Mass Psychosis and The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism

David Penner

Lovebombs – Anthony Freda. Image source here

Ask any American liberal aged sixty-five and older what they think about Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler and they will vehemently denounce these men as tyrants, murderers, and despots. Ask them what they think about the Vietnam War and they will say it was a tragedy, not only for the Vietnamese, but for the poor American soldiers who were drafted and used as cannon fodder. Liberals also once defended the civil rights movement and the New Deal while vigorously opposing McCarthyism.

That these same people would go on to support de-unionization, re-segregation, and Russophobia while enthusiastically backing barbarous wars and interventions in Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine constitutes not only a betrayal of leftist principles, but is indicative of a rejection of reason and the reality-based world.

Like the proverbial general always fighting the last war, liberals remain trapped in the past, unable to adapt to rapidly unfolding kinetic developments. The problem is that not only is this general fighting the last war, this is a general that can no longer distinguish between right and left and has lost any semblance of a moral compass.

There’s a Hitler on The Danube

One could argue that the new Cold War began with Bill Clinton bringing Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO. For Russians that were not yet alarmed by this perfidy, their red lines were irrefutably crossed with the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia and the bombing of Serbia, regarded by Russians as a brotherly nation. This constituted an illegal war of aggression, and was carried out without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. Indeed, the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia initiated an unraveling of international law and marked an erosion in the equilibrium between the great powers.

As Noam Chomsky has noted, Yugoslavia was marked for destruction, because unlike the other formerly communist European countries they did not embrace privatization. The destruction of Yugoslavia was not only a violation of the UN Charter, but was also the first “humanitarian intervention” following the collapse of the USSR that liberals were duped into embracing.

In an article on the RT website titled “15 years on: Looking back at NATO’s ‘humanitarian’ bombing of Yugoslavia,” the author writes, “NATO demonstrated in 1999 that it can do whatever it wants under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention,’ ‘war on terror,’ or ‘preventive war’ – something that everyone has witnessed in subsequent years in different parts of the globe.”

While Milošević and the Serbs were marked for demonization due to their lack of enthusiasm for neoliberal “reforms,” Croatian secessionists (many of whom subscribed to a neo-Nazi and neo-Ustasha ideology), Muslim fundamentalists in Bosnia, and the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) were supported by the West. Brigadier-General Pierre Marie Gallois of the French Army has condemned the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia, and has gone on record stating that the endless stories of Serb atrocities, such as mass rapes and the siege of Sarajevo were fabricated.  Gallois also argues that the German elite sought revenge for the fierce Serb resistance during the two world wars, especially with regard to the Serb partisans that held up German divisions that were headed towards Leningrad and Moscow during Operation Barbarossa.

While relentlessly demonized, the Serbs were in many ways the greatest victims of the NATO-orchestrated Balkan wars, as hundreds of thousands of Serbs were forcibly expelled from both Croatia and Kosovo while Serbia was turned into a free-fire zone by NATO for over seventy days. Washington took advantage of the conflict to solidify control over its European vassals.

During the aerial campaign, between ten and fifteen tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Serbia resulting in extremely high rates of cancer. The Independent coyly informed its readers that the forced expulsion of Serbs from Croatia, which they refer to as an “exodus” – is a great mystery – a “riddle.”

The only “riddle” is how liberals can denounce genocide and speak ad nauseam about human rights while supporting neo-Nazi regimes, such as the Poroshenko government in Kiev and the Tudjman government in Croatia, which have perpetrated genocidal war crimes in broad daylight. The forced expulsion of Serbs from Croatia was eventually reported by The New York Timesbut four years too late. Liberal-backed jihadists in Libya and Syria have likewise carried out one ethnic cleansing after another.

Endless calls by the mainstream press to stop the evil Serbs from establishing a “greater Serbia” were blatant propaganda, as there was no way that the hundreds of thousands of Serbs in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo could have “invaded” these territories, as they had already been living there for centuries. Indeed, this very scenario holds true for the ethnic Russians in the Donbass. Moreover, as the mass media was busy vilifying the Serbs, behind the scenes American diplomats had no illusions about who they were dealing with, referring to the Croatian nationalists as “our junkyard dogs.”

In an article titled “The Rational Destruction of Yugoslavia,” Michael Parenti writes:

Tudjman presided over the forced evacuation of over half a million Serbs from Croatia between 1991 and 1995, replete with rapes and summary executions. This included the 200,000 from Krajina in 1995, whose expulsion was facilitated by attacks from NATO war planes and missiles. Needless to say, U.S. leaders did nothing to stop and much to assist these atrocities, while the U.S. media looked the other way.

Kosovo was also prized by the Western elites because of its rich deposits of coal, lead, zinc, cadmium, gold and silver valued in the billions of dollars. The tragic balkanization of Yugoslavia, where brother was pitted against brother, brought about the destruction of a non-aligned country with a nationalized economy thereby bolstering the power of Western finance capital.

Of the NATO bombings, Parenti posits that, “To destroy publicly-run Yugoslav factories that produced auto parts, appliances, or fertilizer…is to enhance the investment value of western producers. And every television or radio station closed down by NATO troops or blown up by NATO bombs extends the monopolizing dominance of the western media cartels. The aerial destruction of Yugoslavia’s social capital served that purpose.”

Lamentably, all of this was drowned out by the mass media’s vilification of the Serbs. An article in The Guardian titled “Serbs enslaved Muslim women at rape camps” encapsulates perfectly how Western liberals were duped into embracing a war which was waged for no other reason than to fortify the power of US and NATO hegemony. This propaganda is particularly galling in light of the fact that women’s rights have been thrown back into the Stone Age precisely in the very countries which have come under attack by Washington and her proxies, such as Libya, jihadist-occupied Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine.

“Save Benghazi” and More Humanitarian Psychosis

Repeated calls by the presstitutes to “save Benghazi” sufficed to obtain liberal support for a war of aggression that has left Libya in such a state of anarchy and chaos, that Libyans who have been unable to flee the country are now trapped in a failed state where warring militias vie for power. In an article in Foreign Affairs titled “Obama’s Libya Debacle,” Alan J. Kuperman writes, “With Moscow’s acquiescence, the United Nations Security Council had approved the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya and other measures to protect civilians. But NATO exceeded that mandate to pursue regime change.”

Under Gaddafi Libyans enjoyed a high standard of living, and health care and education were free. Gaddafi’s desire to set up a gold-backed dinar put him in the crosshairs of the Western elites, as this would have liberated Africans from domination by the World Bank and the IMF through establishing a common gold-backed currency. Alas, this was lost on the human rights crusaders of the holier-than-thou faux left.

Libya, which formerly had the highest standard of living in Africa, has been annihilated as a nation state. Slave markets are a legacy of this great “humanitarian intervention,” as are pogroms carried out against black Africans, formerly given refuge by the Gaddafi regime.

An article in The Telegraph, which appeared in March of 2011, titled “Libya crisis: Benghazi fights for its life as Gaddafi attacks,” was one of countless articles in the mainstream press that incited messianic liberals into supporting a war of aggression against a people that had become too independent.

Once a country is marked for destruction by the Western elites no story is too outrageous, as evidenced by Susan Rice’s claim that Gaddafi supplied his troops with Viagra so that they could more effectively carry out mass rapes. This barbaric destruction of a sovereign state was summed up by liberal icon Hillary Clinton, who when asked about the brutal murder of Gaddafi, happily blurted out “We came! We saw! He died!

In what constituted the most genocidal invasion of a country following the end of the Vietnam War, Iraq was marked for annihilation after Saddam Hussein made the decision to sell oil in euros. In a rare moment of candor from a high priest of liberalism, Madeleine Albright, when asked about the half a million children that died due to the Clinton-backed sanctions, replied “We think the price is worth it.”

This chilling remark underscores the fact that, contrary to liberal theology, the destruction of Iraq was perpetrated with equal fervor by both parties. Incredibly, even after spending trillions of dollars systematically destroying Iraqi social and political institutions, Washington failed to install a puppet government in Baghdad which has forged alliances with Tehran, Damascus, and Moscow.

Liberal saint Obama, in comparing the reunification of Crimea and Russia with the Iraq War, informs us that the “annexation of Crimea” – which was enthusiastically backed by the overwhelming majority of Crimeans – was worse than the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in a million deaths, destroyed a civilization and fueled the rise of ISIS.

As if her abysmal record makes her a Marxist scholar, Albright now warns Americans of the dangers of fascism, her implication of course being that the rise of Trump represents a threat to our democracy. Perhaps the Donald’s desire to pursue detente with Russia, and the fact that he has yet to start any new wars are what liberals are really upset about.

The Obama administration’s support for the Saudi war on Yemen is yet another impressive achievement for the liberal class, and has yielded such an earthly paradise that Yemenis have resorted to eating leaves to survive. For this extravaganza of mass murder the presstitutes didn’t even bother coming up with a fictitious narrative, allowing the salt of the earth to set aside their pom-poms for a while and take a nap.

Syria: Mass Murder in Paradise

Unsurprisingly, the mass media had no trouble duping imaginary leftists into believing that Syrians were being indiscriminately slaughtered by the Syrian Arab Army and the evil Russians. Unbeknownst to The Guardian and The New York Times, the US military presence in Syria is illegal, while Russian and Iranian military personnel are there at the invitation of the Syrian government. The Obama administration and its vassals are clearly responsible for the carnage in Syria, as they poured billions of dollars into backing the many jihadist groups.

The mass media also hoodwinked liberals into thinking that the US military has been fighting ISIS, when they have used ISIS along with Al-Nusra Front and other illegal armed formations, as proxies with which to wage war on Syrian society. If Washington were battling the jihadists in Syria, why would they simultaneously be antagonists with the Syrian government and the Russians, who together saved Syria from being overrun by these very barbarians? Indeed, such questions have become a form of unmitigated heresy.

Articles such as “The Effects of Suspending American Aid to Moderate Syrian Opposition Groups,” by Hosam al-Jablawi, which appeared on The Atlantic Council’s website, seek to further the fallacy that the militants have been mostly democratic and secular. Washington and her vassals have poured enormous amounts of weaponry into the conflict zone, and Israeli weapons have been discovered in Syrian territories liberated from Daesh. That German machine guns from the Second World War have been discovered in some of these hideouts is symbolic of the true intentions of these murderous and sociopathic gangs.

The New York Post has referred to the jihadists in Syria as “freedom fighters.” While this may not be regarded as a “liberal” publication, an even more inane sentiment was expressed on Democracy Now, where Amy Goodman discussed the fighting in Eastern Ghouta with Rawya Rageh, Alia Malek, and Wendy Pearlman. Throughout the entire discussion of what can only be called an imaginary war, the fact that a large swath of Syria was taken over by jihadists, many of whom were not even Syrians but foreigners, is not even mentioned. In this cloud-cuckoo-land that passes for journalism the militants do not even exist. Assad and Putin are simply killing as many Syrians as possible, and doing so in an orgy of gratuitous savagery.

An article in The Guardian titled “You’re on your own, US tells Syrian rebels, as Assad goes on offensive” is deliberately written with the intention of stirring up liberal outrage over “indifference in the face of genocide,” and seeks to evoke memories of the Holocaust, the appeasement of Hitler, and the defeat of the Republicans by the forces of Franco. Meanwhile, independent media is shunned by liberals, who dismiss efforts at real journalism and political analysis as “conspiracy theory.” Thankfully for the insane, there is no shortage of good reading material.

Moscow has repeatedly maintained that the Syrian Arab Army is no longer in possession of chemical weapons, and there is ample evidence that the chemical attacks in Syria are false flag operations carried out by the jihadists to justify NATO aerial attacks on the Syrian Arab Army and Syrian infrastructure. Clearly, these incidents make for great Hollywood and have been extremely effective in stirring up gullible liberals who proceed to bray, as if on cue, for another regime change.

Tied to the mass media’s obsession with accusing Assad of “gassing his own people” are the White Helmets, who have been funded by the West, and who are clearly allied with the jihadists. The White Helmets played a critical role in duping liberal fundamentalists into thinking that there was a democratic uprising in Syria, and that the West must intervene “to put an end to the suffering.” Time will tell if Washington truly ceases all military operations in this war-ravaged country.

Forgotten Killing Fields: Afghanistan and Ukraine

The invasion and military occupation of Afghanistan was sold as a war to free oppressed women. An article in The Independent by Jane Dalton titled “Afghanistan’s first female military pilot granted asylum in US after fleeing Taliban death threats,” is crude propaganda, yet very effective nevertheless. This is a great way to distract insouciant liberals from what Americans are more likely to do in their dealings with Afghans, which is to murder them, and then urinate over their dead bodies.

What the mass media doesn’t like to talk about is how the rise of the Taliban is a direct result of Washington’s support for the mujahideen in their insurgency against the secular Afghan communist government in the 1980s. Washington is furious with the International Criminal Court over considering prosecution of American officials for war crimes in Afghanistan, and has even threatened to arrest ICC judges in retaliation. Unbeknownst to these judges, Americans are God’s chosen people. Consequently, they are incapable of war crimes.

Samantha Power is a particularly pious priest in the Church of Humanitarian Interventionism. Power was a staunch advocate of military intervention in Libya, and used her influence to cover up the crimes of the US-Saudi genocidal assault on Yemen. She defended Israel’s brutal attack on Gaza in the summer of 2014, and yet was extremely critical of the “annexation of Crimea.” That the reunification of Crimea and Russia was in fact a legitimate humanitarian intervention is an irony that was undoubtedly lost on her.

In a 2016 showdown with Vitaly Churkin at the UN Power accused Russia, Syria, and Iran of slaughtering civilians in Aleppo, when they were liberating the city from jihadists backed by Washington and her vassals. Power also spoke of the liberation of Aleppo as if the jihadists were Jews bravely defending themselves in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Syrian and Russian troops were fascists perpetrating brutal acts of collective punishment. Following this deranged rant, Churkin said, “The speech by the US representative is particularly strange to me; she gave her speech as if she was Mother Teresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country.”

The NATO-backed putsch in Kiev, supported wholeheartedly by the Obama administration, resulted in an unconstitutional seizure of power by the heirs of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, as well as a genocidal war waged against the ethnic Russians of the Donbass who have steadfastly refused to recognize the Banderite regime. In pitting neo-Nazis against neo-partisans, the restoration of Ukrainian nationalism has resurrected the demons of the past, as the bodies of slain Novorossiyan fighters are mingled with the bones of their heroic grandfathers.

Despite blathering on about the Nazis for decades, liberals were fully complicit in bringing this odious regime to power, as they were easily hoodwinked into thinking that the coup was a grassroots democratic uprising, and that the armed formations battling the Ukrainian military in the Donbass were divisions from the Russian Armed Forces, when they are overwhelmingly comprised of locals from Donetsk and Lugansk.

Moreover, as the Western elites impose multiculturalism and identity politics at home, they are simultaneously fomenting the rise of neo-Nazism in Eastern Europe. This underscores the moral bankruptcy, duplicity, and schizophrenia of the liberal class and has trapped Europeans in an intellectual paralysis where they are being offered a choice between neo-Nazism or multiculturalism, both of which benefit the oligarchy. The Maidan coup, executed by pogromists, neo-Nazis, and Banderites has legitimized unconstitutional seizures of power and inspired those who would like to carry out a putsch of their own in Germany.

A Hitler on The Moskva River?

As Putin has noted, following the collapse of the USSR Washington and NATO have pursued a policy of unilateralism. These wars have not only been carried out in flagrant violation of the UN Charter that condemns wars of aggression, but have also contributed to the degradation of the rule of law within the West itself.

Western stenographers like to complain about terrorism, but terrorists filled the vacuum following the destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a large swath of jihadist-occupied Syria – “humanitarian interventions” – where liberal complicity is undeniable and irrefutable.

The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism is rooted in the myth that the invasion of Normandy brought about the defeat of fascism. While this is not to denigrate the contributions made by resistance groups in Western Europe or those who lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy, the fact is that the defeat of fascism was achieved by the Red Army and allied partisans who bore the brunt of the best German troops, together with the courage of the Russian people who suffered the loss of twenty-seven million of their countrymen. This much vaunted invasion was launched on June 6, 1944, and only after it was clear that the Nazis were going to lose the war.

The descent of liberals into a morass of madness and bestiality is intertwined with a gross naivete regarding the true intentions of publications such as The New York TimesThe New Yorker, and The Guardian, which are leading their readers around like so many poodles. Sadly, most of these creatures will go to their graves never understanding the treachery of these periodicals that they have given their very souls to. Liberals have also decided that it is better to spend trillions of dollars on illegal wars of aggression while their sons and daughters have inadequate health insurance and wallow in dead-end jobs working for the minimum wage.

In a spectacular display of Russophobia and apocalypticism, Nikki Haley, who could easily work for either party and not know the difference, recently wrote on her Twitter page that “Lying, cheating, and rogue behavior have become the new norm of the Russian culture.” Washington’s decision to make Putin their favorite new bogeyman undoubtedly helps justify the obscene budget of the military industrial complex. Let’s pray that the bells of humanitarian intervention don’t ring out in strident cacophony over the Kremlin, which would assuredly take us to a place from which there is no dawning, and the evanescing of the sun of mankind forever.

Originall published on The Saker
David Penner’s articles on politics and health care have appeared in Dissident Voice, CounterPunch, Russia Insider and KevinMD. Also a photographer and native New Yorker, he is the author of three books: Faces of The New Economy, Faces of Manhattan Island, and Manhattan Pairs. He can be reached at [email protected].


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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jan 9, 2019 7:09 PM
Jan 9, 2019 8:58 AM

And…………these people WON

Jan 9, 2019 1:06 AM

Well, I can only repeat what was said by the other commentators – an excellent article. A little bit “dry” on “Ukraine issue”, but overall it is very good.

“The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism is rooted in the myth that the invasion of Normandy brought about the defeat of fascism.”

A key moment.
The author’s substantial and accurate observation only once again convinces me of the correctness of my thoughts about the causes/roots of hatred towards Russia in the West, which has intensified so much in the past few years and has taken now, in fact, an ugly form of extreme degree of chauvinism and xenophobia. The roots of the “problem” lie precisely in the events of the period of the Second World War. In fact, the victory of the USSR in that war became the cause of all that we are seeing including now. Western elites (first of all, the Anglo-Saxon) – both then and present – could not accept/realize/survive the victory of the USSR, which changed the whole world balance of forces. For them, it turned out to be a kind of “insult”, “challenge”, “humiliation” – how dare terrible Asian hordes prove to be stronger and better than the “beacons of Western democracy”? We must put the Russian barbarians in place!

As a result, as early as December 1945 (just 3 months after the end of the Second World War!), The United States declared the Cold War to the USSR (President Truman’s order to pursue a “tough policy towards the USSR” given to Secretary of State James Byrnes), and after some time the US develops a plan to drop atomic bombs on the USSR exsanguinated by war.

Moreover, it was then – after the end of the Second World War – the very foundation of the imperialist predation of the United States as such, as well as of the American-centric structure of international relations that is harmful for the world, was laid. I mean, when one country received essentially all the privileges and the right to print money for the whole world. Given that this country had neither practical, not moral (especially moral) right to do so. Let me explain: the United States was not a country against which that terrible war was directly directed (unlike the USSR, China or European countries), i.e. it was not “their war”. The United States was not a country that suffered the worst human losses (about 400,000 killed american soldiers (most died in the battles against Japan) against about 25 million in the USSR and about the same in China, or, for example, Poland, which lost about 6 million people), not to mention the destruction of infrastructure – no one ever bombed American cities or fired cannons/tanks/other guns on them, nobody bombed American railways, factories, highways, hospitals, museums, and more. The American people do not know what it is, what it feels like. Moreover, the United States was not a country that made a decisive contribution to the victory over fascism. All of this (i.e., something that could give the US a reason to get all the privileges after the war) was not about the US. However, the country still received all the privileges. As a result, injustice (or, better say, a misunderstanding/misapprehension), when one country undeservedly obtained all these rights and privileges, caused all subsequent trends and complications in the development of international relations.

It is difficult to say definitely whose fault it was. European countries? Yes. Being destroyed by the war, they agreed, in fact, to the US protectorate and lost part of their sovereignty (the Marshal plan was not at all unselfish, and Lend-Lease too, by the way). The fault of the USSR, and Stalin personally? Yes, definitely. Stalin, in fact, agreed to provide the US with an absolute monopoly in the printing of the dollar – the main world currency (which allowed the United States to become what they are now). But can we now, in XXI century, blame them – European countries, USSR of the WWII period – for the mistakes made in relation to the United States? On the one hand, obviously we have no such right, since we have no idea what those generations lived through, what terrible sufferings and deprivations. But on the other hand, the decisions of those politicians (regarding the United States) are affecting us now, in XXI century; we are forced to live with it, with this state of affairs.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want the people of the United States to live in poverty. It is an intelligent, very talented, strong people, worthy of a good life… – just like other nations. It’s just… when one unaffected (by war) country essentially enjoys the post-war chaos and destruction in other affected (by war) countries and undeservedly receives privileges, then this is, to put it mildly, wrong. Moreover, if this country, realizing the undeservedness of the privileges it had received, would have behaved quietly, peacefully and – most important – modestly, then somehow it would have been possible to understand and agree with this. But when this country behaves arrogantly, defiantly, rudely, aggressively, bragging about its privileges and even using them to intimidate and put pressure on other countries, this goes beyond the limits of what is permissible. The existence of such an arrogant country causes all the greater inconvenience to others. And one day there will be a critical need to get rid of this inconvenience. I would not want this to happen by military means…

Jan 8, 2019 10:50 PM

All arguments about Americans are filed under ‘fight a war on their soil next, please!’

As long as it is far away, Americans can live with it.

When they see their own children dying, when depleted uranium destroys their own foetuses, maybe they will all grow up….

Until then, they are all brainwashed and ignorant…..

Jan 8, 2019 5:46 AM
Jan 8, 2019 4:33 AM

Some of the questions posed in the comments can be clearly answered in the book. Manifest Destiny-Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance.

Jan 7, 2019 3:43 AM

Excellent Article ! .. I can only AGREE !
But now the Saker starts poking into infected Dirt holes of History ….
wouldnt it be appropriate to start digging into some slightly older ones …
even if I believe .. that is too much to ask :

Let me point out some excellent Historical Material
.. describing events .. ” from the other side ”

THE BACKGROUND for our WORLD … today

Allow me to take You on a Journey into our Past :


















https://archive.org/details/WhiteMansBibleByBenKlassen/page/n1 ..Chapter 36 ..

And there is more … much much more !

Jan 7, 2019 6:23 PM
Reply to  olavleivar

Olav, thank you for all those links exposing sides of WW1&2 that are not generally shown. Some seem to me anti-Jewish propaganda but others (such as the AZC buildup of Nazi Germany) confirm conclusions that I myself have arrived at by searching the web. The pitiful photos of Germans expelled from East Europe (some of which apparently were falsely published as photos from the Jewish Holocaust) remind us all that War is the greatest of all crimes — as Tolstoy said in War and Peace.

Lord have mercy on our sins.

Gary Weglarz
Gary Weglarz
Jan 6, 2019 5:49 PM

Excellent article. There is also another aspect of American policy that gets much less press, but is powerfully and insideously destructive. This is U.S. training of the militaries throughout Latin America, combined with our support for the Latin American oligarchs who keep our corporations in control of resources and labor, and our support for the ever present “death squads” who do the work even too dirty for the military to take on. Latin America has been subject to decade upon decade of death squad torture and murder, military murders, the slaughter of labor activists, the murder of liberation theologist priests & nuns, and constant regime change tactics run out of the CIA directed toward ANY “progressive” government. From Nicaragua and Venezuela today, most of the region in the past, the U.S. role has been to destabilize and destroy any government that attempted to improve the lot of the poor, raise the minimum wage, institute land reform, etc.

Strange, but the same basic social safety net systems that most of Europe enjoys are labelled “communist” when any Latin American nation attempts even a modest version to alleviate hunger and poverty. This constant, quiet, stealth sort of U.S. role in Latin America is largely hidden from the American public my MSM. These Latin American death squads and militaries can thus carry out their mayhem while U.S. leaders proclaim these nations as “friends” who “support human rights,” and encourage U.S. business investment. The reach of America’s mayhem and our “mass psychosis” extends far and wide and not all of it is conducted with the more obvious bombs and missiles. The so called “Salvador Option” is alive and well in the realm of U.S. policy, though its murderous brutality is systematically suppressed by the media here.

Jan 6, 2019 3:21 PM

In May of 1993, I wrote an article for Haiti Progres under the title National Sovereignty — First Casualty of the New World Order, in which I stated, “The grounds for armed intervention never cease to expand, including now the pretended interdiction of drug trafficking, the need for peacekeeping in situations of civil war, the moral imperative to curb human rights abuses or to feed starving people.” I also mention rescuing “failed nation-states. I further cited the case of Somalia where “the starvation produced by a decade of UD policy toward that nation becomes the justification for invasion, thus providing a vivid illustration of the old saying ‘killing with kindness.’

Jan 6, 2019 4:29 PM
Reply to  joekaye52831

Sounds interesting. Is it available anywhere on the ‘net?

Jan 6, 2019 1:17 PM

One thing about Bosnia is that I think this was where false flags in the battlefield really started to take shape. Yes, there have been others in history but these have been more ‘biggies’ and one-offs.

I think the ones in Bosnia were planned by the Bosnian Army. In contrast in Syria these have evolved to where our intelligence services actively collude with Al Qaeda to cause an incident. I suspect there may be one soon over the decision to withdraw from Syria.

I know there probably was not much independent non-partisian news back then to refer back to now. But while the West did take sides in Bosnia I think before that they were cautious as the narrative I heard over and over was nobody ever did well from becomeing embroiled in Yugoslavia. Perhaps a hangover from Vietnam.

But not long before Kosovo started I suspect this view changed and was when the West saw the benefits of regime change and plunder – using it as a model throughout the Middle East..

So, going back to the early 1990s aside from the possible motive that Germany wanted to split Yugoslavia into weaker states, I don’t think there was any general western master plan to do so.

Had it been otherwise the intervention would have been much more coherant, organised and aggressive from the start. In Yugoslavia there was propaganda but the West always seemed to be playing catch-up on events. Plus Russia was not in the equation then.

If I’m correct, what changed within Western elites in around the late 1990s during the Clinton/Blair years to go on to shockers such as 9/11 and what we see in the Middle East today and the much closer complicity of the media in these more sophisticated yet brazen crimes? Interesting. to know what others think.

Jan 6, 2019 12:33 PM

And we should also not forget this:
“Rwanda, Half the Truth is a whole Lie! 20 Years of brazen Desinformation!” http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/rwanda-half-of-the-truth-is-a-whole-lie-twenty-years-of-brazen-desinformation/
Happy New Year regards

harry stotle
harry stotle
Jan 6, 2019 10:45 AM

The behaviour of the MSM tells us that they are deeply embedded in the neocon project.

Current techniques include the ludicrous ‘fake news’ meme which invites readers to regard MSM output as credible while the alternative media is portrayed as flaky or unreliable.
Take stories about the ‘White Helmets’ for example – we know now thanks to some great work in the alternative media (by the likes of Vanessa Beeley & Eva Bartlett ) that they are Al-Qaeda sympathisers responsible for egregious human rights abuses, and NOT, as the Guardian would have us believe, knights in shining armour.

Ironically MSM reporting on Russia, Syria, the Ukraine and Libya is itself a text book example of fake news, but to point this out in any comments forum is to risk almost certain censorship.
This form of censorship increasingly relies on a derranged form of identity politics to shut down discusussion or ideas that fail to conform with certain cultural or political ideology – such techniques are increasingly employed with chilling results.

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Jan 6, 2019 11:55 AM
Reply to  harry stotle

Harry Stotle: completely agree 100℅, espec your comment on censorship.

Jan 6, 2019 11:37 PM
Reply to  harry stotle

Here’s Jonathan Pie repeating those same MSM talking points:

Jan 8, 2019 2:00 AM
Reply to  frank

Not that I care about the thumbs up or down, but out of curiosity: are the thumbs down because you disagree with the factual observation that Jonathan Pie is repeating MSM propaganda?

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Jan 6, 2019 10:43 AM

David – short, sharp, and very on point, thank you. How did the World come to this, where alleged ‘leftists’ and ‘progressives’ vocally cheer for Imperialism and intervention on the basis of protecting human rights, saving babies, defending democracy, etc etc, while wilfully looking the other way and ignoring the mass death and destruction of entire countries by the United States and its sycophantic lackeys, of which Australia is right up there vying for the role of chief bootlicker. Noted your mention of Ms Goodman who has quite a following amongst these faux left cretins who parrot the establishment narrative when it comes to countries like Syria and Russia, and at the same time ignore what is being done to Yemen, and prattle on and on about rapists or rape apologists if anyone tries to talk about Julian Assange. Could the World get any more Orwellian? Up is down and war is peace, and much of the Left has been completely neutered by the warped dogma of identity politics.

Jan 6, 2019 5:16 PM
Reply to  Gezzah Potts

much of the Left has been completely neutered by the warped dogma of identity politics.

Indeed, it’s almost like somebody planned it that way.

Stop Public Enemy #1 CAIR is Hamas
Stop Public Enemy #1 CAIR is Hamas
Jan 6, 2019 9:30 AM

That is written so well and factual. All can say after tweeting it is DAMN in a most superlative manor. The liberal hubris and utopian fantasies have given way to sedition treason and pre Sharia propagating. Red / Green axis

Denis O'hAichir
Denis O'hAichir
Jan 6, 2019 9:30 AM

The Serbs didn’t do themselves any favors internationally with the carry on in Srebrenica, I often wonder if the Dutch were deliberately put in such a weak position for the sake of understandable outrage a propaganda coup of enormous value, that said they should have behaved like soldiers and fought. The msm never gives a fair view of the ‘enemy’ especially the good side of the policies enacted or proposed, always a “evil” “tryant” “racist” angle.

Jan 6, 2019 10:13 AM

The commentary on Former Yugoslavia is interesting. Some say this was the blue-print for the regime change propaganda wars in the 21st century. Personally I think Kosovo was where it really started in earnest. Although perhaps Knin 1995 was the true starting point – the ethnic cleansing where the US actively helped Croatia.

Looking back at Bosnia and the initial battles in Croatia, I think there was always bias against the Serbs – but it wasn’t as vindictive, deliberate and as nasty as you observe against Syria.

Also the initial war in Yugoslavia, I think did start off as more of a civil war – unlike Syria which was a planned proxy-war from years before. This despite Vatican and Germany acting out of self-interest, recognising the break-away states and escalating the conflict.

I think the difference between then and now is that countries in West weren’t quite so joined at the hip and were more divided about what to do over Yugoslavia in the early 90s..

But my recollection of the NATO spokesman press conferences every day lying his head off about Serb losses in Kosovo is more closer to today. It was a propaganda war as Syria is today. NATO couldn’t beat the Serbs so they lied. Not sure if my memory is correct but I think at the end of the Kosovo conflict 287 tanks out of 300 which had entered months before crossed back into Serbia proper.

I had a friend from Serbia who had connections to the Serb military. He said far more NATO aircraft were shot down that the 2/3 officially downed. Given all the NATO lying then and since I wonder if there was some truth in this.

So, yes, many similarities to the lying and propaganda we see today.

Eleni Gigantes
Eleni Gigantes
Jan 6, 2019 12:45 PM
Reply to  Loverat

Sorry, I don’t agree with you that “Also the initial war in Yugoslavia, I think did start off as more of a civil war”. Au contraire, a newly re/united Germany triggered the war for NATO by out of the blue recognising Croatia as a separate state, to the surprise of most Croatian politicians in the Yugoslav government. This action followed immediately on the heels of the peaceful dissolution of the USSR and the corresponding reunification of Germany. It also answered the discussions of disbanding NATO and a resultant peace dividend. To spell that out, no way was US/Israel going to agree to the dissolution of NATO let alone remove US and NATO bases in Europe and Asia Minor…and Germany, whose reunification was 100% based on further understandings with Washington immediately displayed its bondage by playing its part. Just as Germany has continued to obediently play its part in the 2014 Washington coup in Ukraine by unilaterally offering Ukraine an agreement with the EU, to the astonishment of Brussels.

As usual Noam Chomsky provides misdirection by saying that this was because Yugoslavia resisted privatisation. There was no EU at the time, Yugoslavia was a neutral country outside the (later) EU, privatisations had started in places like Britain (where Margaret Thatcher still reigned) but were resisted elsewhere in the (much smaller) EEC block as a matter of course. No, Yugoslavia was targeted for the same reason that the Ottoman, Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian empires were targeted in WW1, to remove any power centres rivalling UK , USA (as it turned out) and France in central and eastern Europe and to balkanise and irrevocably weaken not only SE Europe but particularly the Levant. I recommend referring to a map of Yugoslavia c 1989 in relation to Europe to see this clearly.

I was interested in light of my own country’s predicament today ie Greece to read Brigadier General Galois’ statement concerning Serbia “that the German elite sought revenge for the fierce Serb resistance during the two world wars, especially with regard to the Serb partisans that held up German divisions that were headed towards Leningrad and Moscow during Operation Barbarossa.” Should his analysis be correct this applies even more to the Greeks who tied down the Germans in Greece until Hitler’s orders to abandon it. The Germans left Greece in September 1944 for the Russian front, in a scorched earth retreat, and were further delayed passing through Serbia. Given the historic links between Serbia, Greece and Russia, and where they stand today this is clearly an example of which came first, the chicken or the egg !

Finally, who are these so called liberals that the article is aimed at. They are Americans either in service to and paid by the Washington Tel Aviv machine or American civilians sufficiently comfortable and well off to neither avail themselves of the facts nor disturb their pleasures and distractions with moral questions.

Jan 6, 2019 5:49 PM
Reply to  Eleni Gigantes

@Eleni: “Au contraire, a newly re/united Germany triggered the war for NATO by out of the blue recognising Croatia as a separate state …”

Yes, The way some people remember where they were when they heard JFK was killed, I remember the exact spot where I heard that Germany had put a match to a country which was known to be an ethnic tinderbox; and howling inwardly that if you give recognition to the one then all the rest will stamped for it. Thus the Leaders of Germany began committing political arson and upsetting the peace of Europe for the second time since they burnt the Reichstag.

But I doubt if the German Leadership did this “out of the blue”. Like the interwar financial ruin of the socialist Weimar Republic and the buildup of Nazi Germany, the postwar financial ruin of Yugoslavia, followed by its deliberate destabilization, invasion and partition were stages in a long laid Anglo Zio Capitalist plan. Behind Germany and behind that plan there stands “The International Community”: F UK U$A ie, who followed the rape of Serbia by the rape of Iraq and current military atrocities across the Middle East; and are currently preparing NATZO to start WW3 against Russia and China.

Jan 6, 2019 8:29 PM
Reply to  vexarb

“But I doubt if the German Leadership did this “out of the blue”. Like the interwar financial ruin of the socialist Weimar Republic and the buildup of Nazi Germany, the postwar financial ruin of Yugoslavia, followed by its deliberate destabilization, invasion and partition were stages in a long laid Anglo Zio Capitalist plan”

I agree with many of the sentiments, for example the irresponsibility of Germany in recognising Croatia and Slovenia and the role of the ‘international community’ in the region – and linking into what is going on today. But I would just question that the break-up of Yugoslavia in early 1990s was part to some.grand plan.

Just because we can see evidence of this today in the Middle East doesn’t mean every previous conflct was part of an outside plan of some sort. I would simply argue that Yugoslavia was primarily a civil war, made worse by outside states which finally evolved (in Kosovo) into the model of regime change via the support for terrorism and covert war we see today. So for me, its more about the timeline and how and precisely when we reached the depths of depravity we are today.

Always open minded but so far I’ve seen little evidence which suggests there was some grand plan because Yugoslavia was not towing the line or was marked for destruction.

Jan 8, 2019 1:59 PM
Reply to  Loverat


If you read this sister Link in Saker you will see that not only Chomsky but also readers BTL share my suspicion that the “civil war” in Yugoslavia was stirred up by Anglo Zio Capitalists for the same reason as the “civil war” in Syria was: to give an excuse for Humanitarian Intervention” by the AZC’s goons in NATZO.

“By their fruits shall ye know them”.

Jan 6, 2019 5:22 PM

@Denis: “The Serbs didn’t do themselves any favors Internationally …”

… by hanging on to Kosovo when “The International Community” wanted them to give it to Albania as the price for allowing an Anglo Zio Capitalist to run across Albanian territory.

… by preferring Russia to “The International Community” (aka NATZO countries).

… by not allowing The International Community to build the biggest U$ military base in Europe on their territory.

Jan 6, 2019 8:39 PM
Reply to  vexarb

Let us not forget Our (Iron) Lady of Neoliberalism was a vociferous defender of Tudjman and promoter of Croation independence …becoming Baroness “Ja sam Zagrepčanka!” (I am a Zagreb woman) Thatcher. I would say she had no shame: but that is already well known.

Jan 8, 2019 12:52 AM
Reply to  BigB

“I would say she had no shame: but that is already well known.”
It cannot be said often enough.

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum
Jan 6, 2019 9:25 AM

Warmongering is a profession.
All professions have their own jargon, whether it be lawyers, doctors, politicians, or hitmen.
It’s how they obfuscate.
It’s how they justify their greed.
It’s the language of sub humans.
Planet of the ‘apes’?
We’re living on it.
(Apologies to all primates)