LRC Blog

American Illusions About Violence

Human history contains innumerable episodes of violence, and frequently violence of the most sadistic and bloody kind, be it by individuals, groups, or organized bodies. Americans are not at all exceptional in this regard. It would not be at all surprising to find that every people on earth has a history of violence at some point, often bloody, extreme and bloodthirsty.

It is illusory to think that this tendency to violence has changed because it’s 2014 or because moral codes now condemn violence of various kinds. Certainly the capacity to inflict such violence is still present. Human nature contains the potential for not only violence but inflicting pain and torture for the pure pleasure of it.

The violence in the 20th century reached unheard of levels, and it continues to this day. It is an illusion to think that America is an exceptional nation in this regard, has some special moral insight or an exceptional degree of moral control over its violent tendency. Moral inhibitions shatter under the capacity of men to think up justifications and rationalize violence.

Americans at war seem or act surprised when the other side uses violence, roadside bombs and stealthy suicide attacks to blow up civilians or soldiers on patrol. Meanwhile almost no weapon or technique is absent from the American arsenal, ready even to be inflicted on or by obstreperous Americans. The researchers of death think up more and more ways to kill, and so do America’s enemies.

Americans at war seem to under-estimate the tenacity and motivations of the enemies. Americans cannot see that the other sides are just like them. It is illusion to think they are different.

Perhaps Americans think that they have a technological or manufacturing advantage that allows them to win. This has not always proven to be the case. This idea also seems to be an American illusion.

6:07 pm on November 25, 2014

CNN et al.

Writes Jeff Deist:

I noticed this morning that just when Americans want to have an open and honest conversation about race, “comments are closed.”

3:18 pm on November 25, 2014

NSA Backdoor to Windows 8

Discovered by the Germans.

3:07 pm on November 25, 2014

Taxpayers Near Ferguson Must Turn to Private Security

399px-Private_security_guard_Guatemala02Those who own private property in suburbs near Ferguson must hire private security for protection. Malls, shopping centers, and other valuables will be protected with private money. A story linked on Drudge today noted that the wealthy suburb of Clayton includes many private firms turning to private security, but apparently, private firms are being called in throughout the metro area:

Securitas, a security firm that employs 1,600 private guards around St. Louis, says it contracted out the last of its personnel two weeks ago to protect malls, banks, pharmaceutical corporations, power plants, and other large businesses, some of which are based in Clayton. To meet the demand of anticipated violence, Securitas has been making new hires, according to Garrett Cizek, the firm’s local business-development manager.

Naturally, no one, if he can afford, it will rely on government police for “protection.”

If governments were honest with you, this is what they would say about police:

Dear Citizen, we are going to tax you heavily for a police force that will focus on extracting even more revenue from you, and will exist primarily to harass motorists and other who commit petty traffic infractions. All the while, we will claim we are putting our lives on the line to protect you. But of course, we will do little to recover your stolen property, investigate thieves or those who trespass or destroy property. If you’re a small business owner who has ever had his shop broken into, you know this already. Yes, politics requires that we do investigate rapes and murders, but we’d rather not do that. Those criminals are dangerous! Let’s face it, the police force is a union shop, and is unaccountable to you, the tax payer. The police are mostly concerned with ensuring more and more government spending on huge pensions for police officers who will retire at age 45 and collect $80,000 or $90,000 per year as a retiree. All paid for by you.

You will also pay those police to issue you citations for jaywalking, opening unauthorized lemonade stands, or growing vegetables in your front yard. If you resist, we will shoot you.

Citizen, all this being said, you should know that in case any civil unrest or actual threat to your property, you’re on your own. The Supreme Court has ruled that we have no duty to protect you, and in case of any true conflagration, the police will protect the government’s property and nothing else. Smart people will hire private security for this. If you cannot afford private security, your lack of “protection” is your own fault for not wanting to pay higher taxes.

Have a nice day.

The story of modern policing is this: you’ll pay huge amounts of taxes for police who will do little for you in case of actual crime.


2:57 pm on November 25, 2014

Was It Planned?

Writes a friend:

I believe the Ferguson destruction (as pointed out, except for government buildings) was planned.  It’s going to be used as justification for their heavy-handed, militarized presence.  “See what happens when we don’t respond strongly.”  So they let the city burn and they let the looters have control.

I was watching live last night until 4 in the morning.  When the row of cars were set on fire, they were showing the parking lot from the air.  There were about five guys on the right side of the camera shot in the parking lot, standing behind the next row of cars, but they panned away quickly.  I got suspicious then.  And the fire didn’t spread from the first car, down.  Multiple cars, several cars away from each, were set on fire.  I watched it live.

In my opinion, this just shows that the government can’t, or won’t, protect you. They look after themselves. You’re on your own.


12:31 pm on November 25, 2014

Irrelevant Answers to Wrong Questions

The ongoing events in Ferguson, MO, illustrate Thomas Pynchon’s point that “if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” Like the Rodney King, and Trayvon Martin cases, the killing of Michael Brown by a white Ferguson policeman provided the state and its sycophantic media an opportunity to reinforce the popular mindset that social disorder derives from the inherently divisive nature of human behavior; that violent conflict is inevitable among people; and that only the authority of the state can protect us from a “nasty, brutish, and short” fate.

From a statist perspective, Brown’s killing confirms that categories of people grounded in race, religion, gender, lifestyle, economic interests, and numerous other abstract divisions, define humanity, and make social conflict an inescapable outcome of human nature. “White man kills black man” is a sufficient statement of fact to reinforce racial explanations of violence. When a white man kills another white, or a black man kills another black, the stories will be reported – if, indeed, at all – on page 12 of your local newspaper. Neither CNN, Fox News, the NYT, WSJ, nor other loyal tribunes of the established order will devote coverage to what is an equally devastating tragedy as that experienced by Michael Brown’s family. White police officers do kill or torture white people without much attention devoted to the fact. If you doubt this, read some of Will Grigg’s thoroughly documented – often with video of the attacks – reports.

Every political system thrives on the legal use of violence. Each requires our separation into exclusive groupings who can then be manipulated into warfare with one another, thus allowing the state to coercively intervene to reconfirm its violence-based powers over us all. If you doubt this, recall as much detail as you can from last night’s events in Ferguson. Can you identify a single response from the state that did not involve violence or the threat of violence? That local thugs – caught up in the statist mindset of racially-defined conflict – were, themselves, being most destructive, was a consequence of state violence (i.e., white policeman kills black man). Such rioting was but another example of the “blowback” that arises from so-called “terrorists” reacting to the violence that inheres in American foreign policy practices.

As long as we succumb to our statist conditioning by which we define one another as “enemies” against whom the state promises to “protect” us, we shall continue to help generate the kinds of tragedies that occurred in Ferguson. If we can learn to see our problems not in terms of “white man kills black man,” but as the consequences of our embracing institutionalized violence, we may find a solution to what our thinking has created.

What if we began to see violence – a power for which the state insists upon having a legal monopoly – as the real threat to human well-being? What if events in Ferguson had begun with a report that “state employee shoots and kills young man”?

11:28 am on November 25, 2014

Government Protection in Ferguson

Government cops protected only government from the burners and looters. The destruction of private businesses was unimpeded.

Writes Jay Stephenson: “Sounds like the nearby town of Clayton had an anarcho-capitalist solution.”

8:45 am on November 25, 2014

Separating Marriage and State

Catholic Archbishop Chrarles Chaput of Philadelpia discusses the idea of re-privatizing marriage sympathetically. (Thanks to Martin Hill)

8:37 am on November 25, 2014

Darren Wilson and the Protocols of Official Exoneration


The most important details in Darren Wilson’s grand jury testimony come on pages 77-78 of the transcript. Asked if he had filled out an incident report on the shooting, Wilson explained that the “protocol” in such cases is to “contact your FOP [Fraternal Order of Police] representative and he will advise you of what to do step by step.”

When asked if he had committed his recollections to paper in a diary or journal, Wilson replied: “My statement has been written for my attorney.”

“And that’s between you and your attorney, then?” asked the exceptionally helpful prosecutor, who received an affirmative reply.

“So no one has asked you to write out a statement?” the assistant DA persisted.

“No, they haven’t,” Wilson acknowledged.

Like anybody else suspected of a crime, Wilson was presumed innocent and could not be forced to incriminate himself. Unlike a Mundane suspected of homicide, however, Wilson was given the luxury of crafting his story to fit subsequent disclosures, in consultation with a police union attorney who added the necessary melodramatic flourishes.

Thus we are told that when Wilson grabbed Brown’s forearm through the window of his SUV, “the only way I can describe it is I felt like a five-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan.”

Although the 18-year-old Brown possessed nearly 300 pounds of unathletic girth, Wilson was no nebbish: Like Brown, he stands 6’4″ and weighs 210 pounds.


2:24 am on November 25, 2014

The Phony Legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.

CIA counterfeit conservative William F. Buckley Jr., after completing his snitch work as FBI shill/informant at Yale, was recruited by the Agency and did his CIA stint with E. Howard Hunt (future Watergate conspirator) in Mexico.

Buckley, with intelligence community colleagues James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, Priscilla Buckley, and William J. Casey, went on to found National Review magazine as the premier publication of the CIA’s synthetic “Conservative movement” replacing the non-interventionist Old Right coalition of Americans opposed to the corporate welfare-warfare state of Roosevelt and Truman.

What most Americans mistakenly regard today as the “Conservative movement” has undergone many convoluted and dramatic transformations over the past sixty years.

Perhaps the most keen observer has been the late Murray N. Rothbard, the internationally acclaimed economist and historian (and bête noir of Buckley).

How this disinformation process began is detailed in Rothbard’s engaging and insightful book, The Betrayal of the American Right.

It tells the full story of how this subversive movement at war with American liberties and the rule of law, came about.

This book is the definitive examination of how the CIA’s phony “Conservative movement” arose and deluded millions in the name of national security and state power.

“Conservatism,” since the days of Burke and Robespierre, has stood for the status quo and an apologia for tyranny.

William F. Buckley, Jr.’s entire career as a “public intellectual” was built upon one ignominious deception after another as a servitor of state power.

The synthetic “Conservative movement” he help spawn has continued unabated, growing like a cancer in the American body politic.

Buckley was a student at Yale University (Skull and Bones 1950) where he served as shill and informant for J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. One of Buckley’s Yale professors, former Trotskyist communist Willmoore Kendall (formerly of the OSS and later consultant to the CIA) was a recruiter of talent for the newly created Agency. Kendall recruited Buckley in 1951.

Kendall introduced him to former Trotskyist James Burnham (also formerly of the OSS). Burnham was consultant to the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination, the CIA’s covert action division. He was later to actively work on the CIA coup d’etat against Mossadegh in Iran.

Burnham first introduced Buckley to agent E. Howard Hunt in his Washington, D. C. apartment. Buckley then served with Hunt in Mexico where Hunt was chief of station and Buckley’s control officer. Hunt later figured as a principal in the Watergate Scandal that brought down Richard Nixon.

Hunt, in his memoirs, American Spy, (in which Buckley wrote the introduction) observes that prior to his stint in the CIA, Regnery published Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, an indictment of the supposed pervasive liberalism on that campus. The book launched Buckley’s career as spokesman for the emerging “Conservative movement” of the early 1950s. With what we now know about CIA covert recruiting on college campuses during this period, particularly Yale, Buckley’s initial book bears a new revisionist examination.  (more…)

7:11 pm on November 24, 2014

All Videos from the Mises Institute’s Costa Mesa Mises Circle

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel Fired

Chuck Hegel is out as Secretary of Defense.

Hagel is the third Sec of Defense since 2011, so his tenure, while short, is not uniquely short. Nevertheless, Hagel was apparently unable to deliver the goods. And what are “the goods” for a Secretary of Defense? Historian Hunt Tooley describes the job this way:

Though these secretaries are not the gatekeepers of the warfare-welfare state (and perhaps not even the most important ones), they perform a crucial function in coordinating the collectivist, rent-seeking corporate entities with the political parties and their largely social-democratic agenda.

While hardly an advocate for anti-interventionist foreign policy, the primary criticism of Hagel in Washington has always been that he is insufficiently enthusiastic about starting wars and spending lavishly on them. His critics claimed he was anti-semitic because he refused to advocate for an open ended blank check for Israel in the middle east.


1:35 pm on November 24, 2014

How Bad Can the State Get?

The State has to be one of mankind’s most dysfunctional inventions. Every person on this planet should know this and accept it. The evidence of how bad states are is everywhere and overwhelming. A sample follows.


11:56 am on November 24, 2014

Obama Fires Warmonger Chuck Hagel

For not being warmongery enough. (Thanks to Jay Stephenson)

8:37 am on November 24, 2014

Civil Unrest in Germany

Against the criminal European Central Bank.

8:34 am on November 24, 2014

The New

Writes tech expert Robert Blumen:

Congratulations on the new site: it looks fantastic – a great job all around. Finally a site that lives up to the quality of content. I look forward to exploring it more over the coming days and weeks.

8:08 am on November 24, 2014

No Justifications for America’s Aggressions

Those politicians who have supported the use of American military forces and warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan have mistreated the people and societies in these countries. There is no justification for the injuries and harms that American forces have inflicted on others and none for the injuries and harms borne by the Americans who have participated in these wars. There is not a single justification for the huge resources extracted from tax-paying Americans to pay for these exceedingly costly expeditions, and no justification for the huge debts incurred that signal the extraction of taxes from future generations.

Those who instigate and direct American military attacks and otherwise support the wars invariably present justifications for what they are sponsoring and making happen. We are told that noble motives are at work behind these wars Made in America. We are told that these attacks are to root out terrorists, to prevent massacres, to maintain American freedoms, to stamp out evil, to prevent larger wars, to spread civilization, to institute democracy, to obtain national security, to protect Americans, to stop weapons of mass destruction, to secure nearby countries, to remove dictators and bad governments, and to prevent attacks on the homeland.


7:24 am on November 23, 2014

The Empire’s Justification

The American Empire’s goal is expansion of the regions under its dominance, seemingly without any limit. That is why the U.S. continued to push and push after the Cold War ended and that is why it pushes to this day.

The Empire’s justifications to the American people of fighting for freedom and fighting terror do not hold up under scrutiny. They do not explain the Empire’s actions. Neither do its appeals to prevent dominoes from falling or not appeasing aggressive forces.

There is yet another basic justification for the expansionary push of the American Empire, not articulated but understood, which is that if “we” good guy Americans don’t dominate some territory, then some other bad or worse guys will, like the Russians.


3:42 pm on November 22, 2014

Justina Pelletier Back in Hospital

 Justina Pelletier is the teenager whose life was torn apart by zealous psychiatrists at Children’s Hospital who suddenly discontinued her treatment for Mitochondrial Disease and made her physical condition severely deteriorate — all in the name of “behavior modification” fanaticism. And she is the one whose life was torn apart by Massachusetts Department of Children and Families who abducted her away from her family and kept her imprisoned in mental health facilities even though she had no apparent “mental health” issues. She has since returned home to her family in Connecticut, last June. I have written about her case several times now. Here is the Miracle for Justina Facebook page, and the Free Justina Pelletier Now Facebook page.

Apparently in late September Justina was taken to the hospital because of experiencing “serious pain,” and then rushed to Yale/New Haven Hospital on October 5th, according to the #freejustina Twitter account and the Twitter account of a major Pelletier family advocate, the Rev. Patrick Mahoney. And yesterday, Rev. Mahoney asked to pray that Justina could be transferred to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and it seems his prayers were answered just today. Whatever is going on with Justina Pelletier now, I sure hope she gets better.

Besides Justina, I have also mentioned the case in Arizona of Kayla and Hannah Diegel who were kidnapped from their mother Melissa by CPS on behalf of Phoenix Children’s Hospital. See the Miracle for Two Sisters Facebook page. It is criminal what these government agencies and federally-funded hospitals are doing to kids and to families! And there are many hundreds of victims now.

As far as I’m concerned, if Justina does not survive this ordeal, then those Boston Children’s Hospital doctors must be criminally charged. They already should have been charged, in my view.

Given the cultural, moral and ethical decline of our society, and the pervasiveness of narcissistic tendencies, there really do seem to be practitioners who are obsessed with getting government funding as well as with using human beings in experiments to “prove” their theories. So I think the hunger for research funding has become as much a religious fanaticism as this “behavior modification” ideology seems to be. Sadly, the inclination of an increasing number of doctors as “Hmm, what can I do to make this patient better?” now seems to have become “Hmm, what can I do with this specimen to further my career in receiving government grants?”

2:54 pm on November 22, 2014

Truth Obscured in the Afghanistan Morass and Confusion

Obama has approved an expanded U.S. military role in Afghanistan. It’s against the Taliban. The administration debated this. The Pentagon won this one. They wanted an expanded mission.

A normal country is one in which people do not make constant wars in other lands and do not butt into the affairs of others with a degree of deep engagement that is reserved for how the federal government meddles with the 50 states and their citizens. From any rational standpoint of a normal country, as America once seemed to be, Afghanistan is a morass, a muddle, a swamp, and entanglement that the U.S. got into 13 years ago and counting.

An abnormal country, such as America now is, is subject to the irrational standpoint of the government, the Pentagon and a bevy of contractors and interest groups. They don’t want to get out of Afghanistan. Being there is their bread and butter. Otherwise, they’d be long gone; because from the rational standpoint of a normal country, there is no American enemy in Afghanistan.

From the empire’s standpoint which makes and breaks governments or tries to, and which has arcane geopolitical and imperial interests, any challenge to its presence, including its military presence, such as by the Taliban is to be countered and regarded as that of an enemy. That is why White House spokesman Jay Carney and the government think of the Taliban as an “enemy combatant.”


12:23 pm on November 22, 2014

Excellent Books Exposing The State

LRC readers will be interested in the two new Amazon Listmania! book lists which I have added to my previous catalog of titles. The American Deep State and American Police State bring the total up to 118 book and DVD lists. Be sure to purchase your items through the LRC Amazon portal.

10:18 am on November 22, 2014

Fmr. Bush National Security Advisor: Start WWIII With Russia!

Stephen Hadley, who served as National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush, believes that the United States should begin delivering lethal military equipment  to the US-backed government in Ukraine as that government moves ever-closer to another assault on eastern territories seeking independence.

Thus far, more than 4,000 have been killed in Kiev’s attack on the breakaway Lugansk and Donetsk regions, many if not most civilians. That is not enough for Hadley.

Bush’s old security chief has no interest in dialogue or diplomacy. He wants action, stating yesterday at an Aspen Institute conference that:

If I were in my old job I would be thinking of lethal assistance [to Ukraine], yes. But this is why you have a CIA. This is why you have covert action. I would be thinking: do we want to do it explicitly and send a message to [Russia’s President Vladimir] Putin? Or do we want to do it covertly? I think we tend now to talk too much and act too little.

Russia has already warned that direct US involvement in the Ukraine crisis would be seriously destabilizing and that US provision of military equipment to Kiev would be a violation of several international agreements and indeed international law.

It could also trigger World War III, as NATO proxies armed with US weapons would be fighting right on the Russian border — just two months after a Ukrainian official threatened Russia with nuclear weapons.

Normally one might write off such statements as the nostalgic waxing of a frustrated former power broker, but Stephen Hadley is not alone. The “arm Ukraine and escalate” faction has recently seen its stock rise in the Obama administration and in the incoming Republican-dominated Senate.


1:30 am on November 22, 2014

U.S. in Total Confusion in the Middle East

Did the neocons ever have a clear policy in the Middle East? Did either Bush? Did Obama? What were they after?

Whatever their objectives may have been, they are dead and buried. They are even forgotten by their perpetrators. They have been replaced by total confusion. There are a dozen countries here, each one with cross rivalries, spats, ethnic divisions, religious divisions and conflicting interests. At this point, the U.S. is just another player in this endlessly confusing and conflicted region, albeit one with money and air power. The U.S. is being pulled this way and that by a dozen or more different forces, and it doesn’t have any clear objectives or policies or instruments to implement them if it did.

Confusion like that being seen now was never intentional. It is not testimony to some deviously concealed plan that has been using ISIS as a pawn. What it shows is that the U.S. government and the CIA are inept, which is what we expect of government and government agencies that have their incentives and face lack of control or monitoring over their activities.

6:20 pm on November 21, 2014

Missing the Latin Mass

Bill Murray. (Thanks to SC)

3:59 pm on November 21, 2014

Terror Is Also Not a Reason or Argument for Foreign Wars

We have come a long way even from the mistaken actions of yesteryear. On September 1, 1950 Truman said “We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”

Bush overturned that completely. The Bush Doctrine makes preemptive war a pillar of American policy. Preemptive wars are not the weapon solely of dictators. They are also the weapon of free and democratic countries. The question of launching such wars is not one, as Truman supposed, of differences in the commonly observed political structures on the planet. The question of who launches such wars and who does not has to do with other factors, such as the moral stance a people and/or its government takes with respect to aggression. How far is a government willing to go to reduce the pretext for a war or to manufacture excuses for it or to cause pretexts itself? The U.S. government and the American people in this respect have gone downhill morally. The use of torture was another signal of this decline.

Bush used terrorism as a pretext for making war overseas: preventive war or aggressive war. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism in America. Neither did Gaddafi in Libya, the Taliban in Afghanistan or Assad in Syria. They all became targets with one excuse or another, under the shadow accusation of terrorism or terrorist sympathy or of not being “with us”.


3:16 pm on November 21, 2014

Immigration Insanity

Kinda hard to find words other than “tyrant” and “dictator” for a politician who announces as Obummer did, “…to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.” In other words, “Do as I decree, Congresscriminals, or I’ll usurp your legislative role.”

Then again, those sorry wimps in Congress deserve all the contempt Obummer can dish out. Here’s hoping they return every bit of it, given how egregiously that two-bit thug in the White House has earned it.

Tragically, however, Obummer’s power-grab victimizes millions of real people, not just 535 Congressional comrades—people with hopes and ambitions, families, skills and talents, jobs, futures, and the courage to leave everything familiar for the dream of a better life. (Ha! Talk about barking up the wrong tree! Have these poor immigrants studied none of the surveys that document the USSA’s plunge into totalitarianism?) Which makes it doubly sad that “immigration advocates rallied behind Mr. Obama’s actions, describing them as a much-delayed victory for millions of people.” What a shame these “advocates” are so foolish when it comes to despotism: either they’re too stupid to realize or too cynical to care that what a tyrant grants he can also revoke.

Traveling, settling, and living where and when we please (subject, of course, to the rights of those who own any property we may affect by such actions) are among those “inalienable rights” with which the Creator endows us. Perhaps that’s one reason the Constitution never gives the federal government any authority whatsoever to control our movements into or out of the country: the most those bozos in DC can do is “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,i.e., set the parameters of citizenship, such as how many years of residency are required or what sort of oath to administer. But the Constitution wisely leaves determining who will or will not cross an imaginary line on the ground to each individual; it never entrusts so momentous a decision to a bunch of pin-headed bureaucrats. Nor may those goons chase, harass, shoot, and kill those who dare assert their God-given rights. Predictably, that deficit of power spurred the Supreme Dorks in the 1870s to invent an “interest” for the feds in immigration. No wonder Leviathan has triumphed almost completely over our liberty of movement since then.

Meanwhile, the Blasphemer-in-Chief “cited scripture’s call ‘that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger.’ Some might say that charging usually impecunious immigrants $680 for the privilege of paying taxes to Our Rulers—which, I’m sure only coincidentally, yields a tidy $2.7 billion to Obummer’s treasury if all 4 million of his victims pony up— very much qualifies as “oppression.” And fiendishly establishing bureaucratic hurdle after bureaucratic hurdle for them to jump while they struggle to learn a new language and hunt jobs descends from mere “oppression” to downright “persecution.”

Welcome to Amerika, newcomers. If you want to head back home, we certainly understand. Can we go, too?

10:44 am on November 21, 2014

Clint Eastwood Wants an Oscar for His Snuff Film

Will he get it?

8:47 am on November 21, 2014

Gary North: ‘This Means You’

Added Gary:

With the spotlight trained on the New York Fed, Mr. Dudley has come to the defense of his organization. Mr. Dudley said last month that “I don’t think anyone should question our motives or what we are attempting to accomplish.”

12:29 pm on November 20, 2014

I Am No Fan of Neocon Michele Bachmann

But I do have to give her credit for tweeting this extremely un-PC photo. (Thanks to Bob Wenzel)

11:07 am on November 20, 2014

U.S. Is Creating A New Enemy: Russia

Russia will soon publish a revamped military doctrine. Rumor has it that the U.S. and NATO will be designated as threats or adversaries or enemies. This speculation is bolstered by the statements of a senior Russian Defense Ministry General.

Even without an official document having yet been published, we can say now that the U.S. and NATO policies, especially as they have transpired over Ukraine, have caused this hardening of the Russian position. The U.S. is creating a new enemy: Russia. This is purposeful. Only a big enemy like Russia can get Americans to accept the costs of the American military levied upon them. Only a big enemy like Russia can be used to justify a big military establishment. The war on terror no longer provides enough of a justification for a people tired of such losing propositions.

Although Obama conceives that he is in the right over Ukraine and Russia in the wrong, and although he conceives of sanctions as justifiable and measured, he has still nonetheless made Russia into an enemy. Russia is responding in kind. Obama’s sanctions came along with strong NATO rhetoric and a history of broken promises or betrayed understandings about the expansion of NATO. What Obama has done didn’t occur in a vacuum. The anti-Russian policy stance goes back to the end of the Cold War. If Obama wanted a friendly or cooperative Russia, he certainly didn’t achieve it.

Warmongers and neocon hawks will seize upon an altered Russian military doctrine that names the U.S. as its primary adversary as evidence that Russia is indeed a threat and an enemy. This will be a lie. From the ending of the USSR to several years ago, there was no evidence that Russia was an enemy. It made no hostile moves on any surrounding countries or on the U.S. The recent moves of Russia with respect to Ukraine are responses to the U.S. moves, namely, the U.S. supported a violent change in Ukraine’s government and then a Ukrainian military campaign against its own people. Russia is still not an enemy of the U.S., even if it identifies the U.S. and NATO as its prime adversaries. However, it is still the case that the U.S. is creating Russia as a new enemy.

5:47 pm on November 19, 2014