Henry A. Giroux
Cultural Critic and Public Intellectual

“Black Lives Should Matter” (187 Killed by police (KbP) as of 7/10/2016). Stats from Mapping Violence. Graphic by Rowan Wolf

The killing machine has become spectacularized, endlessly looped through the mainstream cultural apparatuses both as a way to increase ratings and as an unconscious testimony to the ruthlessness of the violence waged by a racist state. Once again, Americans and the rest of the world are witness to a brutal killing machine, a form of domestic terrorism, responsible for the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling who were shot point blank by white policemen who follow the script of a racist policy of disposability that suggests that black lives not only do not matter, but that black people can be killed with impunity since the police in the United States are rarely held accountable for such crimes.

Philando Castile

In the Castile case, the police fired into the car with a child in the back seat–a point rarely mentioned in the mainstream press. At the same time, the power of violence as a tool for expending rage and addressing deeply felt injustices has resulted in a young black man mimicking the tools of state violence by deliberately killing five police officers and wounding seven others in Dallas, Texas. This is a horrendous and despicable act of violence but it must be understood in a system in which violence is disproportionately waged against poor blacks, immigrants, Muslims, and others who are now defined as excess and pathologized as disposable. The killings in Dallas speak to a brutal mindset and culture of mistrust and fear in which violence has become the only legitimate form of mediation

In the increasingly violent landscape of anti-politics, mediation disappears, dissent is squelched, repression operates with impunity, the ethical imagination withers, and the power of representation is on the side of spectacularized state violence. Violence both at the level of the state and in the hands of everyday citizens has become a substitute for genuine forms of agency, citizenship, and mutually informed dialogue and community interaction.

Alton Sterling. Killed by Police in Baton Rouge 7/5/2016

Etienne Balibar has pointed out that “as citizenship is emptied of its content,”[i] the right to be represented is ceded to the financial elite and the institutions of repression or what Althusser once called the “repressive state apparatuses.” Under such circumstances, politics is replaced by a form of “antipolitics” in which the representative and repressive machineries of the state combine to objectify, dehumanize, and humiliate through racial profiling, eliminate crucial social provisions, transform poor black neighborhoods into war zones, militarize the police, undermine the system of justice, and all too willingly use violence to both to punish blacks and to signal to them that any form of dissent can cost them their lives. But such apparatuses do more, they willfully exclude and repress the historical memories of racial violence waged by both the police and other racist institutions.[ii] They have no choice since such histories point to the deeply embedded structural nature of such violence as a reproach to the bad cops theory of racist violence.

What we are observing is not simply the overt face of a militarized police culture, the lack of community policing, deeply entrenched anti-democratic tendencies, or the toxic consequences of a culture of violence that saturates every day life. We are in a new historical era, one that is marked a culture of lawlessness, extreme violence, and disposability, fueled, in part, by a culture of fear, a war on terror, and a deeply overt racist culture that is unapologetic in its disciplinary and exclusionary practices. This deep seated racism is reinforced by a culture of cruelty that is the modus operandi of neoliberal capitalism–a cage culture, a culture of combat, a hyper masculine culture that views killing those most vulnerable as sport, entertainment, and policy.

The United States is in the midst of a crisis of of governance, author­ity, and representation and as historical narratives of injustice and resistance fade there emerges a further crisis of individual and collective agency, along with a crisis of the identity and purpose regarding the very meaning of governance. As democratic public spheres disappear and the state increasing turns to violence to address social problems, lawlessness becomes normalized and violence becomes the only form of mediation. This is fueled by a discourse of objectification, and a race-based culture of pathology, which often finds expression not only in police violence but also in scattered mass shootings and a tsunami of everyday violence in America’s major cities, such as Chicago. Politics has been emptied out, lacking any representative substance, and opens the social landscape to the dangerous forces of right-wing populism and ultra-nationalism, both of which are deeply racist in their ideological discourse and their relationship to those excluded others.

Americans are witnessing not simply the breakdown of democracy but the legitimization of a society in the grips of what might be called a politics of domestic terrorism, a kind of anti-politics that rejects the underlying values of a democracy and is unwilling to reclaim its democratic tendencies while deepening its civic principles. The U.S. is deep into the entrails of an updated authoritarianism and until that is recognized under such circumstances violence will escalate, people of color will be killed, whites will claim they are the real victims, and the discourse of racial objectification will become, as it has, a visible if not embraced signpost of an anti-politics that defines the varied landscapes of power and institutions of everyday life.

The ultimate mark of terrorism both domestic and foreign is a hatred of the other, a certainty that defines dialogue, an ignorance that embraces the power of the mob and the redemptive force of the savior. As America moves dangerously close to embracing such an authoritarian social order and the politicians who endorse it, indiscriminate and intolerable violence will assume a kind of legitimacy that allows people to look away, refuse to recognize their own powerlessness, and align them with a barbarism in the making. All of this bears the weight of a history in which such indifference is easily transformed into the worst forms of state violence. The face of white supremacy and state terrorism, with its long legacy of slavery, lynching, and brutality has become normalized, if not supported by one major political party, a large percentage of the public endorsing Donald Trump, and a corporate and financial elite wedded only to increasing their power and profits. We are in a new historical era that is widening the scope and range of violence-an expansive age of disposability that widens the net of those considered expendable if not dangerous.

Some conservatives such as David Brooks have argued that the collapse of character and the rise of a form of political narcissism are producing deeply troubling forms of authoritarianism.[iii] That analysis is too facile, and ignores the underlying social, economic, and political conditions that concentrate power in very few hands, distribute wealth largely to the upper 1 percent, eliminate social services, and destroy those institutions capable of producing a culture of critique, empathy, and engaged citizenship. The old age of the social contract and social democracy is dead; the economic foundations that once supported large segments of the working class have been destroyed by the forces of globalization; and the promise of a collective ethical imagination has given way to the tawdry self-indulgence and self-interest that drives a consumer and celebrity culture. Not only have too many Americans become prisoners of their own experience, they also  have become passive in the face of state violence, a culture of extreme violence, and a web of mainstream cultural apparatuses that trade in violence as sport and entertainment.

Racism is one register of such violence, but in the age of cell phones and video cameras it has become more visible, and its brutalizing imagery contains the possibility for mobilizing social formations such as the Black Lives Matter Movement to both expose and eliminate its underlying ideologies and structures. At the same time, such blatant acts of racism offer a false sense of community to those being organized around hate and anger, resulting in a blind devotion to false prophets, such as Donald Trump, who trade in fear and despair.

Let’s hope that the current crisis we are witnessing as it appears to unfold daily will transform cries of collective outrage into a social movement that is organized around a call for economic and social justice, one less intent on calling for reforms than for eliminating a neoliberal economic order steeped in corruption, racism, and violence.

Notes.

[i] Etienne Balibar, “Uprisings in Banlieues,” Equaliberty, [Durham: Duke University, 2014] pp. 252

[ii] See, for instance, Jerome H. Skolnick, The Politics of Protest: Task Force on Violent Aspects of Protest and Confrontation of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence 2nd Revised edition (New York: NYU Press, 2010). Also see Jonathan Simon, Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

[iii] David Brooks, “The Governing Cancer of Our Times,” The New York Times, [February 26, 2016] Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/the-governing-cancer-of-our-time.html?_r=0

Cross-posted with CounterPunch.

Henry A. Giroux, Contributing Editor

Currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His books include: Zombie Politics and Culture in the Age of Casino Capitalism (Peter Land 2011), On Critical Pedagogy (Continuum, 2011), Twilight of the Social: Resurgent Publics in the Age of Disposability (Paradigm 2012), Disposable Youth: Racialized Memories and the Culture of Cruelty (Routledge 2012), Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013). Giroux’s most recent books are America’s Education Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013), are Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education, America’s Disimagination Machine (City Lights) and Higher Education After Neoliberalism (Haymarket) will be published in 2014). He is also a Contributing Editor of Cyrano’s Journal Today / The Greanville Post, and member of Truthout’s Board of Directors and has his own page The Public Intellectual. His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

Alexander Chopov, PhD
War in Ukraine – The Unreported Truth

The map indicates the location of NATO military facilities around Russia.

Alexander Chopov, PhD., directly confronts the clear military build up by NATO (and especially the US) to attack Russia. There is a growing narrative of war backed by placing of military assets around the borders of Russia. NATO war games with 28 countries participating with the (faux) enemy being Russia. I encourage you to visit our Russia Desk, and see the drum beat to war that it is impossible to dismiss, or we dismiss that the peril of millions of lives – including those in the US. In this edition of The Donbass Truth Channel.¹ [Rowan Wolf]

1 Donbass Truth Channel is a rebranding of Dr. Chopov’s original channel named War in Ukraine – The Unreported Truth.

Please consider donating to help defray the costs of producing these videos. It is a pure volunteer effort by Alexander Chopov and his crew. You may donate via PayPal at www.paypal.me/AlexChopov .

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

By Johannes Stern
WSWS.ORG

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he European Union has responded to the UK referendum vote to withdraw from the EU, and the resulting intensification of the political, economic and social crisis of Europe, by calling for the militarization of the continent and buildup of its internal security forces. Since the announcement of the result 11 days ago, a number of high-level foreign policy papers have been published that advocate the transformation of the EU into a military alliance with expanded powers of internal repression.

The hypocrite Federica Mogherini: One of the facilitators of future wars. Make a note of it.

At the first EU summit without British participation, held last Wednesday in Brussels, the 27 remaining EU government heads agreed on a paper authored by the EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, titled “Global Strategy for European Foreign and Security Policy.” At the heart of the paper is the argument that the EU must become an aggressive world power capable of intervening militarily and, if necessary, waging war independently of NATO and the United States.

The new global strategy document acknowledges the role of NATO in protecting the EU states from enemy attacks. Nevertheless, it states that Europe “must be better equipped, trained and organised to contribute decisively to such collective efforts, as well as to act autonomously if and when necessary.”

The document provides some insight into the measures being prepared behind the backs of the European population. Military capabilities are to be improved in a “concerted and cooperative effort.” That this will require a further diversion of resources from social needs is alluded to: “Developing and maintaining defence capabilities requires both investments and optimising the use of national resources through deeper cooperation.”

The paper makes clear that there is no geographical limit to the potential reach of an EU military force. The EU reserves the right to intervene not only in nearby regions such as North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, but anywhere in the world.

The declared interests of the EU include “ensuring open and protected ocean and sea routes critical for trade and access to natural resources.” To this end “the EU will contribute to global maritime security, building on its experience in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, and exploring possibilities in the Gulf of Guinea, the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca.”

The drive toward European militarism is pushed above all by Berlin. In an official statement released in recent days, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier expressly thanked Mogherini “for her commitment and vision in the joint development of the ‘Global Strategy.’” He was pleased to find “key elements of German peace policy in it.”

The thrust of Steinmeier’s “peace policy”—more accurately, war policy—is well established. Together with German President Joachim Gauck, he has been at the forefront of the campaign for German rearmament. At the Munich Security Conference in 2014, he declared that Germany was “too big merely to comment on world affairs from the sidelines,” adding that “Germany must be ready for earlier, more decisive and more substantive engagement in the foreign and security policy sphere.”

Then, on June 13 of this year, he published an article in Foreign Affairs magazine titled “Germany’s New Global Role,” in which he not only declared that Germany was “a major European power,” but also questioned the dominant role of the United States.

Kaplan’s immediate concern is that Brexit could undermine US preparations for war with Russia. “The more that Europe fractures,” he frets, “the less resolve there will be to invoke NATO’s Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all.”

Now, the Foreign Ministry in Berlin is using the UK referendum result to advance Germany’s great power aims. In a paper entitled “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties,” published last weekend by Steinmeier and his French counterpart, Jean-Marc Ayrault, the British withdrawal from the EU is hailed as an opportunity to focus “our joint efforts on those challenges that can only be addressed by common European answers.”

An inveterate warmonger, Kaplan, along with Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria, has been described by American journalist Glenn Greenwald as one of many prominent pundits advocating support for the Iraq War.[7] Source : salon.com

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Brexit vote and the latest German initiatives have alarmed leading representatives of US imperialism. Last Friday, Robert D. Kaplan, an influential member of the US foreign policy establishment and architect of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, warned in a column in the Wall Street Journal, “The returning geopolitical chaos is akin, in some respects, to the 1930s.”In the article headlined “How to Crash Putin’s Brexit Party,” he asserts, “… Brexit has undermined a key goal of British geopolitics going back hundreds of years: preventing any one power from dominating the Continent. Yet now Germany is empowered to do just that.”Kaplan sees the post-World War II alliance between the US, Britain and Germany in jeopardy. “Germany and Britain lately have been allies,” he writes, and “a long line of German chancellors, dating from Konrad Adenauer, have reflected Atlanticism and an understanding of Germany’s unique responsibilities to European peace and stability. Future chancellors may not.” Germany, he warns, “could strike a separate bargain with Russia or turn inward toward populist nationalism…”.Kaplan’s immediate concern is that Brexit could undermine US preparations for war with Russia. “The more that Europe fractures,” he frets, “the less resolve there will be to invoke NATO’s Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all.” His proposed counter-strategy: “Great Britain should reinvigorate its alliance with America. Acting together, the two nations can still project power on the European mainland up to the gates of Russia.”No one should underestimate the historical and political significance of such statements. One hundred years after the bloodbath on the Somme and 75 years after the launching of the German war of annihilation against the Soviet Union, the contradictions of capitalism are erupting once again, threatening to unleash a new world war between the great powers that would eclipse the horrors of the First and Second World Wars.The working class must adopt its own strategy to counter the efforts of the imperialist powers to save the capitalist order through war. As the International Committee of the Fourth International emphasized in its statement “Socialism and the struggle against war”: the anti-war strategy of the working class must be developed “as the negation of imperialist nation-state geopolitics,” basing its strategy on the unification and mobilization of its forces internationally to resolve the “global crisis through social revolution.”

---

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

=By= GH Eliason

Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) members showing their support for the Maidan revolt.

Voting blocs, smoting blocs, who gives a damn? I got bloc’d in traffic the other day! This is America and everybody has a “voting bloc!” What ya’ didn’t know they’re on sale at Walmart? Two for a dolla’.

Yah, I get it. Voting blocs are part of the American experience. What you may not get is that we are discussing two entirely different things.

When we look at American bloc voting it has been issue oriented about American civil rights, immigration, and American life. These are American issues brought front and center by American people, to be decided by and for American people.

Looking at the largest American bloc voter segments today we find “In the 2012 elections, African-Americans accounted for about 13% of total votes, while Hispanics accounted for about 10% of the electorate.”Add in the Asian-American bloc vote “…, that figure is nearing 6 percent and spiraling upward.

These represent what is purported to be the largest voting blocs in America today and yet, “Arab Americans make up about one percent of the US population, but many live in the swing states that could decide the White House race.” What’s really weird about this election is that Arab Americans are predominately Christian and traditionally voted Republican- oopsie Mr. Trump.

What’s different about the voting blocs I am describing is they could care less about American democracy or civil rights. As a matter of fact, they hate the idea of it.They were the constituency of governments in exile that served Nazi Germany in WWII. They are still ultra-nationalist politically and serve the foreign governments they set up when the Soviet Union collapsed.

If they were “democratic” would it not be reasonable to assume the countries they set up or helped set up and support would be democratic too? Their impulse to support nationalist countries is so overwhelming for them they could give a damn when Americans lose their lives in wars they start for their foreign governments…so be it.

Four short examples of this are the Polish presidential election of 2015, Ukrainian-American perceptions about themselves, the actual reason we fought the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the elections of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. People self-describe themselves clearly in their actions.

Remember 1+1 always=2. In 2015 Andrzej Duda was elected president of Poland. That sounds democratic. But president Duda is profoundly ultra-nationalist. This should be a problem for Poland, right? Well, no, Polish-Americans voted in that election and showed their true democratic colors. More than 80% of Polish-Americans voting, supported the Nazi, now president, Duda. The Telegraph called it the “Velvet Road to Dictatorship.”What would be a good start for a Nationalist/Nazi president of Poland?

How about Holocaust denial? I discussed in Part I that Polish-Americans make up 10% of America’s electorate on their own. In America, Polish-Americans that voted for Duda traditionally prefer to vote for the Democratic ticket.

Protesters enjoy their victory in the knowledge that Washington and NATO stand behind them.

In February 2015 I wrote an article about the illegality of Ukrainian-Americans supplying weapons to volunteer groups in Ukraine – weapons that were being systematically used for killing civilians. While most people are convinced that the US government supplied weapons and bullets to the Maidan Coup and afterward, it was in reality the Ukrainian-American Diaspora. Throughout their fund raising efforts in the US, they openly stated at the time that funding was going for weapons. They knew they were openly breaking Federal Law, yet the practice continues.

The Ukrainian Diaspora even acknowledged that this is illegal in their own publication linked below. “Supplies are all nonlethal equipment, as sending weapons would be illegal.”

This fund raising has been going on for the entire war in Ukraine, from Maidan onward. Open calls for weapons donation funding became common in American social media.

How do they self-identify? Did Adolf Hitler call himself a Nazi? Would Adolf Hitler be happy if you called him a Nazi to his face? Or was it how his enemy identified him? Are these Ukrainian-Americans Republican, Democrats, or Independents? Or Nazi? Do they believe in Democracy for Ukraine? For America?

Ivan Rodichenko is the founder and commander of the “Kiev Rus”, a “punisher battalion” operating in Donbas. The punisher battalions are not normal fighting battalions. These battalions normally only go into areas already captured  and search for “separatists.” They are responsible for many of the civil atrocities in Donbass.

Rodichenko met the president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) Mrs. Ivanka Zajac, and she began fund raising in New York on network TV. She also used her connections to introduce commanders like him who admit to committing atrocities to the US Congress, as heroes of Ukraine. Rodichenko’s battalion has been caught shelling homes in different areas of Donbas (see also Harress). It is noteworthy that the US government did nothing to shut down their fund raising.

According to the publication Ukrainian Diaspora Zajac is described as:

In the U.S., he had made a connection with Ivanka Zajac, 62, a nurse who is the president of the New York branch of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, an organization that represents all Ukrainians in the U.S. and one that is lobbying Congress to pass a law authorizing the supply of weapons to Ukraine from the U.S…Zajac is in some ways the archetype of an Ukrainian nationalist…”

In some ways? If you go to the official UCCA website, every group listed in member organizations were classified as Nazi organizations by the US government in QRPLUMB VOL1_0004. Let’s not forget the listings that openly celebrate the Ukrainian Nazi Waffen SS, Ukrainian Veterans of the 1st Division or the Brotherhood of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

Like all UCCA leadership, Zajac is first and foremost an “OUNb”  – Ukrainian ultra-nationalist. Because of her position she is naturally at the top of the food chain in the CEEC (Central and East European Coalition) organizing over 20 million election votes. But wait, how does America’s home grown voter blocs compare with them? Its a natural question. They don’t.

A natural outgrowth of the CEEC has been the Asian-American and Central American emigre blocs. From the 1950’s through the 80’s these countries rose and fell in election cycle importance through the Ukrainian nationalist World Anti-Communist League (WACL). For the American-Asian this culminated in 1972 when Richard Nixon was running for reelection.

Nixon was elected in 1968 with the 4th largest margin in election history. In 1972 his greatest fear was Chiang Kai-shek, the president of Taiwan, destroying his presidency and electability through the Asian-American emigres relationship to the CEE (Central Eastern European) emigres. How could this happen? It was the CEE bloc vote to begin with that got him elected by that margin. The Asian-Americans by themselves were less than 1% of the vote.

The real cause for both the Korean and Vietnam Wars was the role that CEE groups played in elections. The presidents of the United States of America during this period were afraid of what these groups could muster on American soil – with good reason. Today the same kind of nationalist views have become mainstream again if you just look around you. To paraphrase president Lyndon Johnson when he openly stated the reason for starting the Vietnam war, and then looking at actions of the other presidents in that time frame: “I am afraid of a Nationalist/Nazi takeover of the US government that would make “McCarthyism look like chicken-shit.”

Chiang Kai-shek and Stepan Bandera (CIA).

Seriously? Could it be true Stepan Bandera and Chiang Kai-shek were Nazi comrades? The proof is in the pictures. The next generations, unfortunately, stayed by the same political tree. The fact is, nationalist leaders from China to the CEE Diasporas all worked together. The  Ukrainian Yaroslav Stetsko (Stepan Bandera’s 2nd in command) showed them that even though they were relatively weak separately, united together they were a force that could not be ignored and had to be reckoned with.

When you combine the Black-Hispanic-Asian American voting blocs and subtract the pro-Contra (nationalist) factions and the pro-Taiwan (Chiang Kai-shek, South Korean, South Vietnamese) nationalists that are fringe outliers to the CEEC, the CEEC vote is closer to 20% of the total US vote, while the natural American blocs dwindle in voting power considerably.

This begs the question- Can a group without even enough of a population to count as a bloc be a bloc to reckon with today?

The answer came in 1980. They can if they become a cause celeb! The election of Ronald Reagan was due to pro-Contra CEE group funding. The entire Iran-Contra mess was initially put together by the CEE groups leader, Yaroslav Stetsko, leader of the Ukrainian emigres. Stetsko’s World Anti-Communist League (WACL) had two member states funding Ronald Reagan’s primary campaign, and then they (CEE) funded and organized it with him all the way to victory.

It’s the same for the Baltic states today. They are politically important because of the cause celeb. They are made out to be little David against Russia’s Goliath.

• There was a recommendation for NATO to engage as an alliance in ongoing wars – specifically in Ukraine, Georgia, Libya, and Syria – under the hypothesis that failure to engage weakens the effectiveness of the alliance’s deterrence efforts. There was disagreement on whether NATO needs to publish Russia’s specific violations.
• The CEEC believes it is time to establish permanent NATO bases in the Alliance’s eastern member states, since any objection has been removed by Russia’s war on Ukraine…In the face of Russia’s aggressive actions NATO …In 2014, the Russian Federation forcibly annexed Crimea …Russia’s war on Ukraine and continued escalation of armed conflict threatens both Ukraina’s independence and the welfare of tens of millions of Europeans. A strong, coordinated military force is essential to stop Russia as it continues to destabilize its neighbors and disrespect international rules. ..Russia’s intimidation of the Baltic countries must cease.
• Support the establishment of permanent NATO bases in these front-line countries to assure their security. Bases currently used by NATO for training and supply purposes in Central Europe should be made permanent and re-focused to territorial defense;
• The Kremlin’s propaganda campaign justifies its aggression by claiming that NATO has broken its promises to not pursue enlargement and is in the process of aggressively encircling Russia.  This therefore poses a serious threat that Russia is justified in defending in the interest of its citizens…the panelists agreed that the West needs to push back in the face of Russia’s disregard of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

How did all this pan out for them? SCORE!

The war game, titled Anaconda-16, will take place in Poland ahead of next month’s NATO summit in Warsaw, where officials are expected to approve permanent troops to be stationed in the country and throughout eastern Europe, to combat what they consistently refer to ‘Russian aggression.’

Every Eastern and Central European country today that was part of the Spring of Nations including the Baltics, Poland and Ukraine has a past and present tied to ultra-nationalist politics. The Warners of Warner Brothers Picture fame emigrated to escape the 1880’s murder and rape at the hands of Polish Nazis one year before Adolf Hitler was even born. Warner would go on to fight Fascism and Nationalism through film.

“When I first came to Lithuania 22 years ago to try and help convince the local authorities to bring unpunished Lithuanian Nazi war criminals to trial, I tried to convince them that such proceedings were the best history lesson to help their society honestly deal with Lithuania’s bloody Holocaust past. Unfortunately, those efforts were only very partially successful, and now that fight for historical truth must continue without the advantages provided by the prosecution of local killers.” -Dr. Efraim Zuroff

Where does modern Lithuanian ultra-nationalism come from? In their own words-“ …the birth of nationalism (and of ethnic consciousness) occurred simultaneously in America and in Lithuania. Further, he believes that such a development would not have been possible without Lithuanian-American contributions.”..“Jonas Šliūpas himself, one of the prime movers of nationalism in the United States.” The CEE(Central & Eastern Europeans) have all been the largest promoters of nationalism in government in the USA for the last 50 years.

Pound for pound the vote from the Baltic’s is symbolic, but their influence on Russia policy is huge. The emigre influence is so great in the Baltic States some have gone over and served as Presidents. Can you imagine being so dedicated to “freeing the old country” as an American, you decide to take over the presidency there? What started as anti-communist showed its true light when the “wall” came down. Russia was the new old enemy. American and other emigre populations were the true citizens of those countries.

In this light, Estonia still hasn’t ratified a border with Russia in all these years. What would be the reason why? (emphasis mine)

“According to Russian analysts, they need to wage one more little victorious war in order to keep the euphoria alive — or carry out some sort of foreign policy operation and make Russia’s situation in the international arena even more complex in order to show voters that they really are under siege,” said the center’s director. “An unratified border treaty with Estonia may play some kind of role in such a combination which we are yet unable to picture.”

Perhaps they should read Ukrainian- American scholarship a little more closely as both countries are aligned at the hip these days, nazis and all. Professor Moytl, a Ukrainian-American nationalist, thought at the time statements like this were ok.

“Although the possibility of war is not as far-fetched as one would like it to be, it would not work to Ukraine’s disadvantage. Indeed, the emergence of a genuinely hostile Russia would translate into Ukraine’s rapid integration into European economic and security structures and its concomitant transformation into a client state of the United States. As an East European version of South Korea, Ukraine would become the recipient of large-scale Western–in particular, American–military and economic assistance that would guarantee its stability,if not its prosperity…. Russia’s aggressiveness, therefore, could be Ukraine’s salvation . ” [See Alexander J. Motyl, “Will Ukraine Survive 1994?” in the Harriman Institute Forum, Vol. 7, No. 5 (January 1994), p. 4.]

The unratified border serves as a friction point to start a war Estonia cannot fight. Help us NATO! Which candidate do the Baltic states and emigres support for president?

“Because of her “hawkish” approach towards Russia, she would most likely step up the rhetoric against the country when in the Oval Office. This would work well for the Baltics, especially Lithuania,” the analyst underlines. “She is kind of a bellicose person. Hillary Clinton supported the war in Iraq and wanted US intervention in Libya.”

One plus one equals two.

Russia’s response to all this is amazing and not something you see much of in today’s world. It’s the kind of statement governments across the world should take note of when they claim the high ground.

• The Russian Response

“After World War II we tried to impose on many Eastern European nations our model of development and we did it through force. We must acknowledge that. There’s nothing good in it, it still affects us today…The Americans are doing something like that now, trying to impose their model on virtually the entire world. They will fail too.”– Vladimir Putin, 2015 Q&A

What do the Baltic emigres want? Lithuania along with the other Baltic states are trying to light the flames of war between the US and Russia. At the same time, they celebrate their home grown Nazi heroes. Are they or have they ever been democratic?

I’ve started to wonder if the high degree of propaganda in the US is to keep you in line or keep them in line. As we all found out this primary season your vote didn’t have enough dollars attached to it to make a difference. The only way to combat this right now is to get people to vote. The more people that do, the less effective they are. Election reform, anyone?

_____

Part 1: Inside The Secret Super Majority that Decide Election 2016 & War with Russia

Part 2 (this article): The 2016 Super Bloc Vote Part II  Unleashing David vs the Russian Goliath

Part 3: Election 2016 Emigre Super Blocs Part III – How the Emigres Function

Part 4: The 2016 Super Bloc Vote Part IV:Emigre Super Bloc – Clinton’s Jihadis

Part 5: Emigre Super Bloc Part V: The Failed Turkish Coup – An Exploded View.

Part 6: Emigre Super Bloc Part VI: “Gulen-Gate” Islamic Terrorists Descend on the Democratic National Convention

GH Eliason lives in Ukraine. He writes content and optimizes web based businesses across the globe for organic search results, technical issues, and design strategies to grow their business. He used to be a large project construction specialist. However, when Fukushima happened it became known that I was a locked high rad specialist and a penchant for climbing. He was paid to climb a reactor at a sister plant to Fukushima 3 because of a 1 million dollar mistake. His work since then has essentially been in  project safety.

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

Dispatches from Eric Zuesse

Crossposted at The Saker

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n Tuesday, June 14th, NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V “collective defense” provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. The preliminary decision for this was made two years ago after Crimea abandoned Ukraine and rejoined Russia, of which it had been a part until involuntarily transferred to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. That NATO decision was made in anticipation of Ukraine’s ultimately becoming a NATO member country, which still hasn’t happened. However, only now is NATO declaring cyber war itself to be included as real “war” under the NATO Treaty’s “collective defense” provision.

Source : sodahead.com

NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer, this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her U.S. State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian’s then snooping into the U.S. State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the U.S. President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the U.S., trigger NATO’s mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the U.S. government in going to war against Russia, if the U.S. government so decides.  

NATO had produced in 2013 (prior to the take-over of Ukraine) an informational propaganda video alleging that “cyberattacks” by people in Russia or in China that can compromise U.S. national security, could spark an invasion by NATO, if the U.S. President decides that the cyberattack was a hostile act by the Russian or Chinese government. In the video, a British national-security expert notes that this would be an “eminently political decision” for the U.S. President to make, which can be made only by the U.S. President, and which only that person possesses the legal authority to make. NATO, by producing this video, made clear that any NATO-member nation’s leader who can claim that his or her nation has been ‘attacked’ by Russia, possesses the power to initiate a NATO war against Russia. In the current instance, it would be U.S. President Barack Obama. However, this video also said that NATO could not automatically accept such a head-of-state’s allegation calling the cyber-attack an invasion, but instead the country that’s being alleged to have perpetrated the attack would have to have claimed, or else been proven, to have carried it out. With the new NATO policy, which was announced on June 14th, in which a cyber-attack qualifies automatically as constituting “war” just like any traditional attack, such a claim or proof of the target-nation’s guilt might no longer be necessary. But this has been left vague in the published news reports about it.

NATO had produced in 2013 (prior to the take-over of Ukraine) an informational propaganda video alleging that “cyberattacks” by people in Russia or in China that can compromise U.S. national security, could spark an invasion by NATO, if the U.S. President decides that the cyberattack was a hostile act by the Russian or Chinese government.

It’s a hot issue now between Russia and the United States, and so, for example, on the same day, June 14th, Reuters headlined “Moscow denies Russian involvement in U.S. DNC hacking”, and reported that, “Russia on Tuesday denied involvement in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee database that U.S. sources said gained access to all opposition research on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

In previous times, espionage was treated as being part of warfare, and, after revelations became public that the U.S. was listening in on the phone conversations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, espionage has become recognized as being simply a part of routine diplomacy (at least for the United States); but, now, under the new NATO policy, it might be treated as being equivalent to a physical invasion by an enemy nation.

US-supplied Apache attack choppers. Source : payam-aftab.com

At the upcoming July 8th-9th NATO Summit meeting, which will be happening in the context of NATO’s biggest-ever military exercises on and near the borders of Russia, called “Atlantic Resolve”, prospective NATO plans to invade Russia might be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus plan for the entire alliance. However, even if that happens, it wouldn’t be made public, because war-plans never are.

The origin of this stand-off between the U.S. and Russia goes back to promises that the West had made in 1990 to the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, not to expand NATO up to the borders of Russia, and the West’s subsequent violations of those repeatedly made promises. Gorbachev disbanded the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact, on the basis of those false assurances from Western leaders. Thus, Russia is surrounded now by enemies, including former Warsaw Pact nations and even some former regions of the Soviet Union itself, such as Ukraine and the Baltic republics, which now host NATO forces. NATO is interpreting Russia’s acceptance of the Crimeans’ desire to abandon Ukraine and rejoin Russia following the 2014 Ukrainian coup, as constituting a showing of an intent by Russia to invade NATO nations that had formerly been part of the Soviet Union and of the Warsaw Pact, such as Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia; and this is the alleged reason for America’s Operation Atlantic Resolve, and the steep increase in U.S. troops and weapons in those nations that border on Russia. 

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable