empire watch, latest, Russia, United States

Why the Neocons Hate Russia (even more than they hate everyone else)

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

Neoconservatism started in 1953 with Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the Democratic Party U.S. Senator from the state of Washington (1953-1983), who became known as a ‘defense’ hawk, and as “the Senator from Boeing,”because Boeing practically owned him. The UK’s Henry Jackson Society was founded in 2005 in order to carry forward Senator Jackson’s unwavering and passionate endorsement of growing the American empire so that the U.S.-UK alliance will control the entire world (and U.S. weapons-makers will dominate in every market).

Later, during the 1990s, neoconservatism became taken over by the Mossad and the lobbyists for Israel and came to be publicly identified as a ‘Jewish’ ideology, despite its having — and having long had — many champions who were ‘anti-communist’ or ‘pro-democracy’ or simply even anti-Russian, but who were neither Jewish nor even focused at all on the Middle East. Republicans Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and John McCain; and the Democrat, CIA Director James Woolsey — the latter of whom was one of the patrons of Britain’s Henry Jackson Society — were especially prominent neoconservatives, who came to prominence even before neocons became called “neoconservatives.” What all neocons have always shared in common has been a visceral hatred of Russians. That comes above anything else — and even above NATO (the main neocon organization).

During recent decades, neocons have been hating Iranians and more generally Shiites — such as in Syria and in Lebanon, and now also in Yemen — and not only hating Russians.

When the Israel lobby during the 1990s and after, pumped massive resources into getting the U.S. Government to invade first Iraq and then Iran, neoconservatism got its name, but the ideology itself did not change. However, there are a few neoconservatives today who are too ignorant to know, in any coherent way, what their own underlying beliefs are, or why, and so who are anti-Russians (that’s basic for any neocon) who either don’t know or else don’t particularly care that Iran and Shia Muslims generally, are allied with Russia. Neoconservatives such as this, are simply confused neocons, people whose underlying ideology is self-contradictory, because they’ve not carefully thought things through.

An example is Vox’s Alex Ward, who built his career as an anti-Russia propagandist, and whose recent ten-point tirade against Russia I then exposed as being false on each one of its ten points, each of those points having been based upon mere allegations by U.S. neocons against Russia without any solid evidence whatsoever. Indictments, and other forms of accusations, are not evidence for anything. But a stupid ‘journalist’ accepts them as if they were evidence, if those accusations come from ‘the right side’ — but not if they come from ‘the wrong side’. They don’t understand even such a simple distinction as that between an indictment, and a conviction. A conviction is at least a verdict (though maybe based on false ‘evidence’ and thus false itself), but all that an accusation is is an accusation — and all accusations (in the American legal system) are supposed to be disbelieved, unless and until there is at least a verdict that gives the accusation legal force. (This is called “innocent unless proven guilty.”)

Earlier, Mr. Ward had headlined as if he were an anti-neocon, when he posted his “America is fueling the war in Yemen. Congress is finally pushing back.” What can account for that seemingly incongruous article?

Mr. Ward is a Democrat — an heir to Senator Jackson’s allegedly anti-communist though actually anti-Russian ideology — but, since Ward isn’t as intelligent as the ideology’s founder was, Ward becomes anti-neocon when a Republican-led Administration is doing things (such as Ward there criticizes) that are even more-neocon than today’s Democratic Party itself is.

In other words: ‘journalists’ (actually, propagandists) such as he, are more partisan in favor of support of Democratic Party billionaires against Republican Party billionaires, than in support of conquering Russia as opposed to cooperating with Russia (and with all other countries). They’re unaware that all American billionaires support expansion of the U.S. empire — including over Yemen (to bring Yemen in, too — which invasion Ward incongruously opposes). But politicians (unlike their financial backers) need to pretend not to be so bloodthirsty or so beholden to the military-industrial complex.

Thus, an American doesn’t need to be intelligent in order to build his or her career in ‘journalism’, on the basis of having previously served as a propagandist writing for non-profits that are mere fronts for NATO and for Israel, and which are fronts actually for America’s weapons-manufacturing firms, who need those wars in order to grow their profits. Such PR for front-organizations for U.S. firms such as Lockheed Martin, is excellent preparation for a successful career in American ‘journalism’. If a person is stupid, then it’s still necessary to be stupid in the right way, in order to succeed; and Ward is, and does.

This, for example, is how it makes sense that Ward had previously been employed at the War on the Rocks website that organized the Republican neoconservative campaign against Donald Trump during the 2016 Republican primaries: the mega-donors to both U.S. Parties are united in favor of America conquering Russia. And that’s why War on the Rocks had organized Republican neocons to oppose Trump: it was done in order to increase the chances for Trump’s rabidly anti-Russia and pro-Israel competitors such as Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio to win that nomination instead, which would then have produced the billionaires’ dream contest, between Hillary Clinton versus an equally neoconservative Republican nominee. A bipartisan neoconservatism controls both of the American political Parties. A ‘journalist’ who displays that sort of bipartisanship can’t fail in America, no matter how incompetent at real journalism he or she might be. (However, they do have to be literate. Stupid, maybe; but literate, definitely.)

The core of America’s form of capitalism has come to be the U.S. aristocracy’s bipartisan, liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican, form of capitalism, which isn’t merely fascist (which includes privatizing everything that can be privatized) but which is also imperialist (which means favoring the country’s perpetration of invasions and coups in order to expand that nation’s empire). The United States is now a globe-spanning empire, controlling not merely the aristocracies in a few banana republics such as Guatemala and Honduras, but also the aristocracies in richer countries such as France, Germany and UK, so as to extract from virtually the entire world — by means mainly of deception but also sometimes public threats and clearly coercive — unfair advantages for corporations that are within its borders, and against corporations that are headquartered in foreign countries. America’s billionaires — both the Democratic ones and the Republican ones — are 100% in favor of America’s conquering the world: this ideology is entirely bipartisan, in the United States.

Though the billionaires succeeded, during the first Cold War — the one that was nominally against communism — at fooling the public to think they were aiming ultimately to conquer communism, George Herbert Walker Bush made clear, on the night of 24 February 1990, privately to the leaders of the U.S. aristocracy’s foreign allies, that the actual goal was world-conquest, and so the Cold War would now secretly continue on the U.S. side, even after ending on the U.S.S.R. side. When GHW Bush did that, the heritage of U.S. Senator Jackson became no longer the formerly claimed one, of ‘anti-communism’, but was, clearly now and henceforth, anti-Russian. And that’s what it is today — not only in the Democratic Party, and not only in the Republican Party, and not only in the United States, but throughout the entire U.S. alliance.

And this is what we are seeing today, in all of the U.S.-and-allied propaganda-media. America is always ‘the injured party’ against ‘the aggressors’; and, so, one after another, such as in Iraq, and in Libya, and in Syria, and in Iran, and in Yemen, and in China, all allies (or even merely friends) of Russia are ‘the aggressors’ and are ‘dictatorships’ and are ‘threats to America’, and only the U.S. side represents ‘democracy’. It’s actually an aristocracy, which has deeply deceived its public, to think it’s a democracy. Just as every aristocracy is based on lies and on coercion, this one is, too — it is no exception; it’s only that this particular empire is on a historically unprecedentedly large scale, dominating all continents. Support that, and you’re welcomed into the major (i.e., billionaire-backed) ‘news’ media in America, and in its allied countries.

This is America’s  ‘democracy’. Of course, an article such as this one is not ‘journalism’ in America and its allied countries; it’s merely “blogging.” So, it won’t be found there though it’s being submitted everywhere. It will be accepted and published at only the honest news-sites. A reader may Web-search the headline here in order to find out which ones those are. Not many ‘news’media report the institutionalized corruptness of the ‘news’media; they just criticize one-another, in the way that the politicians do, which is bipartisan — the bipartisan dictatorship. But the rot that’s actually throughout the ‘news’media, is prohibited to be reported about and published, in and by any of them. It is totally suppressed reality. Only the few honest news-sites will publish this information and its documentation, the links here.

However, actually, the first time that the term either “neoconservatism” or “neo-conservatism” is known to have been used, was in the British magazine, The Contemporary Review, January 1883, by Henry Dunkley, in his “The Conservative Dilemma” where “neo-conservative” appeared 8 times, and was contrasted to traditional “conservatism” because, whereas the traditional type “Toryism” was pro-aristocratic, anti-democratic, and overtly elitist; the new type was pro-democratic, anti-aristocratic, and overtly populist (which no form of conservatism honestly is — they’re all elitist):

“What is this new creed of yours? … That there must be no class influence in politics? That any half-dozen hinds on my estate are as good as so many dukes? That the will of the people is the supreme political tribunal? That if a majority at the polls bid us abolish the Church and toss the Crown into the gutter we are forthwith to be their most obedient servants?”

“No: from whatever point of view we consider the question, it is plain that the attempt to reconstruct the Tory party on a democratic basis cannot succeed.”

“The Tories have always been adepts at conservation, but the things they have been most willing to conserve were not our liberties but the restrictions put upon our liberties.”

“The practical policy of Conservatism would not alter, and could not be altered much, but its pretensions would have to be pitched in a lower key.”

“Here we seem to get within the smell of soup, the bustle of evening receptions, and the smiles of dowagers. The cares which weigh upon this couple of patriot souls cannot be described as august. It is hardly among such petty anxieties that the upholders of the Empire and the pilots of the State are bred.” “The solemn abjuration which is now proposed in the name of Neo-conservatism resembles a charge of dynamite.”

He viewed neo-conservatives as being let’s-pretend populists, whose pretense at being democrats will jeopardize the Empire, not strengthen it. Empire, and its rightness, were so deeply rooted in the rulers’ psyche, it went unchallenged. In fact, at that very time, in the 1880s, Sir Cecil Rhodes was busy creating the foundation for the UK-U.S. empire that now controls most of the world.

The modern pro-Israel neoconservatism arose in the 1960s when formerly Marxist Jewish intellectuals in New York City and Washington DC, who were even more anti-communist than anti-Nazi (if they weren’t in some ways even pro-Nazi), became impassioned with the U.S. empire being extended to the entire world by spreading ‘democracy’ (and protection of Israel) as if this Israel-protecting empire were a holy crusade not only against the Soviet Union, which was demonized by neocons, but against Islam, which also was demonized by them (since they were ethnocentric Jews and the people whose land the ‘Israelis’ had stolen were overwhelmingly Muslims — who now were very second-class citizens in their own long-ancestral and also birth-land, ‘Israel’).

This was how neoconservatives distinguished themselves from “paleoconservatism”, which wasn’t nearly so Messianic, but which was more overtly ethnocentric, though ethnic Christian (and mainly Roman Catholic), instead of ethnic Jewish. The “paleoconservatives” were isolationists, not imperialists. They originated from the opponents of America’s entry into WWII against the imperialists of that time, who were the fascists. Those American “isolationists” (now called “paleoconservatives”) would have given us a world controlled by Hitler and his Axis allies — and maybe even they would have supported Hitler against Stalin, since they were rabid against communists. All conservatism is absurd, but there are many forms of it, none of which makes intelligent sense, and no type has compassion for anyone who is unlike themselves.

Some of Senator Henry Jackson’s staff members, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, subsequently became prominent Republican neoconservatives; others, such as their fellow-Democrat Jeanne Kirkpatrick, were close friends and political supporters of Jackson, and likewise switched to become Reagan Republicans, and then Bush Republicans — especially prominent under George W. Bush.

The roots of neoconservatism are 100% imperialistic, colonialist, supremacist, and blatantly evil. They hate Russia because they still crave to conquer it, and don’t know how to do this, short of nuclear annihilation, which would be extremely dangerous, even for themselves. So, they endanger everyone; they’re enemies of the whole world, even if they’re too unintelligent to know it. On top of that, they are unsurpassable in their blatant arrogance. And they become hired to very responsible positions, by America’s billionaires who fund both Parties. Neoconservatism is bipartisan. It has become America’s bipartisan foreign policy.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


  1. Roger says

    Was this written by a ten year old? Or simply thrashed out down the pub? Standards are slipping on this site.

    • flpinfoslinky says

      That’s the sort of comment that can be made about nearly an article, and as such leads one to doubt that its author bothered to read this one.

    • Jen says

      So the FBI knew Christopher Steele was producing fluff yet they were still paying him for more … fluff?

      Why, did they think that if they threw enough money at him, he might have enough to enroll himself or someone else for an English Literature (Creative Writing) course at a local community college?

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        What I cannot comprehend is why Trump supporters allegedly trying to get dirt from Russia on Clinton (although plainly set up in one of the tentacles of the conspiracy to stop Trump)is an impeachable offense, but the Clintonites getting dirt, from Russia, on Trump, via the concocted Steele dossier, is fine and dandy. Is it because so many Clintoristas are dedicated Zionists, so such hasbara duplicity, hypocrisy and double-standards are second-nature to them.

  2. vexarb says

    Important because the Wolfo*itz Memo “7 coutries in 5 years” was supposed to culminate in Iran — gateway to Russia.
    Foiled by Putin in Syria (gateway to Iran) the U$A may have had enough; the House of Representatives is saying, don’t even think of invading Iran:

    “Back on 25 May 2018, the US House of Representatives unanimously passed the No War on Iran amendment to the 2019 defense appropriation act, which certainly sends a very strong message to Trump regardless if its included in the final bill after its trip through the conference committee. ”


  3. rilme says

    Bravo, Eric Zuesse, and thank you for keeping “israel” firmly inside quotation marks.
    Porque no is real: is the fake country, occupying stolen Palestine.

  4. Antonyl says

    Nations can follow more their ego or more their Soul; 90% at present follow mostly the former, the US after 1945 the prime example (Nazi Germany from 1933-1945 100% ego).
    US Mil inc. thought that they (singlehandedly) won WWII and after wanted not just to be the single self appointed sheriff of the World, but also the J.P. Morgan of it. The US population was kept in the dark about this – see the secrecy given to the Pentagon papers for example.
    Russia and Iran were some of the few not bowing to this self appointed bully sheriff, and that angered US Mil inc.
    Can president Trump get the US back to normal tracks? it would take at minimum 2 terms.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      I really think, that under your definition, both the USA and Israel far outdo Nazi Germany in egotistic excess. Far.

  5. Ian Sheehy says

    When will you guys get Chris Bollyn on? Once the fake of 9/11 is proven. These never ending wars can be stopped. Lovers of their own knowledge like Big B with all their insider shit won’t touch the most important issue. If we support 9/11 truth we can alter history. Wanking over his own learned knowledge lioke Big B will never change anything. Bollyn is a true courageous Journo.

    • Ian Sheehy says

      Put Bollyn and his Sean Stone interview on this website. Is Sean Stone not valid? Once the truth of 9/11 is understood then these illegal wars can be stopped.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      There is more chance of my flying backwards to the Moon than the truth of 9/11, that it was done by Israel with American Sabbat Goyim (like Cheney)and American sayanim support, being made plain to the doped out masses. Just yesterday I heard some Yankee presstitute declaiming gravely concerning ‘conspiracy theories’ like that surrounding the JFK hit. A propaganda system where the droogs MUST accept the Warren Commission ‘lone gunman’ idiocy, or else, is beyond all reason, all decency and all self-respect.

    • bevin says

      OK Ian, I’ll bite: why do you think that “once the truth of 9/11 is known” everything will change.
      9/11, though it obviously looms large in your world, isn’t that important. Most people probably don’t know what it was or who was blamed for it, which is why a US Federal Court can blithely find that Iran was responsible and owes billions of dollars to various New Yorkers.
      One thing that will happen “once the truth of 9/11 is known” is that we can stop wasting time ‘proving’ that the people who run the country and the fascist gang in Israel’s government are ruthless criminals. We knew that already from the way that they treat poor people, the unemployed and others too weal to defend themselves against them.
      The ‘never ending wars’ will be stopped when the masses realise that they, and the scoundrels behind them, are close to ending the existence not just of humanity but of thousands of other species too.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        The truth about Lockerbie, that it was done by the PFLP for Iran as revenge for the USS Vincennes deliberately shooting down an Iranian airbus, using a US DEA drug ‘mule’ as the carrier of the bomb, was known fairly quickly, and the story was covered by the Western media for eighteen months or so. Then, when Saddam fell into the Kuwait trap, Iran was needed to go quiet as Iraq was destroyed, and Syria was also needed not to make a fuss. So instantly, the phony ‘Libya did it’ lie was concocted, the earlier explanation disappeared down the ‘Memory Hole’ forever, and all Right-thinking Western presstitutes with an interest in future employment developed collective amnesia, all together and all at once.

      • George says

        I suspect that most people already feel that 9/11 was a fraud, that the Kennedy assassination was a cover up etc. etc. But the Western world has this curious quality whereby almost everyone rejects the bullshit that comes constantly to them through the media but each viewer feels himself/herself to be part of a minority. And there’a an apathetic sense of “Well what can you do anyway?” The rulers know that as long as they control mainstream channels, it doesn’t matter what people think privately. And even if you give one of the dissenters a mainstream platform, he/she wouldn’t give a genuine opinion since it may affect his/her livelihood.

        • Harry Stotle says

          “I suspect that most people already feel that 9/11 was a fraud” – the Guardian doesn’t !

          Just like the ludicrous antisemitism trope orchestrated to discredit Corbyn if anyone dare question the 2 planes 3 buildings conspiracy they are instantly memory holed – in other words the Guardian simply does not tolerate plurality of opinion (despite verifiable and in some instances forensic evidence which discredits many of the orthodoxies they are promoting).

          An affinity for right-wing nutters is in the DNA of the Daily Mail and now the last bastion of Britains so called liberal media has been infected by the same virus.

          The likes of Off-G has never been more necessary – if only to correct the endless propaganda or self evident power asymmetry in media reporting.

          • George says

            When I said “most people” I wasn’t thinking about The Guardian or anyone else working in the media. But I suspect that even these journalist hacks don’t believe most of what they write. The point is that privately anyone can think what they like. Publicly they have to watch what they say and this is certainly true of anyone working in the media. And the very idea that The Guardian would “tolerate a plurality of opinion” is absurd. It isn’t a case of actual threats to their own staff. The bottom line is that no-one in that paper or any other would have the slightest chance of rising in the ranks (and writing actual articles) unless they showed how subservient they were to the desired message. They don’t have to be threatened. They have already proved how spineless they are (while kidding themselves on that they are so fearlessly independant).

            • On the contrary in our experience the majority of mainstream journos believe in the system they support, even to the point of lying to justify it. Human nature is complex and our ability to deceive ourselves and believe mutually contradictory things is always a factor

              • George says

                My words were clumsy. Noam Chomsky was particularly good at analysing what happens in the Western media. It isn’t that those working for a newspaper think they are being bullied and therefore they ought to “knuckle down” etc. They are, no doubt, perfectly sincere in their ambition to become “truth tellers” etc. But there is a censorship code in every society – which is only what you’d expect i.e. there are standards to be maintained etc. But for this very reason we should maintain a critical stance re: ideas of what should and shouldn’t be said.

                I have never worked I a media outlet but I imagine the scenario would be something like this:

                You’re young and eager to make your mark. You have talent and a certain style and you want to show it off. And you think you can make a difference etc. Perhaps you even fancy yourself as a bit of a rebel. This is after all the great golden goal in the Western mindset i.e. you’re nobody’s fool and you’re so daring etc. But you’re also sharp enough to know that there are things you can say and things you can’t. There are toes you cannot afford to step on. There is nothing sinister about this. It would apply to every conceivable society. And those in power – and who wish to keep power – know all this. But they also know how to bend a little and create a sense of freedom – or whatever else the current ideology demands.

                So you make some attempts and your superior looks them over. If you don’t project the “right stuff” you won’t get far. This “right stuff” is considered a matter of “standards”. But it also must conform to the prevailing power structure. It is essential that you understand this i.e. essential for your future career. If your superior thinks you have the “right stuff” then you can proceed. And then you have a nice little column. But everything you write will still be closely monitored. You know this perfectly well but that’s OK. It’s always a matter of “standards”. Now I’m sure that once you have achieved that position, the chances are that your superiors will know you can be trusted not to cause any “embarrassment”. But if there are times when you do seem to overstep the line, then they will have a quiet little chat – not in the Al Pacino sense but just to say e.g. “Well we know what you are aiming for but now isn’t the right time and you have to bear in mind the implications” etc.

                The upshot of all this is that you – the hypothetical journalist – will always see yourself as having integrity and even if there are a few dodgy areas – well, it’s a complex world and compromises must be made etc.

                And every step of the way, you are encouraged to be “one of the team” – sharing an environment at a certain status. You will inhabit a fairly affluent world with exciting connections to the “movers and shakers”. And you will see those multitudes that occasionally attack you as ignorant and completely oblivious to the high journalistic standards you uphold etc.

                As Chomsky said (I think) the bottom line is that these journalists must internalise the system they serve if they want to represent it. But a genuine critique would always keep an eye on the system itself.

                • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                  The Rightwing Western ‘Free Press’ is a propaganda system for the rich who own it. The presstitutes are checked out for ideological reliability at initial employment, and are dealt with if they shew any signs of Thought Crime. Others leave of their own free will, once they see the futility of hoping for independence of thought. So you end up with a cadre of fourth rate Groupthinking sycophants to power, whose well-paying jobs in an era of shit employment depend entirely on not rocking the boat and kissing any elite backside produced for adoration.

          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            I think that really concerted, widespread, impudent lying allied to vicious abuse and character assassination in the West has flowed from the Zionist hasbara sewer. The UTTERLY fraudulent ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’ project shews, yet again, how they can invent an entire universe out of nothing but hatred and political and media ie money, power.

            • George says

              The “anti-Semitism” issue re: the Labour Party is a grotesque cartoon. The Blairites can no longer use “communism” and “socialism” as swear words because many nowadays no longer know what these words mean and if they found out they might think these were good ideas. So instead we have to resort to the old chestnut of ultimate evil presented by the Nazis. The Blairites have not called the “Corbynistas” Nazi yet but it will come. After which they may as well start a new campaign by calling the Teletubbies anti-Semitic.

              • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                The Blairite and Zionist vermin at the Fraudian routinely cite the Nazi Judeocide in their hate-spews against Corbyn. It directly infers some sort of relationship between Corbyn and the Nazis. Hodge did it, Austin did it, Freedland the execrable did it etc. The drive to paint ANYONE who dares criticise Israel or support the Palestinians as ‘Nazis’, ‘Holocaust deniers’, ‘blood libelers’ as well as the routine denunciation as ‘antisemites’ has been going on for years, with ever mounting frenzy lately.

  6. Baron says

    Well and powerfully argued, but …

    Perhaps the neocons (Baron’s preferred label is the GEs – the Governing Elites) crave to conquer Russia, perhaps they don’t (although there are some amongst them who’d fire the first shot given less than half an opportunity e.g. the loony McCain).

    It’s more they want to project Russia as the henchman of the world because they need a henchman, and Russia fits the bill well (they may easily switch to another country such as China, if it suits them, very likely will when the country of the Mandarin speakers arms more).

    It’s hard to blame the GEs for such stance, they need Russia because the industrial cum military complex needs Russia, and it’s the complex that mostly if indirectly governs. It matters little, if at all, whether the rulers in Kremlin are communist thugs or Putin.

    The industrial military complex via the GEs could hardly convince the taxpaying public they need trillions to fight the jihadists equipped with AK-47s and home made explosive devises from fertiliser, they need an adversary that possesses what they want – tanks, planes, missiles, hopefully in quantities exceeding what the Russian economy could reasonably support.

    What irks the GE most today is that Putin scrapped the Full Monty of the military gear inherited from the Soviet era, replaced it with brand new ranges based on the latest tech know how, (it’s partly the reason the US military may have advised the Donald to give up in Syria, if it came to a fight limited in time and geography (ME only), they Russians would have won.

    One thing that those critical of the military cum industrial complex seldom mention is that most of the design, manufacture and servicing of the US military equipment resides within the Republic, it wasn’t offshored as was the manufacture of virtually everything else from consumer durables to trinkets costing few dimes. The making and servicing of the military hardware furnishes jobs, plenty of them, all in the Republic. For the politicians, jobs translate into votes.

    This is perhaps the more powerful argument for the continuation of the symbiotic relationship between the complex and the GEs. In Britain, we gladly make and then flog to the likes of the Saudis as much killing gear as they can afford to acquire because it keeps employment high. Any politician or a political party arguing for the scrapping of the lethal stuff’s manufacture (the export of which is a lion part of it) would not be in office for long.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      One of the keys to the maniacal US/Israel elites’ drive to dominate ALL of humanity, including those, like the Chinese, that they regard as insects on straight racist and civilizational supremacist lines, is the cosmic ambition and drive to power of Talmudic, ie Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox, Judaism.

  7. Big B says

    If your looking for neocons: you can’t look past Bill Browder’s lapdog and AIPAC plenipotentiary Ben Cardin – (un)Democrat for Maryland. He is the Russia-hate main man, bought and paid for with Browder’s stolen Russian capital, no doubt? It was he and his bi-partisan buddy, John ‘insane in the membrane’ McCain (no need to point out who pays his wages of sin?): that introduced the 2012 Magnitsky Act. This is as good an event as any to mark the start of the New Cold War. A war he is sponsored to inflame.


    Unfortunately, Chelsea lost.

    • Ian Sheehy says

      Chris bollyn is atrue Journo. You wank over your own knowledge and achieve nothing. If you had any balls, you would talk about 9/11 and the clear proof of controlled demolition, nano thermite, Lauder/Silverstein/Barak/Netanyahu/ICTS/Ehud Olmert leaving NY on 9/11/WTC7, etc. There is more. Will you admit to Israeli involvement on 9/11?

      • Ian, in urging OffG to acknowledge the Yahoo regime’s complicity in the Bush regime’s 911 atrocity, you are flogging a dead horse. You are preaching to the converted. A better site for you to try spreading The Word would be: The Times of England, The Times of New York, Time, The Washington Post, the BBC, the Voice of America, Le Monde, Le Figaro, La Stampa, Algemeiner Frankfuerter Zeitung etc, etc, etc. And of course, the Guardian. God speed your work.

      • There were many, many articles about 9/11 in 2016 around the 15th anniversary, including plenty of threads discussing nanothermite.

        There have been articles demolishing Establishment positions on the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RK.

        There have been articles demolishing official positions on MH17.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      It’s never ‘unfortunate’ when Chelsea lose.

  8. Paul X says

    Anti Russian feeling has been strong in the UK. Some say it was Catherine the Greats expansion South and her seizing the Crimea giving Russia a warm water port – something the West still hankered after in 2014 – that set off the enemies. Others point to France’s failure to defeat Russia in 1812. The sight of Russians camping out in Paris worried many. The Great Game has rarely stopped. Look at the media in the 1850’s and the subsequent jingoism in the 1870’s and the wars to subdue Afghanistan. When Russia turned Communist it was another stick with which to beat her. When they became ultra capitalist it made no difference whatsoever – which rather gave the game away! Russia still has vast natural resources. America got upset when it seemed the Europeans were getting very cosy with Russia (as well as making profit) supplying the capital and engineering skills for extracting the resources and benefitting from them. The US engineered the 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev hoping Nato would ‘take back’ Crimea (meaning Sevastopol) but more importantly impose sanctions on Russia and force the Europeans to do as they are told, as with Iran.

    • Martin Usher says

      Before the Kaiser became the object of ire in the UK it was Tsar Nicholas II being portrayed as the “Bad Boy of Europe”. Some people went as far as to speculate that they might either being invaded by Russia or that Russia might end up in conflict Britain over the North West Frontier (modern Afghanistan).

      I’m actually a fan of Invasion Literature, its quaint to read the stories of how war was to be fought before WW1, an age of innocence. There were inklings of what was in store with the history and stories from the Franco/Prussian war but nobody quite cottoned on to what the awful reality of WW1 was likely to be come.

  9. JudyJ says

    A superficial observation I know, but is it just me who sees cold, unemotional, psychopathic eyes in the photos accompanying this article?

    • vexarb says

      JudyJ. Coincidence? I was likewise trying my physiognomic intuition, knowing that these photos (if correctly labeled) would show the faces of some of the most evil people on this planet. The only face that I recognise is that of Son of Cain in the middle (a known promoter of headchopping terrorists); surprisingly he looks like a lost soul — where did it go? will I ever find it again?li

      As for the other two, I think the first face fits your interpretation; the third looks to me more like a scheming Libertine Bully than a cold Sadistic Psychopath. None of the three possess the Demon Eyes of a Leader like Killary Klingon or Britain’s own stone cold sociopath, St.Anthony B.Liar.

      • JudyJ says

        Largely by chance I have now identified the third picture as neoconservative political analyst Bill Kristol; still don’t know the first. I can’t disagree with your reference to ‘Demon Eyes’. And, unfortunately, I see signs of this in Theresa May when she is either caught off-guard or is in a self-inflicted state of wrath.

        • vexarb says

          I shall watch out for a photo of St Theresa in a self-inflicted state of wrath. As regards The Demon Eyes of St.Antony (of Westminster) the psychologically perceptive photographer who first spotted them has not had his due meed of praise.

          Diogenes the Cynic Looked with a Lamp in Day Light to see if it would Light Up the Face of an Honest person.

        • BigB says

          The one on the left is McCain’s “mini-me” and partner in-bile Lindsey Graham. He also has never found a conflict he didn’t mind starting: for a price. The two emissaries of death are bought and paid for by everyone …MIC, Israel, CIA, Soros. They were caught in the Donbass around Christmas 2016 trying to incite the “year of the offensive”. Even Trump called them out for trying to start WW3. Pretty much the lowest of the low. Frighteningly, McCain is the chairman of the committee that orders America’s weapons: then sends them to Ukraine: then incites their use …frightening, but sadly true.


        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          ‘The eyes are the windows to the soul’.

      • BigB says

        Vex: McCain lost his soul over Vietnam …not for being a coward and a songbird: I can’t blame him for that. But when he was safely returned: he used his influence to stop the return of other POW/MIA combatants: and has long sought to block the release of records to those with lost loved ones . “We never leave anyone in the field”: he did ..
        and still does. When you look into those eyes: not an atom of compassion or empathy can be found.


        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          And he lied that he had been ‘tortured’, while tens of thousands of Vietnamese WERE being tortured, almost always to death, by the USA and its South Vietnamese puppet death-squad regime. McCain is the embodiment of Thanatopian Evil-genocidal, depraved, mendacious and psychopathic.

        • Thanks, BigB, I didn’t know that. Harold Wilson kept us out of the Vietnam cesspit, so I did not follow these ghouls in such ghastly detail as when we began to drop bombs on Serbia — the first since Hitler. That’s what woke me up. So I must confess that, in my previous unawakened state, I believed everything the BBC told me about War Heroism of The People’s presidential candidate John McCain (his campaign run on $1 contributions from The People), and I felt quite sorry when, after winning a few seats then losing one, he threw in the towel so readily (“We were beat”) to make way for Shrub Bush.

          • Big B says

            Vex: at the risk of further charges of “wanking over my own knowledge” from my new admirer, Ian …Britain did play a minor, but nevertheless highly influential, role in the Vietnam War. Macmillan sent a team of “civilian advisors” (BRIAM) – under Sir Robert Thompson – to aid the murderous Diem family regime with “pacification” and ‘counter-insurgency’ measures. The whole US counter-insurgency program was a carbon copy of Malaya (Thompson was a Malayan veteran). The policy of ‘concentration’ became the Strategic Hamlets Program (‘New Life Hamlets’; Operation Sunrise); the Malayan Operation Starvation became Operation Ranch Hand (Agent Orange to starve the ‘communists’ out); the Green Berets and indigenous Montagnards were trained by the SAS, Dayak and Iban headhunters (Noone Mission). Covert assistance continued up to 1975. Many of the ANZACS deployed were de-badged SAS. Wilson did not, so much. keep us out …as keep it quiet (records from Malaya were also either lost, damaged or just burned). Even My Lai had parallels in Batang Kali. It is not hard to draw the conclusion that Operation Pheonix was just an intensification of (failed) British tactics. When it comes to terrorisng and dehumanising the locals: Britannia rules the waves!


            • vexarb says

              Thanks again, BigB. From superficial aquaintance with a retired Administrator in Malaya, a real gentleman, I had thought we really pacified the country the way one pacifies a baby.

              “After such knowledge, what forgivenss?” — TS Eliot

              • Big B says

                My dad was in Malaya: in a different timeline I could have faced him across a jungle clearing. That is what makes it pertinent to me.

                It is worth concluding that Malayan Communists fought with the British as the Malayan Peoples Anti-Japanese Army. They were willing to go into politics, but we cracked down on Trade Unionism instead. They were forced to take their struggle against imperialism back into the jungle as the Malayan National Liberation Army. I do not condone the atrocities of either side: but I know where my sympathy lies. One mans communist is another mans freedom fighter? What the Empire wouldn’t do for timber, tin, and rubber, eh?

            • bevin says

              A more detailed account is in Peter Busch’s “All The Way with JFK”, which I recommend.
              There are some books on Malaya as well, one of which I own but never have as I am always running into those influenced by vexarb’s ‘real gentleman’ friend part of a legion of ex colonials, who can also spin wonderful yarns about Kenya etc

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      If you want an object lesson in physiognomy as destiny, check out the charmer, Mr. Segalov, in one of the latest smear-jobs by the Fraudian Zionists in their fanatic campaign to destroy UK Labour.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      With McInsane, I see a little boy looking out, and plaintively thinking, ‘How did I become so Evil?’.


Comments are closed.