MIRABILE DICTU: Jefrey Sachs opposes US policy in Syria—on MSNBC, no less.

By Addison dePitt

We must be living in the end times, an age of miracles and terrors and sundry unusual things.  Consider the following, much of it improbable:

1. Jeffrey Sachs appears on MSNBC's Morning Joe, the channel a bastion of liberaloid/Deep State propaganda, to denounce US foreign policy on Syria, while also pointing out what is usually deleted in such exchanges, that this filthy ball of wax was first given the imperial imprimatur by the darling of clueless but recalcitrant liberals, Barack Obama.

Apparently Sachs, at one time a fierce evangelist for savage capitalism's "shock therapy" and all the rest of that bogus economic medicine, a sort of Friedmanite "Chicago Boy" redux, is still expiating his awful sins during the sacking and dismantling of the USSR in the 1990s, something that ruined an entire generation of Russians, shortened the life span of millions, and almost, just almost, destroyed Russia as a countervailing force to the depredations of the evil and ever bullying Anglozionist empire. Now at least he's appearing on visible mainstream media to denounce what is by any measure a colossally deranged policy, let alone cynical and corrupt to the nth degree, as befits the characters formulating it. We are talking about America's Middle East policy, of course.

2. Equally improbable and ironic, one of the chief interviewers, Mika Brzezinski, is the daughter of one of the great architects of an instance of uber malignant US foreign policy, Carter National Security Advisor and Polish aristocrat Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who conceived the notion of using muslim Takfiris as a proxy for imperialist ends, yea, the arming of crazy jihadists in Afghanistan (financed in part by the Saudis), including Osama bin Laden, just to give the Soviets "their own Vietnam." Anything to bloody the nose of those commies. Realpolitik writ large, I guess, eh?

Hanks and Roberts in Wilson's War.

Never mind that the Afghanistan government at the time, a communist government, was the first in ages to bring that country some measure of modernity, including literacy in the countryside, an egalitarian ethos and probity; and a firm commitment to the emancipation of women (something that bourgeois feminists, for all their posturing and pink hats, practically all upper middle class in the West, don't give a hoot about, Hillary proudly being one of them). The Kabul modernisers were intent on rectifying eons of barbaric medievalism. For anyone still believing the fairytale of America's goodness, it would seem like an easy choice. So who do you think we sided with? Well, with the fanatical obscurantists, the head choppers, that's who. We know how to pick'em.  The people who routinely butchered (I'm being precise here) literacy teachers sent by Kabul, many being courageous women.

The clueless American public even celebrated this dastardly underhanded meddling, which eventually spawned al-Qaeda, and after further sociopathic US intrigues, ISIS, in a revolting film —a comedy no less—done with all the characteristic moral insouciance of imperial denizens crawling all over liberal Hollywood, Charlie Wilson's War, with Tom Hanks, to eternal shame, in the lead, along with blank brain Julia Roberts, for the requisite decoration. Readers may still be awed by Washington's metronomic ability to pick the rotten apples in any basket. But the formula is simple: We always pick our champions by class affinity (conservatives or reactionaries instinctively friendly to the US and its gang, and loyal to existing power structures; people who love tradition, no matter how rotten, and who do not mind having their country picked clean by foreign carpet baggers, usually lending a hand in the vulturing), and second, while the USSR was around, as a matter of fouling any project in which the USSR—the only rival superpower, might have a hand, regardless of whether it was good for the people or not. The people, need we remind you, do not count for the cynical rulers of the empire.