Archive | March 25, 2015

The End of the American Century*

The End of the American Century*

There is only one essential factor missing from this article, America is not a sovereign state. As the military wing the so-called U.S. serves an entity long in the planning and implementation of complete global domination to the East on European shores. Only the will of the people can serve to address the balance that has never been in place since the inception of their agenda…

apocalypse-statue-of-libertyBy Eric Zuesse

On March 22nd, I headlined “Why the Western Alliance Is Ending,” and I listed the recent events which indicate that the Western Alliance doesn’t have much longer to go. And, now, it has actually already ended. The handwriting is on the wall, for everyone to see; it’s so out-in-the-open, as of today.

Here is what has just happened (as reported in German Economic News, and translated by me), which virtually brings down the curtains on America’s dominance of the world — a dominance that started when World War II ended in 1945:

March 21: “GEOPOLITICS: Washington nervous: China, Japan and South Korea forge an Alliance.” This news story reports:

“For the first time in three years, the foreign ministers of the three countries met. They agreed on Saturday in Seoul to work towards a summit of their leaders, and to take on problems with the interpretation of history [which have separated them till now]. They also expressed their intention to continue to work for a free trade agreement and for new multi-party talks on North Korea’s controversial nuclear program.”

Here’s the important context of that: The U.S. in WW II conquered Japan, which had invaded China and conquered Korea; but, now, Japan, China and South Korea are moving toward one-another, while China, and indirectly the BRICS group of rising economic powers as a whole — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — are making their move past the previous U.S.-European control of the world. Furthermore, these Asian powers are collectively inviting North Korea to move toward them, and to join this group, which would finally bring an end to the stalemated hostilities between South and North Korea. So: welcome to the 21st Century! (For more details on that, see the terrific news reporting in GEN.)

And, in addition: for these three economic powerhouses to “work for a free trade agreement” that’s outside the orbit of Obama’s secret negotiations for his TPP or Trans-Pacific Partnership with them, may mean that they all will be less likely to accept the trade-deal that he is trying to negotiate collectively with them. So: this three-party ministerial meeting is, in itself, potentially an extremely important historical event. But it is part of this larger and interconnected whole, which is far more important than any trade-deal.

Whose PawnMarch 20: “General Motors ends Opel production in Russia.” This news story reports yet another sign of the separation between the Western and the Eastern economic blocs, which, yet again, is both a direct and an indirect result of Obama’s sanctions against Russia, and of his Secretary of State John Kerry’s agreement with the king of Saudi Arabia to increase oil production in order to drive down the oil price and thereby starve Russia of its crucial foreign-exchange earnings from Russia’s huge oil-sales. However, countering Obama’s purpose of harming Russia, GM’s Russian production facilities might now be acquired as abandoned assets by Russia’s oligarchs or the Russian state, and produce new models, the profits from which will remain inside Russia and accrue to Russians. In this regard: Reuters headlined on March 19th “Lada maker’s hopes rise as rival flees Russian car market,” and reported that, “Russian carmaker Avtovaz, producer of the … Lada, expects to grab a bigger share of the shrinking domestic market as its international rivals pull back.” That money will stay in Russia, building up Russia’s economy, instead of Germany’s (Opel) and America’s (GM).

March 23: “Volkswagen Drives Back Russian Production.” Germany’s largest car-maker adds yet further to the opportunities for Russia’s investors, and for investors in other BRICS countries (since they’re not participating in Obama’s anti-Russian sanctions).

March 23: “Spain: Protest party, Podemos, comes third in regional election.” ”The Socialists won the [Andalusian] election, the Conservatives of Premier Mariano Rajoy clearly lost the election.” The conservative party, and its leader of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, which have been strongly pro-American and have supported America’s fascist anti-Russian coup in Ukraine as much as they thought the Spanish public would tolerate (given that Spain’s public are overwhelmingly anti-fascist after the dismal fascist Franco decades), were trounced in regional elections. Spain’s new socialist party, Podemos, was silent on foreign policy because of Spain’s domestic problems, but will likely be less supportive of America’s anti-Russian war than the conservatives have been — which already has not been very supportive (because Rajoy fears a voter-backlash).

March 23: “France: Sarkozy-bloc ahead, National Front strong, Hollande beaten.” The party of the ‘socialist’ Francois Hollande, who has been as cooperative with Obama’s anti-Russian policies as he can be (given the public’s sentiment against those policies), has been beaten in local elections throughout France, by two politicians who have spoken out strongly against Hollande’s kowtowing to American supremacy and his caving to Obama on Ukraine and Russia (such as by defaulting on the Mistral deal): Nicolas Sarkozy and Marine Le Pen. Nominally, these are ‘right-wing’ politicians, but in this matter they are predominantly against imperialism, they’re progressives here, because the imperialism is being practiced by America against their own country, France; and they are more like Charles DeGaul, who was a French patriot who opposed American domination of French affairs.

Public pressures in Europe are largely behind the breakaway from America of European leaders (the phenomenon which was discussed and documented in my “Why the Western Alliance Is Ending”). However, the signal event isn’t really in Europe; it’s in Asia: “GEOPOLITICS: Washington nervous: China, Japan and South Korea forge an Alliance.” What that indicates, and which is only being supported and reinforced by these European events, is a re-alignment of world-powers, in which, Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s “EurAsian” concept is being endorsed virtually world-wide, except perhaps among the Arabic oil-sheikdoms such as the Saudi, Qatari and Bahraini aristocracies, all of whom are allied with the U.S. aristocracy and crucial to the dollarization of the oil-price and thus of the trading of weapons for oil and gas.

Vladimir Putin’s multipolar world is winning; it’s attracting support from non-fascists in all corners of the globe. Barack Obama’s opposite vision — reflected especially in his often-repeated phrase, in which he refers to the United States as “the one indispensable nation” (meaning that all other nations are “dispensable”) — is the likes of which the world hasn’t even heard, from anyone else, ever since the time of Adolf Hitler’s infamous “Deutschland über alles” in the 1930s and ’40s; and it really means the very same thing, only for a different country: it’s actually nationalism, instead of patriotism; and only a small minority of people, even in today’s Nazi Ukraine and in Nazi Germany, have supported it, or sought to impose it. It’s far stronger among aristocrats than among the public.

Bootwar by David DeesThe shock of the world, to find a President of the United States saying that, and his going so far as to tell America’s military to view America’s economic competitors as being what they will be fighting against, is driving away the public, and now even the leaders of other nations. For example, Obama told West Point cadets:

“The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. … Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbours. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.”

He thinks our military should be fighting against nations (such as Russia) that have rising economies. For him, it’s about conquest, and not only about national defence. And he’s obsessed with conquering Russia. Even the aristocrats in most other countries are now backing off from that. He has the support for it, at home, of virtually all members of Congress, but even in the U.S., more than two-thirds oppose it. He has over-reached, so very far, that it’s finally beyond his grasp, and it’s only driving the world faster into the multipolar vision that Russia’s leader, much maligned by the Western press, has been championing for the world’s future: a world of free and independent states, which recognize that for any one of them to benefit at the expense of others is wrong and brings no one any good in the final analysis — much less in the present (justwars such as in Ukraine).

Whatever may happen to Vladimir Putin, his vision has actually taken over the world, and he has made clear that Russia itself (and he himself) has no intention or desire to do so. (He even refuses to accept the rebelling region of the former Ukraine into becoming a part of Russia. He had accepted Crimea only because it’s vital to Russia’s national defence and had been a part of Russia until 1954.) This is remarkable. And his contrast to Obama is also remarkable.

Obama’s arrogance is what’s driving the world away. It has brought about the end of The American Century, in world affairs. It has given entirely new meaning to the old phrase “the ugly American.” In its new meaning, this phrase refers not to the American public (who never really deserved such opprobrium anyway), but clearly to the American aristocracy, the billionaire elite whom Obama and the U.S. Congress actually serve. They are America’s problem, but perhaps they won’t become the world’s, after all. That is what is at stake here: whether an overreaching national aristocracy will succeed in imposing its will upon and against the entire world. Other aristocracies are now deciding: no. They won’t. And that’s today’s big news-story.


Related Topics:

A Celestial Catalyst for Beginnings and Endings

Cabal Rule Continues to Collapse*

“We, the elders of Zion, pull the strings of Congress”

Power and Paedophilia Rife in the US Government*

An Awakened Life: Trials and Tribulations*

Like Bob Marley, We Must Create our Own New Songs of Freedom*

Hackers Steal $1bn from Banks*

Spanish Judge Makes Bank President and Former IMF Chief Pay for Financial Crimes*

Not in the West: Bolivian Economy Grew $34 Billion in 2014*

Why the West Destroys and Humiliate Peoples

Third Week of Strikes by U.S. Oil Workers*

Why Billionaire Oligarchs Bankroll Feminism*

U.K.’s Intelligence Chairman Resigns – part of the battle to stop WW3*

22 Years of Fake “Islamic Terror”*

The Sacred Geometry of Consciousness*

The U.S. Coup against Venezuela has Served to Strengthen Caribbean Unity

Locations of NSA Global Spy Stations*

For Foiling U.S. Coups, U.S. Slap Sanctions on Venezuela*

And One Ring to Bind Them All*

Amsterdam Revolts against the Neo-liberalism in Education

Defying the US with the China-Led Development Bank*

Palestinians Now Forced to Live in Caves*

Palestinians Now Forced to Live in Caves*

Scores of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank have made homes in caves on the outskirts of Al-Khalil (Hebron) because the Israeli occupation authorities continue to prevent them from building homes on territories earmarked for illegal settlements for Jews. Noaman Hamamda, 57, told Anadolu that he and his fellow Palestinians in this predicament have tried to build homes with bricks and cement, but the Israelis demolish the structures on the grounds that they have been built without a permit. It is very rare for Palestinians to be given a building permit by the occupation authorities.

Hamamda and his 13-member family currently live in a cave covering around 30 square metres; they have no basic amenities. Nevertheless, he and other Palestinians in the area say that they would rather suffer such harsh living conditions in the caves than abandon their ancestral land to Israeli settlement projects.

“The occupation keeps trying to evict us,” said Hamamda while his wife Rasmiya prepared tea with primitive utensils, “but we refuse to give up the land. Life is hard for us here, but you get used to it.”

The family’s cave is split into three sections: one for sleeping, another for storing grain; and a third for receiving guests. Outside the cave is a wood oven that Rasmiya uses for cooking and baking bread. “We live a primitive life, but we endure it for the sake of protecting our land,” she said.

Hamamda’s is one of about 15 Palestinian families living in caves in Al-Khalil’s mountainous Al-Mafqara village, one of a cluster of Palestinian villages nestled between five affluent illegal settlements reserved for Jews and built by Israel on confiscated Palestinian land. Israeli troops have entered the area in force repeatedly in recent years to demolish structures built by Palestinian residents.

The most recent raid by Israeli forces on Al-Mafqara was in 2013, when army bulldozers destroyed an electricity generator that had provided residents with power for a few hours each night. During the same raid, the Israelis also levelled a local mosque.

“I can’t watch television anymore because Israel destroyed the electricity generator,” said 11-year-old Adam, Hamamda’s youngest son. He and his friends in Al-Mafqara must walk three kilometres every day to reach their school in a nearby town.

“When I come back from school, I either tend to the cattle or play with my friends,” he added.

The boys also suffer from assaults by Jewish settlers.

“Sometimes they chase us. If they catch us, they beat us,” said Adam.

The ill-fated villages fall within so-called “Area C”, which accounts for nearly two thirds of the West Bank’s total territory and remains under “full Israeli security and civilian control” as per the US-sponsored Oslo Accords. Signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 1993 and 1995, the agreement divided the West Bank into Areas A, B and C. Typically, Israel prevents Palestinians in Area C from erecting structures on the grounds that the land falls under “Israeli administration”.

“Scores of Palestinian families in Al-Mafqara and surrounding areas live without basic facilities like water and electricity and have to use animals for transport,” Rateb Al-Jobour, coordinator of Al-Khalil’s popular resistance committees, told Anadolu.

“The [Israeli] occupation is trying relentlessly to force residents from the land so that it can be used for expanding settlements,” he pointed out.

According to Al-Jobour, some 50,000 square kilometres of land in Al-Khalil are threatened with confiscation by Israel for building additional settlement units or military training camps. He said that Jewish settlers living near the villages routinely assault Palestinian residents.

“Settlers frequently attack women and children from the villages,” he added.

“They also routinely cut down trees and poison cattle.”

Two months ago, Peace Now, a left-leaning Israeli NGO, said that the Israeli government had issued tenders for 450 new settlement units to be built in the occupied West Bank. International law considers the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be occupied territories captured by Israel in 1967; all Jewish settlement building on such land is illegal. Palestinian negotiators insist that Israeli settlement building must stop before the stalled peace talks can resume.


Related Topics:

Palestine from Sovereignty to an Israeli Enclave*

Illuminati, Nazis & The Illegal State of Israel

Jewish Judge Orders Release of Muslim Torture Photos*

Greater Israel” Requires the Breaking up of Existing Arab States*

Detention in the U.S. without Sunlight

Detention in the U.S. without Sunlight

From Alexandra Bruce

For U.S. citizens accused of crimes, certain legal protections are supposed to be sacrosanct: the right to remain silent, access to an attorney.

But over the last six months, reports by The Guardian and Firedoglake have highlighted a culture of abuse in the Chicago Police Department. In this video, the Guardian reports on a nondescript warehouse facility in the west end of the city, where detainees like anti-war protesters, ultimately acquitted of terrorism charges, said they did not enjoy legal protections that the police department’s guidelines promise.

Parallel reporting by Firedoglake from months earlier suggests that similar detours from traditional standards for pre-trial confinement are arriving at U.S. shores from the legal Bermuda Triangle that is the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Reporting by Jeff Kaye; and for The Guardian, and Spencer Ackerma

A US domestic black site’: inside one protester’s secretive police detention

Related Topics:

Coffins Delivered to the White House*


They say #WeRise to Reclaim Government for the People*



Some Police Departments have been under Investigation*


Utah Police Responsible for More Killings than Criminals*

Undercover Cops Inciting Violence in anti-Police Brutality Demos*

False Flag: Time-frame of the Ferguson Police Shot by Police!?

No Debate on Congress Passing Police Unlimited Access to Citizens’ Private Communications*

The U.S. Connection to the Violence in Mexico*

U.S. Refuses to Return Guantanamo to Cuba*

The U.S. Expanding its Domain to Space and Cyberspace*

Thousands Rally Across Canada against New Anti-Terror Law*


Woman Raised by Lesbians Testifies Gay Marriage Top of the List of Bad Marriages*

Woman Raised by Lesbians Testifies Gay Marriage Top of the List of Bad Marriages*

By Selwyn Duke

Heather Barwick’s testimonial against faux marriage is particularly powerful. While having been raised by two lesbians, she’s no bitter child rebelling against a parent. In fact, she expresses deep love for the women who nurtured her, and she used to support faux marriage herself. But after tying the knot and witnessing the love her husband lavishes on their four children, she came to a realization: There is no substitute for having a mother and a father raise a child.

genderIn a heartfelt piece at the Federalist March 17, she relates her experiences and thoughts:

Do you remember that book, “Heather Has Two Mommies”? That was my life. My mom, her partner, and I lived in a cozy little house in the ‘burbs of a very liberal and open-minded area. Her partner treated me as if I was her own daughter. Along with my mom’s partner, I also inherited her tight-knit community of gay and lesbian friends. Or maybe they inherited me?

… I’m writing to you [the homosexual community] because I’m letting myself out of the closet: I don’t support gay marriage. But it might not be for the reasons that you think.

It’s not because you’re gay. I love you, so much. It’s because of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself.

Barwick then says she supported faux marriage into her 20s, but her husband and children allowed her to “see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting.” She said that faux-marriage advocates deny a father or mother to children while claiming that denial is irrelevant. But she says this isn’t true and has a message for homosexuals:

A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad…. [A]nother mom could never have replaced the father I lost.” And while Barwick says that the women in her life claimed to not want a man, she “desperately” craved a father, a desire she calls “unquenchable.”

Perhaps mindful of homosexuality activists’ citing of unhappy marriages (meaning, a man and woman) and the many divorces, Barwick acknowledges that adults raising children can have a variety of problems — but being same-sex is near the top of the list. She writes that “by and large, the best and most successful family structure is one in which kids are being raised by both their mother and father.”

Then there is the money line:

Gay marriage doesn’t just redefine marriage, but also parenting,” writes Barwick.

Many other children of same-sex couples have made this point as well. One of them is California State University English professor Robert Oscar Lopez, who, like Barwick, was raised by two lesbians; unlike Barwick, he’s bolder in his denunciations, likening the giving of children to same-sex couples to trading flesh, to slavery. Another is an academic, feminist, and children’s rights activist who writes as “Rivka Edelman.” That’s a pseudonym, mind you. And the reason she tries to hide her identity illustrates why many children of same-sex couples are afraid to speak up — and what may lie ahead for Barwick.

Both Lopez and Edelman have been targeted for destruction by the homosexuality lobby. After Edelman had an Oct. 2014 article published in Public Discourse, a homosexuality activist sent the site’s editor a tweet stating,

“The only good anti-LGBT bigot is a dead anti-LGBT bigot.”

For Lopez’s part, GLAAD besmirched him as an “exporter of hate” and created what essentially is a mug shot of the professor. And both these individuals — along with other homosexuality agenda opponents — have been targeted with an organized campaign that uses lies and character assassination to destroy their reputations and careers (I wrote about their stories here).

While Barwick’s article is so disarming that it may be difficult to give her the “full treatment,” the targeting, whose first step Edelman says is when “they call the individual a liar,” has already begun. For example, Yahoo! Parenting’s Beth Greefield quotes Gabriel Blau, executive director of the Family Equality Council (who she says “is raising a 7-year-old son with his husband”) as stating,

“I think it’s disingenuous to say you don’t support LGBT rights and that your concern is children.” She also quotes “LGBT family-rights educator” Abigail Garner.

After rendering some magnanimous sounding words such as “I sympathize with Heather’s pain” and “We are all entitled to our personal narratives,” Garner said, “but I strongly disagree with Heather’s contrived attempt to offer her personal story as a case for blocking other families’ access to marriage rights.” Of course, calling Barwick “disingenuous” and her story “contrived” are just slightly euphemistic ways of saying she’s a liar.

But observers might consider this projection, as the arguments of faux-marriage activists are thoroughly disingenuous themselves. Consider how Blau also spoke of “marriage equality” and “denying a huge swath of American citizens our civil rights.” But what is “marriage equality” and of what “civil rights” is he speaking?

All adult Americans already have a right to marry, meaning, to enter into a conjugal union with a member of the opposite sex. Of course, homosexuality activists say they don’t subscribe to that definition of marriage. Yet they offer no firm alternative definition; they don’t make it a point to say, for example, that marriage is the “union between any two adults.” Doing so would set boundaries — which by definition exclude what lies beyond them — thereby rendering these activists “discriminatory,” “exclusionary,” and “bigoted,” just as they accuse traditionalists of being. They would then lose that oh-so effective debate-stifling rhetorical hammer. This brings us to the crux of the matter:

How can you determine if there is a right to a thing if you don’t know exactly what that thing is?

What is “marriage”?

This is why marriage defenders give homosexuality activists too much credit when saying they’re trying to “redefine” marriage. They’re doing nothing of the sort.

They are “undefining” it.

This puts the lie to the claim that their efforts won’t lead to the acceptance of other conceptions of “marriage” (e.g., polygamy), as they refuse to even try to establish their own firm boundaries. And an “undefinition” excludes nothing.

At this point homosexuality activists may counter that they don’t need to redefine anything because faux marriage is an entity unto itself, a different institution altogether. But then the equality-under-the-law argument collapses. For the 14th Amendment guarantees such equality to people — not institutions. And then we’re right back where we started, where we should be: People with same-sex attraction, just as other people do, have a legal right to the institution of marriage.

This is, by the way, what courts should recognize. They cannot work with “undefinitions,” nor is it their place to redefine marriage. And the only consistent, hard and fast, time-tested definition they have to work with involves the union of a man and woman in matrimony. Thus, when ruling in favour of marriage destroyers they have either been anthropomorphizing institutions or have been saying there is a right — to they know not what.

Heather Barwick now knows what’s what, though — inspired to change, it would appear, by the strong emotions experienced through having a beautiful family. If only reason were so effective.


Related Topics:

Why is the Legalization of Gay Marriage so Important to the Queen?*

Religious Schools Face Closure if they don’t Promote Homosexuality*

Gay Activist Admits our Goal is to Indoctrinate Children*

Kids in Same-sex Households at Greater Risk of Mental Health Problems*

Parents Attacked for Protesting against the Sexualization of their Children*

UN’s Heterophobic Agenda*

Sexual Liberation a Tool of Mass Control*

Why the West Destroys and Humiliate Peoples

Mexican Study: Lower Mother Mortality and Violence against Women in Less ‘Liberal’ States*

Gay Commissioner Cracks Down on Churches*

And One Ring to Bind Them All*