, how is any of this different from what happens in the US?!

Would Russian or Iranian officials get away with the kind of corruption Washington gets away with on a regular basis? Never! In fact, in 2012, Russia had one of the most orderly and democratic elections in the world, yet the West was crying foul. In fact, Iran has had a very well organized election process, but the West has been crying foul. Very well, I accept the notion that Russia, Iran or even Armenia are far from being perfect... but where are Western-funded NGOs decrying the undemocratic processes we are seeing take place throughout the US?

I reiterate: If the political facade in the US looks shinier, more refined, more sophisticated or more palatable, it's simply because the US has had an uninterpreted two hundred year head-start in the game of modern politics. But at its core the political system in the US is essentially the same as the ones we see in other, more authoritarian parts of the world. The US is too wealthy, too powerful, too large and too influential. Those who run the American empire will therefore never allow the "people" to make political decisions and they will never allow outsiders like Donald Trump to change the game. In my opinion, the US differs from nations like Russia, Iran and Armenia only with the sophistication with which it fools its electorate and keeps things orderly.

Manipulation of the political process via dirty tricks is nothing new in American politics. But this year's presidential campaigns have brought the flaws and the rampant corruption in the system to the forefront like never before. What we are seeing take place in this year's election process in the US is blatant examples of the deeply rooted institutionalized corruption (i.e the kind of corruption that is reserved only for upper echelons of society) in the Western world. The following are some additional materials to ponder -
US elections, rigged and computer codes:
Could computers fail on election day?
This Hoax Affects Everyone:
Two-Party Dictatorship: US choosing lesser evil?
Ron Paul 100% proof of Maine Election fraud!
Stealing a U.S. election? Nothing's easier!
But, it's all good. I am actually not criticizing the US for not being a democracy. As I have said on countless previous occasions: Democracy, in its purest form, is a very destructive political process. In fact, the ruling elite in the US knows very well that entrusting a nation’s politics to the whims of its ignorant masses is the surest and fastest way to political and economic ruin. This is essentially why Western powers have been imposing “democracy” on nations targeted with either destruction or occupation. Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and Ukraine are good examples of what I am talking about. The American ruling establishment is very experienced and intelligent. I therefore don't blame them for not wanting real democracy to ruin what they have meticulously created during the past two centuries. The intention of my commentary is instead to break the myth of American democracy and unmask the undemocratic political system in the US, and finally let the sheeple see that they have been fooled by savvy wolves in sheep's clothing. When it comes to governance, baring a few very rare exceptions, I believe top heavy is always better.

Top heavy is better

I do not believe in the silly notion that the ignorant masses are entitled to make serious political decisions through a voting process, nor do I think that numerous political parties competing against each other for power is a healthy thing for any nation, especially for a poor and/or developing nation like Armenia. Therefore, as noted above, I do not want to come across as if I'm rejecting the idea of an elitist system of government as an effective form of governance. In fact, in various degrees, much of the civilized world today is in fact made up of elitist governments and oligarchies. A political system with few, well established political players can in fact be very effective if such a system is practiced by a homegrown and nationalistically motivated political and financial elite, and if the citizenry of the aforementioned political system is well conditioned for such participation. The main problem I have with the political system in the Western world is that is it not the "democracy" it wants the world to think of it as, and the US duopoly is unfortunately not even controlled by a homegrown American elite that has the nation's best interests in mind. The type of democracy prescribed for the developing world by Western officials today (increasingly at the tip of a bayonet) is inherently flawed and destructive in nature.
I personally believe in top heavy, nationalistic governments where limited forms of democracy and highly regulated forms of capitalism are practiced. I see National Socialism and Constitutional Monarchy as the best forms of government. Such forms of top heavy/authoritarian governments are particularly important for peoples without much experience in statehood (i.e. Armenians), and for peoples with certain nonconforming cultural/genetic traits (i.e. Armenians). Close observation of Armenians and Armenian history reveals that Armenians tend to be by nature: fiercely independent, individualistic, never satisfied, competitive, aggressive, possessive, suspicious, jealous, clannish, arrogant, intelligent, crafty and overly ambitious. These unique traits (which lies at the root of Armenian success outside of Armenia) does not allow Armenians to be easily governed (especially when the governing is being done by other Armenians). More importantly, such traits do not encourage sociopolitical stability. Democracy and Armenians therefore cannot mix well. Armenians therefore need to be ruled by a top heavy, authoritarian government. Russians likewise need authoritarian governments, but unlike Armenians they seem to understand this. The following survey reveals why Russia remains a powerful nation despite immense odds -
Speaking of Russia: Moscow is increasingly nationalizing its national assets, passing laws to curb foreign influences, clamping down on rampant corruption, promoting patriotism, increasing funds to its military, monitoring its national bank, implementing social care programs and regulating its "free market" economy. That is how governments should be run. And I'm glad that Russia is fast heading towards National Socialism, although it would never be categorized as such due to the negative connotation the term in question continues to have thanks to the decades long propaganda against it by the Anglo-American-Zionist-Bolshevik interests. The following article by the New York Times discusses Russia's transformation into a top heavy, well-armed, Russocentric and a carefully regulated free-market democracy. But I would like to once again remind you to read between-the-lines because the article is ultimately written by Western presstitutes and is meant to cast a negative light on Russia and its president -
Barring some rare exceptions, mankind in gewnral is by-nature incapable of governing itself. This is condition is more pronounced in certain peoples (e.g. like Armenians, Greeks, Arabs) who have genetic and cultural traits that do not mix well with democratic values. Because of man's nature, democracy will not work most of the time. Those who control the levers of government in the Western world fully recognize the inherent flaws found in a democratic system, which explains why Western governments are by-design elite-based systems with relatively very few political players. This is why I am an advocate of political systems where political parties and corporate entities are tightly regulated and are made to operate under the close supervision of the nation's homegrown political, financial and military elite. Two such successful forms of governments today are Russia and China.

Free societies shoot to great heights, but they burnout just as fast. When it comes to governing, top heavy will always be more efficient and longer lasting. I also want my ever-naive and self-destructive Armenian compatriots to stop their utter stupidity when it comes to politics in Armenia. Armenians need to wake up and see that corruption is in fact much worst in the US. Armenians need to wake up and see that there is no democracy in the US. Armenians need to wake up and realize that the existence of subversive (or mentally ill) characters like Paruyr Hayrikian, Jirayr Sefilian, Raffi Hovanissian and Levon Petrosian within the political scene in Armenia is proof that Armenia is, unfortunately, more democratic than the US. Armenians also need to wake up and realize that the US did not become this wealthy, this developed and this powerful because of "democracy" "humanitarian values" or "liberalism".

It is troubling for me that a lot of people are still under the impression that the Western world, the US in particular, become this wealthy and this developed as a result of democracy and/or liberalism. We must dispel this false notion because it is misleading millions of people around the world and causing unrest by feeding the ignorant masses yearning for a better life with false and poisonous misconceptions.

Protected by oceans, the political/financial elite in the US took over two hundreds years to grow the country to what it is today. During that time period, the US became a wealthy world power essentially as a result of the industrial revolution; mass scale enslavement of Africans; the systematic extermination of native American Indians and the confiscation their resource rich lands; global wars for plunder; and the total control over global trade and commodities as a result of such wars. The aforementi0ned, coupled with effective governance by very intelligent and farsighted officials, are the fundamental reasons why the US reached historic prominence within the 20th century. In my opinion, had the US been an actual democracy, it would not have even made it this far. Democracy had nothing to do with the rise of American wealth and power. In fact, it can be strongly argued that encroaching "democratic values" such as liberalism and the loss of traditional/conservative values in the country are the reasons why American civilization is in decline today.

Today, the American empire remains a fancy house-of-cards built by Freemasons and founded on war, genocide and slavery. The America we all knew and loved was a post Second World War phenomenon. It was only after Second World War that some of the accrued wealth in the empire trickled down to the masses and created the much vaunted “American Dream”. The US reached its pinnacle with the defeat of Nazi Germany and the fall of the Soviet Union. But it has been living as a global parasite ever since. Today’s America is a destructive force around the world. Thankfully, times are changing, the East is rising and it will be downhill for the Western empire from now on.

If the US is not really a democracy, then what is it?

A closer look at the system in place in the US strongly suggests that the country is actually a mix of corporatocracy, plutocracy and oligarchy. And one glance at the political process in the country is enough to see that the US is a two party, closed circuit political system under constant supervision by a handful of powerful groups. The political system in the US is essentially like a two ring circus carefully managed by ringmasters the audience seldom gets to see. And the ringmasters in question are: Jewish establishment; Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission; Pentagon; CIA; military industrial complex; international bankers; Wall Street; Federal Reserve; energy lobby; pharmaceuticals lobby; and the insurance lobby. It should also be added that always present within the highest levels of the above mentioned special interests in Washington are the international elite and their secret orders, the exclusive clubs where members of European and American ruling dynasties (old money) get together and plot ways to preserve their wealth and their power. Some of societies I am referring to are: Freemasonry, Illuminati, Rosicrucians and of course the more modern Bilderberg group. 

These groups prove that real power and real wealth in this world continues to be inherited.

There are in fact many exclusive clubs for high society in the US and in Europe. One such group known as Saint Hubertus briefly revealed itself recently when Justice Scalia died unexpectedly. By pointing this out the only thing I am suggesting is that elitist clubs are real and they are present in the highest echelons of Western governments. While we have no accurate way of measuring how influential they are in politics, they do nevertheless seem omnipresent in centers of power in the Western world. That said, looking at modern institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund; movements such as globalism, liberalism and socialism; and the institutionalized promotion of climate change awareness, atheism, democracy, freedom of the press, human rights, homosexuality, feminism, GMOs, civil society, ecumenism and interracialism around the world, I believe it is safe to conclude that the international elite in question does yield great power in places like Washington, London and Brussels. I also suspect that Julian Assange's Wikileaks and the network of internet activists known as Anonymous also serve these globalist interests.

I would also like to add that when Donald Trump talks about making peace with Russia, shutting down the US border with Mexico and bring back American businesses from places like China, he may be cleverly appealing to the average American, but he is unnerving the country's international elite (i.e. its 
Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group types). If you listen closely to what high level American officials say about US trade relations with China and other developing economies around the world, you will inevitably come to the realization that it is the international elite that created the world's current financial system with the US at its epicenter; it is the international elite that wants to contain potential competitors like Russia; it is the international elite that convinced American officials to outsource US industry to nations like China, Vietnam, Singapore and Mexico; it was the international elite that designed thee trade agreement NAFTA to create an interdependent north American superstate; it was the international elite that has transformed the US from an industrial superpower to a service sector economy; and it is the international elite that convinced American officials to open wide America's borders to third world migration to continue feeding their newly created economic system in the US with low wage workers.

In other words: American industry and businesses have been moving to other countries not because American businessmen are stupid or greedy as we are told from time to time - but essentially because the international elite that controls the economic and financial strings of the American empire began outsourcing American businesses in the early 1970s for the sole purpose of economically and financially tethering the economies of strategic nations around the world to the north American behemoth they had created. As I said: If you educate yourselves about this topic and then listen closely to what high ranking policymakers in the US (not "elected politicians" but senior officials like Ben Bernanke, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski) say about why Washington has outsourced American businesses and crafted trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP, you will realize all this.

Nevertheless, it was this international elite that also transformed the US into an epicenter for various globalist projects. The US has thus been the catalyst for global agendas - be it economic, be it political, be it financial, be it cultural  - since the end of the Second World War. This situation has all but decimated the middle class in America and has drastically altered the character of the US. But this situation has also, as intended, preserved global hegemony for the US and preserved the elite's wealth and influence. Consequently, the American economy today, as well as its politics, has less to do with the interests of the American people per se and more to do with the international elite's desire to maintain their global power and hegemony through the US. The faster stupid Americans (who have been convinced by the ruling elite that what I have just outlined here is a "conspiracy theory") realize all this, the faster will they begin to make better sense of what's going on in their country. Once more: Levers of power in the United States were stolen and Americans were too drunk, too high or too preoccupied with sex, shopping or baseball to notice it.

Getting back to Donald Trump: There is an Armenian saying that roughly translated says: The kind of friends a man has says a lot about the man. That is very true. It is also very true that the kind of enemies a man has also says  a lot about the man. We plainly see the kind of enemies Trump has, and that is frankly why many of us like Trump.

Unless there is a very elaborate deception being played on us all by Trump and the country's ruling elite, I believe that Trump is genuine. At the very least, his political stances regarding Syria and Russia are ostensibly rational. At the very least, he is nothing like the other warmongers and puppets of special interests we see on the political stage. Nevertheless, and regardless of everything else, I am grateful to Trump (and Sanders) for reveling some of the ugly truths about the American political system, truths many of us knew existed but could not unequivocally prove because they were always hidden just below the shiny surface. And I of course thank him for all the memorable entertainment.

I can therefore say that I like Trump and that I am a Trump fan. But I wouldn't go as far as calling myself a Trump supporter. 

For now, I am just a fan. Because I am under no illusions. Also, I don't like to engage in wishful thinking. I am critical and cynical and I dislike trends. It's not fun to be this way but it's my nature to be independently minded, cautious and realistic. In my opinion, the American empire is too large, too powerful, too corrupt and too set in its ways, and Trump is too little, too late. Trump will not change the system, the system will more likely change Trump. If Trump gets the Republican nomination and goes on to beat the witch or the socialist for the nation's presidency, he will only do so by coming to terms with the powers that be. There is no other way forward for him - unless he wants to risk his well being. In my opinion, Trump will not live to see the White House if he does not fully submit himself to the ruling elite or at the very least "cut a deal" with them. The last time the US had a populist leader that really wanted to change things for the better, he was murdered by his own. I am not suggesting that they may kill Trump. They won't go that route because it would be too obvious. Besides, assassinations of high officials by the deep state are reserved as a drastic last resort measure, a trump card (pardon the pun). But they do have other ways to ruin people's lives. In any case, Trump won't risk anything. He is simply not that type. As we have already seen, he has already been signalling his strong willingness to work with the country's Jewish establishment and the military industrial complex. That in itself is bad enough and nothing good can come out of it. Trump wants to be part of the ruling establishment, even if the ruling establishment does not trust him. But if it comes down to it, the ruling establishment will make a deal with him.

If Donald Trump somehow becomes president of the United States, some of his core beliefs will therefore have to change if they run counter to the interests of the American empire. In my opinion, shutting down America's borders with Mexico or getting into trade wars with nations like China or Japan runs counter to the interests of the American empire. Men like Trump will eventually find out that the world they live in looks very different when viewed from inside the White House.

Spring, 2016


Is this the end of the West as we know it?









Anne Elizabeth Applebaum is an American-Jewish Pulitzer Prize-winning author who has written extensively about communism and the development of civil society in Central and Eastern Europe. She has been an editor at The Economist, and a member of the editorial board of The Washington Post. She is married former Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski.


The Neocons vs. Donald Trump
















Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders


His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
David Adesnik Michael Auslin Kevin W. Billings Robert D. Blackwill Daniel A. Blumenthal Max Boot Ellen Bork Joseph A. Bosco Michael Chertoff Patrick Chovanec James Clad Eliot A. Cohen Carrie Cordero Michael Coulter Chester A. Crocker Patrick M. Cronin Seth Cropsey Tom Donnelly Daniel Drezner Colin Dueck Eric Edelman Joseph Esposito Richard A. Falkenrath Peter D. Feaver Niall Ferguson Richard Fontaine Aaron Friedberg Greg Garcia Jana Chapman Gates Jeffrey Gedmin Reuel Marc Gerecht David Gordon Christopher J. Griffin Mary R. Habeck Paul Haenle Melinda Haring Robert Hastings Rebeccah Heinrichs Jeffrey W. Hornung William C. Inboden Jamil N. Jaffer Ash Jain Myriah Jordan Robert G. Joseph Kate Kidder Robert Kagan David Kramer Matthew Kroenig Frank Lavin Philip I. Levy Philip Lohaus Mary Beth Long Peter Mansoor John Maurer Matthew McCabe Bryan McGrath Paul D. Miller Charles Morrison Lester Munson Andrew S. Natsios Michael Noonan John Noonan Roger F. Noriega Robert T. Osterhaler Mackubin T. Owens Everett Pyatt Martha T. Rainville Stephen Rodriguez Marc A. Ross Michael Rubin Daniel F. Runde Benjamin Runkle Richard L. Russell Andrew Sagor Kori Schake Randy Scheunemann Gary J. Schmitt Gabriel Schoenfeld Kalev I. Sepp Vance Serchuk David R. Shedd Kristen Silverberg Michael Singh Ray Takeyh William H. Tobey Frances F. Townsend Jan Van Tol Daniel Vajdich Albert Wolf Julie Wood Dov S. Zakheim Roger Zakheim Philip Zelikow Robert B. Zoellick Laurence Zuriff - Number of Signatories: 95
The statement above was coordinated by Dr. Eliot A. Cohen, former Counselor of the Department of State (2007–8), and Bryan McGrath, Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group, a defense consultancy. They encourage other members of the Republican foreign policy and national security communities wishing to sign the declaration to contact them.

How Donald Trump sparked an unprecedented crisis among Jewish Republicans

The Republican Party has a serious Jewish problem. With the party failing to foresee and later oppose Donald Trump's rise, Republican Jewish outreach faces an unprecedented crisis. The party could end up with a nominee who alienates both Jewish conservatives by breaking with Republican orthodoxy on Israel and Jewish liberals by promoting authoritarianism, racism, and xenophobia. Jewish Republicans have rested their case for drawing Jewish voters away from the Democratic Party on what they portray as stronger Republican support for Israel. They play to Jewish affection for Israel by disingenuously depicting President Obama as undermining the historic U.S.-Israeli alliance and snubbing the Israeli prime minister. They claim Obama has posed a dangerous threat to Israel itself, both through the Iran nuclear deal and the administration's efforts to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Because American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal, multi-issue voters, this strategy was always a bit of a fool's errand. But it could be subverted completely if the party nominates Trump. It could have been easy to anticipate this predicament. At the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum in December, Trump drew criticism for promoting anti-Semitic stereotypes while speaking to an audience of Jewish activists, many of them wealthy donors to the party. He suggested that they might not support him because he wouldn't take their campaign contributions. He called himself a "negotiator, like you." He said they were, like him, great dealmakers. The speech, a characteristic Trump mash-up of insult and purported flattery, at the time provoked a nervous discomfort in the audience, but little tangible opposition.

Even Trump's promise to use his negotiating skills to reach a "great" peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians — a heresy in conservative pro-Israel circles — failed to produce a coherent anti-Trump strategy from Republicans. The reception he receives at his scheduled speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) next week will be telling. As his campaign has marched on, Trump has become more brazen with his Islamophobia, his scapegoating of immigrants, and his promotion of "roughing up" protesters at his rallies, who are frequently black.

The Trump campaign also has failed to explain how it gave press credentials to a white supremacist radio host to broadcast live from a rally in Tennessee. When confronted by his refusal to disavow support from the anti-Semitic former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Trump said, "I don't like to disavow groups if I don't know who they are. I mean, you could have Federation of Jewish Philanthropies in groups." The Anti-Defamation League called Trump's statement apparently likening neo-Nazi groups and Jewish charities "obscene." Jews do not make Hitler comparisons lightly, but increasingly Trump's rallies, at which he has deployed strongmen and incited followers to violence, are inviting them.

Rather than acknowledge these echoes, though, Trump has derisively dismissed them. After video of Trump supporters raising their arms in a gesture reminiscent of the Nazi salute went viral in Jewish and Israeli media, Trump trivialized his detractors. At last week's debate in Miami, he called the criticism "a total disgrace." In that same debate, in a crucial state in which Jewish support can be pivotal, Trump defended himself with a word salad of some-of-my-best-friends-are-Jewish rhetoric. "I've made massive contributions to Israel," he said, because — don't you know? — Jews value money over everything else. "I have tremendous love for Israel. I happen to have a son-in-law and a daughter that are Jewish, okay? And two grandchildren that are Jewish."

Trump's Republican opponents appear helpless to defend themselves or their party against Trump's assault on their standing among Jewish voters. The second place contender, Ted Cruz, has strained to portray himself as the most dedicated friend of Israel. Leading a campaign that depends on the support of evangelicals, he has touted his endorsements from supposedly pro-Israel evangelicals. But that comes with its own pitfalls. Cruz has singled out the support of Mike Bickle, a controversial Missouri preacher who claims Jews are "spiritually blind" and must be brought to Christ in order for Israel to be "restored" for Jesus' return. The GOP's 2016 Jewish outreach may have started as pipe dream. It has turned into a train wreck.



* * *

... just in case there was any confusion what The Economist thinks:

The country would cease to be great under a President Trump

* * *
* * *
So just whose nerves has Trump gotten on? Here is a summary of the current and honorary directors of the CFR, who basically double down as a 'who is who' list of everyone relevant in modern finance:
Carla A. Hills     Robert E. Rubin     David M. Rubenstein     Richard N. Haass     John P. Abizaid     Zoë Baird     Alan S. Blinder     Mary Boies     David G. Bradley     Nicholas Burns     Steven A. Denning     Blair Effron     Laurence D. Fink     Stephen Friedman     Ann M. Fudge     Timothy F. Geithner     Thomas H. Glocer     Stephen J. Hadley     Peter B. Henry     J. Tomilson Hill     Susan Hockfield     Donna J. Hrinak     Shirley Ann Jackson     James Manyika     Jami Miscik     Eduardo J. Padrón     John A. Paulson     Richard L. Plepler     Ruth Porat     Colin L. Powell     Richard E. Salomon     James G. Stavridis     Margaret Warner     Vin Weber     Christine Todd Whitman     Daniel H. Yergin     Madeleine K. Albright     Martin S. Feldstein     Leslie H. Gelb     Maurice R. Greenberg     Peter G. Peterson     David Rockefeller
And here are the Trustees and the Board of The Economist:
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone PC, DL     Tim Clark     Lord O'Donnell CB, KCB, GCB     Bryan Sanderson     Rupert Pennant-Rea     Chris Stibbs         Sir David Bell        John Elkann        Brent Hoberman        Suzanne Heywood        Zanny Minton Beddoes     Baroness Jowell     Sir Simon Robertson     Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild

Donald Trump: Why Bilderberg, World Economic Forum (Davos), and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Have Shingles



(The study is titled “Trading Down: Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.” A quick breakdown of the study is, here; free access to the full paper is on, here)






Shut this Momzer up!

The permanent underclass must expand. Economic chaos must prevail, so a new order can be instituted.
Mega-corporations must rule the world (for a while). The Globalist hope is this: Eventually, Trump will be discredited as a goofball; and therefore, for the foreseeable future, no one else with any clout will raise the issue of trade treaties or the destruction of economies. Trump and whatever he stood for will be remembered as a flash in the pan, a one-hit wonder. Globalism, as it moves forward, will become a forgotten word. And the band will play on.

Trump’s qualifications for the Presidency, such as they are, are entirely beside this point. Whether he was originally put front and center to serve as a losing foil for Hillary Clintonis also, now, beside the point. He’s acquired too much support. As far as the Globalists are concerned, he is a problem.








Yes, there is an definite upside and a downside to this shock and surprise and unpredicted circumstance. But regardless, it’s a fact. It’s happening. People might wish the wild one was a Caruso or a Nijinsky or an Olivier or a Lincoln or a Tom Paine or a Gandhi—instead of a fast-talking self-promoting New York real estate hustler, who suddenly flips a switch and wants to go to war. But in a machine world, strange things happen. When the mandated pattern for all social behavior is cracked and broken and smashed, strange creatures emerge on stage, under the lights. However distorted they may seem, the audience suddenly pays attention, sniffing something they barely remember, but desperately want.

Does the creature dancing across the footlights accurately reflect the audience’s desire? It doesn’t matter to the audience. Because the thing most wished for, and most precious, is an article called freedom. Will some people misinterpret what it means? You bet they will. They’ll say it’s license. They’ll do all sorts of crazy things with it. When governments and corporations and media agents keep reshaping the world into new versions of locked-down conformity and robot behaviorism, the breakout will never be smooth.


Shrugging off inner slavery, across a whole population, and regressing in fear back to the mean, and breaking out again, are more than most people can handle. But for those who can grasp the core of it, a new dawn rises. And things will never be the same again. And that leaves Trump or any politician far behind.

Jon Rappoport


Anti-Trump Republicans Call for a Third-Party Option

Spurred by Donald J. Trump’s mounting victories, a small but influential — and growing — group of conservative leaders are calling for a third-party option to spare voters a wrenching general election choice between a Republican they consider completely unacceptable and Hillary Clinton. While he has gained intense popularity on the right, Mr. Trump has alienated key blocs in the Republican coalition with his slash-and-burn campaign. For many, his initial refusal last weekend to disavow an endorsement from David Duke, the white supremacist, was a breaking point. Two top Republicans, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, said this week that they would not vote for Mr. Trump in November.

Mr. Trump has alienated voters from several wings of the party: mainstream Christian activists, who view his angry outlook as antithetical to their faith; centrists, who see him as the most divisive politician in a generation; and national security experts, who have recoiled from his praise for autocrats like President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and believe he should not control nuclear weapons. William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, said he would work actively to put forward an “independent Republican” ticket if Mr. Trump was the nominee, and floated Mr. Sasse as a recruit.

“That ticket would simply be a one-time, emergency adjustment to the unfortunate circumstance (if it happens) of a Trump nomination,” Mr. Kristol wrote in an email. It “would support other Republicans running for Congress and other offices, and would allow voters to correct the temporary mistake (if they make it) of nominating Trump.”

Max Boot, a foreign policy adviser to Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, said that if efforts to block Mr. Trump fell short, he would vote against a Republican nominee for the first time in his life.

“I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would vote for Donald Trump,” said Mr. Boot, who expressed optimism that Mr. Trump could still be defeated. He added: “There is no way in hell I would ever vote for him. I would far more readily support Hillary Clinton, or Bloomberg if he ran.”

Among religious conservatives, too, anxiety about Mr. Trump is spreading. Russell Moore, head of the political arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, said he had been deluged by evangelicals asking his guidance on what to do in a race between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton. A Trump-Clinton race would have no palatable choice, Mr. Moore said. He said it would be impossible for him to support any candidate “who stirs up racial animosity” or supports abortion rights. There had been widespread discussion, Mr. Moore said, of seeking out “a conservative independent or third-party candidate.”

Defections of any scale could prove lethal to Mr. Trump. He already trails Mrs. Clinton in general election polls, and polling already shows the possibility of mass desertions from the party. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey this week found that 48 percent of Republicans who do not already back Mr. Trump said they would probably not or definitely not support him in November. But even as Republican leaders have denounced Mr. Trump in increasingly forceful terms, few of them have suggested they would shun him. Mr. Rubio has come the closest, describing Mr. Trump as a fraudster whom the party cannot afford to embrace.

Still, when the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, rebuked Mr. Trump on Monday for his evasive response to Mr. Duke’s endorsement, Mr. Ryan added that he would support the eventual Republican nominee. In a news conference Tuesday night, Mr. Trump dismissed the idea of a rogue Republican ticket: “They’ll just lose everything, and that would be the work of a loser.” But for others in the party, casting a protest vote is no remote prospect. Mr. Sasse, a first-term senator, set off a public conversation by declaring on Twitter that he would favor an independent “conservative option” over Mr. Trump. Representative Scott Rigell of Virginia, a Republican from a moderate district on the Atlantic Coast, said he, too, would vote for neither Mr. Trump nor Mrs. Clinton.

“Not only could I not vote for him, but I couldn’t sit and be silent as I watched him advance,” said Mr. Rigell, who added that many of his congressional colleagues shared his reservations. “He is the antithesis of what I would want my son and grandson to be, and I will not associate myself with him.”

There is no obvious alternative on the right to Mr. Trump, but Republicans believe that an existing minor party, like the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, could serve as a viable vehicle, allowing crestfallen Republicans to show up on Election Day despite their distaste for him. Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico who ran for president in 2012 as a Libertarian, is again seeking the party’s nomination. There is precedent for Republican Party leaders rejecting a radioactive nominee, though not at the presidential level. In 2010, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska won a write-in re-election campaign after a primary loss to a militant conservative activist. And in 1994, when Virginia Republicans nominated the Iran-contra figure Oliver North for the Senate, a former Republican state attorney general opposed him as an independent, collecting considerable support.

Former Representative Tom Davis of Virginia said he expected many Republican candidates to flee from Mr. Trump, as he had fled Mr. North in 1994. (“When Oliver North came to Fairfax,” he said, “you couldn’t find me with a search warrant.”) “It’s too early to see a mass exodus,” Mr. Davis said, “but a lot of this depends on Trump, and right now he’s not putting himself in a very good position.”









Rove's presentation was on the subject of how William McKinley won in 1896, according to an agenda subsequently obtained by HuffPost. Rove recently wrote a book called The Triumph Of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still MattersMcKinley's campaign manager, Mark Hanna, is often referred to as the first Karl Rove -- the first true political operative in the U.S. system. McKinley was running against William Jennings Bryan, a populist and a bigot who riled up the masses by assailing coastal elites and bankers. The race took place in the first Gilded Age. In today's Gilded Age, the parallels are clear. 

Cook did not attend the Rove session, or otherwise take part in any political organizing, a source close to Cook emphasized. Musk tweeted Wednesday that he attended the meeting to talk about "Mars and sustainable energy," not Trump. Sources familiar with the meeting -- who requested anonymity because the forum is off the record -- said that much of the conversation around Trump centered on "how this happened, rather than how are we going to stop him," as one person put it. Trump, who already has nearly one-third of the delegates he needs to secure the GOP nomination, faces major tests in the Florida and Ohio primaries next week. If he wins both those states, he will need to win just half of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.

He wasn't the only topic of the wide-ranging conference, however. At one point, Cotton and Apple's Cook fiercely debated cell phone encryption, a source familiar with the exchange told HuffPost. "Cotton was pretty harsh on Cook," the source said, and "everyone was a little uncomfortable about how hostile Cotton was." (Apple is in the midst of a battle with the Justice Department and the FBI over an encrypted iPhone that belonged to one of the San Bernardino shooters.) AEI has held the annual forum on Sea Island for years. It's so secret that in 2015, Bloomberg News complained that no one would even say whether it had snowed

Federal Aviation Administration records available on show that a fleet of private jets flew into and out of two small airports near Sea Island this weekend. Fifty-four planes flew out of the airport on St. Simons Island, Georgia, on Sunday -- nearly four times as many as departed from the airport the previous Sunday. Many of the planes are registered to jet-sharing companies such as NetJets and Flexjet or private jet services companies such as Jetsetter. At least two of them flew directly to San Jose, California, home of many tech giants, on Sunday.

Another plane, which arrived from Eaton, Colorado, on Wednesday and flew back there on Sunday, is registered to Monfort Aviation, LLC, a private, tax-exempt trust. FAA records don't indicate who controls Monfort Aviation, but it shares a name with Dick and Charlie Monfort, the Colorado-based heirs to a meatpacking fortune who now own the Colorado Rockies baseball team. The plane, a Raytheon Hawker 800XP, seats 15 people. Anschutz, the billionaire whose company part owns Sea Island, is also from Colorado.

Another private plane, a Canadair Challenger, flew cross-country from St. Simons to Van Nuys Airport in Southern California on Friday. Van Nuys Airport is so associated with millionaires and billionaires that their disputes over space at the field occasionally spill into the news media. Another plane, a tri-jet Dassault Falcon 900, flew into St. Simons on Thursday from Westchester County, New York, and returned on Sunday. It's registered to Northwood Investors LLC, which is run by John Kukral, whose official bio notes he's been involved in real estate deals worth over $40 billion.

"The event is private and off-the record, therefore we do not comment further on the content or attendees," said Judy Stecker, a spokeswoman for AEI. She described the forum as "an informal gathering of leading thinkers from all ideological backgrounds to discuss challenges that the United States and the free world face in economics, security and social welfare." 


Trump’s not Hitler, he’s Mussolini: How GOP anti-intellectualism created a modern fascist movement in America,_M%C3%BCnchener_Abkommen,_Ankunft_Mussolini.jpg


To quote Paxton again, this time from his seminal “The Anatomy of Fascism”: “Fascist leaders made no secret of having no program.” This explains why Trump supporters are not bothered by his ideological malleability and policy contradictions: He was pro-choice before he was pro-life; donated to politicians while now he rails against that practice; married three times and now embraces evangelical Christianity; is the embodiment of capitalism and yet promises to crack down on free trade.  In the words of the Italian writer Umberto Eco, fascism was “a beehive of contradictions.” It bears noting that Mussolini was a socialist unionizer before becoming a fascist union buster, a journalist before cracking down on free press, a republican before becoming a monarchist.

Like Mussolini, Trump is dismissive of democratic institutions.  He selfishly guards his image of a self-made outsider who will “dismantle the establishment” in the words of one of his supporters.  That this includes cracking down on a free press by toughening libel laws, engaging in the ethnic cleansing of 11 million people (“illegals”), stripping away citizenship of those seen as illegitimate members of the nation (children of the “illegals”), and committing war crimes in the protection of the nation (killing the families of suspected terrorists) only enhances his stature among his supporters.  The discrepancy between their love of America and these brutal and undemocratic methods does not bother them one iota.  To borrow from Paxton again: “Fascism was an affair of the gut more than of the brain.”  For Trump and his supporters, the struggle against “political correctness” in all its forms is more important than the fine print of the Constitution.


There are other more consequential differences, of course: the interwar Italy was a much bigger mess than the USA is today; the democratic institutions of this country are certainly more resilient and durable than those of the young unstable post-World War I Italy; the economy, both U.S. and worldwide, is not in the apocalyptic state it was in the interwar period; and the demographics of the USA mitigate against the election of a racist demagogue. So, Trump’s blackshirts are not marching on Washington, yet.




The Very Fascist Origins of Trumpism






Still, for a fascist to be accepted as legitimate he has to move the crowd and from the very beginning of his candidacy Trump has done this by stoking racial animosity and grievances.  It is no coincidence that the Trump phenomenon emerges during the tenure of the first black President.  It bears remembering that Trump’s first flirtation with running for office was nothing more than his insistent, nonsensical, irrational, and blatantly racist demand that President Obama show his birth certificate and his Harvard grades.  This was more than a dog whistle to the angry whites that the first black President was not only un-American, literally, but that he was intellectually inferior to them, despite graduating from Harvard Law.  If one considers this “original sin” of Trump then the KKK endorsement of his candidacy and Trump’s acceptance of it seem less strange.

Like Mussolini, Trump is lucky in his timing.  When Mussolini created his Fascists in 1919 there were numerous other far right, authoritarian movements popping up all over Europe.  As Robert Paxton reminds us, by the early 20th century Europe had gotten “swollen” by refugees, mostly Ashkenazi Jews who had since the 1880s been escaping pogroms in Eastern Europe.  Culturally and religiously different they caused reactions amongst the Europeans that are strikingly similar to the way in which many European politicians have reacted to the influx of Muslim refugees and migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.  The Hungarian government’s building of a fence to prevent Muslim migrants from coming in and its rhetoric of foreign, Islamic, invasion is just one of more noted examples of Islamophobic euphoria sweeping rightwing and fascistic movements into power all across Europe.  As Hugh Eakin points out in the New York Review of Books, even Denmark, the beacon of civilized, tolerant, Europe has become susceptible to the xenophobic fear mongering: hate speech now passes for mainstream discussion (the Speaker of the Danish Parliament claims Muslim migrants to be at “a lower stage of civilization”). The head of the newly elected right-wing party in Poland, Jarosław Kaczyński, has described migrants as “parasites” who bring diseases.” 

Thus, it is no coincidence that Trump often references the refugee crisis to point to the ineptitude of European politicians and to simultaneously warn of a yet another jihadist terrorist attack. Trump would feel perfectly at home in the company of the new generation of European authoritarians like Viktor Orban of Hungary or Vladimir Putin of Russia.  He does not care that Putin considers America Russia’s historic enemy because for Trump the real enemy is within. 


“If you are a Jew, you should be very afraid of Donald Trump”

Trump has always appealed to bigots. His address to a Jewish coalition confirms that he's an anti-Semite himself

If you are a Jew, you should be very afraid of Donald Trump. For a while I explained this sentiment thusly: Trump may not be personally anti-Semitic, but anti-Semites sure seem to love Trump. After all, I’ve received countless emails attacking me for being Jewish when I’ve written articles criticizing the Republican frontrunner… even though none of those pieces actually identified my religion (for more on that, click here). Even though this didn’t prove that Trump was himself an anti-Semite, it certainly reflected the inherent bigotry that he stirs up in his supporters. Then Trump decided to speak at the Republican Jewish Coalition earlier today and forced me to revise my earlier opinion. I don’t care that Trump’s daughter married a Jew and converted to his religion – the man is an anti-Semite and I’m calling him out as such. Here are some choice quotes from his speech, courtesy of the good folks at Vox:


“I’m a negotiator, like you folks.”


Trump was also booed by the audience for refusing to state that Jerusalem ought to remain the undivided capital of Israel, an offense that I don’t particularly consider to be racist. On the other hand, check out this attack on the national character of the Jewish State:

“A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal — whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things. They may not be, and I understand that, and I’m OK with that. But then you’re just not going to have a deal.”

It is at this point that I must doff my hat to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who had the courage to call The Donald out on the intolerance embedded in that comment:

“Some in our own party actually question Israel’s commitment to peace. Some in our own party actually call for more sacrifice from the Israeli people. They are dead wrong, and don’t understand the enduring bond between Israel and America.

“Let me be crystal clear: there is no moral equivalence between Israel and its enemies. Understanding that fundamental truth is essential to being the next Commander in Chief. This is not a real estate deal with two sides arguing over money. It’s a struggle to safeguard the future of Israel.”

Even before Trump made these reprehensible remarks, many Republican Jews had already expressed reservations about his candidacy. In an article with Mint Press News, Republican political consultant Nathan Wurtzel (who is Jewish) pointed out that “there are a lot of folks who are, to be charitable, into white identity politics, and to be uncharitable are outright racists, who are supporting Trump. It’s very off-putting and disturbing.” Former Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), who is also Jewish, observed that “in order for us to become a party [of anyone] other than white men, we need to be reaching out. I think Trump’s language and perspective is a long-term negative in terms of building the party.”

Indeed it is, and Coleman’s remarks speak to a much deeper truth. In the ugly world of racial bigotry, there is usually very little distinction between hatred of one minority group and hatred of another. The precise stereotypes often differ, to be sure, as does the exact way in which the prejudice manifests itself. Nevertheless, individuals who are predisposed to racist worldviews are more likely to apply that mindset to a multitude of minority groups than not. Trump’s recent remarks to the Republican Jewish Coalition are just one more demonstration of this reality – and Jews throughout America should take note, and be cautious.

Matthew Rozsa is a Ph.D. student in history at Lehigh University and a political columnist. His editorials have been published on Salon, The Good Men Project, Mic, MSNBC, and various college newspapers and blogs. For a full review of all his published work, visit

What Jewish groups have (and haven’t) said about Donald Trump


Jewish defense organizations:




Umbrella organizations:



Religious organizations:






Political organizations:



Which Jewish groups of note have not responded?

AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee: The nation’s premier pro-Israel lobbying group does not frequently make public statements on matters not directly connected to the initiatives it backs in Congress. But the organization occasionally does wade into partisan political waters. Back in March, AIPAC in a statement applauded Netanyahu’s controversial speech to Congress warning of the perils of the Iran deal. (Netanyahu consulted with Republicans in Congress, but not the White House, when scheduling his congressional address.) And three weeks later, when Netanyahu reaffirmed his commitment to a two-state solution after vowing during Israel’s election campaign days earlier that a Palestinian state would not emerge on his watch, AIPAC issued a statement expressing dismay that Obama administration officials expressed skepticism of Netanyahu’s seeming about-face. On Trump, AIPAC has been silent; a spokesman told JTA the organization’s focus is U.S.-Israel relations.

Zionist Organization of America: This group on the right end of the American Jewish political spectrum on Israel rarely misses an opportunity to promote its views, issuing statements on everything from what public officials fail to say (Dec. 10: U.N.’s Ban Ki-Moon Condemns Terror Attacks On Civilians in Many Countries – But Not In Israel) to little-noticed initiatives the organization itself undertakes (Sept. 25: ZOA Testifies to U. Cal. Regents: Adopt State Dept. Def. of Anti-Semitism). While the ZOA has not addressed Trump’s call to bar Muslims entry to America, the organization issued a statement about Syrian refugees after Trump made his comments. “ZOA: Don’t Bring ISIS/Terrorist Infiltrated, Hamas Supporting, Jew-Hating, Syrian Muslims Into the U.S.,” reads the headline of ZOA’s Dec. 8 news release. “The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) strongly opposes bringing more Syrian Muslim ‘refugees’ into the United States,” wrote the group’s president, Morton Klein. “Syrian immigrants pose a grave danger to all Americans – and an even greater danger to American Jews, for a host of reasons.”

Republican Jewish Coalition: The nation’s premier Republican Jewish group has opted to stay silent on the remarks by Trump, who has led the Republican presidential field in national polls for most of the past few months. RJC officials did not respond to a JTA request for comment.

Jewish Federations of North America: While the umbrella group for North American Jewish federations tries to stay out of the partisan fray, it has weighed in on political matters when it felt the issue merited it. For example, on Dec. 10, JFNA rebuked Israel’s chief rabbi for criticizing an Israeli politician’s visit to a non-Orthodox Jewish day school in New York. In its statement, JFNA said: “Israel’s Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau was wrong to criticize Minister Naftali Bennett for the latter’s visit to a Solomon Schechter community day school in Manhattan.” On Trump, JFNA has issued no statement, and a representative told JTA it has no plans to do so.

Analysis: Donald Trump, Israel and the Jews

Donald Trump

The controversial Republican candidate will find it difficult to leverage his pro-Israel positions to gain Jewish votes.

THE DONALD Trump phenomenon is challenging both Israel and American Jewry. Trump, who continues to lead the Republican list of presidential hopefuls and can no longer be dismissed as a bizarre candidate, has consistently and strongly supported Israeli positions on many critical issues, including the Iran nuclear deal and Israeli- Palestinian relations. He has also criticized US President Barack Obama for his attitudes toward Israel and warmly praised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On the other hand, he has proposed policies and made statements that no Jew can in good conscience accept or identify with.

Trump has often used pro-Israel rhetoric.

He called Israel America’s best and most reliable friend, and argued that it should be viewed as the cornerstone of US policy in the Middle East. He has accused Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry of “selling Israel out,” and said that the US should do everything possible to protect and defend it. “They’ve always been there for us and we should be there for them,” he declared. “They are the only stable democracy in a region that is not run by dictators. They are pioneers in medicine and communication and a close fair trading partner.” And, like his father, he said, he had always been loyal to Israel and “would do more for Israel than anybody else.”

Trump highlights the facts that he served as grand marshal for the Israel parade in New York in 2004 and that he has received many awards from American Jewish organizations for his support of Israel. Last February, on receiving such an award from the Algemeiner, a Jewish news organization, he said, “We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1,000 percent. It will be there forever.” On June 16, when he declared his candidacy, Trump vehemently attacked the Iran nuclear deal calling it “a disaster” that could threaten Israel’s survival. In the background, there was also a close personal connection between Trump and Netanyahu. Before the 2013 Israeli election, Trump recorded a 30-second video message endorsing the Likud leader. “You truly have a great prime minister in Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s a winner, he’s highly respected, he’s highly thought of by all. Vote for Benjamin – terrific guy, terrific leader, great for Israel,” he enthused.

On the other hand, Trump’s statements on prisoners of war, Jewish campaign contributions, immigration and entry to the US have touched on a very raw Jewish nerve. On John McCain, who spent six years as a POW in Vietnam and refused early release when his captors discovered that his father was an admiral, Trump flippantly said he was “a war hero only because he got captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” In Israel the nation as a whole cares about its POWs and the government invests huge resources in attempts to release them. The protracted and ultimately successful effort to free Gilad Schalit, a soldier who was captured and held hostage for five years by Hamas in Gaza, well illustrates this ethos. On December 3, Trump told members of the Republican Jewish Coalition that he suspects many members won’t back him because he is rich and doesn’t want their contributions. Trump may have thought he was making a joke, but the Israeli media saw his comments as reinforcing anti-Semitic stereotyping of Jews as rich people who “control the world” and can “buy” elections with their money.

Trump has also made highly provocative and controversial statements on immigration and entry to the US. On June 16, he said that Mexico is sending in people bringing drugs, crime and rape. Later he extended this observation to include immigration from other Latin American countries. And after the recent San Bernardino massacre, he called for a temporary ban on the entry of Muslims to the US, until the government figures out “what the hell is going on.” Jews, who have suffered from closed immigration gates and been saved by open ones, find these statements appalling. Mass Jewish immigration from Russia and Eastern Europe to the US, Palestine and other countries, especially from the beginning of the 20th century, saved Jews from pogroms, persecution and oppression. Mass Jewish immigration from the Arab countries to Israel after the 1948 War of Independence saved them from a similar fate. On the other hand, before, during and immediately after the Second World War, Jews trying to flee Nazi Germany or occupied Europe were refused entry to many countries, including the US.

Millions perished. Therefore, Jews cannot but protest a wholesale, religion-based ban on entry to the US. Indeed, many Jewish organizations in the US, as well as political and religious groups in Israel, overwhelmingly rejected Trump’s call for a ban on the entry of Muslims to the US. TRUMP HAD intended to visit Israel and meet Netanyahu on December 28. The parties had agreed on the itinerary two weeks before Trump’s Muslim ban statement. Thirty- seven Knesset members, all but two from the opposition, strongly criticized Trump’s proposed blanket ban on Muslim entry and urged Netanyahu to cancel their meeting in protest. Netanyahu rejected this demand but issued a critical statement of his own: “The State of Israel respects all religions and strictly guarantees the rights of all its citizens. At the same time, Israel is fighting against militant Islam that targets Muslims, Christians and Jews alike and threatens the entire world.” His office went on to explain his policy on meeting presidential candidates.

“The Prime Minister decided earlier this year on a uniform policy to agree to meet with all presidential candidates from either party who visit Israel and ask for a meeting.” It further clarified that “this policy does not reflect support for the candidates or their policies, but rather expresses the importance that the Prime Minister attributes to the strong alliance between Israel and the United States.” However, in response to the critical furor in Israel, Trump postponed his visit until after the presidential elections, claiming that he did not want to place Netanyahu “under pressure.”

Trump had hoped his visit to Israel on the eve of the Republican primaries would bolster his lead in the race. He wanted to project interest and knowledge in national security and foreign affairs, especially in the Middle East, the No. 1 source of violence, terrorism and instability in the world. He also wanted to garner legitimacy for his controversial positions on the region, and to contrast his support for Israel with what he called the Obama administration’s abandonment of the Jewish state. The strategy made sense, but the injudicious Muslim ban statement undermined any chance of successfully implementing it. Had Trump stuck to his plan, the protests and demonstrations in its wake would almost certainly have rendered it counterproductive.

Trump has certainly been exploiting the weaknesses and confusion in Obama’s handling of Israel, Islamic extremism and terrorism. The president’s blaming only Israel for the impasse in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations has only strengthened Palestinian recalcitrance. The delay in defining the San Bernardino massacre as terrorism, Obama’s refusal to use the term “Islamic terrorism” and his pathetic attempts to characterize the Islamic State organization as non-Muslim reveal an acute denial of both American and Middle Eastern realities. Indeed, American Jews have been disappointed by Obama. In the 2008 elections, they voted for him by a ratio of 78 percent to 22 percent; in 2012, this had dropped to 69 percent to 30 percent. Gallup’s surveys show that in 2008, 71 percent of American Jews identified themselves as Democrats or leaning to the Democratic Party, while 22 percent identified themselves as Republicans or leaning to the Republican party. In 2014, this ratio dropped to 61 percent to 29 percent.

Over the past decade, Republicans have generally been more supportive of Israel than Democrats. The trend began around 2000, almost 10 years before Netanyahu was reelected prime minister. Nevertheless, none of this is likely to help Trump. Most American Jews will still vote for the Democratic nominee. If Trump is selected as the Republican candidate, even more American Jews are likely to vote for his opponent. After Obama, Netanyahu would have liked to see a Republican in the White House. Nevertheless, despite his strong pro-Israel stance, given his character and controversial positions, Donald Trump may not be the best choice to repair American- Israeli relations in the post-Obama era.


Is Ivanka Trump the Donald's Brainy (Jewish) Better Half?

Ivanka is to Donald Trump as Lisa is to Homer Simpson: brainy, composed and unflinchingly loyal to her outrageous and unpredictable father. At least that’s the portrait painted in a Politico article published Thursday. The article explores the relationship between the Republican presidential frontrunner and the daughter who has managed to grow up gracefully under his glaring spotlight. Last month, the article’s author, Michael D’Antonio, published the biography “Never Enough: Donald Trump and his Pursuit of Success.” Here, he draws from his interviews with Ivanka Trump, 33, to examine her affect on The Donald’s campaign.

When Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Donald Trump whom he counts on most, the real estate mogul first named Ivanka Trump. When entangled in yet another web of his own words, this time over questionably misogynistic remarks aimed at Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly in August, Donald Trump again invoked his daughter. “So my daughter Ivanka, who is a terrific person, she came to me and she said, ‘You care so much about women, and you care so much about the whole thing with women’s health issues,’” he said in a profile in the Hollywood Reporter shortly after the controversy erupted. “She said, ‘You are really misunderstood, and you have to get the word out.’”

Privately, Ivanka Trump is said to try to shape her father’s opinions – or at least help him walk them back. New York magazine reported that she allegedly provided him with several statements to backtrack from his anti-immigrant comments, which he nevertheless rejected. Publicly, however, she remains mum on his gaffes. She shrugged the Kelly incident off as “sensationalized,” saying it “didn’t interest me much.” Her presence seems to have a humanizing effect on Donald Trump’s image, making his unsavory outbursts easier to swallow. Even those who write him off as a raving bigot would have a hard time denying that he managed to raise an intelligent, rational and compassionate young woman. (Ivanka Trump’s ability to straddle both political parties in her private life adds to this sense of sensibility. D’Antonio points out that Trump has criticized President Barack Obama on Fox News but also fundraised for liberal Democratic New Jersey Senator Corey Booker, and is friends with Chelsea Clinton.)

Having grown up playing in her father’s office, Ivanka Trump now has her own one floor down. By 16 she had launched a modeling career but pivoted in her 20s toward business, demonstrating sharp judgment, insightful and direct criticism and a placid demeanor — all in evidence when she joined her father as a judge on his popular reality TV series “The Apprentice.” She is currently an executive vice president of development and acquisitions at The Trump Organization (focusing on Trump hotels and fashion-related enterprises), where her brothers Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump are also officers. In 2009, Ivanka Trump converted to Orthodox Judaism for her nuptials to real estate mogul Jared Kushner; the couple now has two children. She has spoken about her religious observance and the influence of Judaism on raising her family.

Familial loyalty is something she clearly learned in her own upbringing. Trump introduced her father when he announced his candidacy in June, a duty often assumed by a candidate’s spouse. If the campaign is any indication, she might serve as a de facto first lady in a Donald Trump White House. Trump’s current wife, Melena Knauss, has mostly taken a backseat on the campaign trail thus far. Perhaps recognizing the scrutiny and obligations that a Trump presidency would inflict on her and her family, Ivanka Trump hedged on a question about whether she is happy about his run for the presidency. Speaking at the Fortune Most Powerful Women summit in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, she said, “As a citizen, I love what he’s doing. As a daughter, it’s obviously more complicated.”

Trump’s America










For its part, mainstream America is fully aware of this condescension and contempt and is understandably irritated by it. American egalitarianism is on its last legs. While the new upper class was seceding from the mainstream, a new lower class was emerging from within the white working class, and it has played a key role in creating the environment in which Trumpism has flourished. Work and marriage have been central to American civic culture since the founding, and this held true for the white working class into the 1960s. Almost all of the adult men were working or looking for work, and almost all of them were married.















Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His many books include “By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission” and “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.”

Trump, Sanders and the American Rebellion

As institutions lose respect, voters think: Let’s take a chance.

What is happening in American politics?



All this goes hand in hand with the general decline of America’s faith in its institutions. We feel less respect for almost all of them—the church, the professions, the presidency, the Supreme Court. The only formal national institution that continues to score high in terms of public respect (72% in the most recent Gallup poll) is the military.

A few years ago I gave a lecture to a class at West Point, the text of which was: You are entering the only U.S. institution left standing. Your prime responsibility throughout your careers will be to keep it respected. I then told them about the Dreyfus case. They had not heard of it. I explained how that scandal rocked public faith in a previously exalted institution, the French army, doing it and France lasting damage. And so your personal integrity is of the utmost importance, I said, as day by day that integrity creates the integrity of the military. The cadets actually listened to that part.

I mention this to say we are in a precarious position in the U.S. with so many of our institutions going down. Many of those pushing against the system have no idea how precarious it is or what they will be destroying. Those defending it don’t know how precarious its position is or even what they’re defending, or why. But people lose respect for a reason. To New Hampshire: The rejection of the establishment’s preferred candidates in both major parties is a big moment. It is also understandable, the result of 15 years of failed presidencies. It is a gesture of rebuke toward the political class—move aside.

It’s said this is the year of anger but there’s a kind of grim practicality to Trump and Sanders supporters. They’re thinking: Let’s take a chance. Washington is incapable of reform or progress; it’s time to reach outside. Let’s take a chance on an old Brooklyn socialist. Let’s take a chance on the casino developer who talks on TV. In doing so, they accept a decline in traditional political standards. You don’t have to have a history of political effectiveness anymore; you don’t even have to have run for office! “You’re so weirdly outside the system, you may be what the system needs.”

They are pouring their hope into uncertain vessels, and surely know it. Bernie Sanders is an actual radical: He would fundamentally change an economic system that imperfectly but for two centuries made America the wealthiest country in the history of the world. In the young his support is understandable: They have never been taught anything good about capitalism and in their lifetimes have seen it do nothing—nothing—to protect its own reputation.

It is middle-aged Sanders supporters who are more interesting. They know what they’re turning their backs on. They know they’re throwing in the towel. My guess is they’re thinking something like: Don’t aim for great now, aim for safe. Terrorism, a world turning upside down, my kids won’t have it better—let’s just try to be safe, more communal.

A shrewdness in Sanders and Trump backers: They share one faith in Washington, and that is in its ability to wear anything down. They think it will moderate Bernie, take the edges off Trump. For thus reason they don’t see their choices as so radical. As for Mr. Trump, it is not without meaning that his supporters have had eight months to measure the cost of satisfying their anger by voting for him. In New Hampshire, 35% of the electorate decided that for all his drama and uncertainty they would back him.

The mainstream journalistic mantra is that the GOP is succumbing to nativism, nationalism and the culture of celebrity. That allows them to avoid taking seriously Mr. Trump’s issues: illegal immigration and Washington’s 15-year, bipartisan refusal to stop it; political correctness and how it is strangling a free people; and trade policies that have left the American working class displaced, adrift and denigrated. Mr. Trump’s popularity is propelled by those issues and enabled by his celebrity.

In winning, Donald Trump threw over the GOP donor class. Political professionals don’t fully appreciate that, but normal Americans see it. They get that the guy with money just slapped silly the guys with money. Every hedge-fund billionaire donor should be blinking in pain. Some investment! This leads me to Citizens United. Conservatives applauded that Supreme Court decision because it allowed Republicans to counter the effect of union money that goes to Democrats. But Citizens United gave the rich too much sway in the GOP. The party was better off when it relied on Main Street. It meant they had to talk to Main Street.

Mr. Trump is a clever man with his finger on the pulse, but his political future depends on two big questions. The first is: Is he at all a good man? Underneath the foul mouthed flamboyance is he in it for America? The second: Is he fully stable? He acts like a nut, calling people bimbos, flying off the handle with grievances. Is he mature, reliable? Is he at all a steady hand?

Political professionals think these are side questions. “Let’s accuse him of not being conservative!” But they are the issue. Because America doesn’t deliberately elect people it thinks base, not to mention crazy.
Anyway, we are in some kind of moment. Congratulations to the establishments of both parties for getting us here. They are the authors of the rebellion; they are a prime thing being rebelled against. Connected to that, something I’ve noticed. In Washington there used to be a widespread cliché: “God protects drunks, children and the United States of America.” I’m in Washington a lot, and I’ve noticed no one says that anymore. They stopped 10 or 15 years ago. I wonder what that means.







When do you think the American deep state first started?


What are the key institutions and players within the deep state? 




Oh? Why is Silicon Valley now so central?










Mostly Backing Republicans







Living Near One Another


Mainly in Finance and Energy




Exposed! How the Billionaires Class Is Destroying Democracy
































Public Trust In The U.S. Government Has Plummeted To Historic Lows
Public Trust In The U.S. Government Has Plumetted







The Age of Authoritarian Democracy















The Lies Of Democracy and the Language Of Deceit
















Why Ignorance Is Democracy's Bliss


• 40% of Americans can't name the vice president.
• 63% can't name the chief justice of the U.S.











Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas

File:Protector of the sheep.jpg














Scientists say America is too dumb for democracy to thrive

They know what's best for the country




















When Democracy Weakens











Trump and Political Circuses Are Nothing New








Super PACs a disaster for democracy



Thus was born the super PAC.




Sound independent?









An attorney for the Scalia family did not respond to requests for comment for this article. Two other private planes that landed at the ranch for the weekend are linked to two men who have held leadership positions with the Texas chapter of the Order, according to a review of state business filings and flight records from the airport. After Scalia’s death, Poindexter told reporters that he met Scalia at a “sports group” gathering in Washington. The U.S. chapter of the International Order of St. Hubertus lists a suite on M Street NW in the District as its headquarters, although the address is only a mailbox in a United Parcel Service store.


Poindexter told CultureMap Houston that some of the guests dressed in “traditional European shooting attire for the boxed bird shoot competition” and for the shooting of pheasants and chukar, a type of partridge. For the hunting weekend earlier this month, Poindexter told The Washington Post that Scalia traveled to Houston with his friend and U.S. marshals, who provide security for Supreme Court justices. The Post obtained a Presidio County Sheriff’s Office report that named Foster as Scalia’s close friend on the trip. Sheriff Danny Dominguez confirmed that a photograph of Washington lawyer C. Allen Foster is the same man he interviewed at the ranch the day of Scalia’s death.

From Houston, Scalia and Foster chartered a plane without the marshals to the Cibolo Creek Ranch airstrip. In a statement after Scalia died, the U.S. Marshals Service said that Scalia had declined a security detail while at the ranch. The friend, Louisiana-born Foster, is a lawyer with the Washington firm Whiteford, Taylor & Preston. He is also known for his passion for hunting and is a former spokesman for the hunting group Safari Club. In 2006, Foster was featured in The Post when he celebrated his 65th birthday with a six-day celebration in the Czech Republic. He flew his family and 40 Washington friends there to stay in Moravia’s Zidlochovice, a baroque castle and hunting park. The birthday bash included “tours of the Czech countryside, wine tasting, wild boar and mouflon (wild sheep) hunts, classic dance instruction and a masked costume ball.”

A secretary at Foster’s law firm said he is traveling in Argentina. The firm’s director of marketing, Mindee L. Mosher, said Foster was traveling and she would try to contact him. A woman answering a phone associated with Foster hung up when asked for comment. Planes owned by Wallace “Happy” Rogers III and the company of A.J. Lewis III left from San Antonio and arrived at the ranch just after noon Feb. 12. The planes departed the ranch about 30 minutes apart Feb. 14, according to flight records provided to The Post by FlightAware. Rogers owns the Buckhorn Saloon and Museum in San Antonio. He has donated $65,000 to Republican candidates since 2008. Lewis is the owner of a restaurant supplier company, also based in San Antonio. He has given $3,500 to GOP candidates since 2007.

Rogers and Lewis have both served as prior officers in the Texas chapter of the International Order of St. Hubertus, according to Texas business records. Rogers spoke to a Post reporter briefly on the phone and confirmed that he was at the ranch the weekend of Scalia’s death. He declined to comment further. Lewis did not respond to several attempts for comment. The Presidio County Sheriff’s Office released an incident report to The Post on Tuesday that revealed Foster’s name as Scalia’s traveling companion and provided details about the discovery of his body. Poindexter and Foster told the sheriff that Scalia had traveled to Texas the day before to go hunting. Poindexter told the sheriff that they “had supper and talked for a while” that evening.

Scalia “said that he was tired and was going to his room for the night,” the sheriff wrote in his report. When Scalia didn’t show up for breakfast that morning, Poindexter knocked on his door and eventually went in and found the Justice dead in his bed, Poindexter said. Law enforcement officials told The Post that they had no knowledge of the International Order of St. Hubertus or its connection to Poindexter and ranch guests. The officials said the FBI had declined to investigate Scalia’s death when they were told by the marshals that he died from natural causes.


World's Secret Shadow Government: Conspiracy Theory or Frighteningly Real?

Masonic Altar



The Bilderberg Group







Le Cercle




However, analysts should neither exaggerate nor demonize the impact of parapolitical secret entities on history, according to Andrei Fursov, a Russian historian and researcher at the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). The historian insists that there is no such thing as a "shadow government" that rules the world. He warns researchers against making wild claims about the true nature of transnational clandestine groups, stressing that they are "very routine" structures of global financial and political elites. The primary role of these entities is to serve as a platform for coordination and cooperation of the world's "power-brokers" interrelated competing groups.



The US is an Oligarchy, Study Concludes


















We are Becoming a Plutocracy






 The Great Democracy Meltdown: Why Democracy is Failing Across the World





















Welcome to McFascism: Over 300 million disenfranchised US voters since 1988



Most Americans have never heard about the dirtiest secret on Capitol Hill: The Democrat and Republican parties have achieved an iron grip on the reins of power, obstructing any third-party contenders from challenging their authority. This is more of a literal statement than many realize. Third-party ‘factions’ are being denied participation in the presidential debates in order to protect the Establishment's cozy and very lucrative relationship with corporate power. How this state of affairs came about is nothing short of astonishing - and not a little treacherous.

America’s bloodless coup d’état of 1987

A funny thing happened on the road to the 1988 presidential campaign between Republican George H.W. Bush and his Democrat challenger Michael Dukakis. Representatives from both campaign camps secretly hatched a "memorandum of understanding" - which was more of a ransom letter - designed to overhaul the rules of the political road. The new changes put forward by the establishment would determine which candidates could participate in the presidential debates (namely the Democrats and Republicans), which media organizations could attend (only those that could be trusted) and who would serve as debate panelists (thereby controlling the questions).



League President Nancy M. Neuman issued a powerful farewell statement that should have rattled the US electorate to the very bone: "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." Neuman continued with a degree of candor not commonly found in the halls of power these days. She urged Bush and Dukakis to "rise above your handlers and agree to join us in presenting the fair and full discussion the American public expects of a League of Women Voters debate. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Connie Rice, a civil rights lawyer and commentator on National Public Radio, said the Democrats and Republicans “hijacked” the debates. American consumers responded with a collective shrug and a yawn as it switched to the shopping channel with its remote - the last shred of control it seems to enjoy these days. Since any silence from the electorate is immediately interpreted by politicians as consent, what followed was the hideous transformation of the US political system, now plagued by a disturbing level of nepotism and elitism. Suffice it to say that US babbling heads are still breathlessly wondering whether yet another Bush or Clinton will inherit the throne on Pennsylvania Avenue.



On February 19, 1987, the New York Times ran an obituary of sorts regarding the bloodless coup d’état, touting the new organization that would waltz over the corpse of the League. In that article, Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democratic national chairman, and Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the Republican national chairman, happily agreed that the new arrangement would ''institutionalize'' the debates and strengthen the role of the political parties in the electoral process. That’s right folks, strengthening the role of the two political parties in the electoral process is exactly what America’s Founders would have wanted since limiting the playing field to exactly two power-snorting junkies has everything to do with the spirit of Democracy. Kirk Jr. underscored the situation regarding America’s newly-razed political landscape, saying he personally believed the CPD “should exclude third-party candidates from the debates.” 


Corporate McFascists destroying the America Dream

The US Capitol is presently under siege by an army of corporate lobbyists, armed to the teeth with unlimited funds to lure legislators away from their primary obligation, which is representing American citizens, not corporate interests. Jesse Ventura, the former governor of Minnesota, once offered his recommendations for fixing the US political system when he advised – only half-jokingly - that any politician running for office should be required to wear a NASCAR racing suit – complete with the decals of their corporate sponsors - so the American people will know “who’s bought them.”

Ventura’s joke contained more truth than anybody on Capitol Hill is willing to admit. Never before in American history (or any history, for that matter) has money spoken louder among the so-called representatives of the people. And since the mega-corporations have most of the money, it is the corporations that are getting the lion’s share of political representation. This is not the way things were supposed to work. The US Supreme Court deserves a healthy part of the blame for America’s political meltdown. In 2010, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates on corporate campaign spending in Citizens United vs. FEC (2010). This devastating ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of cash - much of it courtesy of consumer spending, incidentally – in Democratic and Republican campaign coffers without the benefit of public transparency.


The PACS then spend their vast sums of money secretly advocating for or against political candidates. This is what the brave new world of American politics refers to as the ‘freedom of speech.’ As of January 19, 2015, 1,291 Super PACs reported total receipts of $688,826,115 and total independent expenditures of $344,172,141 in the 2014 campaign cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Most disturbing, Super PACS receive their vast funding from just a handful of insanely wealthy donors, which points to the dangerous narrowing of the American political franchise. Yet what government commission could/would smash this monopoly? Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman, summed up the situation when he said that corporations have just one reason for throwing their support behind a particular party or candidate, and that is to “maximize their profits,” he told the Atlantic.

It remains highly doubtful that America’s experiment in democracy can succeed much longer based on such mercantile considerations. The problem is that what America is coming close to inheriting is nothing short of fascism, albeit a fuzzy form of fascism unique in world history.

Is America approaching Fascism?





Noam Chomsky, the social critic and intellectual, suggested as much in 2010 with some rather shocking comments. “I’m just old enough to have heard a number of Hitler’s speeches on the radio,” he was quoted by the Progressive as saying. “I have a memory of the texture and the tone of the cheering mobs, and I have the dread sense of the dark clouds of fascism gathering” here at home. “The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime,” he said. Before the American experiment in democracy turns into a bad laboratory accident, it would be wise to consider such dire warnings and move to bring average Americans - and third party contenders - back into the American political franchise








From Union-Busting to Election-Busting



The Role of Money



Gerrymandering creates undemocratic situation



Despite Bernie’s landslide victory, Hillary receives more New Hampshire delegates



Rigged Election: Hillary secretly STOLE New Hampshire








The undemocratic Electoral College








The Anti-Democratic Electoral College









How Money Corrupts American Politics












Sputnik: Neocons Panic That Trump Presidency Would Mark End to Their New World Order


As eccentric billionaire Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump continues to rack up primary victories, the party's establishment is beginning to wonder whether the political outsider can be stopped. Alarmed, neoconservative pundit Anne Applebaum goes so far as to suggest that a Trump presidency would mark "the end of the West as we know it."

On Saturday, real estate mogul Donald Trump racked up two more primary victories, winning in Louisiana and Kentucky, and thus securing a total of 373 delegates, with establishment candidates Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich trailing with 291, 122 and 33 delegates, respectively. With some pundits now openly asking whether the Republican establishment really has a chance to derail Trump, others, including neocon journalist Anne Applebaum, have resorted to scaremongering.


"In the United States, we are faced with the real possibility of Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump, which means we have to take seriously the possibility of a President Trump. Hillary Clinton's campaign might implode for any number of reasons, too obvious to rehash here; elections are funny things, and electorates are fickle."

"That means," Applebaum warns, "that next January we could have, in the White House, a man who is totally uninterested in what presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan – as well as Johnson, Nixon and Truman – would all have called 'our shared values.'"


"[Trump] brags that he 'would not care much' whether Ukraine was admitted to NATO; he has no interest in NATO and its security guarantees. Of Europe, he has written that 'their conflicts are not worth American lives. Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually'. In any case, he prefers the company of dictators to that of other democrats. 'You can make deals with those people,' he has said of Russia. 'I would have a great relationship with [Vladimir] Putin.'"

The journalist goes on to suggest that "not only is Trump uninterested in America's alliances, he would be incapable of sustaining them. In practice, both military and economic unions require not the skills of a shady property magnate who 'makes deals' but boring negotiations, unsatisfying compromises and, sometimes, the sacrifice of one's own national preferences for the greater good."

Moreover, "in an era when foreign policy debate has in most Western countries disappeared altogether, replaced by the reality TV of political entertainment, all of these things are much hard to explain and justify to a public that isn't remotely interested," Applebaum laments. If by 'all of these things' she means endless wars and Washington's fumbling attempt to preserve its shaky global hegemony, perhaps there's a little more thought behind American voters' logic toward anti-establishment candidates than she gives them credit for.

Europe Too Faces the 'Threat' of the Anti-Globalists
In Europe too, Applebaum warns, things aren’t looking good for the Euro-Atlanticists. "Americans aren't the only ones who find their alliances burdensome. A year from now, France also holds a presidential election. One of the frontrunners, Marine Le Pen of the National Front, has promised to leave both NATO and the EU, to nationalize French companies and to restrict foreign investors."

"Like Trump," the neocon writes, "[Le Pen] foresees a special relationship with Russia, whose banks are funding her election campaign. French friends assure me that if she makes it to the final round, the center-left and center-right will band together, as they did two decades ago against her father. But elections are funny things, and electorates are fickle. What if Le Pen's opponent suddenly falls victim to a scandal? What if another Islamic State attack jolts Paris?"

In other words, Applebaum seems to imply, 'what if, as a result of an attack by the Islamic caliphate which the US-led invasion of Iraq created and US Persian gulf allies have bankrolled, the French people were to vote for a politician opposed to foreign control of French affairs and to the policy of endless imperial adventures around the world?' As for her jab suggesting that Russia is bankrolling the National Front's campaign, Le Pen has been very open in her explanation, noting that she took a loan from a private Russian bank because no French bank would give her one. In fact, she has since said, she would cancel the loan with the Russian bank if a French bank were to make a counter-proposition, but she is yet to receive one.

But Applebaum isn't done yet. By the time French elections come around, she notes, "Britain may also be halfway out the door. In June, the British vote in a referendum to leave the EU. Right now, the vote is too close to call –and if the 'leave vote' prevails, then, as I've written, all bets are off. Copycat referendums may follow in other EU countries too. Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, sometimes speaks of leaving the West in favor of a strategic alliance with Istanbul or Moscow."

And for the journalist, "it's not hard at all to imagine a Britain unmoored from Europe drifting away from the transatlantic alliance as well." To make things even worse, in Applebaum's mind, "if the economic turmoil that could follow a British exit from the EU were sufficiently severe, perhaps the British public would vote out its conservative government in favor of the Labour Party, whose leadership is now radically anti-American. Everyone discounts Jeremy Corbyn, the far-left Labour leader, but they also discounted Trump. Corbyn is the only viable alternative if the public wants a change. Elections are funny things, and electorates are fickle."

Ultimately, the journalist anxiously notes, "without France, Europe's single market will cease to exist. Without Britain, it's hard to see how NATO lasts long either. Not everyone will be sorry. As Trump's appealing rhetoric makes clear, the cost of alliances ('millions of dollars annually') are easier to see than the longer-term gains."


Donald Trump: From Russia with love

Donald Trump is a brave pro-Putin political maverick who would end US foreign wars and perhaps lift sanctions on Moscow. Hillary Clinton, however, is a warmonger beholden to the military-industrial complex. Russian state TV, which closely mirrors the Kremlin's world view, leaves little doubt about who Moscow supports in November's US presidential election: "The Donald".

Vladimir Putin's spokesman took brief exception this month to a Trump attack video that showed Putin laughing at the prospect of Clinton defending the United States. But officials and analysts say the Kremlin still sees Trump as the best candidate by far. Putin has hailed Trump as "very talented". The head of the Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee said he would be a worthy winner of the 2015 "Man of the Year" title in the US. And Dmitry Kiselyov, presenter of Russia's main weekly TV news show Vesti Nedeli, claimed this month that the Republican elite had struck a secret deal with the Democrats to derail Trump, in part because of his sympathy for Russia.


Kiselyov has been one of the chief proponents of state television's strongly anti-American tone, once saying Moscow could turn the United States into radioactive ash. Some analysts say Trump appeals to Moscow because Putin believes a Trump presidency would be isolationist and leave Russia with a free hand. "The Kremlin can't believe its luck," said Konstantin von Eggert, an independent Moscow-based political analyst who believes the Obama administration has not been forceful in countering Russia. "President Obama and [Secretary of State] John Kerry were a dream team for them, but now they have an even better option - someone who thinks that America should have nothing to do with the rest of the world." RT, the Kremlin's English-language TV channel formerly known as Russia Today, says it does not back any US candidates. But it has described Trump as "idiosyncratic and raw", and suggested he represents the popular will of American voters, which a sinister US establishment is trying to subvert.


Trump has received advice from Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, a former US military intelligence chief who advocates better ties with Russia, and who shared a dinner table in Moscow with Putin in December to celebrate RT's 10th anniversary. Trump has won friends in Moscow with statements praising Putin as a strong leader that he could probably get along with. His support for Russian air strikes in Syria was welcomed. In January, after a British judge ruled that Putin had "probably" authorised the murder of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko in London, Trump said he saw "no evidence" that the Russian president was guilty.

"First of all, he says he didn't do it. Many people say it wasn't him. So who knows who did it?" Trump said. This week, Trump said the United States should reduce funding for NATO. A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said his comments showed the alliance was in crisis."For the last two years all we heard from Western newspapers and TV was very critical of Russia," Victoria Zhuravleva, a Moscow-based analyst on US-Russia relations, told Reuters news agency. "So when you hear something that is not so critical and even more friendly towards your country it's like: 'Thank God, there's one person we can talk to: Donald Trump.'" Trump and Putin were similar, she said. "They are both open-minded, pragmatic, and say what they think."


State media coverage has focused on what it has cast as her wacky promise to declassify UFO files and on the pressure she has faced for using her personal email account for government business, and over her response to the fatal 2012 attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Pro-Kremlin bloggers, corralled by a Putin supporter who used to represent the ruling party in parliament, are enthused by the prospect of agitating on behalf of Trump. "Trump is the first member of the American elite in 20 years who compliments Russia. Trump will smash America as we know it, we've got nothing to lose," Konstantin Rykov told his followers on social media. "Do we want the grandmother Hillary? No. Maybe it's time to help the old brigand."


Voters Long for a Washington Reformer

The National Commission on Presidential Debates recently invited Americans to suggest topics for the 2016 presidential debates. The commission is sure to receive thousands of proposals, but it should devote an entire debate to government reform. Why? Trust in the federal government has slumped to near-record lows, moving far beyond healthy skepticism toward a crisis of confidence. Whoever wins this “FixTrust” debate could have an inside track to the presidency.

According to a 2010 Pew Research Center poll, 74% of Americans rated the federal bureaucracy as only fair or poor in running its programs. In another Pew poll in January 2014, 75% said they trusted the federal government to do what is right “only some of the time” or “never.” And in a September 2014 Gallup poll, Americans estimated that Washington wastes 51 cents of every dollar it spends. The stakes of comprehensive reform are high. A new president serious about reform could take immediate action by executive order to collect the $700 billion already on the books in unpaid taxes, delinquent debts, and improper payments to individuals and government contractors. These numbers are estimates of the federal government’s own agencies.

That’s just for starters. Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, says that there is $1.4 trillion that could be saved from the federal budget. How? By cutting the federal workforce 10% and the contract workforce 15%, modernizing the government’s antiquated information technology, creating public-private partnerships for infrastructure projects, selling off unneeded federal properties, streamlining the bloated Department of Homeland Security, and even reducing federal advertising by half.

Of course, in a debate the Republican nominee will embrace federal workforce cuts and retirement reforms; the Democratic nominee contractor cuts and the technology reforms. And both will have their own lists of delinquent taxes and debts that should be either forgiven or collected. If forced to be specific, the result should be plenty of tension on debate night. A FixTrust debate could shape the election’s outcome if it opens with two fundamental questions that shape the issue of reform: Should the next president cut federal programs to reduce the power of government, or maintain existing programs to deal with important problems? Second, should he or she winnow the federal agenda to a smaller set of priorities, or accept the current priorities and focus on fixing the bureaucracy?

Americans likely will pay close attention. Answers to questions asked on my behalf in a survey last July by the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Institutions of Democracy showed that half of Americans favored cutting back federal programs to reduce the power of government. The other half said programs should be maintained to deal with important problems. Slightly more than half said government had the wrong priorities, while almost as many said it had the right priorities, but a broken bureaucracy.

Based on these findings, I have identified and named four different groups of Americans who are currently looking for a candidate they can support: (1) the conservative “dismantlers” who want the next president to cut back programs and reset priorities, (2) the slightly more moderate “streamliners” who want the next president to cut back programs and repair the bureaucracy, (3) the almost equally moderate “priority setters” who want to maintain programs and reset priorities, and (4) the more liberal “reinventors” who want to maintain programs and mostly tinker with the bureaucracy.

None of the groups has anything close to a majority today, which increases the make-or-break nature of the FixTrust debate. The only way to win the face off, and maybe the presidency, is to build a coalition from the 32% of Americans who agree with the dismantlers, the 28% who support the reinventors, the 25% who identify as priority setters, and the 15% who stand with the streamliners. With the dismantlers and reinventors locked in at the conservative and liberal ends of the reform continuum, and the streamliners in recent decline, the outcome of the debate, and perhaps the election, will likely depend on the priority setters, especially the ones who are spoiling for a fight over the nation’s agenda.

To be sure, all of the declared presidential candidates at this early stage of the game have weighed in on government reform from time to time over the years. But they only need to revisit the long list of recent government breakdowns—and their effect on past presidential administrations—to see their futures absent a coherent plan for immediate government reform. After all, the next president could face a government breakdown only months, if not weeks after inauguration, any one of which could damage his or her presidency. It could be a history defining breakdown such as 9/11, a tragic breach of trust such as the VA waiting list scandal, an unresolved scandal such as the IRS targeting, or even the failure of a highly advertised website such as But whatever the breakdown, it is coming.

Mr. Light is a professor at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service, and a former adviser to the Volcker Alliance, a nonprofit working for effective government.


Paul Craig Roberts Asks "Can Americans Overthrow The Evil That Rules Them?"

Paul Wolfowitz and the lies that he told in the high government positions that he held are responsible for a massive number of deaths and massive destruction in seven countries. Wolfowitz has announced his vote for Hillary Clinton. Does this make you feel reassured? The real surprise would have been Wolfowitz’s announcement in favor of Donald Trump. So why was what was expected news?


On July 3, 2015, Hillary declared: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. . . . we would be able to totally obliterate them.” The crazed Hillary went on from this to declare the President of Russia to be “the new Hitler.” Little doubt she thinks she can obliterate Russia also. Hillary is the one who brought zionist neocon Victoria Nuland into the State Department to oversee the US coup in Ukraine in order to create more propaganda against Russia and force Washington’s European vassals to impose sanctions and place military bases on Russia’s borders, thus provoking a nuclear power and raising dangerous tensions.



















Poll: Just 7 Percent Of Russians Care About Democracy

Russians care about economic and political stability, not democracy, according to a new poll conducted for news agency Interfax. Run by the Levada Center for Independent, the poll asked 1,600 Russian respondents to rank issues they viewed as important. Respondents first and foremost chose economic and political stability. In contrast, only 7 percent of Russians said they cared about democracy. The same poll was conducted in 1999 and at that point in time only 50 percent of Russians chose economic and political stability. Stability has taken the center stage above unemployment at 48 percent and personal safety at 45 percent. Other values traditionally associated with liberal-democratic countries also took a plunge. Freedom of speech, expression and the right of assembly dropped from 11 percent in 1999 to 9 percent now in 2016. Despite liberal-democratic values falling in importance, a majority of Russians still consider themselves free. A second Levada Center poll in December found that 66 percent felt they were free.


We're suffering the consequences of too much democracy
Democracy, you could argue, is pretty much like sunshine, cold beer and ice cream. They’re all great - until you have too much



Despite those headaches and risks, “Leavers” across Europe have taken up the call — including those in France, the Netherlands, Italy, Hungary, Austria and Finland. A Citibank note says “… political risks in Europe are high and probably rising, in our view, and ‘referendum risk’ contributes significantly to these risks …” Those risks include outright withdrawal from the EU, scuttling of EU policies, and shying away from EU-centric policies that could bolster local economies. Citi notes that Italy and Hungary will likely both have referendums on matters pertaining to the EU this year. So what does this have to do with the US, besides the collateral damage of a potentially basket-case Europe — (no small thing that by the way)? Because while referendums are actually rare in the UK, (the Brexit vote is only the third to cover the whole UK), they are much more common in the US.

Twenty-six states — mostly Western ones — plus Washington D.C., allow for initiatives and referendums. And over the years, there have been various successes and failures, never mind wackiness. (One of my favorites was the 2006 Arizona Voter Reward Act which would give a single Arizona citizen $1 million in every general election. It was defeated.) But other ballot initiatives of course are more serious and in some states referendums and such have had real teeth. Nowhere more so than in California, where it has been elevated to a powerful form of governance, with its high-profile Propositions. For those of you old enough to remember, the watershed moment of the California Proposition movement was 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13, which capped real estate taxes. (Remember Howard Jarvis — the leader of the movement — on the cover of Time Magazine: Tax Revolt!)

The success of that vote ushered in a golden age of referendums for the Golden State, although that may be a mischaracterization. Since then the state has voted on hundreds of referendums on gun control, abortion, marijuana and the death penalty. But mostly the initiatives have tended towards the fiscal, i.e., taxes, budgets and bond issues. To some this has been a shining era of democracy. Others are not so sanguine, saying Prop 13, for example, helped lead to the gutting of education budgets. One thing that is undoubtedly true is that this so-called direct democracy model has made governing more difficult. The Economist delved into this in great length in a 2011 special report:


The best evidence of the effects of this dysfunction perhaps is that during this period, California experienced a precipitous decline in its credit rating. In 1980, California had a triple AAA rating. By the early 1990s it had fallen to single A, and it bounced around that level for decades until as recently as 2014, when it was the second-lowest rated state in the nation. (This is a state of course with Silicon Valley, Hollywood, oil and gas, timber, minerals and the richest farmland in the nation.) Say what you will about Jerry Brown, (twice!) Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pete Wilson, but it ain’t all the governors’ fault. In fact it may be Jerry Brown’s multi-term experience with government by referendum that has allowed him get a handle on the state’s finances and help boost its credit rating back up to AA (from S&P), its highest rating since 2001. But that’s hardly consolation.





  1. I'd like to clarify something: When I talk about Jews, I am not talking about the average Shlomo on the street. When I talk about Jews I am talking about Jews as a collective national body. In other words: I am not talking about the individual cells of an organ, I'm instead talking about the organ itself. There are many truly great Jews that I have great respect for. I have great admiration for people like NYU's Stephen Cohen, Mordechai Vanunu, Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, Norman Finkelstein, Seymour Hersh, Ralph Schoenman and many others like them. Moreover, I believe Jews are a very intelligent and talented people, quite similar to us Armenians. But unlike us Armenians, Jews are instinctually drawn to ideological conviction and politics. Unlike Armenians, Jews are instinctually proactive when it comes to sociopolitical activism whether it's in their homeland or in their host nations. Unlike Armenians, Jews are highly organized and perpetually concerned about self-preservation. The aforementioned traits have been bred into their blood through the centuries, and it's something I admire them for. There is therefore a lot that we hopelessly individualistic, ever gullible and utterly arrogant Armenians can learn from them. So, I don't hate Jews per se. It's political Jewry that I fear and despise because they are our enemy and they are the enemy of our Russian and Iranian friends as well. I particularly dislike Ashkenazi Zionists because they tend to be rabid racists and very anti-Christian.

    1. It is irreconcilable with common human decency the hatred of an individual. I would not even use the word hatred. The international jewry has got every nation by its jugular. Every layer of the human endeavor and discipline is hermetically sealed by the elect and chosen race.Their bacterial toxins permeate the innards of every single nation. They are the only community group-race that understand power, understands hatred, understands rivalry and enmity,the controls of power, and the exercise of power to its very limits for their exclusive hegemony. It is not a matter of hatred, but the total exclusion of these breed of race in determining the fate of nations. They are an international breed, unique , forming the crest of elites, lethally dangerous to the rest of nations. Sometimes one wonders if they are not ET's

    2. I don't know about ET, but there sure is a supernatural feel about Jews. They are naturally shrewd, intelligent, talented and ruthless. It's as if they are instinctually driven towards political activism, wealth and power. They may very well have been been bred to be this way by their racist/ethnocentric religion and their volatile experiences in foreign lands throughout the centuries.

      Unlike the rest of us stupid goyim, who have been convinced by Jews that God and race does not exist, Jews are fully in tune with their spiritual and ethnic calling, and they collectively worry about their preservation and they plot accordingly. They also have "old money" (the Western world's ruling dynasties within which Jews are well represented) behind them.

      The Western world is the seat of their wealth and power. And because the Western world is the standard to which all other lesser peoples aspire to, Western Jews naturally have the upper hand advantage over the rest of humanity. Jews control the Western world's wealth, politics and culture, they control the Western world's levers of social engineering (television, cinema and music). Jews have maneuvered themselves into the very core of Western civilization. They today represent Western civilization. This is why I call the Western world, "the Anglo-American-Jewish global order". This is also why I say the only way to degrade Jewish power is to degrade Anglo-American power.

      Nevertheless, what we are seeing is their manifest destiny. It was bound to happen. This is their period, their cycle. We are living in their world. And this is not new. We have been through several cycles like this in the past: Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Rome, Russia, Germany. And similar to what happened in the past, there will someday be major blowback against them, not necessarily in the US, where the goyim is simply too dumb, but in other parts of the world like Russia and China.

      What's more, Nazi Germany and the persecutions Jews suffered during the Second World War was perhaps the best thing that could happen to them. In my opinion, had the Nazis not gone after them they way they did, I really don't think Jews would have had the psychological hold they currently have over Western civilization.

    3. "The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea, is that we smash things that aren't true. We don't believe in the boundaries of nation-states. We don't believe in the ideas of these individual gods that, you know, protect individual groups of people. These are all artificial constructions. Judaism really teaches us how to see that. In a sense our detractors have us right in that we are a corrosive force that we are breaking down the false gods of all nations and all peoples because they are not real. And that's very upsetting to people"

      Douglas Roushkoff, Author of Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism

      "AIPAC is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign-policy lobby in Washington. Its 60,000 members shower millions of dollars on hundreds of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Newspapers like the New York Times (Jewish owned) fear the Jewish lobby organizations as well. "It's very intimidating," said a correspondent at another large daily. "The pressure from these groups is relentless"

      Journalist Michael Massing, Nation Magazine



      "Is there any criminal act that Israel can do without being protected from criticism from the United States? If there is I haven't seen it. And I haven't seen it from the Bush Administration or from the Clinton Administration or from any administration before them. But when you consider the influence of Israel's lobby and its political action committees and the more than $41 million they've given to Congress and the White House, is it any wonder Israel is shielded from any shame? For more than 54 years the Israelis have committed acts that no other nation would dare get away with. But even here in America, where it is not yet illegal to publicly ask the wrong questions, any public figure that does so is subjected to smears, intimidation, and the attempted destruction of his career and reputation by Jewish organizations and by the very cooperative news media"

      U.S. Brigadier General James J. David (Ret.)


      Charles Lindbergh

    4. Speaking of China: The following is an article I came across some time ago. It reveals just how intellectually dynamic and culturally flexible Jews tend to be as individuals. They truly exhibit behavioral patterns quite common to biological parasites -

      Go East, Young Man:

      That said, Jews will never be a serious power inside a place like China merely because Chinese culture/civilization/genetics will not provide Jews with a fertile ground within which to sow their seeds... Unless China goes through some major Christian or Islamic transformation... Which is not going to happen. This is one of the good aspects of China's ascend as a world power.

    5. Speaking of parasitism and the human ecosystem:

      Within the human ecosystem, what the cell is to an organ the individual is to the nation. You can have good cells and you can have bad cells in an organ (just like you can have good people and bad people in a nation). However, it's the "collective' of cells (its biochemical structure) that gives the organ its look, quality and characteristics. Similarly, it's a collection of a particular people - it's social structures, elite, politicians, cultural values, mindsets, etc - that gives a particular nation its look, quality and characteristics.

      Within the human ecosystem, different nations play the role of different animal species within the animal ecosystem.

      In my opinion, in the human ecosystem, Europeans (Caucasians) and northern and eastern Asians are major predators (like Lions, Tigers, Eagles in the animal kingdom). Others in the human ecosystem (in fact most) are grazers, providing the predators with sustainable sustenance. Yet others are foragers and scavengers. You can look at different civilizations/races/nations around the world and ascribe them any one of the aforementioned categories.

      Within the same human ecosystem, Jews play the role of highly specialized parasites. They seek out the most powerful in the ecosystem and they live off of them. This incidentally helps in curbing the overgrowth of major predators in the ecosystem in question. What's more, once settled in the host, the parasites takes on a little of the host's essence and the host takes on a little of the parasite's essence (as in a true symbiotic relationship).

      The parasites lives well at the expense of others. However, the parasite cannot survive on its own. Therefore, once they have depleted their host (or if the host having become sick of the parasite decides to rid itself of it), the parasite will abandon it and seek another host. As we know, it's very difficult to rid an organism of parasites. Depending on how deeply infected and how long the host has been infected, the measure to free an organ or an animal or a nation of parasites may require drastic measures. At times, the host may even die in the process.

      Once the thoroughly infected Anglo-American system crumbles, it will be very difficult for Jews to find another host as fatty, as pliable, as fertile. With the decline of the West and the rise of the East, I think Jews will go into another decline/hibernation (as they tend to do from time to time) until the next convenient host appears in the human ecosystem.

      PS: This is the way I see the world. I am not a racist. I am not a Darwinist. I also reserve harsh criticism for Armenians. I see the modern Armenians as having been reduced to the role of scavengers in the human ecosystem during the past one thousand years. Therefore, I do not hate Jews. In fact, I respect many of their scholars. And I admire their efficiency. I am merely talking about the human ecosystem as I see it and the parasitical role of Jews within it. I do not call them parasites in a racist or condescending way. Parasites play an important role in nature, although we need to always protect ourselves from infection. After all, in the big picture, parasites are nature's way of controlling the balance in nature. For example: Imagine Europe without its Jewish infection for the past two thousand years. I think Germanic and/or Slavic tribes would have driven many lesser nations into extinction. I personally would not have a problem with that due to my personal biases and tastes, however, mother nature, or the divine powers that be, may have a problem with that... which is why parasites exist to control or cull predator populations.

  2. Թուրքիան Ռուսաստանի դարավոր թշնամին է. «Կիսալուսնի մայրամուտը»

    1. I was pleasantly surprised with this interview because it was not anti-Russian like many of the interviews that this opposition radio station produces. That said, I have a couple of observations: The historian mildly criticizes Russia for not properly taking advantage of its past victories against Turks. In my opinion, historians who think this way have a very amateurish/narrow understanding of the time periods they are talking about. Not one word is mentioned about the fact that besides fighting Turks, the Russian Empire at the time was also in serious conflict against Western powers like Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Vatican, etc. Just like today. It was these Western powers that were constantly putting great pressure on Russia and forcing the Czar to at times to go to concessions on the negotiations table with Turks. Just like today. Also, it gets a little annoying when historians, who should know better, keep saying nonsense like "Russians keep forgetting who Turks are". Russians are NOT forgetting who Turks are, Russians are executing realpolitik. Every time period is different, every time period has its set of unique geopolitical factors. Therefore, every time period has to be looked at and treated separately. That is how serious powers approach politics. We Armenians on the other hand tend to treat politics as if its a street fight or a domestic dispute. I am sorry but politics may not be a thing Armenians will ever excel in. That said, the historian was intelligent and honest and did his best not to pander to anti-Russian interests at the radio station.

  3. At the end of the day, Trump at best can slow down the inevitable decline of America. Spiritual health and demographics are key to national power. America is terminally ill in both those key areas. Still, I hope Trump wins, if for no other reason than to see his despicable enemies experience disappointment. In fact I just reregistered to vote, in order to switch party affiliations from "no preference" to Republican. California's primary is in July, and the Republican party here does not allow crossover voters. And I may like Trump, clicking "Republican" on the voter registration website was quite a disgusting experience - the party of neo-conservative, war-mongering, evangelicuck faggots.

    Ps so far the only comments I have heard from the Armenian political groups are complaints that Trump licensed his name, for a lot of money, to be used on some building in Baku. This just shows how little foresight Armenian-American groups have, how politically irrational and emotional they are, and these groups are totally failing in teaching young Armenian-Americans about geopolitics, cold/rational political calculation, and political maturity and discipline. Armenian-American groups have Jewish-level whining and pettiness, but completely lack any strategy or solutions. This should not surprise anyone, because for the past two decades the Armenian lobby proved 100% inefficient; basically being reduced to a one-issue (please say the word "genocide") bloc that candidates learned they could lie to - and betray - without consequence (Obama, Biden, Pelosi). In fact, by pushing for Congressional Genocide resolutions and for the president to say genocide and then totally failing, the Armenian lobby strengthened the Turks. But I guess a Genocide crusade brings in more donations that focusing on actually improving Armenia and Artsakh . . . Also, even though both Republicans and Democrats suck, it is quite obvious that most Armenian-American organizations are headed by very liberal Democrats.

    Lastly, Corey Lewandowski who was described in this blog entry was recently in a controversy.
    Did The Washington Post Lie About The Michelle Fields Incident?

    1. I hope that Trump wins. He will have an unimaginable challenge to confront and myriads of hurdles along the way. He will be going inside a Jewish burrow of hirsute rodents. To make Amerika a tenth of what Trump aspires ( great again) he'll have to kick start a mighty revolution a la Gramsci- but in reverse. Trump will have to overhaul the infrastructure of American administration/government and its manifold departments ( all ridden with Jews) in its entirety. At every turn he'll encounter a "mighty walls" of jericho of Jewish construction . He is too savvy and foxy to allow himself to be assassinated a la JFK. He will not be driving in an open car in an unguarded cavalcade through the streets of Dallas. The unfortunate JFK believed to be loved by his voters, like Hitler. Hitler , the incarnate devil, was able to drive in open motor cars, standing and waving to the adoring multitude. Satan Hitler was impervious to bombs, bullets, and strays Gavrilo Principic- or Rubin-Oswalds on the loose. Doubtful if Trump will even imagine doing that. Amerika is a fissiparous construct, lacks homogeneity. As it is Trump is surrounded by a massive wall( he is fond of walls) of security apparatus, his own. The jewish power will not cease trying to scupper him. We will have to watch with keen interest the body language of the Kazhar Netaniuy when he meets Trump. In an instant it will be revealed who is the "boss". Trump will need two terms if he is to introduce a quarter of the changes he is promising. Then he'll have to change the constitution and make himself a dictator for life. To arrest the obvious and ineluctable extinction of whites in Amerika, a paradigm shift in thinking is required, the political discourse morphed . followed with fast track programs to stop immigration , reverse it and stamp out non white immigration, legal or otherwise. Jewish power might be facing an imponderable factor ; on the other hand it could turn out to be another gaseous act in the Circus of Jeworama . Time will tell.

  4. I guess this is just more proof that Russia wants "Armenia without Armenians" and that Moscow is exploiting its Armenian oblast exclusively for Russian benefit:

    Expert: Armenia will soon become the world's most densely packed place when it comes to quantity of S- 300 anti-aircraft missile systems

    Armenia will soon become the world's most densely packed place when it comes to the quantity of the air defense systems, particularly S-300 missile systems, Sergey Minasyan, the deputy head of the Caucasus Institute, told ArmInfo.

    The quantity of Armenia's Russian-made air defense systems will be increased under the Agreement on the establishment of the United Regional Air Defense System in the Caucasus region of the CSTO that was signed by the Armenian and Russian defense minister in late 2015.

    In addition, Minasyan said, yet in 2015, there were reports saying that five more divisions of S-300 anti- tank systems will be transferred to Armenia's Armed Forces without compensation. The given missile systems will be repaired and modernized in Armenia.

    The expert said 3-4 divisions of S-300PT missile systems and at least 2-3 divisions of mobile S-300PS anti- aircraft systems that were modernized in Armenia are on the balance of Armenia's Air Defense Force.

    "Some military experts say that Armenia's Air Defense has also other missile systems, including modernized Pechora-2M, old S-125 systems. After the supply of the above S-300 anti-aircraft systems, Armenia's Air Defense will become the most powerful in the region," Minasyan said.

    1. And Russia provides natural gas to Armenia at a loss, but don't expect to hear this from Armenia's Western financed political opposition -

      If Gazprom keeps gas price discounts for Armenia, it will be losing $48 million a year:

  5. When the mainstream media (the French, no less) start calling someone who questions the official narrative regarding a very large, well-coordinated, and organized terrorist attack an "idiot," and when they condemn that person for being "cruel" and "causing hurt feelings" by asking the wrong questions, then I am inclined to give the person some credibility:

    #ParisTerrorAttacks - A cruel new theory

    Also, I noticed that France 24's video has less than a thousand views, even after it was featured in a headline on the Daily Stormer website yesterday. This indicates that they have almost no audience; practically no one gives a shit about hearing their propaganda.

  6. Anonymous ArmenianMarch 12, 2016 at 6:56 PM


    Why did you list ecumenism among the institutionalized projects elites promote?

    1. Anonymous Armenian,

      "Ecumenism" today is basically the multiculturalism/interracialism/globalism of the religious world. It goes way beyond religious leaders simply getting together and making nice. Just like the United Nations, the whole thing is initiated, funded and thus orchestrated by WASPs and Jews (and mostly likely secret societies) via organizations like the World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches. These organizations are the UN of the religious world and just like UN they are heavily influenced by Western special interests. So, it's essentially just another Western operation. I don't know if you know but Katolikos Aram is very involved in Western ecumenism. Katolikos Aram is also a high ranking Freemason. I have nothing against cooperation/dialogue between different religious groups, but such a thing has to be free of Anglo-American-Jewish influence or control.

      As I said, Katolikos Aram I is a prominent figure in Western ecumenism. The decades long persistent rumors that he is also a high ranking Freemason went to a new level a few years ago -

      Did Catholicos Aram I Defrock Father Bartev for Speaking Out?

      When you do a google search with the words "Freemasons" and "World Council of Churches" you get many results like this -

      How the New World Order is Using the Christian Churches and their Pastors – to Destroy Christianity:

    2. Anonymous ArmenianMarch 13, 2016 at 12:00 PM


      It's funny that you mention this. A few years ago during my graduate studies I was told that the ecumenical movement was a den if communist sympathizers, and even had kgb agents. I thought there was more to this than meets the eye. I think it's time to get rid of the Cilicia branch of our church. What's it's purpose now?

    3. In my opinion, the Cilician church would be better off as a patriarchate.

    4. has a paragraph about the role of Jacob Schiff.

      What else do we know about Jacob Schiff (there are no news, of course):

      (From a worthwhile Aussie site: Neither Aryan, nor Jew@

  7. Malcolm X said characterized the naivete of Armenians in the political system best in his speech entitled "The Ballot or the Bullet." In essence, our major political parties are "chumps," when we keep pushing Democrats who keep breaking their promises to us. Although this gripe is over two decades old, it is still a shame that ANCA decided to campaign for Clinton rather than Bob Dole, Bob Dole who was so pro-Armenian - Bill Clinton is a war-criminal, a genocidal culprit, a man who bombed defenseless Serbian women and children at the behest of Turkey. The ANCA went for Clinton, a man who supported Turkey in its continued genocide of Orthodox Christians, because Clinton was going to win.

    Not rewarding those loyal to you because they may not be on the "winning" side is a sign of weak integrity. It is why ANCA continues to support Kardashian, for clicks. One must ask, what have the effects of Kardashian's commenting on the genocide been? The only tangible benefits I see about Kardashian discussing the genocide are: that some yokels know about the genocide; there is now a tacit approval of her lifestyle, especially among the younger generation; and permission for ANCA politicos to enjoy Kardashian's performance with Ray-J without guilt. There have been no reparations.

    "The Democrats have been in Washington DC only because of the Negro vote. They’ve been down there four years, and there all other legislations they wanted to bring up they brought it up and gotten it out of the way, and now they bring up you. And now, they bring up you. You put them first, and they put you last 'cause you’re a chump, a political chump. In Washington DC, in the House of Representatives there are 257 who are Democrats; only 177 are Republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats; only 33 are Republicans. The Party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and still they can’t keep their promise to you, 'cause you’re a chump. Anytime you throw your weight behind the political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that Party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that Party, you’re not only a chump, but you’re a traitor to your race."

    Boghos Jermag

    1. Malcolm X was not making a case for Republicans, he was making a case for an armed revolution. From an Armenian perspective, Republicans and Democrats are the same shit. The reason why Bob Dole never denied the Armenian Genocide was because he never made it to the White House. When President Reagan uttered the words Armenian genocide for the first and last time back in 1981, the term did not have the political weight it has now. My thoughts on the Kardashians' visit to Armenia last year appears in the following blog post -

      Thoughts on the centennial of the Armenian Genocide (April, 2015):

  8. How democracy is sold to dupes.

    Watch Ted Cruz coach his family through a campaign ad shoot

    Video also serves as an appetite suppressant.

    1. Thanks for posting this find. It's been an exceptionally strange circus this time around. Putting aside the the art of PR and the freaky Cruz family for a moment, the fact that this was aired by CNN goes to show you that the Jewish establishment (primarily its neoliberal faction) also seems to dislike Cruz. It's just that Trump is attracting most of their attention. The only person on the Republican side they are able to stomach is Rubio.

  9. Arevordi,

    You did an excellent job with your article this month. I was born in the states. I love this country but it's so changed in so many bad ways I don't recognize it any longer. As an American I am ashamed to admit that Jews have total and absolute control over America now. They hate Donald Trump because they fear they can't totally dominate him. You might want to put the article below into your current work.

    How Donald Trump sparked an unprecedented crisis among Jewish Republicans:


  10. Russia announced a military withdraw from Syria. Any comments?

    BREAKING: Putin orders start of Russian military withdrawal from Syria:

    1. nteresting development. I wasn't expecting this to happen this soon. Something might be going on that we are not aware of. The official explanation, that Russia accomplished its objective - i.e. rescued Assad's government from defeat and laid the groundwork for the current cease-fire which seems to be holding for the most part - may not be the whole story.

      Foremost, let's understand that Russia will be withdrawing only some of its forces; presumably some ground units and some aircraft. The withdrawal thus far seems largely symbolic and political in nature. I say symbolic because Russia will be maintaining combat capabilities in Syria in case Assad's government is threatened again. Therefore, the Russian naval facility at Tartus and the new Russian airbase at Latakia will remain fully operational, as well as some Russian special units in the country.

      That said, I wonder if Moscow is taking a step back because of a suspected military trap by its regional antagonists. We have theorized here that Western powers may be seeking to get Russians and Turks (and Iranians and Saudis) to fight inside Syria. So, with that in mind, is Moscow taking a step back as a tactical precaution? Is Moscow simply repositioning its military assets in the region as a precautionary measure? If the two were to fight, I would not want to see Russian forces exposed they way they are inside Syria today. In a full scale war with Turkey, Russians forces would be quite exposed and vulnerable because of their relative small size and close proximity to the Turkish border. There is also the possibility, albeit very remote in my opinion, that Moscow is trying to lure Ankara into the Syrian battlefield by making it look as if Russia is withdrawing.

      We have also theorized that a deal between Russia and the US may be in the making. By taking a step back, is Moscow signaling to the West that it is now ready to seriously negotiate a deal? My gut feeling says some form of a deal has been reached (or is in the process of being reached) between Moscow and Washington over Syria, perhaps over Ukraine as well. Time will tell.

      But, overall, I think this was a very smart move by Moscow; essentially because Russia is taking a step back at a time when it has registered great successes both militarily and politically, and at a time when Alawite and Shiite forces in Syria have regained their composure. The one thing Russian officials (both military and civilian) did not want to do was get into a costly quagmire in Syria. From day one, Moscow only wanted to save Assad's government from defeat and establish itself militarily and politically in the country. Moscow has accomplished both in brilliant manner. To its credit, as a true grossmeister, Moscow is fully cognizant of its capabilities and its flaws and is therefore play the global chessboard very wisely, very cautiously and very unpredictably.

    2. Putin announced that he will withdraw the core of Russian forces from Syria but will keep the naval and air base functioning as before.

      Therefore, the extents of Russian military activity cannot be duly examined as long as the aforementioned bases continue to operate and none can claim that Russia did not fulfil its withdrawal even if tactical air strikes where to continue.

      The timing of this announcement along with the negotiations kickoff in Geneva positions Russia as a side that supports peace and political settlement among Syrians, it also pulls away Russia as a headline for political assault from the Syrian opposition and their foreign supporters, signalling to those the following: find something else to justify your defeats and failures.

      The political West likewise is forced to end its duplicity vis-a-vis the Russian role in Syria, on one it desires Russia's stabilizing effect, on the other hand it attacks it publicly. Russia therefore makes a clear statement to those, if you don't accelerate the political settlement under the pre set conditions agreed upon (UNSC resolution on Syria), then isis and nusra will be the first among those who will benefit from such delays. Therefore none can throw sticks into the wheel of political settlement, then blame Russia for the repercussions of the escalation of violence as if it was Russia's exclusive responsibility.

      The balance of forces is stable in favour of the Syrian government, the co-ordination between Putin and Assad leads the political and military equations and initiatives.

      The Syrian presidency "confirms that the whole subject happened in complete coordination between the Russian and Syrian sides, and is a step that was carefully and accurately studied for some time"

    3. Over time Moscow's strategy will become more clear. Another theory is that the rebels have been supplied with advanced surface-to-air missiles, as only 2-3 days ago a Syrian plane was shot, and both sides have remained quite silenced about this incident. Perhaps Moscow doesn't want to risk too much and feels confident that they can support the Syrian government by other means now.

    4. The infowar is half the battle. The "cessation of hostilities" and now this look good, and put their enemies on the wrong foot. And Lattakia and coastal regions seem secured, which some argue is where there were a lot of Russian soldiers for artillery and support. They are finished, or so some argue.

      So the "ceasefire" has caused some infighting and is good PR. The initiative rests with Russia in these moves. If Turkey and KSA try anything in Lebanon or Syria, they will be even further out on a limb. And don't forget that Russia has a narrative, just as others do. The Russian narrative for what the problem is in Syria and the Middle East, and one for the internal groups and how to solve things. This allows the US or at least the Obama administration to praise this and push for some kind of settlement. All the while, the destruction of the fighters inside Syria will continue - because they are terrorists.

      A broader sphere of influence deal is perhaps what Russia has wanted. What that may look like is unknowable. Some argue that KSA is doomed, and that the West knows it. If KSA went down, it would change the funding of things in that region. Erdoghan and his clique may have turned on Assad half for Gulf money, and not Ottoman dreams.


    5. SyrianArab

      I agree with your assessment of the situation. Russia will remain militarily engaged in Syria. It's withdrawal seems to be largely symbolic. I believe Moscow's unexpected move was coordinated with Western powers and the Syrian government. It may be connected in some way to a final peace settlement (perhaps tied to Ukraine as well). We will have to wait and see. What's important however is that Russia's military intervention in Syria achieved a historic victory at a 'very' low cost. What's also important is that Assad's Iran-backed government has been saved and Damascus currently has the initiative and the upper hand, militarily and politically. I therefore think it's time that Alawites and rebellious Sunnis began their long healing process.

      Kim Philby,

      While anti-aircraft missiles was a worry for the Russian military all along, I don't think it had anything to do with the recent move. The Western/Turkish/Saudi backed terrorists in Syria do not have medium to high altitude anti-aircraft missiles. What they have is anti-aircraft artillery and MANPADS. With these they have been able to bring down Syrian aircraft from time to time. The Mig-21 that was recently shot down fell victim to one of these. The threat by small, man portable anti-aircraft missiles in particular is the reason why Russian air force has been conducting its bombing campaign from high altitudes. The extremist groups do not have the kind of air-defense systems that can threaten the kind of bombing campaign Russia is conducting over Syria. If such unites were deployed from Turkish Moscow would react very aggressively not only towards the system on the ground by bombing them but also directly against Turkey. Moscow has thus far refrained from providing Kurds with capable anti-aircraft missiles because Turks have refrained from providing their terror groups inside Syria with similar weapons. At the end of the day, even between antagonistic powers, there remains some degree of cooperation. In politics and in war some things are always held back for use as a last resort.


      If you listen carefully to the reaction coming out of the Western news media (at least the more serious ones in the bunch), you will immediately notice that they are indirectly praising Russia's move and giving Moscow a considerable amount of credit for a successful campaign. They could have activated their propaganda mode and painted the Russian move in Syria as a setback, a retreat and/or a defeat, but they have not. The fact that they are not tells me that this latest development in Syria was coordinated between the two main sides.

      Western press about the Russian move -

      Did Putin once again outfox Obama?:

      The Strategy Behind Russia’s Moves in Syria:

      So Much for Putin’s Syria ‘Quagmire’: The Kremlin has achieved its goal of propping up Assad:

      With Campaign in Syria, Russia Tested Hardware, Prowess:

      Stratfor Explains President Putin’s Largely Achieved Objectives in Syria:

      Russia jets return from Syria in boost for peace talks:

      Iranian FM: 'Russia's withdrawal from Syria indicates that the ceasefire is holding':

      Syria conflict: Russia 'to continue air strikes' after withdrawal:

      Russian air strikes near Palmyra as Syrian troops push advance:

    6. Russia's decision to withdraw its forces does not include the S400 air defence systems

      The risk of military intervention by some adventurers however remains possible.

      If the S400 is meant to remain under Russian control in Syria, then for those adventurers nothing will change in their calculations regardless if Russia decided to confront them or not, the matter remains the same before the withdrawal as it is after.

      If the message is that Russia is no longer a direct party in the current conflict, that implies that the modern systems are under Syrian control, freeing its hands to use these systems without the hard and intricate considerations that a superpower like Russia has to make, since Syria is a nation that is in life or death struggle defending its sovereignty and existence.

      Syria's foes will soon recognize that nothing changed on the battleground, and if anything changed, then it changed for Syria's advantage.

      If Russia were to simply supply the S400s to Syria, the virtual “world” would have turned all tables to condemn such a move that radically shifts the geopolitical calculus in the region, but Russians did exactly the same, while the world can do nothing but applaud Russia's “withdrawal” decision.

    7. Romanian AnonymusMarch 15, 2016 at 8:34 PM


      It is highly probable that the Khazars are again concocting something nasty counting on 'bogging down" Russia in Syria. The musings of McCain seem to suggest it:

      "Beyond the immediate battlefield, though, Russia's withdrawal has raised fears on other fronts.
      U.S. Sen. John McCain said now that Putin has "bombed and killed enough of the opponents of the murderous Assad regime to ensure its survival," Russia may turn its attention elsewhere.
      "I fear that a bloody spring is coming again to Ukraine," McCain warned.

      Other signals come from the Kagans:

      “Because they're withdrawing or have said they're withdrawing troops in Syria, [it] should not mean that we let them off the hook in terms of sanctions vis-a-vis activities in Ukraine,” Nuland said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing....
      critics expressed concern that the administration has not been supporting a sufficient level of force deployment in eastern Ukraine to deter Russia aggression."

      So, the Russians might remind the Kagans that they are there.

    8. My view on this withdraw is based on other factors and I don't think a deal has been reached. What I believe is the case is that something else is going to blow up, and by having an "official withdraw" Russia will not be seen as loosing the Syrian front. This mean that places like Ukraine are going to heat up, and having the assets back in position will make sure there is no holes in the Russian defense on other vital areas.

      Of course the Western press is welcoming this move, as the plans for a toork and Saudi attack makes it that much easier, as they ramp up Ukraine at the same time. By having this withdraw at least the Ukrainian front will not cave in. 5000 folks is not chump change. There are more Russians in Syria then Armenia.

      To think that the West with all this foolishness has somehow come to it's senses is foolish for us to consider. The Europeans are cutting all sorts of deals with the Turks, if the Turks were feeling emboldened before what do you think they are thinking of themselves now?


    9. I bet that to many gullible Americans, the withdrawal of Russian serviceman and warplanes from Syria probably seems like a defeat or an admission of inability to sustain the operation. This is because the American viewpoint is warped by decades of being conditioned to accepting as a supposed necessity the invading of countries, setting up bases, and pretty much never leaving. For example, Germany, Japan, and Italy remain occupied since 1945. NATO has never allowed any of its European satrapies to leave once they join; the sole, partial exception was France initiated by De Gaulle and finally totally undone by Sarkozy. And the US still maintains troops across the world from occupied Serbian Kosovo, to South Korea and the Philippines to all over Africa and Central and South America. When was the last time the US left a country to which it had sent troops? Vietnam in the 1970s? Lebanon in 1984? Georgia in 2008? Russia is creating a dangerous precedent for the American military-industrial complex.

      Excellent move by Russia though. It guarantees that Syria will not become a drain on Russian resources, while at the same time setting a trap into which an arrogant asshole like Erdogan might lead Turkey. And for what it's worth, EU leaders will have a much harder time justifying sanctions on Russia to their own struggling populations - not that unelected, ultra-corrupt EU technocrats give a damn about what their own people think. Can't blame the "refugee crisis" on Russia anymore, either - in fact, I'll bet the next time "ISIS" strikes a western city, nationalists and outraged average citizens will show up at protests with Russian flags and portraits of President Putin.

    10. My two cents: The Russia is saying I saved Bashar's ass, I got myself a new base, now you can do whatever the fuck you want with the rest of that shit hole of a country.

      Proud antisemite

    11. Proud antisemite, your take is just about right. Moscow accomplished what it initially set out to accomplish: Save Bashar Assad's embattled government and increase its military and political footprint in the region. Now, that is has accomplished both, Moscow is preparing the field for the inevitable: The final chapter in Syria. This means partition of some sort. This may have caused some concerns and problems in Damascus and Tehran, but there is no logical way forward for Syria, especially if we are trying to stop the human suffering and a world war. Syria will be partitioned. I have been saying this for some time now and the latest news from Syria's new Kurdistan seems to confirm it -

      Syrian Kurds Say They'll Declare Federal Region in Syria:

      As federal Syria idea is floated, Russia says Kurds should have spot at peace talks table:

    12. Let us try another way, as I don't think people got the gist of what I was trying to say. If the calculations in play are about expanding hostilities then Moscow did the right thing. I am not saying this was a stupid move in defeat, what I am saying is that this is very unexpected move, yes a smart one as I see hostilities expanding. Iran, Haz, and Syrian as well as Kurds can hold off and bleed the Saudi and toork forces easy enough. Short range anti air defense can be had by both sides this is not a zero sum game. What this does is what happened in Ukraine. I told you guy Moscow was not going to go in, they were going to revers the play and use Russian brothers on the ground to wear down the Uki army, the way the West had it pegged it was Moscow that was supposed to get bogged down.

      To date I have not seen this game being let go. So if you use this historical lesson we should see this is the same move. Moscow gets to say hey, peace and if the toorks or Saudi bastards advance it is not the Russians in the picture and the West can't spin this the way they want.

      If a full blown hostilities come forth Moscow is not in a good position, as you can bet the West will come to the aid of the toorks. Right now the European scum is kissing toork ass, as you can all plainly see. They are even talking about having Turkey part of the Euro. So open your eyes and see the reality that is before you.

      You wonder why the counsel of Europe is against Armenia? They are pro toork! They are about to have a visa free travel with the Turks. What is it about these other realities that are escaping some folks?


    13. Made more sense this time, Vahram. Well stated. I agree that Moscow has been concerned about getting stuck in the middle of an all out war because there are indications that certain interests are trying to push regional powers into a conflagration. As impressive and as sophisticated as Russian weapons systems deployed in Syria were, they were vulnerable because they were exposed, as the incident on November 23 revealed. Just imagine: Russia could have easily been sucked into a major war. Needless to say, Moscow does not need that right now, at least not for Syria. Ideally, a nation will wage war when it has plans to wage war and not when its enemies want trap it into a war, unless of course when it is attacked and has to defend itself. This is why Russia took the sucker punch by Turkey with amazing restraint. If there is one thing in this world that Russians know how to do well, that's warfare. When it comes to war fighting, you won't find a better nation. Russia's military staff knew that their forces in Syria are too close to hostile powers and too far from their motherland. Russian forces in Syria could be cut off in a major war. So, it makes sense that as soon as Moscow accomplished what it needed to in Syria - save the Alawites, expand its military and political presence in the region, showcase modern Russian arms and get its military units some realtime practice - it took a step back. That said, Russia will retain significant combat capabilities in Syria to protect what it achieved. At the end of the day, what we are doing here is play a guessing game. Moscow is playing a brilliant hand of chess, we are observing and speculating. Time will show why Moscow did what it did. One thing's for sure, with its military intervention in Syria, Moscow achieved historic success at a very low cost. It's been a brilliant execution of statecraft.

      This article caught my attention -

      The Syrian war just taught Putin to worry about Iran:

      Although I have no respect for newspaper or the author, I do however agree with the notion that Moscow may not want Iran to get too powerful and influential.

    14. Arevordi, I agree Moscow is playing chess, but we can't forget the West is playing checkers. That is the worry, as the moves so far have been checked, but if you are playing with fools you never know the stupid move that will be made. I think that is the problem.

      Sure they maintain the base and all, but at a reduced rate vs what they had. My logic is that the forces are being moved someplace else, should some idiots play a game of checkers the loss would not be great. Besides from a PR standpoint all main street hears is that the Russians pulled out. While me and you know they still have bases, the street is lead to believe that Moscow is out of the picture.

      Very smart move indeed, but the worry is on other fronts. There is more coming, I can feel it. Moscow has been very careful to show it's arms. A sign a hint that don't play this game of checkers we have the might to counter it but we don't want this game. I think at least from a military point of view the West has seen this and changed the perception. But, and a big But here is that the Western political class is as lost as ever. Angela in German is going to face a revolt but she is not budging. The political class is too spoiled and still has not been bitten hard enough to change course. Europe is exploding and people are taking to the streets like we have not seen for a long long time. Yet there is blindness to the people on the street. If this is the case, I don't think the showing of Moscow's might has had a deep enough impact and hence force distribution. This came too quick for my liking. I believe part of the reason is what I just stated, that the political class in the West is just not getting the hints. That being the case I would redeploy my assets as well.

    15. The Russians have created a irresistible trap called a Federation of Kurdistan. What is to follow is sure to keeps us ready to make designs on historical claims with Turkey. Reparations, return of territory and dealing with Azerbaijan and securing Armenia’s energy solutions. Having said that you cannot accomplish this if Russia withdraws its S400 s in Syria.

    16. Berjr, I agree that another Kurdistan this time in Syria sets a much better precedence for us Armenians later down the road. That said, let's not get too hung-up on particular weapons systems. If Russia's enemies really wanted to, they could neutralize S-400 sites as well as other Russian installations in Syria in a very short time. Russian forces in Syria are too small in number and they are stationed too close to hostile borders from all sides. Russian officials realize this. They had initially thought that no nation would directly target Russian forces in Syria. The incident on November 23 revealed that that is no longer a safe assumption. So, the calculus changed. Yes, the S-400 brings very impressive combat capabilities to Syria, but because of the peculiarities of their position in Syria, they are vulnerable to capable military forces like NATO or even Israel. A Syrian Kurdistan can be maintained with or without S-400.

      And I want to add this: Just because Moscow's move seemed sudden and unexpected, we should not automatically assume that there had to have been a serious problem the Russians are reacting to. The decision to withdraw some of the troops and hardware from Syria could have been made weeks ago. It's very normal - in fact standard procedure - not to announce or even hint at troops movements, especially in a war zone. Think of it this way: Had Moscow publicly announced it decision to withdraw troops, its enemies could have carried out a terror bombing near a Russian base or commenced a major ground offensive days before the announced Russian withdrawal to make it look as if Russians were retreating in defeat. Such a thing would have been a major PR defeat for Moscow and it would have unnecessarily endangered Russian lives. Moscow's move into Syria last autumn was a brilliant execution of statecraft. Moscow partial withdrawal from Syria has been another brilliant execution of statecraft. All in all, I am very impressed with Russia's military and its diplomatic corp.

    17. With the Russian forces phasing( the bulk of it, the portion of it) out, the brunt of the fighting is on the SAA . Too much praise , but the fact remains that ISIS is still on the ground, and the oil fields under its thumb. Maybe the new scenario will invoke the Iranians playing a more robust and visible role than hitherto displayed. As for Israel, they will expand the war if they so wish, by its proxy forces, Turks and other malingering states. It would have been an unqualified success had the Russian withdrawal coincided with the capture of Rakka . The next chapter will have the Saudis , Turks , Kurds as main role players, and the role played will be to abet and support the Israeli power interests. Iran is bragging about more missile tests and other irritant action soft threatening the Israelis. Israel's main goal still remains the carving up of Suyia and install chaos and mayhem in Iran. Russia may be playing chess, the others may be playing chequers, chequers or chess, what are the Jews-Israelis playing at ? Russia has laid a trap, commentators comments. If the man in the street reads the Russian withdrawal as a trap, certainly this fact could not have escaped the brain cells of the war mongers and conductors. Letting the filthy turks and the imbecilic Saudis, fall into this "trap" is not going to be a major accomplishment. Israel essence de vivre is to have the entire region burn in flames, regardless of the burnt, thus ensuring its ongoing survival and aggrandisement. The day the burning embers engulf the Jewish state, that is when matters become very serious for the rest.

    18. The actual fighting in Syria has to be done by Syrians and Shiites - not Russians. Russians saved their ass during the past few months and handed the initiative and the advantage back to them. They should now get their shit together and become a more effective fighting force. Frankly, it sometimes feels as if Iran is playing a phantom role. I see Russian troops, I see Russian tanks, I see Russian airplanes, I see Russian flags everywhere in Syria... But why is it that I don't see any Iranian troops or Iranian military hardware in Syria? Iran needs to play a more active role in Syria. Anyway, Syria will be partitioned. Kurds have begun the process. Large swaths of Syria's Sunni populated desert regions in the east where ISIS is currently located will be written off as lost. So, Russians did what they initially intended to do: Save the Assad government and expand Russia's military footprint in the Levant. If this situation is inline with Israel's desires, then so be it. This is the only option the terrible war has left us. At the end of the day, the only entity that was directly responsible for this historic carnage is Assad's government. By that I mean, it was Alawite arrogance and political mismanagement that had allowed Islamic separatists to grow deep roots throughout Syria. Westerners/Jews did not do this, Arabs did this. Syria's enemies merely used whatever tools they could get their hands on in Syria to destroy the country.

    19. Arabs are a paradigm. Is there an Arab nation ?; or an arab world ?. Arab unity it's a chimera. I was in Syria and witnessed the phenotypes in the Syrian landscape. I was in Iraq , and the phenotypes there differed abysmally from those of Syria. How can we equate these two " Arab nations" with differing genotypes. I was in Egypt, and surprised to hear Egyptians vehemently denying that they are Arabs. " We are not Arabs, we are Egyptians", they boasted. Some time ago I found myself in a bus on an African safari . There were three Europeans and 20 Saudis. These Saudis were carbon copies of Pakistanies, Bangladeshis. I asked myself the question, are these Arabs ?, they definitely are aeons away from the genotypes of Syrians, Iraquies and Egyptians. The same applies to the rest of North African " Arabia " . It is a melange of multicolored variegated strains and crosses of races. There can never be so called Arab unity when the base is a hotch potch of mixtures, and monumentally heterogeneous. Homogeneity begets unity. Look at the majestic poise of Bashar al Assad, you discern a fine pedigree, and look at the incongruent/deracinated and confused visages of a Gaddaffi, Sissi or the Saudi princes and the answer to "Arab" disunity cries out straight into one's face.

    20. It's increasingly looking as if Russia's strategic objectives in Syria from day one were limited in scope. In my opinion, the agenda was primarily to: Save Assad's government for destruction, which seemed somewhat inevitable last summer; become a permanent and fundamental part of the political calculus in the region; preserve and expand its military footprint in Syria; showcase it's military prowess; showcase its new military hardware; gain valuable combat experience for its troops. Moscow achieved these in brilliant manner.

      Reasons behind it's partial withdraw has yet to be fully determined. Thus far, we can only speculate. It seems as if getting a bulk of its forces out of harms way while it has been victorious may have been an important factor for Moscow. The strategic repositioning of Russian forces for future operations may have been another. And yet another may be this: It is a good assumption that Damascus and Tehran may have been resistant to the idea of partitioning Syria. So, by symbolically withdrawing troops, in addition to the aforementioned, is Moscow also trying to force Damascus and Tehran to come to the negotiations table and accept reality?

      Articles that caught my attention today -

      Putin: Russia may deploy forces back to Syria ‘in mere hours’ if necessary:

      Syrian Kurds Hope to Establish a Federal Region in Country’s North:

      Putin the peacemaker: Russia’s president appears to turn from hard power to diplomacy:

      The four reasons why Russia has withdrawn from Syria:

      With Syria Pull-Out, Russia Scores Its First Win In The New Cold War:

      Issue of Boundaries: Russian withdrawal from Syria regarded as likely prelude to regional border reshape:

    21. Some people seem tempted to associate Russia's withdrawal decision with some form of political pressure from Putin on Assad and his government.

      The time to exercise pressure and compromise comes before offering the accomplishments of military intervention, not after it. This is the basics of negotiations, and Russians are masters of it.

      When Putin says mission accomplished, it really is so. The international resolutions, the fate of al nusra, the sorting and sieving of the remaining opposition groups, the closure of Turkish border was the goal of the that mission.

      Russians accomplished the mission agreed with Syria, that is to put a ceiling and framework for the political process, breaking Syria's isolation and bringing it to the “international community” as a key condition for its commitment to rid the world from terrorism.

      To force the political West on the solution that Russia and Syria wants, Russia implicitly threatens with resumption of confrontations.

      Putin withdraws, to say: "as we want, Me and Assad, or let's go back to war". Assad will be alone this time, but with him all the tools to show you what he is able to do, so please choose, because I am withdrawing.

      Putin Backs Assad, Says Russian Warplanes Could Redeploy to Syria in Hours

    22. SyrianArab, what we are doing here is simply discussing and speculating. Unlike you, who apparently thinks he knows exactly what's going on in Moscow and Damascus, I am intellectually honest enough to admit I don't. So, stop engaging in wishful thinking and selective reasoning and please stop nitpicking over everything I say. Also realize that internal quarrels and disagreements between allies can come before, during and after any kind of military operation, let alone an operation this difficult and this complex. Anyway, the following is Pepe Esconar's take on these developments -

      Is There a US-Russia Grand Bargain in Syria?

      "It’s spy thriller stuff; no one is talking. But there are indications Russia would not announce a partial withdrawal from Syria right before the Geneva negotiations ramp up unless a grand bargain with Washington had been struck. Some sort of bargain is in play, of which we still don’t know the details; that’s what the CIA itself is basically saying through their multiple US Think Tankland mouthpieces. And that’s the real meaning hidden under a carefully timed Barack Obama interview that, although inviting suspension of disbelief, reads like a major policy change document. Obama invests in proverbial whitewashing, now admitting US intel did not specifically identify the Bashar al-Assad government as responsible for the Ghouta chemical attack. And then there are nuggets, such as Ukraine seen as not a vital interest of the US – something that clashes head on with the Brzezinski doctrine. Or Saudi Arabia as freeloaders of US foreign policy – something that provoked a fierce response from former Osama bin Laden pal and Saudi intel supremo Prince Turki. Tradeoffs seem to be imminent. And that would imply a powe