Britain on the Leash with the United States – but at Which End?
James George Jatras, October 13, 2018, via Strategic Culture
The “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom is often assumed to be one where the once-great, sophisticated Brits are subordinate to the upstart, uncouth Yanks.
Iconic of this assumption is the mocking of former prime minister Tony Blair as George W. Bush’s “poodle” for his riding shotgun on the ill-advised American stagecoach blundering into Iraq in 2003. Blair was in good practice, having served as Bill Clinton’s dogsbody in the no less criminal NATO aggression against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999.
On the surface, the UK may seem just one more vassal state on par with Germany, Japan, South Korea, and so many other useless so-called allies. We control their intelligence services, their military commands, their think tanks, and much of their media. We can sink their financial systems and economies at will. Emblematic is German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s impotent ire at discovering the Obama administration had listened in on her cell phone, about which she – did precisely nothing. Global hegemony means never having to say you’re sorry.
These countries know on which end of the leash they are: the one attached to the collar around their necks. The hand unmistakably is in Washington. These semi-sovereign countries answer to the US with the same servility as member states of the Warsaw Pact once heeded the USSR’s Politburo. (Sometimes more. Communist Romania, though then a member of the Warsaw Pact refused to participate in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia or even allow Soviet or other Pact forces to cross its territory.
By contrast, during NATO’s 1999 assault on Serbia, Bucharest allowed NATO military aircraft access to its airspace, even though not yet a member of that alliance and despite most Romanians’ opposition to the campaign.)
But the widespread perception of Britain as just another satellite may be misleading.
To start with, there are some relationships where it seems the US is the vassal dancing to the tune of the foreign capital, not the other way around. Israel is the unchallenged champion in this weight class, with Saudi Arabia a runner up. The alliance between Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) – the ultimate Washington “power couple” – to get the Trump administration to destroy Iran for them has American politicos listening for instructions with all the rapt attention of the terrier Nipper on the RCA Victor logo. (Or did, until the recent disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Whether this portends a real shift in American attitudes toward Riyadh remains questionable. Saudi cash still speaks loudly and will continue to do so whether or not MbS stays in charge.)
Specifics of the peculiar US-UK relationship stem from the period of flux at the end of World War II. The United States emerged from the war in a commanding position economically and financially, eclipsing Britannia’s declining empire that simply no longer had the resources to play the leading role. That didn’t mean, however, that London trusted the Americans’ ability to manage things without their astute guidance. As Tony Judt describes in Postwar, the British attitude of “superiority towards the country that had displaced them at the imperial apex” was “nicely captured” in a scribble during negotiations regarding the UK’s postwar loan:
In Washington Lord Halifax
Once whispered to Lord Keynes:
“It’s true they have the moneybags
But we have all the brains.”
Even in its diminished condition London found it could punch well above its weight by exerting its influence on its stronger but (it was confident) dumber cousins across the Pond. It helped that as the Cold War unfolded following former Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s 1946 Iron Curtain speech there were very close ties between sister agencies like MI6 (founded 1909) and the newer wartime OSS (1942), then the CIA (1947); likewise the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ, 1919) and the National Security Administration (NSA, 1952). Comparable sister agencies – perhaps more properly termed daughters of their UK mothers – were set up in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This became the so-called “Five Eyes” of the tight Anglosphere spook community,infamous for spying on each others’ citizens to avoid pesky legal prohibitions on domestic surveillance.
Despite not having two farthings to rub together, impoverished Britain – where wartime rationing wasn’t fully ended until 1954 – had a prime seat at the table fashioning the world’s postwar financial structure. The 1944 Bretton Woods conference was largely an Anglo-American affair, of which the aforementioned Lord John Maynard Keynes was a prominent architect along with Harry Dexter White, Special Assistant to the US Secretary of the Treasury and Soviet agent.
American and British agendas also dovetailed in the Middle East. While the US didn’t have much of a presence in the region before the 1945 meeting between US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Saudi King ibn Saud, founder of the third and current (and hopefully last) Saudi state – and didn’t assume a dominant role until the humiliation inflicted on Britain, France, and Israel by President Dwight Eisenhower during the 1956 Suez Crisis – London has long considered much of the region within its sphere of influence. After World War I under the Sykes-Picot agreement with France, the UK had expanded her holdings on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, including taking a decisive role in consolidating Saudi Arabia under ibn Saud. While in the 1950s the US largely stepped into Britain’s role managing the “East of Suez,” the former suzerain was by no means dealt out. The UK was a founding member with the US of the now-defunct Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in 1955.
CENTO – like NATO and their one-time eastern counterpart, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) – was designed as a counter to the USSR. But in the case of Britain, the history of hostility to Russia under tsar or commissar alike has much deeper and longer roots, going back at least to the Crimean War in the 1850s. The reasons for the longstanding British vendetta against Russia are not entirely clear and seem to have disparate roots: the desire to ensure that no one power is dominant on the European mainland (directed first against France, then Russia, then Germany, then the USSR and again Russia); maintaining supremacy on the seas by denying Russia warm-waters ports, above all the Dardanelles; and making sure territories of a dissolving Ottoman empire would be taken under the wing of London, not Saint Petersburg. As described by Andrew Lambert, professor of naval history at King’s College London, the Crimean War still echoes today:
“In the 1840s, 1850s, Britain and America are not the chief rivals; it’s Britain and Russia. Britain and Russia are rivals for world power, and Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, which is much larger than modern Turkey — it includes modern Romania, Bulgaria, parts of Serbia, and also Egypt and Arabia — is a declining empire. But it’s the bulwark between Russia, which is advancing south and west, and Britain, which is advancing east and is looking to open its connections up through the Mediterranean into its empire in India and the Pacific. And it’s really about who is running Turkey. Is it going to be a Russian satellite, a bit like the Eastern Bloc was in the Cold War, or is it going to be a British satellite, really run by British capital, a market for British goods? And the Crimean War is going to be the fulcrum for this cold war to actually go hot for a couple of years, and Sevastopol is going to be the fulcrum for that fighting.”
Control of the Middle East – and opposing the Russians – became a British obsession, first to sustain the lifeline to India, the Jewel in the Crown of the empire, then for control of petroleum, the life’s blood of modern economies. In the context of the 19th and early 20th century Great Game of empire, that was understandable. Much later, similar considerations might even support Jimmy Carter’s taking up much the same position, declaring in 1980 that “outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” The USSR was then a superpower and we were dependent on energy from the Gulf region.
But what’s our reason for maintaining that posture almost four decades later when the Soviet Union is gone and the US doesn’t need Middle Eastern oil? There are no reasonable national interests, only corporate interests and those of the Arab monarchies we laughably claim as allies. Add to that the bureaucracies and habits of mind that link the US and UK establishments, including their intelligence and financial components.
In view of all the foregoing, what then would policymakers in the United Kingdom think about an aspirant to the American presidency who not only disparages the value of existing alliances – without which Britain is a bit player – but openly pledges to improve relations with Moscow? To what lengths would they go to stop him?
Say ‘hello’ to Russiagate!
One can argue whether or not the phony claim of the Trump campaign’s “collusion” with Moscow was hatched in London or whether the British just lent some “hands across the water” to an effort concocted by the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the Clinton Foundation, and their collaborators at Fusion GPS and inside the Obama administration. Either way, it’s clear that while evidence of Russian connection is nonexistent that of British agencies is unmistakable, as is the UK’s hand in a sustained campaign of demonization and isolation to sink any possible rapprochement between the US and Russia.
As for Russiagate itself, just try to find anyone involved who’s actually Russian. The only basis for the widespread assumption that any material in the Dirty Dossier that underlies the whole operationoriginated with Russia is the claim of Christopher Steele, the British “ex” spy who wrote it, evidently in collaboration with people at the US State Department and Fusion GPS. (The notion that Steele, who hadn’t been in Russia for years, would have Kremlin personal contacts is absurd. How chummy are the heads of the American section of Chinese or Russian intelligence with White House staff?)
While there are no obvious Russians in Russiagate, there’s no shortage of Brits. These include (details at the link):
- Stefan Halper, a dual US-UK citizen.
- Ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove.
- Robert Hannigan, former director of GCHQ; there is reason to think surveillance of Trump was conducted by GCHQ as well as by US agencies under FISA warrants. Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ soon after the British government denied the agency had engaged in such spying.
- Alexander Downer, Australian diplomat (well, not British but remember the Five Eyes!).
- Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic and suspected British agent.
At present, the full role played by those listed above is not known. Release of unredacted FISA warrant requests by the Justice Department, which President Trump ordered weeks ago, would shed light on a number of details. Implementation of that order was derailed after a request by – no surprise – British Prime Minister Theresa May. Was she seeking to conceal Russian perfidy, or her own underlings’?
It would be bad enough if Russiagate were the sum of British meddling in American affairs with the aim of torpedoing relations with Moscow. (And to be fair, it wasn’t just the UK and Australia. Also implicated are Estonia, Israel, and Ukraine.) But there is also reason to suspect the same motive in false accusations against Russia with respect to the supposed Novichok poisonings in England has a connection to Russiagate via a business associate of Steele’s, one Pablo Miller, Sergei Skripal’s MI6 recruiter. (So if it turns out there is any Russian connection to the dossier, it could be from Skripal or another dubious expat source, not from the Russian government.) Skripal and his daughter Yulia have disappeared in British custody. Moscow flatly accuses MI6 of poisoning them as a false flag to blame it on Russia.
A similar pattern can be seen with claims of chemical weapons use in Syria: “We have irrefutable evidence that the special services of a state which is in the forefront of the Russophobic campaign had a hand in the staging” of a faked chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018. Ambassador Aleksandr Yakovenko pointed to the so-called White Helmets, which is closely associated with al-Qaeda elements and considered by some their PR arm: “I am naming them because they have done things like this before. They are famous for staging attacks in Syria and they receive UK money.” Moscow warned for weeks before the now-postponed Syrian government offensive in Idlib that the same ruse was being prepared again with direct British intelligence involvement, even having prepared in advance a video showing victims of an attack that had not yet occurred.
The campaign to demonize Russia shifted into high gear recently with the UK, together with the US and the Netherlands, accusing Russian military intelligence of a smorgasbord of cyberattacks against the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and other sports organizations, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the Dutch investigation into the downing of MH-17 over Ukraine, and a Swiss lab involved with the Skripal case, plus assorted election interference. In case anyone didn’t get the point, British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson declared: “This is not the actions of a great power. This is the actions of a pariah state, and we will continue working with allies to isolate them.”
To the extent that the goal of Williamson and his ilk is to ensure isolation and further threats against Russia, it’s been a smashing success. More sanctions are on the way. The UK is sending additional troops to the Arctic to counter Russian “aggression.” The US threatens to use naval power to block Russian energy exports and to strike Russian weapons disputed under a treaty governing intermediate range nuclear forces. What could possibly go wrong?
In sum, we are seeing a massive, coordinated hybrid campaign of psy-ops and political warfare conducted not by Russia but against Russia, concocted by the UK and its Deep State collaborators in the United States. But it’s not only aimed at Russia, it’s an attack on the United States by the government of a foreign country that’s supposed to be one of our closest allies, a country with which we share many venerable traditions of language, law, and culture.
But for far too long, largely for reasons of historical inertia and elite corruption, we’ve allowed that government to exercise undue influence on our global policies in a manner not conducive to our own national interests. Now that government, employing every foul deception that earned it the moniker Perfidious Albion, seeks to embroil us in a quarrel with the only country on the planet that can destroy us if things get out of control.
This must stop. A thorough reappraisal of our “special relationship” with the United Kingdom and exposure of its activities to the detriment of the US is imperative.
James George Jatras is an analyst, former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to the Senate GOP leadership.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
This is the least of our worries.
Looks like we’re on the verge of war, from today’s (28/11/2018) ukcolumnnews:
Led by Dr Stangeloves like Edward Lucas and Jens Stoltenberg, May has agreed “Plan four 30s”- 30 troop battalions, 30 aircraft squadrons, 30 naval ships, within 30 hours – together with the US and the EU, to take on Russia over Kiev’s assault on the Kerch Strait.
ukcolumnnews confirms it can be activated in 48 hours.
Yet there is no discussion in Parliament.
MPs are being kept out of the loop and Parliament suborned.
We rely on Parliament to control the armed forces, not the other way around.
It seems neither the UK nor the US is on a leash. They are both mad dogs – out of control.
Have we (the UK) even got that many active service ships, squadrons and soldiers available to be deployed at 30 hours notice? I would be extremely surprised.
The British “Institute of Statecraft” and its “Integrity Initiative” (MI6 for short) are the British deep state and use the Fed and CIA to further their Anglo-Zionist world banksterism. They made the mistake of betting on Hilary and tried to “assist” with the Skripal-Steele-Mueller fiasco.
Trump hasn’t forgotten this and threatens to order release of the papers which would expose the Mueller “investigation” as an MI6 operation – which would mean Theresa May would go down the tubes. The loss of this convenient puppet would be a blow to MI6’s plans so they’ve asked the Fed to hike interest rates and warn Trump they’ll drown him in a recession if he releases the papers.
I believe that the UK deep state has billions if not trillions sent to offshore tax havens, which have then been invested throughout the world making the UK extremely powerful. Some of the funds have been acquired through all kinds of frauds operated by their intelligence services within the country and abroad.
In case the reader forgets ‘Uk’ here is a shorthand term for certain interests based in or associated with British corporations and institutions. It gets harder to talk about specifically – for the web of influences is not all obviously visible, and the very nature of politics or indeed toe human imagination is such as to muddy the water with every kind of partial, erroneous or false information. The infotainment of narratives that take or become dominant may be very much influenced by the blind spots of the current time, including a sense of a right to identify in blanket judgements that suit us. There is information that suggests that British elitists decided to persist undue international influence at the end of the Empire through soft means – such as law, finance, and capture of key points of influence to establish networks of control that left the peoples of such places under an apparent independence. Whether these British elitists were themselves captured assets is the conundrum of how deep one digs. Many operate in the outer circles of such agenda with good intentions and a sense of serving a worthy goal. Everything runs on a need to know basis with insider information kept from public account by a range of applied incentives. In a biography of Nikola Tesla it was mentioned in passing that The Rothschild Bank bailed out the US just before the 20th C began – but operated through JP Morgan as a front so as to avoid anti-Semitic reaction. Morgan himself operated an extensive and often hidden influence. And the networks of such influence were ‘insider dealings’ of common interests. Power is in some sense like lightning. Its path is also from the ground up – and once the circuit is established the discharge can effect multiple… Read more »
I have not yet been fully convinced that “The Rothschilds were Jewish.”
The name appears to have derived from one of their original european building/offices which was identified by a red shield as a motif. As to the ‘family’ that took on that name, a clearer history would be welcome.
It is despicable how some of the global robber barons hide behind a fig leaf of ‘Jew’ to claim victim status. They had no interest in the religion or most of its followers – mostly poor as anyone else.
The facts of the banksters that you identify on the other hand are fully proved. Including how the privately owned Fed came into existence – there were some proxy midwestern banks supported by the big one to lend authenticity to multiple governors.
One of the traps I see is of presuming that those who use ‘identity’ politics represent such and identity rather than cultivate and manipulate it. Those who ostensibly claim to represent or protect us may use any and every appeal to sympathy or threat to induce compliance or at least undermine active dissent. Plausible deniability is ‘doubt’ and the sowing of doubts is the basis through which to ring the bull. People are humans being – whether they are currently compassionately humane or anti-human. While both are within us, the latter is by far the dominant, but contained or held in check by mores, rules and laws that limit or inhibit the expression of hate without addressing or undoing the causes of hate. While the many embody or are conditioned to obey such rules as a core social norm even if their identity expression exaggerates overt differentiations, the few see them only as a framework of appetites and fears by which to be manipulated. Power by deceit is not specific to Jewish people, but for a variety of historical reasons, the quota of cleverness in Jewish people is significantly higher along with the ‘can do’ or indeed ‘chutzpa’. Perhaps in part because of marrying the daughters of the rich to the sons of the Rabbi over two millennia. ‘Jewish’ identity itself is a minefield. Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Jew makes many worthy points. The origins of the East European Jewry stretch back to a Khazarian Empire that was attacked and destroyed by both its neighbours. The then ‘Holy Roman Empire’ and the ‘Holy Russian Empire’. My sense of Family Constellations is that that still fuels vengeance down the generations regardless the earlier patterns are covered with later reiterations of deep racial enmities. The fear of being singled out and killed… Read more »
B, you make a grand point thanks. I fail anyone for logic that tends to equate a religious belief with a ‘race’ or ethnicity. Most religions have ‘ethnic’ variations. Hindu and Budhist being as clear as some Christian/Muslim and jewish variants. I have no problem with that – or that they end up representing sime specialist function in civilisation. Priests will beget priest, just as doctors, accountants, lawyers..carpenters, teachers etc – it’s a family affair traditionally, especially when it took a lifetime of learning, it was best done at your mother and fathers feet. As such there is absolutely nothing wrong in any sect being proficient and occupying the majority in certain professions. The zionist project on the other hand is a longstanding plan within the aristocratic warmongering global robber banker class (who of course are also in constant turmoil to be KingRat). But if we can see their great efforts, intellectual ones, to divide and conquer and see their apparatus and apparatchiks from history to the current day. We can believe without doubt that they plan decades ahead! The system of world government that they operate on the planet has a name, apologies if you already are aware, but for any reading this it is a PATHOCRACY. It is peopled and run by PSYCHOPATHS. They are recruited at an early age by being identified by their psychopathic tendencies and then hot-housed and nurtured to provide a service to the Pathocracy, serving as the ‘faces’ of their tyrannic institutions. Rhodes was one, JP Morgan etc most rulers were including many US senior staff, Clintons, Blairs… It is behind such great towers of power that any self protection from them is turned into a ‘wolf’ cry of AS or ‘is it cause i is jewish?’ The French are on the march… Read more »
Britain will blunder into some idiocy sooner or later. Some fatal idiocy that is, it blunders all the time. At one point the US will be so retarded and degenerate, that it collapses of idiocy, if it does not collapse in fiscal ruin before that, and then the leash and collar will be tight around the the neck. Unless it ires the Russians the Russians too much.
Britain needs to remember it is hardly indispensible, on the outskirts of Europe, a rainy corner it is, full of thin ale ale and awfull food. The East Europeans working there needs Britain, the rest of us do not.
It would be nicer if Britain were near the Falklands or some other remote, forsaken place.
You cheeky sod. There’s nothing wrong with our food. Or our beer. And we enjoyed/suffered a heatwave this summer.
The British obsession with Russia began in the 18thC with Catherine the Greats conquests in the South, including taking the Crimea from the Ottoman Tartars In 1783. But the big impact came with Napleon’s defeat in 1812 and when Russian troops were bedded on Parisian streets in 1815. The British felt vulnerable to this growing power and had wild paranoid ideas that Russia was after India, Britain’s prize possession and cash cow. It has been unrelenting ever since although it’s ironic in both major wars of recent times Russia has been Britain’s ally. Nothing much changes; Palmerston was a great advocate of funding and arming Jihadists in the Muslim areas of S Russia as the most effective way of ‘pushing back’. It was a Christian demand that he stop it because the Jihadis massacred all Christians, not just Russian ones. An old lesson learnt long ago and now long forgotten.
Airstrip one cant be sunk, but I bet you it can glow in the dark.
I tried to post this on the Telegraph’s comments on the Brexit debate:
“Looks like the shit is about to hit the fan today, with Mueller’s “investigation” exposed as a British “Intrigue Initiative” by MI6.
Then May will be toast, whatever happens over Brexit.”
It never appeared. Not even a ‘comment deleted’ note. No one would ever know it had been posted.
This is sad and ominous since the Telegraph is the last place in the MSM that allows free comment on the issues of the day. The Grauniad and “Independent” only allow comment on such as lipstick or holidays.
ukcolumnnews has reported Anonymous and Wikileaks’ exposure of the Integrity Initiative and its parent The Institute for Statecraft. These organizations have seriously interfered in many western as well as other countries’ politics – all funded by the taxpayer and so, of public interest.
The UK has very little it can offer the Imperial throne in Washington; near bankrupt with an aircraft carrier with no planes and all of 800 soldiers on the Russian border to repel invasion (!) it soon won’t have any natural allies in Europe. The only thing the Brits have is a flair for propaganda and powerful media that tows the line and megaphones the narrative. Constant denigration of Russia and China bolsters the US case and indeed the UK leads the propaganda war, as was the case with the bump in Kerch. Presumably the Brits are terrified about what happens when Trump turns on them for being the real interferers. He’ll probably wait for the trade treaty before getting nasty.
I think you mean the British ruling class. The people of the United Kingdom think differently.
That’s always worth a mention, John2020. The USA, too, consists of actual people, whose ruling class has nothing in common with them, as well as being way out of its depth when it comes to intelligence tests.
The last time Britain tried to take the lead / lash was the 1956 Suez crisis. President Eisenhower pulled the bull dog (and Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis#Franco-British-Israeli_war_plan) to order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis#Financial_pressure
So not the English deep state, nor the “Zionists” (nor the French deep state) ruled in 1956, but President Eisenhower – about the last non deep state US president.
At that time, the Zionist Regime had not yet gained a complete and total stranglehold over the politics, media and economy of the US – unlike now. If 1956 happened again today, Trump or whatever other goy satrap was occupying the White House, would simply be ordered by AIPAC and Adelson to fall into line and support Zionist aggression and that of its French and British criminal accomplices.
Mind you the Dulles brothers were steering Eisenhower and they saw an opportunity to knock the defunct criminal old Imperialists off their perches. America First!
Both the US and UK are at the dog-end of the leash.
Acting human stands Benjamin Mileikowski and his terrorist gang.
US congress bows to his will. In the UK, both Labour and Conservative are controlled.
[Uncle $cam holds the leash that leads the British Bulldog. But who holds the leash around Uncle’s neck? Below is the argument that points to Great Britain’s very own “Dear Lord Rothschild”. But it is only a clip from a much longer argument that questions Mullins’s argument: ] http://www.usagold.com/cpmforum/who-owns-and-controls-the-federal-reserve/ “Eustace Mullins (1983) and Gary Kah (1991) reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed’s outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, _mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty._ Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained, ‘… _The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild._ The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today’ (Mullins, p. 47-48). Unfortunately, Mullins’ source for the stockholders of the New York Fed could not be verified. He claimed his source was the Federal Reserve Bulletin, although it has never included shareholder information, nor has any other Federal Reserve periodical. _It is difficult researching this particular claim because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its… Read more »
The Fed doesn’t have any shareholders. That ‘stock’ is lodged capital. It cannot be traded and is determined by the relative size of the bank. The amount of the required lodgement csrries no privilege or rights over any other member.
You’re peddling myths.
All this for full spectrum dominance…. And believe me, the ABC, plus SBS here in Australia are right on board with this massive pysops to demonise Putin and Russia. Just keep provoking and goading and threatening, and where does all this lead too? What is the Final outcome? The Kerch Strait incident a couple days ago yet another reminder of how dangerous this situation has become. And except for people here, and at other alternative news sites, most of the World is completely oblivious.
If it is considered that an active denial of life operates the fantasy of dominating or defying it, then the actual agenda IS destruction of life, and of destruction itself having the final say. But it doesn’t seem to be so within the engagement of struggle under the framework the fantasy sets up. Power given to fantasy is the wish that something true be denied acceptance by the forceful wish that something be true that isn’t. This is a chicken and egg situation. The mind splits as the denial and the masking over that protects it…. yet suffers it as true. I write this calmly but the psychic-emotional charge of such a hatred is given it by denial – and victimises as denial. Fear shuts down communication to ‘stop’ the experience – but the experience is only lidded over and not really gone away. The wish that is has gone away and is forgot means that when we meet it in our relationships and our world we don’t recognize our part in such a perception, but actively and forcefully want or indeed need to see the hater, denier and threat in the other – as the means to escape the re-living of a conflict that our whole psyche is mobilised against. Our whole sense of life and world depends on denying. And so our whole sense of life and world is denied by a need to protect and feed unconsciousness under the very deeply conditioned belief that this is power and protection. This belief given to symbols of power and protection usurps the mind of its true function by assigning itself the function of controlling or replacing life. A task that it cannot possibly fulfil. But it can die trying, and often does. I am sketching an insanity – arising… Read more »
The Money is panicked – their grand Middle Easter escapade is mired They have opened a new front eyeball to eyeball with Vlad, using the expendable Ukes. What exactly did Pompeo agree with them a week before the latest provocation – here is a video of the sailors saying they had orders to ignore the Russian Navy.
https://thesaker.is/ukrainian-sailors-confirm-that-they-deliberately-entered-russian-waters/
All straight forward and just another special relationship. Don’t cry Trezza.
From a commentator on that article:
‘On November 16, the US State Department/CIA met with the Ukrainian State Department representative, and from that meeting they agreed that it should be the objective of both sides to bring about conditions that would justify a United Nations international military force being put on the border of Russia and used to fight against pro-Russian forces to take back Donetsk, to take back Crimea, and all Donbass area that revolted after the CIA puppet government was installed. ‘
A summary of the meeting Pompeo had with the Ukrainians.
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/11/287421.htm
The article conflates ‘the UK’ with Britons’ interests. That’s naive, misleading and wrong.
Corrupted and corrupting influences hollow out and take over institutions such that institutions become masked proxies for private agenda. This leaves a popular mind or mainstream view of life thai is not only outdated but false. The personalisation of purpose is a puppetry played over what is actually going on. So narratives about ‘Britain’ and the ‘USA’ can only serve to keep hidden agenda – hidden. Competing self interest operates the strategies and deceits of the will to power, including the alliance with or alignment under dominant power while it serves self interest. The consolidation of the ‘power class’ in a shrinking world of global technological reach, is like organised crime running a Jekyll and Hyde – where the hidden agenda of the predator hides in the doctored narrative. ‘That’s the way it works’ but more accurately, that’s the way we collectively work and are worked. The split mind is a mind divided against itself – but acted out in the world. AS to ‘who controls who?’ – the nature of deceitful and coercive manipulation is to forgo an appreciation of the recognition of another in shared worth, for a sense of lack-driven need to see the ‘other’ in terms of what can be got from them, or what they can be used for, or what threat they represent. And yet this sense of lack is hidden – not least by cultivating and insinuating it onto others and subjugating overtly or covertly by feeding dependency. All of which becomes a system of loveless and therefore blind ‘control’ by which to suck out the health and wealth of anything that lives as the fuel or fix for a fantasy of vengeance over life – for the split from life is the nature of the attempt to control life. It isn’t life,… Read more »
I’m not surprised that there have been periods when Britain was holding the leash and other times when the US was holding the leash; and moreover those times overlapping so that when the British thought they were in control of the US, the US also thought the same about the British, and both sides were right.
During the 19th century, British investment helped build railways across the US and establish cattle ranches in both North and South America (and by doing so, indirectly fund the genocide of native Americans and the theft of their lands). The British are known to have assisted the Confederate side during the US Civil War in the hope of splitting the United States into two weaker nations.
In WW1, the German attack on the RMS Lusitania, resulting in nearly 1,200 dead (of whom 128 were American), was one factor that pushed the US, hitherto uninterested in helping the British due to its own large Irish and German populations at the time, into the war; decades later, the British finally admitted that the ship had been carrying munitions and therefore the Germans had had reason to attack it as a naval ship.
In its early years, the CIA was modelled on MI6 and another British spy organisation, the Special Operations Executive (SOE) which officially ended in January 1946. It is likely that MI6 trained or helped train CIA agents. Both agencies apparently worked together supporting extremist Ukrainian nationalists (with MI6 supporting the fanatic Stepan Bandera and his followers) and using them to infiltrate Soviet Ukraine in the 1950s.
No surprise then to hear that the British have always sought to influence US politics and the Americans (and the lobby groups behind the US government) likewise try to influence British politics.
You want a list of everything the US does to the detriment of the UK?
Never was more breathtaking hubris uttered by a US Deep State drone.
Here’s the outline for the plot of my new novel 2016: Pre-Brexit Britain comes up with a “wizard wheeze” to curry favour with the soon-to-be anointed POTUS, Saint Hillary of Vagina. The Dirty Donald Dossier! Of course she won’t actually need it, but it never harms to show willing, and it can’t but help to make the post-Brexit negotiations with the USA run a little smoother… 2016: Christopher and Pablo get to work, ably fed with whatever rubbish he can concoct by good old Sergei. Isn’t Sergei great! Isn’t he just the hero of the hour! The dossier is dutifully passed to the Dems, the Feds, and all our other good pals in the US of A… Nov 2016: Oh. Right. Well. Who saw that coming… And now Teresa is faced with the very uncomfortable prospect of sitting in front of Donald, her sphincter going like a rabbit’s nose, begging for a deal, while he drums his fingers on his copy of the dossier and tells her that the USA might be willing to give the UK a very special deal on trade in dossiers… post-Nov 2016. Sergei is not stupid. He realises he has just morphed from the hero of the hour into a very ugly potential banana skin who knows far too much. Sergei very much does not want to end up like Gareth Williams, dying a very unpleasant death in a bag in a bathtub. Sergei begins to make ‘discrete’ enquiries about perhaps going home to the dear old motherland after all. Unfortunately, Sergei has no secure communications. MI6 know exactly who he is talking to, about what, at all times. 2017: Sergei’s extensive knowledge of The Dirty Donald Dossier and circumstances surrounding could be very useful indeed to Mr Bad Vlad. Sergei’s overtures elicit a positive… Read more »
Steele had permission from Dearlove to write his dossier based on his knowledge of Russia after heading MI6’s Russia Desk, a senior post. If he hadn’t have got permission he would have been in the same position as Peter Wright when he dared to publish Spy Catcher. In normal times Dearlove may have sought the OK from Government to interfere so blatantly in the US election. As Steele told the US media he would ‘do anything’ to stop Trump winning. The realities of having one of the weakest governments ever means Dearlove didn’t bother; after all the Spooks are really in charge.
Makes as much sense as any of the other stories we’ve heard.
Plans don’t always … go to plan, except of course with hindsight. Which can also be ‘fronting out’ a sense of being in control after the fact so as not to ‘lose face’ in a world taken at face rather than fact value. Was Brexit a plan of intended outcomes that the supposedly hapless Cameron flicked the switch for as the fronting out of a political strategy that may or may not have had ANYTHING to do with the interests of the people of Britain or could be intended as strategy against them in the consolidation of power and wealth transfer from people to ‘power’ factions of highly funded and motivated networks of private self-interest. Puppet governance of selected, bought or captured leaders is not only applicable to the so called developing world. (where fake governance serves foreign agenda as its personal allegiance). It was timed in the context of the emotionally charged conditions of migrant fears that the media inflamed as a call for sympathy – that under-toned guilt if you didn’t ‘do the right thing’ – while intensive imagery of floods of people ‘coming our way’ followed by running both migrant sexual crime stories. along with terrorists sneaking in. (My points here are not on the human struggles or suffering, but what the media arm of the establishment USED it for). The term ‘Brexit’ is itself a media-coined and universally adopted phrase that suggests a breakfast cereal rather than a matter of grave national significance. The setting up of the debate was largely sterile and managed to essentially to install the polarising framing of populism as the new ‘face’ for enacting the destabilisation of the EU at a critical juncture as well as the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This in the context of… Read more »
It’s not a ‘special relationship’ it’s an ince$$$$$$$$tous relationship.
BTW, if Blair was the ‘poodle’, that must make John Howard (the Australian PM at the time) the dog poo bag.
Russia has technology that does not need to be delivered to any specific Country – The ‘Couch Potato’ of mass global destruction.
2 points- UK also doesn’t have the nuclear codes now. Atlee didn’t trust the Yanks so developed the UK bomb
in secret. Now we’ve got Yank warheads, The Yanks reneged on a post-war (extension?) loan to UK cos Labour won the 45 election.
WW1 was fought by 3 cousins from linked royal families. Another reason to get rid of UK’s royals, and make sure the Romanovs don;t come bak!
It’s a choice between U S or E U know which I prefer it’s not the E U
An interesting viewpoint on the so called ‘special relationship’.
In the media an obsession which becomes obvious during visits by US presidents. The first question asked by a UK journalist along lines of ‘are we your best, special friend’ Mr President? Second question – ‘Really, ‘how special’? It’s absolutely pathetic.
And even if half the stuff is true about ‘Novichok’ and Syria, it shows the level of depravity our government, intelligence services and media have reached. It’s obvious the Syrian chemical attacks and incidents are false flags and fabrications (the blueprint for such episodes started in earnest in Bosnia for those old enough and watching)
Imagine that, British officials actively planning chemical attacks/fabrications on innocent Syrian people using children as propaganda to demonise Russia and Syria. Bana, the Syrian child they famously used as propaganda – how damaged is she going to feel when she gets older and it dawns on her, her tweets/diary etc were exploited by the traitors in her country and those running ours?. Celebrities like J K Rowling promoting this myth (and other half-wit celebrities funding the White Helmets) which has led to more war on innocents and a world on the brink.
And the media/’concerned celebrity’ silence following the weekend chlorine attack by Al Qaeda on Aleppo speaks volumes.
It’s absolutely shocking and shows the government and media don’t care if they start WW111 – just as long as they can blame Russia for it.
They are playing with our lives – for the UK public, most blissfully unaware. Difficult to blame them really – all so difficult to believe the people running this country can be so depraved. Having this level of criminality exposed simply is not an option for them – hence why they are pushing for war.
Loverat: absolutely bang on the money. The media in particular are beyond contempt. They whore themselves for Empire and they keep pushing the whole Russiagate garbage more and more. Its like fecken lemmings rushing to the edge of the cliff. In the Australian media, one day its Russia bashing, the next day its China bashing. And sadly, most people here lap it up like ice cream on a warm day. Trapped in the matrix.
Keynes was totally opposed to the final Bretton Woods architecture.
It went against the very core of his macroeconomic reasoning and desire to end warfare.