Eric Zuesse
OpEds

Of humble beginnings, and a devout anticommunist, Missourian Harry Truman left his mark in history, for the worse, but, as usual, larger forces determined the nation's course.

Dr. Marco Soddu’s excellent 13 December 2012 study of “Truman Administration’s Containment Policy in Light of the French Return to Indochina” makes clear that (unlike FDR) President Truman’s historical understanding was poor and vulnerable to shaping by advisors who themselves had poor understanding, or perhaps ulterior motives.

President Roosevelt was far more of a strategic thinker than Truman was, and therefore was far less manipulable. In his 1 January 1945 Memorandum for the Secretary of State (Stenttinius, whom Truman viewed as being soft on communism and therefore Truman replaced him on 28 June 1945, even before deciding irrevocably to start a Cold War), FDR made clear that, “I still do not want to get mixed up in any Indochina decision. It is a matter for post-war.” And, “I made this very clear to Mr. Churchill. From both the military and civil point of view, action at this time is premature.” The aristocracies of both Britain and France were obsessed to continue their empires post-war. FDR held them off, but Truman was strongly inclined to yield to them whenever doing so would be “anti-communist.” He was simply manipulable. He never really understood what FDR’s vision was of the post-war world, nor cared. In fact, on 29 August 1945, in a conversation between Madam Chiang Kai-shek and Truman, “Madame Chiang recalled that President Roosevelt had spoken of a trusteeship for Indo China, whereupon the President stated that there had been no discussion of a trusteeship for Indo China as far as he was concerned.” This far, just a month, into the Cold War (supposedly against communism instead of for forming an all-inclusive global U.S. empire) that he now was committed to, he still had never even thought about what FDR’s vision for the post-WW2 world had been. To Truman, communists personified evil: to him, they were psychopaths and demons — end of story.

By contrast, here was the reason why FDR strongly favored for existing colonies to become taken over, after the War, by the U.N. (which FDR had, since August 1941, been planning to be quite different from what Truman made it), as trusteeships of the U.N., on the road quickly to independence (and Chiang knew at least something about this but Truman either didn’t, or else lied to say he didn’t):

history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1944v03/d708
Memorandum, President Roosevelt to the Secretary of State

FDR—Though a plutocrat by birth and acculturation, he was as decent and visionary as a bourgeois statesman can be.

January 24, 1944

I saw Halifax last week and told him quite frankly that it was perfectly true that I had, for over a year, expressed the opinion that Indo-China should not go back to France but that it should be administered by an international trusteeship. France has had the country — thirty million inhabitants — for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning. As a matter of interest, I am wholeheartedly supported in this view by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and by Marshal Stalin. I see no reason to play in with the British Foreign Office in this matter. The only reason they seem to oppose it is that they fear the effect it would have on their own possessions and those of the Dutch. They have never liked the idea of trusteeship because it is, in some instances, aimed at future independence. This is true in the case of Indo-China. Each case must, of course, stand on its own feet, but the case of Indo-China is perfectly clear. France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of Indo-China are entitled to something better than that.
F[ranklin] D. R[oosevelt]]

Another sign of bad faith on the part of the United States against the Soviet Union — besides the Marshall Plan and Operation Gladio (both instituted by Truman) — seems to have been America’s public refusal to accept as being anything other than ‘communist tricks’ the repeated efforts by the Soviets to restore the U.S.-U.S.S.R. joint national-security cooperation that had existed prior to 25 July 1945. America’s responses to each of those Soviet initiatives were insults, instead of welcoming the Soviet proposals and working behind the scenes with them to obtain progress toward the type of world order that FDR had intended — a world order policed by the United Nations, not by the united imperialistic fascists. For example, on 19 September 1959 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Soviet Representative headlined “Declaration of the Soviet Government on General and Complete Disarmament” and presented a series of proposals including:

https://undocs.org/A/4219
“Declaration of the Soviet Government on General and Complete Disarmament”

September 19, 1959
P. 14:
The Soviet Government proposes that the programme of general and complete disarmament should be carried out within as short a time-limit as possible — within a period of four years.
The following measures are proposed for the first stage:
The reduction, under appropriate control, of the strength of the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China to the level of 1.7 million men, and of the United Kingdom and France to the level of 650,000 men;
The reduction of the armed forces of other states to levels to be agreed upon at a special session of the United Nations General Assembly or at a world conference on general and complete disarmament;
The reduction of the armaments and military equipment at the disposal of the armed forces of States to the extent necessary to ensure that the remaining quantity of armaments corresponds to the level fixed for the armed forces.
The following is proposed for the second stage:
The completion of the disbandment of the armed forces retained by States;
The elimination of all military bases in the territories of foreign States; troops and military personnel shall be withdrawn from the territories of foreign States to within their own national frontiers and shall be disbanded.
The following is for the third stage:
The destruction of all types of nuclear weapons and missiles;
The destruction of air force equipment;
The entry into force of the prohibition on the production, possession and storage of means of chemical and biological weapons in the possession of States shall be removed and destroyed under international supervision;
Scientific research for military purposes and the development of weapons and military equipment shall be prohibited;
War ministries, general staffs and all military and paramilitary establishments and organizations shall be abolished;
All military courses and training shall be terminated. States shall prohibit by law the military education of young people.
In accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, States shall enact legislation abolishing military service in all of its forms — compulsory, voluntary, by recruitment, and so forth. …
(4) Conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the member States of NATO and the member States of the Warsaw Treaty

The U.S. response came a few months later at the “Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”:
s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/documents/library/conf/TNCD-PV6.pdf
“Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”

22 March 1960
Final Verbatim Record of the Sixth Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
P. 36:
Mr. Eaton (United States of America): I have no intention of entering into this discussion on foreign bases. I think the discussions that we have had here this morning have indicated that we shall run into political problems at the very earliest stage, problems on which earlier conferences have foundered. I would only say that the forces of my Government are only employed outside my own country and within my own country for the purpose of defending both ourselves and those of our allies who wish to be associated with us, who welcome our troops as a part of theirs and as a part of the allied defences, and for no other reason. Whenever the time comes when these troops need not be employed, for defensive purposes only, there need be no doubt in the mind of anyone here that those forces will be withdrawn.
s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/documents/library/conf/TNCD-PV46.pdf
“Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”
24 June 1960

Final Verbatim Record of the Forty-Sixth Meeting, Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, p. 4:
Mr. Nosek (Czechoslovakia): What did Mr. Eaton propose? He proposed the introduction of control measures. … exclusively with measures of control, that is with the old and well-known requirement of the United States — the introduction of control over armaments. Apparently with a view to misleading world public opinion, which requires a concrete discussion of general and complete disarmament, the United States representatives are beginning to prefer — for tactical reasons — to call those measures not “partial measures” but “initial steps” on the road to general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

b-ok.cc/book/5398150/073f73
“The United Nations and Space Security: Conflicting Mandates” p. 17:

This [obfuscation and evasion by the U.S. (which on p. 16 was referred to as merely “proposals directed towards the establishment of control without disarmament”)] ultimately led [on 28 June 1960] to the USSR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania not attending the 48th meeting of the Ten-Nation Committee, which signalled the end of these discussions in the Committee.

The U.S. Government refused to discuss the Soviet Union’s proposal for all war-weaponry to be placed under U.N. command, and decision-making only by the U.N., to enforce only U.N. laws — no longer under the command of individual nations (such as by the U.S. regime’s “international-rules-based [i.e., not international-law-based] order.”

Who benefited from America’s refusal even to discuss what had been U.S. President FDR’s aim for the post-WW-II world? The beneficiaries are what Eisenhower when leaving office called the “military industrial complex,” and are basically America’s hundred largest military contractors, especially the owners of the largest weapons-manufacturing firms such as Lockheed. Ike had served them well, and then three days before leaving office warned the public about them so as not to be blamed (along with Truman) by historians, for having created it.

Meanwhile, the German industrialists (such as this) who were likeliest to have been the individuals who had funded Hitler’s rise to power, were let off scot-free at the Nuremberg Tribunals after the war was over. Furthermore, as Bishnu Pathak documented in his 21 September 2020 “Nuremberg Tribunal: A Precedent for Victor’s Justice”, those Tribunals were, even at the time, widely condemned even by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and by the chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Tribunals, as being a “sanctimonious fraud,” a “high-grade lynching party” and nothing more than victors’ ‘justice’, instead of any respectable precedent-setter for the U.N., but Truman and the other leaders of the victor-powers simply did not care — and the U.N. became built upon that acceptance of victors’ ‘justice’: no improvement. One cannot say whether FDR would have caved to that if he had not died first, but certainly the U.S. that followed after him has been the type of tyranny that he had always been scheming to prevent both for the U.S. and for the world.

Nuremberg defendants—The trials seemed to mete out some harsh justice but in reality the Anglo-Americans and the French did their best to save and incorporate Nazis into the global anti-communist crusade, the first "Cold War". This pattern of high-handed hypocrisy continues to this day, with consequences that have put the world on the brink of a nuclear Armageddon.

Furthermore, the OECD or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was set up in 1948 nominally in order ‘to stimulate economic progress and world trade,’ but actually to administer the Marshall Plan. The OECD was just another anti-Soviet U.S. organization, but, since the cash that it was distributing was going to Europe, its initial membership was those countries and it was headquartered in Paris, so as not to seem to be an extension from the U.S. Government. The organization changed its name to OECD in 1961 so as to hide from historians that it had previously been called the OEEC, which was clearly traceable to the Cold War. The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia says that “In 1948, the OECD originated as the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC),[7] led by Robert Marjolin of France, to help administer the Marshall Plan (which was rejected by the Soviet Union and its satellite states).[8]” However, it wasn’t “rejected by” them, but instead rejected them — just like the Marshall Plan itself rejected them.

The 1989 masterpiece by Christopher Simpson, Blowback: The First Full Account of America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Disastrous Effect on The cold war, Our Domestic and Foreign Policy, documented the U.S. regime’s comprehensive employment of ‘ex’-Nazis in order to assist its goal of conquering ‘communism’ but really Russia. Then, on 7April 2024, I headlined a supplementary account, “How & Why the UK, U.S., and Canada, Governments imported Nazis into Canada”, which I closed by saying: “And this is how it came to be that the pro-Nazi Ukrainians in Canada have been organized and effectively represented while the others (the non-Nazi Ukrainians) were suppressed; and, above all, how it came to be the case that America’s armaments-manufacturers and their NATO have thrived while coup-after-coup and invasion-after-invasion have continued to expand the U.S. empire up till the present moment.” All of this was an extension from Truman’s private decision on 25 July 1945, and its extension by Bush’s secret decision on 24 February 1990 to continue it even after communism in Russia would be ended in 1991. Furthermore, my 23 March 2024 “How Germany Is Still Controlled by Nazis” documented yet further, that as regards the anti-Russian aspect of Hitler’s nazism, there was no real change in Germany when the U.S. regime took it over from Hitler (and the rest of it from Gorbachev), other than the necessary cosmetic changes in the new unified Germany, which, of course, required outlawing any public displays of anti-Semitism (as-if Hitler had hated only Jews — Jews were instead his main hatred, but he also hated — and aimed to enslave — all Russians, and, indeed, all Slavs).

I especially recommend reading Christopher Simpson’s masterpiece, because it’s the best book yet done on the then and continuing fraudulence of the U.S. regime’s allegations that the comprehensive denazification of Germany’s Government, which FDR had been intending, and which was central to his planning for the post-WW2 world — and which all three of the Allies, FDR, Stalin, and Churchill, had supported — was carried out, instead of effectively aborted, by Truman and by Eisenhower (with Churchill’s support of aborting it), and by all successive U.S. Presidents and European stooges since then. The inside-the-book excerpts at the Amazon site for Simpson’s masterpiece, give a fair indication of the book, including its “Series Introduction,” by Mark Crispin Miller, which says that, “For over half a century, America’s vast literary culture has been disparately policed, and imperceptibly contained, by state and corporate entities well placed and perfectly equipped to wipe out wayward writings,” including the history that this book documents.

The U.S. Government’s National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) had very reluctantly commissioned it, with an obligation to publish it, but then refused to publish the work because NARA’s top official refused to allow it. The team of investigators, headed by the work’s author, Simpson, finally found a publisher for the work, which was then, and since, suppressed. On 13 November 2010, Eric Lichtblau, whose chaotic anecdotal narrative book The Nazi Next Door was to be published in 2015, was the New York Times reporter headlining “Nazis Were Given ‘Safe Haven’ in U.S., Report Says”, and the newspaper introduced it by saying that, “An internal history of the United States government’s Nazi-hunting operation provides gripping new evidence about some of the most notorious Nazi cases of the last three decades. The Justice Department kept the 600-page report secret for the last four years, releasing a heavily redacted version last month to a private research group that sued to force its release. A complete version was obtained by The New York Times.” The 600-page complete unredacted secret report, titled “The Office of Special Investigations: Striving for Accountability in the Aftermath of the Holocaust”, by Judy Feigin from the U.S. Department of Justice, and dated December 2006, was linked-to in the online version of the article, and it stated, flat-out, on its page 33, that “Congress’ overriding concern at the time was in helping refugees escape communist rule.” In other words: the U.S. Government’s ‘anti-communist’ (actually pro-U.S.-empire) obsession, ever since Truman took over, included assisting Nazis and their supporters to become “refugees” in America and in its (after WW2) colonies (‘allies’). And this has continued, likewise secretly, ever since U.S. President GHW Bush on 24 February 1990 started telling America’s European stooges to secretly continue the ‘Cold War’.

Neo-Nazi ideology has become one of the main protagonists of political and social life in Ukraine since the 2014 coup d'état. And that's a fact. 

No Comment

window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });

Lex Fridman • Tucker Carlson

Please watch this video and THEN read the critique below, prepared by historian Eric Zuesse. 

Tucker Carlson: Putin, Navalny, Trump, CIA, NSA, War, Politics & Freedom | Lex Fridman Podcast #414

Lex Fridman

Feb 27, 2024 Lex Fridman Podcast
Tucker Carlson is a highly-influential political commentator. You can watch and listen to him on the Tucker Carlson Network and the Tucker Carlson Podcast.

ANALYSIS AND ANNOTATION OF THE ABOVE VIDEO BY ERIC ZUESSE

Lex Fridman, 27 February 2024, 3 hours long
1:29:13
[FRIDMAN] What do you think of Putin saying that [a] justification
1:29:18
for continuing the war [in Ukraine] is denazification [of Ukraine’s government]? - [CARLSON] I thought it was one of the dumbest things I'd ever heard. I didn't understand what it meant, denazification.
1:29:26
- [FRIDMAN] It literally means what it sounds like. - [CARLSON] Yeah, I mean I have a lot of thoughts on this.
1:29:32
I hate that whole conversation because it's not real, it's just ad hominem. It's a way of associating someone with an evil regime
1:29:39
that doesn't exist anymore. But in point of fact, Nazism, whatever it was,
1:29:45
is inseparable from the German nation. It was a nationalist movement in Germany. There were no other Nazis, right?
1:29:52
There's no book of Nazism. I'm like, I wanna be a Nazi. What does it mean to be a Nazi? There's no idea, there's no...
1:29:57
I mean there's no, "Mein Kampf," is not, "Das Kapital," right? "Mein Kampf," is like, to the extent I understand it,
1:30:03
it's like he's about the Treaty of Versailles. Whatever, I'm very anti-Nazi. I'm merely saying there isn't a Nazi movement in 2024.
1:30:12
It's a way of calling people evil. Okay, Putin doesn't like nationalist Ukrainians.
1:30:18
Putin hates nationalism in general, which is interesting. And of course he does. He's got 80 whatever republics
1:30:25
and he's afraid of nationalist movements. He fought a war in Chechnya over this. So I understand it, but I have a different,
1:30:31
I'm for national, I'm for American nationalism, so like I disagree with Putin on that, but calling them Nazis, it's like,
1:30:36
I thought it was childish. - [FRIDMAN] Well, I do believe that he believes it. - [CARLSON] I agree with that.
1:30:42
'Cause I was listening to this because in the United States everyone's always calling everyone else a Nazi. You're a Nazi.
1:30:48
Okay. But I was listening to this and I was like, "This is the dumbest sort of not convincing line
1:30:56
you could take." And I sat there and listened to him talk about Nazis for like eight minutes. And I'm like, "I think he believes this."
1:31:02
- [FRIDMAN] Yeah, and I actually have had a bunch of conversations with people who are living in Russia, they also believe it.
1:31:09
Now there's technicalities here, which the word Nazi, the World War II is deeply in the blood
1:31:16
of a lot of Russians and Ukrainians. - [Tucker] I get it, I get it. - So you're using it as almost a political term, the way it's used in the United States also,
1:31:22
like racism and all this kind of stuff. So, you can really touch people if you use the Nazi.
1:31:29
- [Tucker] I think that's totally right. - But it's also to me a really like disgusting thing to do.
1:31:35
- [Tucker] I agree. - [FRIDMAN] Because, and also to clarify, there is neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine,
1:31:41
which is, they're very small. You're saying that there's this distinction between Nazi and neo-Nazi, sure.
1:31:47
But it's a small percentage of the population, a tiny percentage that have no power in government
1:31:53
as far I have seen no data to show they have any influence on Zelensky
1:31:58
and Zelensky government at all. So really, when Putin says denazification,
1:32:05
I think he means nationalist movements. - [CARLSON] I think you're right. And I agree with everything you said,
1:32:11
and I do think that the war, the Second World War occupies a place in Slavic society,
1:32:18
Polish society, central Eastern Europe that it does not occupy in the United States. And you can just look at the death totals.
1:32:26
Tens of millions versus less than half a million. So it's like this eliminated a lot of the male population of these countries,
1:32:32
so of course it's still resonant in those countries. I get it.
1:32:38
I just, I think I've watched, I don't think I know I've watched the misuse of words,
1:32:46
weaponization of words for political reasons for so long that I just don't like, and though I do engage in it sometime, I'm sorry,
1:32:53
I don't like just dismissing people in a word. Oh, he's a Nazi, he's a liberal or whatever. It's like, tell me what you mean,
1:33:00
what don't you like about what they're doing or saying? And a Nazi especially, it's like,
1:33:06
I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. - [FRIDMAN] What troubled me about that is because he said that that's the primary objective currently for the war.
1:33:13
And that because it's not grounded in reality,
1:33:18
it makes it difficult to then negotiate peace because like what, what does it mean to get rid
1:33:24
of the Nazis in Ukraine? So like he'll come to the table and say, "Well, okay, I will agree to do ceasefire
1:33:31
once the Nazis are gone." Okay, so can you list the Nazis? - [CARLSON] I totally agree. Plus can you negotiate with a Nazi?
1:33:36
- [Lex] Right, exactly, exactly. - [CARLSON] No, I totally agree with you. - [FRIDMAN] It was very strange. But maybe it was perhaps had to do
1:33:42
with speaking to his own population and also probably trying to avoid the use of the word NATO
1:33:50
as the justification for the war. - [CARLSON] Yeah, yes, that's all... Of course, I don't know, but I suspect you're right on both counts.
1:33:57
But I would say it points to something that I've thought more and more since I did that interview,
1:34:02
which was like two weeks ago, I guess. I didn't think he was like,
1:34:07
as a PR guy, not very good. Like he's not good at telling his own story. The story of the current war in Ukraine
1:34:15
is the eastward expansion of NATO and scaring the shit outta the Russians with NATO expansion,
1:34:20
which is totally necessary. Doesn't help the United States. NATO itself doesn't help the United States. And so I'm not pro-Russian for saying
1:34:26
that I'm pro-American for saying that. And I think that's a really compelling story, 'cause it's true. He did not tell that story.
1:34:32
He told some other story that I didn't fully understand. Again, I'm not Russian. He's speaking to multiple audiences around the world.
1:34:38
I'm not sure what he hoped to achieve by that interview. I will never know. But I did think that like this guy
1:34:45
is not good at telling his story.
——

Regarding Carlson’s “There were no other Nazis, right?” it was wrong, because the ideology exists in every country, sometimes without being directly associated with Germany’s Nazi (capital “N”) Party (not merely with its (lower-case “i”) ideology; but in other instances — such as very much in Ukraine — The West is strongly supportive of, and largely even copying and employing insignia of, Germany’s Nazi Party itself (such as, for example, Ukraine’s Azov Battalion is, and Ukraine’s Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine — renamed the “Freedom” or “Svoboda” Party, by the CIA, as a condition for America’s supporting it) is. The founder and leader of the Azov Battalion Andrei Biletsky even modelled his battalion’s “Ukrainian Social Nationalism” on Hitler’s National Socialism — i.e., on Germany’s Nazi Party. And Ukraine’s Right Sector Party is headed by Dmitriy Yarosh, who was the COO of the coup and the head of its paramilitaries who carried it out for the U.S. Government; its CEO was Andrei Parubiy, a co-founder of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, and he visited in DC with Congressional leaders on 25 February 2015 to lobby for more weapons.

Here is a video from the BBC interviewing some of the “far-right” fighters who had been organized (by the United States Government and its billionaires) behind the scenes of Obama’s coup which overthrew in February 2014 the neutralist Ukrainian democratically elected Government and replaced it with rabidly anti-Russian leaders who had been selected by Obama’s organizer for the coup, Victoria Nuland (shown here on 27 January 2014 instructing the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev whom to get placed in charge as soon as the coup will be completed). The Nuland-selected new leader of Ukraine did get that appointment, and then quickly replaced the top generals with ones who immediately started to plan to ethnically cleanse pro-Russians and Russian-speakers to be eliminated from Ukraine’s population so that in any subsequent ‘democratic’ election ONLY Ukrainians who supported or at least accepted this ethnic cleansing against pro-Russians would be still around to be electing future political leaders of Ukraine, so that the U.S. Government would be using Ukraine as its nearest colony to The Kremlin only 317 miles or a five-minute U.S.-missile-strike away from decapitating Russia’s central command in Moscow.

The CIA had carefully selected each one of the “far-right” (actually nazi, or racist-fascist haters of primarily Russians — even more than, as Hitler’s did, against Jews) Ukrainians, who actually carried out the U.S. take-over of Ukraine so as to use it as the springboard for a planned U.S. version of what had previously been Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa” to conquer and absorb Russia — to do, for America, what Hitler had tried but failed to do for Germany.

Here is the reality of nazism in Ukraine and its carrying-out the U.S. agenda there:

Note: This video packs many "inconvenient" truths about the origins of the current war in Ukraine so the underhanded scum that runs the Anglo disinformation machine (in this case their Google/YouTube component) have decided to put obstacles, or outright shadowban such material. The pretext here is they worry (!) about hurting our sensibilities, so the video presentation is age-restricted and ONLY available on YouTube, where they can show it or delete it any time they wish. Sometimes, when you see this notice, the video is simply not there. As a result we had to nvest plenty of time searchng for it on an independent channel, and THEN work its code to present it through Rumble, which still does not follow the Deep State guidelines to kill the First Amendment. You'llsee it below this ugly and intrusive black box. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-NzhHv6AAo&list=UUtvrV_ifhx0EDhmPPRl7adQ

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/uukz21"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v4eah53","div":"rumble_v4eah53"});

Here is yet more of that: Censorship, that is. (The author of this critique, Eric Zuesse, seems unaware that these videos are being sabotaged by YouTube.) The video account that uploaded this invaluable video has gotten all of 76 subscribers, and the mind-boggling quantity of 112 views in 9 years! Yea,censorship, especially underhanded censorship as YouTube practices, works. The Deep State can rest easy. 

Here is a news-report about one of the U.S.-backed-and-funded ‘Neo-Nazi’ (i.e.: racist-fascist) organizations’ training-camp for Ukrainian children. (Where it says “A young boy holds a mock weapon and creeps behind a wooden fence as he takes part in drills at the summer camp” this “wooden fence” is shown festooned with German Nazi Party insignia but the right-wing newspaper makes no note of, nor comment about, that incredibly significant fact.) This is a multi-generational operation by the CIA going all the way back to its founding in 1947, by Harry Truman, warping FDR’s ww2-only OSS against the German nazis — against the Nazi Party, the original nazis — to become instead the newly-created U.S. regime’s coup-and-subversion machine, to grab control ultimately over the Soviet Union and now Russia, so as to achieve the world’s first all-encompassing empire. Carlson and Fridman appear to be ignorant of all of that history. Not only is Putin rational to be determined to denazify Ukraine but he’d be derelict in his duties to the Russian nation if he weren’t.

Back in the WW2 years, western Ukraine sympathized with Hitler against Stalin, but eastern Ukraine sympathized with Stalin Against Hitler; and, then, after the war, the CIA (Truman) organized the former allies of (agents for) Hitler to become funded and built as the CIA’s “Operation Gladio” (a “stay-behind army” of local nazis in Europe to assist the U.S. regime’s efforts to turn their local nation’s population against Russians and for the U.S. regime’s goal of ultimately becoming the entire world’s government — the all-encompassing U.S. empire). Promptly, the OSS agent Hugh Angleton retired and transferred to his son the CIA’s James Jesus Angleton (and his boss Alan Dulles) Hugh’s list of 3,000 ‘former’ Nazi secret agents, to become recruited and working now for ‘America’, to finish successfully what had been Hitler’s failed Operation Barbarossa campaign to conquer Russia. The cover-story for it was “anti-communism,” but the reality was imperialistic racist-fascism: though no longer in service to Germany’s Gpvernment but to America’s, and still aiming for an all-encompassing global empire — now America’s, no longer Germany’s. And now focused as obsessively against Russians as the Nazi Party of Germany was obsessively focused against Jews.

The lower-case “nazism” is the ideology; the upper-case “Nazism” is only the German variety of that: Hitler’s political Party. (Similarly, the lower-case “fascism” is the ideology whereas the Italian variety of that is is only the Italian variety of that: Mussolini’s Fascist Party.) But the IDEOLOGY can be, and IS, active in every country, and is ultimately being funded now by U.S.-and-allied billionaires throughout the world. Although the U.S.-and-allied version of nazism is focused mainly against Russians, and the German version (its Nazi Party) was focused mainly against Jews, both are examples of imperialistic racist-fascism. This, for example, is the reason why America’s version can and does have a Jewish nazi, Volodmyr Zelensky, as the U.S.-controlled Ukrainian government’s head-of-state. And perhaps one of the reasons why Carlson and Fridman have been fooled to think that “there isn't a Nazi movement in 2024” is that today the main targets of nazis aren’t Jews — in fact, Ukraine’s nazis are primarily against Russians, and Israel’s nazis (which are almost all Israelis now) are now clearly genocidal against Gazans, if not ultimately so against all Palestinians — even in the West Bank.

Carlson’s “And I think that's a really compelling story, 'cause it's true. He did not tell that story. [1:34:32] He told some other story that I didn't fully understand.” was an important and entirely correct point: At PR, Putin is a failure. (As I had headlined on February 10th, “Putin’s PR Incompetency — the Tucker Carlson Interview as one Example”.) However, as a geo-strategist, Putin has certainly out-witted his enemies, so that — despite America’s being the masters at PR — Russia is thus far winning against the U.S. empire. (That fact makes America’s controlling aristocracy even angrier against Russia.)

The nazi ideology thrives in The West, but even many intelligent commentators in The West are unaware that it does. They focus on the nationality or religion of the imperialistic racist-fascists, or else on its primary victim-targets, instead of on the ideology itself, which is what nazism is.

To assert that the nazi ideology thrives in The West is certainly not to say that most people in Western countries are nazis. Perhaps the only country where most of the population are nazis is today’s Israel; but, for example, the voting-percentages show clearly that nazis are only between 2 to 5% of Ukraine’s population. However, since the U.S. installed that 2 to 5% into the top levels of Ukraine’s government, nazism is clearly flourishing there.

window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });

Eric Zuesse

Why Israel will almost certainly lose its war in Gaza (even if Israel exterminates all Gazans & steals all Palestinian land)

Refugees in Khan Yunis, a zone heavily bombed by the Israelis. Khan Yunis is a city in the southern Gaza Strip; it is the capital of the Khan Yunis Governorate in the Gaza Strip. (Credit: Vanessa Beeley)

The Middle-Eastern journalist Steven Sahiouni was factually correct in his February 23rd statement that “The moral authority of the US has been ripped from Washington, DC, by the power of the genocide and war crimes in Gaza, carried out by Israel while using weapons sent to Tel Aviv from the US State Department. Biden’s fingerprints are all over the murder weapons.”

Kattenberg’s article quoted from the “six days of oral pleadings and 57 written statements filed by UN member states and three organizations – the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the African Union.” He noted that “With a few exceptions, Israel’s allies seem to have accepted the inevitability of an ICJ Advisory Opinion, and are now in damage control.” He also pointed out that:

Israel’s allies push court to not render an opinion

Having concluded oral sessions, the International Court of Justice can either accede to the General Assembly’s request for an Advisory Opinion or — exercising its discretionary power — it can decline to do so, something it has never done.

The U.S., Canada, UK, and a handful of other states – among these, Zambia, represented this morning by its lavishly wigged Solicitor General, and Fiji, clearly a friend of Israel, who referred to the General Assembly’s Advisory Opinion request as a “distinctly one-sided” “legal maneuver” to side-step the ‘Peace Process’, assigning legal consequences on just one of the parties to the ‘conflict’ – are hoping for a first.

If the court does issue an opinion about Israel’s occupation, the U.S., Britain, Zambia, and Fiji argued, it should refrain from delving into the exceptionally complex root causes of the situation.

However, if, at this stage, after the ICJ has previously voted (on 26 January 2024) (by margins of — out of 17 judges — 15 to 2 and 16 to 1) as having found a credible case on which to try Israel’s Government possibly for violating severe international laws against genocide, permanent illegal military occupation, and other such laws, will then ultimately decide to advise the International Criminal Court to hold a trial of Israel on such charges, then here are what Kattenburg identifies as possible consequences of such a decision (a decision which is extremely likely to result):

It will “help set the stage, politically, for what is regarded as legitimate in the international community, at the halls of the United Nations, in capitals of states around the world, when they’re dealing with the question of Palestine,” Canadian international law scholar and State of Palestine legal advisor Ardi Imseis told Mondoweiss, on the first day of hearings.

“Most particularly, because the occupation is unlawful and an internationally wrongful act, third states would not be allowed to continue to engage the State of Israel, the occupying power, in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory, in the same way that they have done over the past 56 years,” Imseis said.

“[A] serious breach of a peremptory norm entitles states other than the injured state to take countermeasures against the responsible state as a legal consequence of that breach,” legal counsel for the Dutch Foreign Ministry, René Lefeber, confirmed to the ICJ last week. The Netherlands did this in late January, cutting off the provision of F-35 spare parts to Israel.

The U.S. government will also be under the gun. Recent U.S. sanctions against violent settlers, and Antony Blinken’s confirmation that Israeli settlements are “inconsistent” with international law, suggest increasing willingness to hold Israel accountable for its breaches of peremptory norms, as required under international law.

Strategic lawsuits promise to proliferate.

In response to the ICJ’s January 26 provisional measures order against Israel, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White cited “undisputed evidence” that “the ongoing military siege on Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide.”

Judge White “implored” U.S. officials “to examine the results of their unflagging support” for Israel.

A decisive Advisory Opinion is certain to put wind in the BDS movement’s sails.

This past November, shortly after the start of Israel’s assault on Gaza, the Norwegian Pension Fund completed the withdrawal of its half-billion dollar investment in Israel Bonds.

Last week, four Norwegian universities reportedly terminated ties with Israeli counterparts.

And, as the ICJ drafts its Advisory Opinion on the legality of Israel’s occupation, it will also be building the factual basis for its genocide ruling two or three years down the road.

“I’m hopeful,” Giulia Pinzauti told Mondoweiss, in a café down the street from the Peace Palace.

“Everybody’s talking about genocide, as if that’s the only issue,” says Pinzauti. “Clearly, there’s a much bigger problem concerning the legality of the occupation and Israel’s discriminatory practices in the occupied territories. So that’s why I think this Advisory Opinion is extremely important … a good setup for hopefully the merits of the case concerning the Genocide Convention because it puts things in a much broader context.”

In the meantime, says Pinzauti — who teaches a course about the ICJ at Leiden University – the ICJ’s upcoming Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation promises to transform the political landscape.

“It’s difficult for judicial decisions to change things on the ground, and that’s where impacts are really needed,” Pinzauti told Mondoweiss. “I’m hoping that judicial decisions or pronouncements or advisory opinions will help shape state policies in a way that can make effect on the ground where it’s really, really needed … I think it can provide the foundations for a just and lasting peace.”

Even just the visual evidence [MUST SEE: Compelling text and pictures] is hard to interpret reasonably in any other way than that Israel’s bombings of civilian neighborhoods and buildings are intended to kill as many of the residents of Gaza as quickly as possible.

In short: The U.S. Government would be faced with a choice either to join with Israel in being rejected by virtually all countries, or else to abandon Israel to the international judgment that Israel is a global pariah — for America to cease-and-desist its association with Israel.

However: if the latter — abandonment — is to be the outcome of this, then how would the U.S. Government justify the 25,000-tons+ of U.S.-made weapons-and-ammunition it has already donated to Israel to carry out this genocide? If America is already well past the point where it is clearly a participant in what Israel has been and is doing to Gaza, then won’t America clearly be in a damned-if-you-do, and damned-if-you-don’t, change its position on Israel predicament — where the world’s abandonment of Israel will then inevitably rub off irretrievably onto the U.S.’s own “brand”? If so, then what else would be the likely consequence of this, than the end of the period since 1945 during which America was the world’s leading nation? Not ONLY would Israel lose its almost-only patron, but that only patron would no longer carry the international cloutthat it formerly did. The entire Western World would be shaken out, to becoming reputational dust.

The ultimate end of this story, for Israel, seems likely to be the end of the nation of Israel. The entire Trumanite program would then be shattered. Whereas FDR (and his advisors) had been quietly planning to blockBritain’s creation of a Jewish nation in Palestine, Truman passionately supported the British plan. He was the anti-FDR.

America has sunk itself in — so deeply into — being Israel’s top (and often only) patron, so that if Israel goes down, then the U.S. empire itself could likely terminate. The ignominy to Israel could do that: terminate the American empire.

This seems likely to be the moment in history when either the U.N. will be reformed into the vision that FDR had of it, or else it will become whatever it will, with no real leadership, and perhaps just hobbling along that way.