Intelligence agencies clash with Trump over Russia allegations


horiz grey line

tgplogo12313

By Tom Eley
WSWS.ORG

Only one month into his administration, and two days after the ouster of his National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump faces the growing prospect of congressional investigations into alleged ties to Moscow. Powerful sections of the American ruling class are seeking to put the US on a war footing against Russia in a campaign orchestrated by the major intelligence agencies, acting through their preferred media conduits, the New York Times and the Washington Post. 

16 February 2017

The crisis deepened on Wednesday, with the Post and Times claiming new revelations based on unnamed current and former intelligence sources, and leading Senate Republicans joining Democrats in calling for a congressional investigation into Trump’s alleged connections to Russian intelligence agencies, both prior to and after the November election.

Meanwhile, figures in and around the Democratic Party began to allude to impeachment, drawing comparisons to the Watergate scandal—the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee—that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon.

Trump responded Wednesday by publicly attacking the intelligence agencies he nominally directs, declaring the leaks to the Times and Post “illegal” and “criminal” at a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He made similar comments earlier in the day in a Twitter post, raising the prospect that the White House could attempt to organize a purge of the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency (NSA).

“From intelligence, papers are being leaked, things are being leaked,” Trump said at the White House appearance with Netanyahu. “It’s a criminal action, criminal act, and it’s been going on for a long time before me, but now it’s really going on.”

The litany of unsubstantiated allegations of Russian control over Trump continued. The lead Times report Wednesday cited “four current and former American officials” in claiming “that Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election,” while Wednesday’s lead Post article cited a seemingly endless list of unnamed sources, including officials “who spoke on the condition of anonymity;” “current and former US officials;” “officials inside the National Security Council;” “several… senior officials… who discussed the sensitive matter on the condition of anonymity;” as well as unnamed “Senior Obama administration officials.”

In neither the Times nor the Post is a single source named. No statement is independently corroborated. No further evidence is presented beyond the anonymous statements themselves—along with broad accusations over “Russian interference” in the US elections, which are presented as fact.

It is now well established that Flynn’s December 29 phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak—in which the incoming national security adviser reportedly indicated that sanctions targeting Russia would be reviewed by the Trump administration—was secretly recorded by the NSA.

There would be nothing illegal in such a discussion, and numerous historical precedents exist, some of them far more egregious than the claims being made about Flynn’s call—including the notorious instance of Reagan campaign officials intervening to prevent the release of US hostages in Iran until after the November 1980 election.

Scummy warmongering politicos like Lindsey Graham, another gift to the nation from South Carolina, are a clear and present danger to all of humanity. If people would only realize who and what these men represent, their treatment would be drastically different. But that’s why we have a whore media, to keep us from realizing who the real enemy is.

Instead, the intelligence agencies seized on the conversation to drive out Flynn, who advocated a temporary understanding with Russia so that the US could quickly move against Iran, and potentially China.

The NSA shared the transcript of the Flynn call with the FBI. At some point, multiple unnamed intelligence agents then shared the transcript with the media, as well as politicians and government officials. By last weekend, the transcript, which the White House refused to allow Flynn to review, was circulating widely in Washington. Flynn tendered his resignation on Monday evening. A concession from the Trump administration to the anti-Russia campaign, Flynn’s ouster only emboldened it.

The intervention of the intelligence apparatus against Trump has become so heavy-handed that on Wednesday it brought a warning from conservative writer Eli Lake, who supported Hillary Clinton in the general election.

“Normally intercepts of US officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets,” Lake wrote on Bloomberg. “This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.”

The warfare within the ruling class is being waged along a front that extends from the intelligence agencies through the Republican Party and into the Trump White House itself—as evidenced by the number of leaks coming from “current administration officials.” It is notable that Vice President Mike Pence, who would assume the presidency if Trump were to be impeached or resign, has been kept above the fray by all sides in the conflict.

Tuesday brought an ominous signal that the military brass may become involved. In a breach of democratic norms, Army Gen. Raymond Thomas, commander of US Special Operations forces—including the Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets—commented on the controversy that day.

“Our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil,” said Thomas, in evident reference to the departure of Flynn, while speaking at a public event in Maryland. “I hope they sort it out soon because we’re a nation at war.” Later when given an opportunity to clarify his comment, Thomas instead reiterated it. “As a commander, I’m concerned our government be as stable as possible,” he said.

Two leading Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have indicated support for the formation of a special committee to investigate the alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

In an appearance on Good Morning America, Graham announced his support for a full investigation into the Trump administration, carried out by an extraordinary “joint select committee.”

“If it is true, it is very, very disturbing to me, and Russia needs to pay a price when it comes to interfering in our democracy and other democracies,” Graham said. “And any Trump person who was working with the Russians in an unacceptable way also needs to pay a price.”

Graham came to the political essence of the controversy when host George Stephanopoulos, quoting Thomas Friedman of the Times, asked the senator, “What is going on between Donald Trump and the Republicans?”

“Trump is an outlier when it comes to the Russians,” Graham responded. “I do not know one Republican senator who believes Russia is anything but an enemy… I can’t explain Donald Trump’s view of Russia.”

Graham’s views were echoed by Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who told MSNBC’s Morning Joe program, “Let’s get everything out as quickly as possible on this Russia issue … maybe there’s a problem that obviously goes much deeper than what we now suspect.” Corker also questioned whether or not “the White House [is] going to have the ability to stabilize itself.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan have both accepted as fact alleged Russian “interference” in the US election. They have called for investigations by the regular congressional committees, while stopping short of acceding to demands for the formation of a special investigative committee.

Democrats, meanwhile, have begun to raise the possibility of impeachment.

“This is already bigger than Watergate,” said Democratic National Committee senior adviser Zac Petkanas, in a statement. “The sanctity of our democracy demands an immediate, independent, transparent investigation into the connections between Donald Trump, his staff, and the Russian government.”

There are many problems with this fallacious comparison. But there is one fundamental difference. In 1972 Richard Nixon used illegal methods to harass and discredit political opponents, at a moment when leading sections of the Democratic Party, adapting to mass popular anger, had presented themselves as opponents of the war in Vietnam. Responding to this mood, the Washington Post and the New York Times investigated Nixon’s abuses, uncovering the Watergate scandal that lead to the resignation of Nixon, and ultimately, the end of the Vietnam War.

Forty-five years later, the Times and the Post, serving as mouthpieces of the CIA, are leading the charge against Trump from the right, not to accommodate mass popular antiwar sentiment, but for the opposite purpose, to help prepare the political conditions for war with Russia.



NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP CLICK HERE

 The author is a senior analyst with wsws.org, a socialist organization. 


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. 

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationWhat will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?


black-horizontal

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Please see our red registration box at the bottom of this page

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary. In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.

horiz-black-wide
REMEMBER: ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal

THE GREANVILLE POST

For media inquiries contact us at greanville@gmail.com




Zmiana, Piskorski, and the Case for Polish Liberation

FRONTLINENEWSLOGO-2


Jafe Arnold
Senior Correspondent/ Eastern Europe


Main image above: Mateusz Piskorski poses in front of a  Zmiana flag


[dropcap]B[/dropcap]ut Piskorski has been behind bars for more than nine months, and on February 7th he was sentenced to another three, despite the fact that no official charges, indictment, or evidence have been presented. Zmiana, meanwhile, has to this day still been refused registration as a political party. At the time of this article’s writing, the mass media has launched a new campaign denouncing Zmiana for being “linked to ISIS” on the grounds that one of its leaders is Syrian-born and supports the Palestinian liberation struggle.

What is Zmiana? Who is Mateusz Piskorski? Why are they so feared and repressed by the Polish regime whose ruling party is so hypocritically named Law and Justice? The answers to these two questions are long overdue for Western readers.

In Polish, zmiana means “change.” Zmiana’s first programmatic declaration after its founding in February, 2014 reads: “Change – we all want it! […] Our goal is a change of politics, not a cosmetic surgery, but a deep uprooting of the disgraced structures of the anti-social system. Change means replacing this system with a new order built for the people and by the people. Citizens must once again have control over their destiny and have the final say in public affairs.”

For Zmiana, change means regaining Poland’s sovereignty from the clutches of the US, NATO, and perfidious transnational corporations, and using Polish sovereignty to guarantee dignity, justice, and livelihood to Poles. Only on this basis, Zmiana affirms, can Poland play a peaceful and constructive role in international relations.

“But,” the uninformed but well-intentioned Western reader will ask, “didn’t Poland already regain independence and justice when communism fell?” Zmiana, like nearly half of Poles according to the most extensive surveys, would say “no” or “not exactly.”


Zmiana protests US troops in Poland. Sign reads: “No foreign troops!”


The topic of the People’s Republic of Poland is an entirely unfamiliar one in the West. Perhaps the only “milestone” of the period known to American readers is its overthrow largely contributed to by the “trade union” Solidarity. Of course, the “detail” is omitted that Solidarity was infiltrated and funded to the tune of $10 million by the CIA and itself remains one of the single most scandal-riddled entities in Polish history which subsequently betrayed Polish workers to brutal austerity, privatization, and Western corporations in the blink of an eye. Rather, the history of socialism in Poland is one of a country ruined by war and genocide rebuilt into an industrial power whose wealth was used to guarantee Polish workers socio-economic guarantees unknown to people in the West. The socialist experience in Poland displayed all the gains of 20th century socialism for nation-building and popular welfare. Against all odds, Poland not only re-emerged on the map, but made a comeback as a country in which illiteracy was rapidly eradicated and employment, housing, education, healthcare, leisure, and other socio-economic conditions written off in the West as “privileges” were guaranteed to all Polish citizens by law. In terms that are impossible to understate, within two decades of the Second World War, life expectancy for Poles skyrocketed from 46 in the 1930’s and 25 (!) during the war to 70. Not only was People’s Poland a Poland of reconstruction and attaining new socio-economic and scientific heights, but it was a defining period in which the post-war generations built from scratch a Poland here to stay whose development benefitted not a minority of capitalists, but its working people who played an active role in determining their country’s future and wealth. Despite all of the problems which later plagued Polish socialism, it was a Poland of growth and social justice unparalleled in its history.

After 1989, not only were these socio-economic rights stripped away, but the very foundations that made them viable or in the very least potentially achievable were demolished.

To let Poles speak for themselves on this matter, according to a Pew Research survey, a hefty 43% of citizens over 40 (i.e., those who lived at least two decades in the People’s Republic of Poland) say that Poles are economically worse off now, and a considerable 25% of Poles ages 18-39 say the same. Poles who say life is “about the same” account for another 25%. While this may stand out as less favorable compared to other former socialist bloc countries’ assessments of life under and after socialism, it still speaks volumes, especially in contrast to the ruling elite and the media’s daily slandering of anything and everything in Poland before 1989.

With the collapse of the Polish People’s Republic and Poland’s entry into the Washington-dictated European Union and NATO, Poland did not “regain” sovereignty, much less justice, but forfeited such to the Atlanticist project. Poland was transformed from a country of growth into a country of self-destruction. Every year, college-educated Polish youth emigrate en masse in search of a livelihood only to end up as a cheap labor source for Western corporations. Poland itself, meanwhile, has been de-industrialized, and thus deprived of the capacity to pursue independent and effective social and economic policies which in People’s Poland were guaranteed and, even if not always realized, remained the goal.

On the level of foreign policy, Poland has been encouraged to work against its own interests and security by purposefully aggravating relations with its Eastern neighbors and participating in US wars of aggression. Now, with the deployment of thousands of US-NATO troops, tanks, and missile systems on its soil and the Polish government’s relinquishment of jurisdiction over foreign armed forces on its territory, Poland is de facto under occupation. This occupation is not a mere taxation on Poland’s national budget – it is an undeniable liquidation of sovereignty and inevitably turns the country into a direct target and battlefield in the US’ provocative war on Russia.  Mateusz Piskorski admits: “Comparing these two periods, whether we like it or not, it turns out that things are in favor of People’s Poland.” Zmiana’s General Secretary, Tomasz Jankowski, has cogently compared the supposedly “patriotic” Polish regime’s invitation of US-NATO occupation to Duke Konrad Mazowiecki’s invitation of the Teutonic Order to Poland in 1226, a move perpetrated under the pretext of thwarting threats from the East that ended in embroiling Poland in war with its Teutonic “protectors” for two centuries.

In a cogent appeal to uphold Polish sovereignty, Jankowski wrote: “[D]ear compatriots, it’s not the Russians who are going to occupy us now – they left here voluntarily 24 years ago. It’s not the Russians that have ravaged Polish industry since 1989. It’s not the Russians that have stifled Poles with usurious debt. Finally, it’s not the Russians that are responsible for the fact that we have become the easternmost aircraft carrier of the United States anchored in Europe. We ourselves, who failed by allowing such traitors into power, are to blame for this.”

Zmiana, therefore, rejects the current objectification of Poland and is committed to regaining Polish sovereignty and affirming a Polish raison d’etat. This manifests itself on three main fronts.


1. Multipolarity and the geopolitics of peace

Mateusz Piskorski brandishes a Polish flag at the Russian memorial to the Katyn Massacre during a Polish-Russian reconciliation initiative.

[dropcap]P[/dropcap]oland as a state has disappeared from the map more than a handful of times in history, at one time for more than a century. For Zmiana, therefore, it is time to learn history’s lesson: the Polish people must base their security on friendly relations with all countries, especially their more powerful neighbors. Poland cannot afford to base its security on fulfilling the whims of a foreign power, and it cannot afford to pursue an imperial mission which pits it in a war against all. Both such traditions in Polish history have led to catastrophe and are illogical and counterproductive in the changing geopolitical and cultural arrangement of the 21st century.

In the 21st century, Poland’s bet is therefore on multipolarity and peace. This does not mean relinquishing “Polish interests,” however they might be defined (more on this below), but means realizing that Poland offers a unique place on the map and in the heritage of Europe and Eurasia, and should strive to preserve its integrity by playing the role of a constructive partner in mutually beneficial relations. In today’s conditions, according to Zmiana’s foreign policy program, this means that Poland must exit NATO and “engage in the construction of a European Security System from Vladivostok to Lisbon.” Otherwise, Zmiana says, “NATO’s geopolitics turns Poland into the foremost staging point in Eastern Europe aimed against the nuclear power that is the Russian Federation.” By exiting NATO, Poland frees itself from the “guarantee of war” offered by the alliance in North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, and by engaging in a common security project involving both Europe and the burgeoning Eurasian Union, Poland can promote mutually-assured peace from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In order to play a sovereign role in any such project, Zmiana’s program posits that Poland must develop its own military capacity. Intertwined with this is Zmiana’s demand to withdrawal Polish boots from all the places that the US and NATO have dragged them, refuse the purchases and contracts which keep Poland’s armed forces tied to the Pentagon, and ensure that Polish soil will never again be home to CIA torture facilities. Zmiana’s program clearly states the need for “an unconditional ban on the stationing of any foreign armies or military installations on the territory of the Republic.”

A Zmiana poster: “We don’t want American bases and rockets”

Contrary to the commonly held misconception, Zmiana is not unconditionally anti-European Union. Rather, Zmiana believes that the current European Union – characterized by submission to Washington, binding to NATO, neo-liberal economic policies, an interventionist Brussels bureaucracy, etc. – needs to be reformed, as do Poland’s association agreements with this union. In the words of Piskorski from a televised debate that has since disappeared from the internet, Zmiana wants “more Europe in Poland” – not a Washingtonian and Brussels Europe, but a “Europe of Fatherlands” and “Social Europe,” i.e., a “construct intended to provide benefits to all member-states, not the extension to the continent of the interests of a global hegemon from across the ocean and the dictatorship of the European Commission.” Instead, Zmiana stands for genuine European integration, for an independent, unified Europe based on sovereign countries seeking positive, productive relations with other countries and blocs, not confined to rubber-stamping enslaving agreements like the TTIP or CETA.

In Piskorski’s words: “The European Union requires deep reforms and transformation from a neo-liberal club for the rich politically subordinated to Washington into an independent, integrated bloc closely cooperating with the Eurasian Union. Beside this, the EU should return to a European social model which offers every citizen of each of the member states a defined sense of social and economic security.”

Thus, Zmiana’s program affirms: “Considering its geographical location, Poland can be a transit country, a bridge linking East and West, and this assures a favorable attitude towards the development of good, neighborly relations with major and minor entities in the region.”

Only such a Polish foreign policy outlook can work to assure Poland itself and other countries hitherto hindered opportunities and a peaceful and multipolar world order in the conditions of the 21st century. This stands in stark contrast to Poland’s current role as an agent provocateur of Washington. On this basis, Zmiana has firmly replied to all of those detracting it as “pro-Russian” with the argument that Zmiana is pro-Polish and, intimately inseparable from this, pro-peace.


2. Historical justice and rediscovering Polishness

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]ne of the main props of the Polish elite and obstacles standing in the way of an independent Polish consciousness is rampant historical revisionism – so rampant, that in Poland it almost no longer appears to be a “revision,” but the norm. Piskorski has identified this as NATO’s long-term campaign against historical memory. This new norm of Polish historical revisionism is predicated on two main angles, (1) transferring the blame for all of Poland’s historical difficulties onto foreign actors and consequentially (2) identifying disfavored incarnations of the Polish states as “not-Poland” or even an “anti-Poland.”

This anti-historical crusade is waged by a massive network of government and non-government institutions in an attempt to rewrite history to justify Poland’s present foreign and domestic policies. The ultimate aim is presenting Russia as meta-historically, existentially antagonistic towards Polish statehood (Russophobia at its finest) and annulling any criticisms of the Polish elite as anti-Polish and therefore pro-Russian. Freedom of speech and historical debate thus, as indicated in NATO’s new doctrine on combatting “Russian hybrid war” in Eastern Europe, are to be suppressed as inherently “destabilizing.”


Its offices were raided by the Internal Security Agency on May 18, 2016. The agents even confiscated Polish flags.
Click on the bar below to examine the photographic evidence.

Zmiana's offices raided by Poland's Internal Security services. Click here.


[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he nurturing of mass cognitive dissonance among Poles is astonishing. While monuments to the liberation of Poland by the Soviet Red Army and Polish People’s Army are being systematically, physically dismantled, government campaigns promote the new line that the so-called “Accursed Soldiers” (armed anti-communist gangs during and after the Second World War) are the real liberators, even though there is nothing to show for this. Meanwhile, bestselling “histories” by the infamous Piotr Zychowicz promoted endlessly in bookshops and print media push the thesis that “if only Poles had sided with the Nazis,” then Poles would have “won” the Second World War. The logic here is clear: it is Russia, then incarnated in the USSR, that was/is existentially antagonistic towards Poles, while the Nazis’ designation of Poles as a subhuman race of slave laborers slated for ultimate extermination is merely a detail. What about the suicidal Warsaw Uprising of 1944 that ended in the Nazis’ near total punitive extermination of Warsaw’s population? Well, that’s Stalin’s fault, of course! What about the Polish People’s Republic? It wasn’t socialist Poland, but a “Russian occupation!” What about the tragic Smolensk airplane crash in 2010 that took the lives of much of then Polish officialdom? According to government ministers today, there can be no question that the Russians orchestrated it. What about the massive genocide against Poles at the hands of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators during the Second World War? The Russians organized it, Poland’s “defense” minister claims. No matter the fact that Ukrainian neo-Nazi leader Dmitry Yarosh, whose neo-Nazi paramilitaries were trained, armed, and funded by the Polish government, has openly said: “As for the Poles, we’ll do them a second Katyn massacre.”

The above are merely a handful of the monstrous distortions of Poland’s history that are not only repeatedly drummed into Poles through the education system and the media, but have received official government backing and funding as part of a deliberate campaign. Russophobia, extracted from particular historical conflicts between different incarnations of the Polish and Russian states, is elevated to the level of official ideology – to such an extent that it may very well soon turn out that Poland has had no history, because Russia has taken it all.

Zmiana adamantly opposes this manipulation of history or, as its program frankly calls it, “brainwashing for ad hoc political interests.”

“The first step towards the real sovereignty of the Polish people will be the moment that we stop assuming that our history is first and foremost dependent on external actors, and instead that we are responsible for our choices,” Zmiana’s General Secretary writes.

Jankowski continues: “We will be independent when we stop complaining to the Lord God about evil Russia, despicable Prussia, and treacherous Austria, and when we start seeing the reasons for the partitions in the weaknesses of the then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Our independence will manifest itself when we stop regrettably remembering the Second Republic and Marshall [Pilsudski] ‘for wanting to do good but the commie maggots and Nazis didn’t allow him,’ and when we accept defeat in the Second World War as the result of the flawed doctrine of ‘two enemies’ adopted, as if from above, by Warsaw. Our thinking will be Polish thinking when the Warsaw Uprising will be seen as a failure not because the Red Army didn’t come to help, but because we ran at tanks with pistols. And finally: Poland will be Polish when we will want to build HER security, and not the ‘Eastern Flank of NATO’ or the ‘Western world’ with the ‘help’ of the Americans.”

Programmatically, the most important point of Zmiana in this regard is mobilizing Polish society’s intellectual capacity to openly debate history and its lessons and applications. Specifically urged in Zmiana’s program is establishing grants and public venues for young and non-establishment scholars, liquidating the infamous propagandistic Institute of National Remembrance, regulating the status of relevant NGO’s, and in their place “convening councils in which historians from our country will work to achieve a common understanding of the difficult stages in the history of relations with our neighbors.”

The fight for historical justice, or justice for history, is Zmiana’s great Gramscian battle. Without independent thinking, there can be no independent Poland.


3. Social justice as the key to sovereignty

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]ut Polish independence, and Poland itself, is impossible without the prosperity of the Polish people. Zmiana, therefore, – let’s call things by their names – is anti-capitalist. Zmiana not only wields its own affiliated trade union, the Zmiana Workers Unity Free Trade Union, which has done more to win gains for Polish workers in the last two years than the mythologized unions that sold out People’s Poland’s wealth over to a handful of oligarchs, but Zmiana also boasts a concrete and ambitious socio-economic program.

Zmiana’s trade union leader speaks on International Workers Day, 2016

Poles must not be the subjects of big foreign capital, Zmiana urges, and the systematic liquidation of the industrial base that the generations of socialist Poland built from scratch on the ruins of the Second World War is depriving Poland of any future and Poles of dignity and livelihood. The post-socialist GDP growth lauded by the media and the regime’s audits, in Zmiana’s opinion, has not gone to benefit Polish workers or towards a sustainable economy. Piskorski explained in an interview: “More than 5,000 enterprises employing more than 1,000 people each were built out of the rubble of war between 1945 and 1989. After 1989, most of them were liquidated and in their place appeared only 500 new ones which violated workers’ rights and were owned by foreign capital.”

Zmiana’s program contains dozens of concrete, immediate policy proposals aimed at improving the livelihood of the majority of working Poles. But the most qualitative intended to empower the Polish working class and guarantee Poland a sustainable, just economy boil down to the following: (1) introducing the category of inalienable collective property into the constitution, (2) establishing a People’s Property Fund to coordinate the nationalizing and putting of strategic economic sectors on a planned basis, (3) withdrawing from the perfidious IMF and World Bank, (4) establishing development plans in coordination with representative workers’ unions, and (5) establishing a Reindustrialization Fund and a state-guaranteed Employment Fund. With these proposals, Zmiana strives to return Poland’s wealth to its people and unhinge the country’s political-economy from the whims of its anti-national, anti-social, and anti-Polish elite whose billions were made by expropriating the economy of former People’s Poland. Only by orienting Poland’s economy on a sustainable and just foundation can other spheres of the country’s life, such as education, healthcare, and environmental protection, be revived. Zmiana’s program stands out from other political parties’ “who are we and what do want” platforms by providing concrete budget estimates for the first five years of a potential Zmiana-led government. This, in Piskorski’s words, is a sine qua non for proving Zmiana’s accountability to Poles and a bold statement that “we are ready to exercise governance in Poland already today” beyond mere populist rhetoric. According to Zmiana’s program, this is a firm rebuff to the “constitutional fraud claiming the ‘realization of the principles of social justice’ and a ‘social market economy’” at the hands of which nearly 40 millions Poles have suffered since 1989.


Zmiana: Work, Peace, Patriotism


In short, Zmiana’s detailed socio-economic program is a testament to its affirmation that only a Poland of, by, and for Poles can resolve the infinitely posed “Polish question.” In a Zmiana Poland, there will be room for parasitic elites and the dictates of foreign capital.


The Piskorski Case as a symptom

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t is no coincidence that Zmiana has been targeted with outright political repression for this revolutionary vision for Poland and Poles and the protests it has led. As Piskorski proudly declared: “We will not complain, because it is obvious that the establishment reacts to us as a virus which could potentially lead to illness and death. We were aware of this from the very beginning…We will certainly not let them forget about us.”

Piskorski is a case and point of this. Two days after he publicly warned that US-NATO troops now have a mandate to suppress Polish dissent on the grounds of combatting “Russian hybrid war,” he was snatched up by armed agents of Poland’s Internal Security Agency while taking his children to school on May 18th, 2016. He was promptly imprisoned in Warsaw, where he remains with no formal charges to this day.

Mateusz Piskorski is a veteran symbol of resistance to Poland’s colonization. A doctor of political science, professor of international relations, and geopolitician who co-founded the European Center for Geopolitical Analysis, Piskorski first rose to prominence as the up and coming youthful parliamentarian of Poland’s Self-Defense Party. Often described as a “populist” party, Self-Defense became the “protest party”, the only major Polish political force opposed to Poland’s NATO membership and adamantly defending Poland’s ruined farmers and defenseless workers. Piskorski rose to become an advisor to the party’s famous anti-establishment leader and his own mentor, Andrzej Lepper. Frighteningly and symptomatically enough, this icon of opposition to Poland’s post-1989 course was found dead in 2011. The official version calls the incident a suicide, but inconvenient theories and unsettling coincidences abound alleging that Lepper’s death was far from his own initiative. In his prison cell today, Piskorski is supposedly writing a book on this scarring incident that claimed the life of one of Poland’s leading critical politicians.

Piskorski’s activism and intellect have made him an icon in more than just Poland. Across the post-Soviet space, he is revered as one of the few sober Polish political voices, and his expertise has been welcomed at nearly a dozen election monitoring missions and countless academic conferences.

Piskorski launched discussions on founding Zmiana in 2014 when, returning from monitoring the referendum on Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and joining the Russian Federation, he was urgently convinced of the need for a new anti-establishment party capable of preventing a Ukrainian disaster scenario from gripping Poland. Piskorski recalls: “I had dozens of meetings and lectures in various regions of the country. We held discussions with very different people and everyone insisted that expert and journalistic activities should come around to politics. In this sense, Zmiana is an entirely grassroots movement.”

However, Piskorski has no intent of claiming the part for himself. “It is not my personal project,” Piskorski told Fort Russ several months before his imprisonment, “but a response to the specific needs of Polish society. I became the party’s face only because of the recognition and controversy which I aroused many years ago as a parliamentarian.” Instead, he says, Zmiana has a greater purpose: “The place of the party on the political scene is currently the role of the anti-system opposition, not only criticizing the current reality (as protest movements do), but also proposing a completely new system in the economic sphere, social policy, ownership structures and international relations.”

For consistently leading Zmiana’s protest movement and personally striving for rapprochement between Poland and its eastern neighbors, Piskorski is now 21st century Poland’s first political prisoner. From prison, he has written compelling letters warning against Poland’s relegation to a WWIII battlefield and urging Poland’s anti-establishment forces of both right and left to unite to save Poland from impending catastrophe.

It is no coincidence that this article is being written in English for Western audiences. As Piskorski told the author in November 2015, Poland’s colonization has led to Western voices of protest being treated with infinitely greater respect and influence. While an open letter to the Polish president signed by European Parliament deputies and demanding Piskorski’s release was shamelessly ignored by both the government and the media, there is still the chance that international attention and pressure can compel Poland’s authorities to resign from their desperate attempts to keep one of Poland’s most concerned citizens, critical scholars, and influential opposition politicians behind bars.

Indeed, as dramatic geopolitical shifts and political revolts continue to grip Europe and the United States, there is the possibility that Poland’s ruling elites will have the rug ripped out from under their feet. For the time being, a man is in jail on no charges and his party is barred from democratic processes. This political repression in itself is a testament to the burning need and importance of (C)hange.

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP CLICK HERE 

   JAFE ARNOLD, Assistant Editor & Correspondent, Eastern EuropeJafe Arnold (J. Arnoldski) is an American expat studying European history and culture at the University of Wroclaw, Poland. Formerly an activist on the American left, he is currently a research fellow and Polish liaison for the Center for Syncretic Studies, a translator and editor at Fort Russ, and the founding editor-in-chief of Eurasianist Internet Archive. Besides translating unique analyses from Russian and Polish for English-language audiences, Arnold’s interests and expertise include geopolitical processes and ideological developments in Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet space.


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. 

horiz-long grey



black-horizontal

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

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal




Lithuania Demands More Foreign Troops on Russia’s Border to Counter Russian Troops Inside Russia


horiz grey line

tgplogo12313

Matthew Allen
RUSSIA INSIDER


WNot acceptable. 


Russian aggression has become so ubiquitous that even when Moscow holds defensive military drills inside Russia as a response to foreign soldiers massing on its borders, this is a form of aggression.

This is actually an example of aggression within aggression, because really the first act of Russian aggression was when it created a country called “Russia” in the first place.

We know this because Lithuanian president and NATO milk maid Dalia Grybauskaite says so.

Dalia Grybauskaite with John Kerry: Guess who put such stupid ideas in her head, besides being a natural Russophobe? And who’s egging her on?

Grybauskaite is fairly confident that Russian aggression inside Russia will destroy her country, which of course is next in line for Russian annexation. Because if there’s one thing Russia needs more than anything right now, its a pointless war for a useless blob of Baltic dirt inhabited by people like Dalia Grybauskaite.

Luckily Lithuania has a leader brave enough to speak truth to power:

Lithuania’s president Dalia Grybauskaite warned the Zapad 2017 joint military drills are a clear indication that Russia is preparing for war. And she appealed to NATO for more military aid in preparation for what could be ‘the biggest Russian war game in Europe’. 

She also sought more assurances European Union allies would come to the aid of the Baltic states, amid fears Vladimir Putin is attempting to annexe them

We see that risks are increasing, and we are worried about the upcoming ‘Zapad 2017’ exercise, which will deploy a very large and aggressive force on our borders that will very demonstrably be preparing for a war with the West.” This means that we will be talking with NATO about creating additional standing defence plans, about stationing additional military means and about creating a faster decision- making process.

What a staggering lack of self-awareness. You don’t like your neighbor conducting military exercises inside its own borders? How would you feel if a hostile army from the other side of the world was zooming around in tanks, just a few kilometers away from your territory?

We get it. Lithuania hates Russia.

But under what circumstances would it be prudent for Russia to launch an unprovoked invasion of Lithuania? And if the upcoming Zapad exercises are so distressing, maybe it would be wise to ask why Moscow believes it is necessary to conduct them?

Sorry, this is not a “what came first, the chicken or the egg?” scenario.

NATO expansion and saber-rattling came first. It would be nice if Washington and its client states could at least own up to this.



NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP CLICK HERE

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. 

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationWhat will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?


black-horizontal

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Please see our red registration box at the bottom of this page

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary. In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.

horiz-black-wide
REMEMBER: ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal

THE GREANVILLE POST

For media inquiries contact us at greanville@gmail.com




The “Polish Question” at a Crossroads


horiz grey line

tgplogo12313

By Jafe Arnold





printable-letter-holyunion-o ver the past several months, the geopolitical role of Poland in relation to the war in Ukraine and Eurasian and European integration projects has once again become an increasingly frequently visited topic. On the one hand, recent presidential and parliamentary elections in Poland have reshuffled the posts of the ruling Atlanticist oligarchy, thereby compelling prominent political issues to be revisited by representatives of the political elite in public debates, PR campaigns, policy deliberations, etc. This has once again brought the acute problems facing Polish statehood and the Atlanticist domination of Poland’s political, economic, cultural, and information spheres into the spotlight. 


On the other hand, in addition to a mere rehashing and repetitive exposure of Atlanticism in Poland, recent political developments including the final electoral defeat of the post-socialist Left, the ascent of the Law and Justice party to power, the rise and entanglement of new oppositional forces, the reemergence of nationalism, and the steady but sure growth of anti-Atlanticist initiatives in various spheres, have threatened to transform the framework of Polish political and geopolitical discourse. In short, the crucial questions of Polish statehood, geopolitics, and civilizational identity are once again up for debate, and their reemergence within the context of the heightened confrontation between the Eurasian and Atlanticist projects present various new opportunities, paradigms, paradoxes, and questions which deserve analysis.


Poland under Atlanticist hegemony

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]ny analysis of the status of Poland as a nation-state and its geopolitical role in relation to ongoing events must begin with a recognition of the fundamental reality that Poland is the Atlanticist beachhead and stronghold in Eastern Europe. Immediately following the collapse of the Polish People’s Republic in 1989, Poland was swiftly brought into the Atlanticist project in order to realize the century-old dream of a nominally neutral but in fact Atlanticist-hegemonized cordon sanitaire separating Europe and Russia. Although swathes of Poland’s hoodwinked population were bribed and coaxed with such “benefits” as fast-track NATO and EU memberships, increased access to Western consumer goods, and participation in various “prestigious” international organizations, the real cost of Poland’s induction into the Atlanticist project, despite being harkened by its orchestrators as a “victory” of Poland’s “European development,” has been devastating in a number of crucial areas.

full-1611619-1449479437

Before proceeding to outline the main spheres in which the Atlanticist subjugation of Poland manifests itself, the ruling Atlanticist elite as a whole deserves brief examination. Unlike in some other countries in which the political elite is more or less compelled or bullied by the United States through a variety of semi-colonial mechanisms into abiding by the Atlanticist project, the contemporary Polish oligarchy is not a mere object of Atlanticist rule. It is thoroughly Atlanticist and comprador itself. Its very ascent to power in the wake of the collapse of the Polish People’s Republic inherently meant the liquidation of the foundations of an independent Polish economy, the total surrendering of foreign policy to Washington, and a voluntary abstaining from pursuing Polish national interests identified to the east of the country.

The Atlanticist political elite in Poland legitimizes and justifies its voluntary submission to American hegemony on two grounds: a glaringly evident Russophobia and the “road to Europe” paradigm. The Polish elite rests its case on the myth widely propagated by Western media that Russia is an eternal aggressor. No matter what Russia as a state does, its actions are inherently aggressive and motivated by a supposedly innate Russian drive for world domination. Mateusz Piskorski has correctly pointed out that the Polish elite’s slogan of legitimacy can be boiled down to the words of Roman Dmowski: “They hate Russia more than they love Poland.”

This hysteria, which is fueled by a manipulation on discourse on Poland’s turbulent history with its large eastern neighbor, is paired with a political and academic paradigm which portrays Poland within the presumptuous lens of the “road to Europe.” In this predominant perspective, it is taken as a given that Poland is “part of Europe,” meaning that Poland is an integral part of “Western Civilization” which is essentially identified with Atlanticism. In this view, Poland was always a member of Western Civilization and a rightful member of the Atlanticist project, albeit one merely obstructed from the full realization and embracement of its nature by malicious forces of the East, primarily the “big evil,” Russia, and its oppressive Eurasian Civilization. Poland’s entry into NATO in 1999, the European Union in 2004, and its assimilation of nearly all Western institutions, such as the free-market economy and liberal democracy, supposedly represent the long-awaited historical fruition of Poland’s natural affiliation with and innate drive towards Europe. In much of contemporary discourse on Polish history and statehood, the starting and ending point of analysis is this mythical, Atlanticist conception of “Europe.” Paired with Russophobia, this propagandistic historiography forms the cornerstone of the Polish oligarchy’s Atlanticist “legitimacy” and its grip on power.


In relation to Ukraine, the Polish oligarchy has pursued decisively anti-Polish policies. The Polish state has supported the reign of Ukrainian nationalist forces who are the direct heirs to the ideology of the criminals responsible for the genocidal murder of hundreds of thousands of Poles during the Second World War.


 This ideology of Poland’s Atlanticists seeks to whitewash the crucial fact which deserves recapitulation and recognition that is the occupation of Poland by NATO. Atlanticist Poland is a Poland once again, for the umpteenth time in history, occupied by foreign forces. The presence of NATO, and principally of American soldiers, in increasingly large numbers on Polish soil is perhaps the most direct expression of Poland’s Atlanticist colonization. This does not only represent an aggressive violation of previous agreements between Russia and NATO. In fact, NATO’s presence on Polish territory bears all the characteristics of a conventional occupational force. Laws such as those concluded in the SOFA agreement prevent the prosecution of American troops for various crimes, allow US military infrastructure to ignore Polish construction and environmental regulations, and permit US soldiers to brandish firearms wherever they wish, even beyond the perimeters of their bases.

us-poland

Yanks on Polish soil. Supposedly by invitation.

These laws in effect allow American soldiers to have a free hand despite the fact that they are notorious for war crimes across the globe, have more than once demonstrated their disrespect for local European laws and the ease with which they avoid prosecution for acts of violence, theft, vandalism, etc. Poland’s “membership” in NATO and its occupation by foreign armed forces also entails direct economic penalties. Included in the SOFA agreements is an article which allows Americans stationed in Poland to import foreign currency without restrictions or declarations which obviously has a number of crucial implications for the Polish economy and for “granting” of privileges to foreign intruders.

The main economic repercussions of NATO occupation, however, manifest themselves in “tribute” and inflated military spending. Since the Newport NATO summit in 2014, the US has effectively pressured NATO countries to raise their defense spending to a minimum of 2% of GDP expenditure, a large portion of which is to be devoted to bolstering NATO. The American military-industrial complex’s lobby in Poland, however, extracts a much larger tribute, with the Polish defense budget claiming 2.27% of GDP and the Polish state making massive weapon and equipment purchases from the US on credit. GDP expenditures associated with supporting the occupation force and the American military-industrial complex, if slashed, could save the Polish state budget up to 10 billion zloty (or 2.3 billion euros), per year The Polish oligarchy’s Russophobia and the Western-propagated myth of Russian aggression play a momentous role in “justifying” support for the NATO occupation force and constant increases in defense expenditures entailing ambitious credit-based purchases of American arms. Poland’s participation in the illegal aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and its hosting of similarly illegal CIA torture sites on its territory are additional hallmarks of Poland’s cynical utilization as an armed beachhead for the US and NATO.

The Atlanticist nature of the Polish elite and NATO occupation have dragged Poland into a number of conflicts and adventures which directly contradict Polish interests. Indeed, Poland’s foreign policy is scripted in Washington. From the very onset of “independence” in 1989, Poland was expected to abandon any and all interests in, claims to, or potentially beneficial relations with the countries to its east with which Poland shares important economic and cultural ties. One particularly telling example is that of Poland’s former eastern lands, the Kresy, which now make up significant portions of the states of Belarus, Lithuania, and Ukraine. After these territories were annexed to their respective Soviet republics in 1939, a horrific genocide waged by Ukrainian nationalists against the Polish population of the Kresy, and the organization of population exchanges after the Second World War, Poles were finally guaranteed restitution and constructive dialogue over such crucial issues as repatriation, property recompensation, and various other legal matters on the basis of bilateral agreements with these states. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the advent of the new Atlanticist elite in Poland, and the manipulation of Poland within the framework of the Atlanticist project in Eastern Europe, Poland was expected to withdraw any territorial claims, Poles were practically denied any opportunities to seek restitution, and the complex of inter-personal, political, and economic relations with these states was not only neglected but sabotaged and buried under the dirt of Poland’s new patrons’ interests in utilizing Poland as their attack dog against the Eurasian project.

To this day, the issue of the Kresy remains unresolved even in the most elementary legal terms and nationalist sentiments evoked by the controversy of the Kresy play an important role in fueling and informing various pseudo-nationalist ideologies which threaten to disrupt the project of Eurasian integration. It is no accident that the most ferocious and aggressive form of Ukrainian nationalism, even in its contemporary incarnation, has its birthplace in the Kresy. The “Kresy question” is utilized to simultaneously disadvantage and deprive Poles of a role as conscious geopolitical actors in addressing their historical connections to the eastern lands. Additionally, this keeps Poland as an undemanding and subservient nation-state exclusively interested in conforming to a purely “Western” Atlanticist identity, and has the potential to provoke national and ethnic conflicts whose explosion would have a number of destructive consequences and implications for any kind of Eurasian, continental project.

KS-Logo-transparent-20140414

The same can be observed regarding Polish-Belarusian relations. Poland was driven into the front ranks of the Atlanticists’ political, economic, and information crusade against this country which, unlike many of the other post-Soviet states, pursued its own course of independent, Eurasian development and managed to avoid the economic and socio-political catastrophes which many Eastern Bloc countries, including Poland, suffered from during the course of Atlanticization. The deep cultural and economic ties that Poland and Poles have with Belarus were denied potential fruition in the new conditions of the post-Soviet space. Instead of supporting naturally close and friendly relations, the Polish oligarchy, following the orders of its Western masters, has assaulted Belarus with an hysterical information war of propaganda, sanctions, political subversion, and spoiled diplomacy. To this day, Polish-Belarusian relations remain volatile and many potential opportunities for economic cooperation, cultural exchange, and other mutually beneficial relations remain purposefully sabotaged.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he case of Ukraine is perhaps even more telling. In relation to Ukraine, the Polish oligarchy has pursued decisively anti-Polish policies. The Polish state has supported the reign of Ukrainian nationalist forces who are the direct heirs to the ideology of the criminals responsible for the genocidal murder of hundreds of thousands of Poles during the Second World War. Poland has not only shared information with but also provides financial, military and diplomatic support, to the fascists that seized power in Kiev in 2014 and which proceeded to wage civil war against the east of the country. It has also acted as the attack dog, or war hawk, within the EU and NATO on policy towards Ukraine and Russia. Specifically, Poland has supported harsher sanctions against Russia, an increased NATO presence in Eastern Europe under the pretext of “Russian aggression,” the designation of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics as terrorist organizations, and has actively undermined attempts at conciliatory efforts with Russia. Moreover, multiple sources have provided evidence that a Ukrainian Fifth Column within Poland is active not only in the information sphere but also within governmental agencies and social organizations. Perhaps no other example elucidates more clearly the anti-Polish orientation of the Atlanticist regime than its financial and military support for Right Sector, the leader of which famously proclaimed that Ukrainian nationalists are eager to prepare a second Katyn for Poles.

Besides a complete lack of independence in foreign policy, Poland’s domestic sphere is just as stained.  The limited independence in economic and foreign policy that Poland enjoyed as part of the Eastern Bloc has been replaced by comprehensive Atlanticist exploitation and diktat. The formidable industrial foundations of the Polish economy constructed in the post-war period were effectively liquidated in waves of privatization and closures similar to those seen in other Eastern Bloc countries following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Between 1945 and 1989, around 5,000 enterprises employing more than 1,000 workers each, emerged from the rubble of the Second World War. This wide industrial base was replaced with a meager few hundred companies owned by foreign capital after 1989.

PRL_tabliczka

A political-economic analysis reveals that Poland represents little more than a semi-colony whose function is to provide a cheap labor reservoir for Western corporations. Colonized by Western corporations and engaged in bolstering its own occupation, Poland is rendered incapable of formulating its own economic policy, pursuing its own strategic economic interests, and implementing social and welfare policies anywhere near those previously guaranteed. Moreover, Poland’s sanctions against Russia have plunged Polish agriculture, the “breadbasket of Europe,” into recession. Poland’s billion dollar agricultural exports to Russia have collapsed, with Polish fruit farmers losing up to 317 million euros, or 61% of their exports to non-EU countries, meat exporters losing 162 million euros or 20% of non-EU trade, and dairy farmers suffering losses amounting to 142 million euros or 32% of non-EU exports. Unable to sell apples to Russian markets as in the past, Poles literally gave away apples to occupying American soldiers, accumulating enormous losses to the tune of millions of euros.

Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 21.31.17

Such hardships resultant of Polish Atlanticism, however, are hidden or ignored in Poland’s mass media, and it is precisely in the information sphere that the Atlanticist regime wields enormous control. The vast majority of media outlets which are not owned by or connected to the regime, (which accordingly propagate the Atlanticists line and are especially active “participants” in the information war against Russia) are owned by Western capital and media magnates and primarily by notorious American and German corporations. “Polish” media, in fact, is the most aggressive and ambitious one in the Atlanticist information war. On the other hand, non-Atlanticist media sources are subject to censure and blockade, as was the recent case with Sputnik Polska. This phenomenon, however, is nothing new and is parallel to the same problem of information distribution in many other countries, and therefore doesn’t warrant particular investigation here.

The general situation of Poland under Atlanticist hegemony is clear. Poles have been left with little more than the choice of which Atlanticist parties they wish to be ruled by and the pace at which Atlanticist policies are to be inevitably realized. In addition, the gradual molding of an American-modeled “pop-culture” and rampant consumerism have aided the cementing of Atlanticism in Poland in the ideological and cultural spheres.


Political developments and the rise of “nationalism”

[dropcap]H[/dropcap]aving established a general picture of the Atlanticist subjugation of Poland, its basic indices, and the nature of the Polish oligarchy as a whole, the details of recent political developments in Poland become can be integrated into a more coherent picture. The most significant of these, of course, include the election of Andrzej Duda as president, the ascent of the Law and Justice (PiS) party to power, the decisive electoral defeat of the post-socialist left represented by the United Left coalition, the apparent resurgence of nationalist movements, and the founding of the new anti-Atlanticist party, Zmiana.

In mainstream Western analytical circles, the recent change in government has been described as a “shift to the right” and has been presented as an “ultranationalist” revanche of anti-EU conservative forces that catapulted Law and Justice into power. Mainstream media in various European countries has whipped up hysterical fear of a new “ultranationalist” government in Poland hell-bent on stalling Poland’s EU integration and reflective of a general growth of “far-right extremism” across Europe.

This perspective is largely an exaggeration and sees a single tree rather than the forest. While it is correct in its placing of Law and Justice to the “right” on the liberal-democratic political spectrum, it fails to recognize that the so-called “soft Euroscepticism” and “conservative values” of Law and Justice not only do not alter its fundamentally Atlanticist nature, but are in fact a ploy in perpetuating the obscuring of Poland’s thoroughly Atlanticist elite. Just like Civic Platform, Law and Justice is subordinated to Washington’s hawks and takes no second guesses in supporting anti-Russian policies on the international level and enthusiastically aiding fascist forces in Ukraine. Moreover, Law and Justice’s conservative face, which is usually identified with Catholic fundamentalism and pays lip-service to Polish nationalism, seems to have deceived just as many analysts at it has Polish voters.


c35e88e4-7d3a-11e4-9af6-0025b511226e

Polish President Andrzej Duda with PiS party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski.

In reality, the temporary electoral triumph of Law and Justice is not the transformative force or  dramatic about-face which some analysts have claimed it is. As Boyan Stanislavksi has pointed out, the Polish political arena is arguably even more oligarchical, bleak, ritualistic, and feigned than the American two-party system. Law and Justice is just as fundamentally Atlanticist at its core as the formerly ruling Civic Platform (PO). Anti-Russian warmongering, ultimately suicidal economic and diplomatic moves, and subservient neo-liberal mimicking of Poland’s colonizers can be expected from any PiS government just as predictably as from a PO one.

However, the nuance which manifests itself in this year’s Law and Justice victory is not a “shift to the right,” but rather a quite possibly carefully engineered victory of PiS for the purpose of co-opting and neutralizing a growing “nationalist” movement in Poland which, unlike PiS, can indeed be linked to the growth of “right-wing extremist” elements on the European political scene.

Over the past several years, grassroots nationalist initiatives have gained more momentum than Poland’s semi-colonial regime is comfortable with. An increase in incidents of physical violence against foreigners, homosexuals, and the growing popularity of slogans denouncing “the dictatorship of Brussels,” the “Islamization of Europe,” and calling for a “Poland for Poles,” paired with patriotic clichés, have gradually brought what were formerly marginal anti-EU voices into the political mainstream. However, unlike other right-wing resurgences in Europe which have clearer political programs and even anti-Atlanticist undertones, the new wave of Polish nationalism represents an amorphous mass whose prejudices and contradictions expose the dire political situation of Atlanticist Poland in particular and the confusion of the “Polish question” itself. 

The individuals, groups and their mass followings which can be associated with this movement cannot seem to decide amongst themselves if the problem is the contemporary Evil Empire, the USA, the old “Evil Empire”, Russia and the “lesser dictator” in the form of Brussels, or if Poland’s contemporary system is overall satisfactory with the “problem” being mere “undesirable” groups such as Muslims, Jews, or homosexuals. They demonstrate an uncertainty as to whether or not it is more “Polish” to hate Russia and Ukraine or to support the Ukrainian perpetrators of their own people’s genocide to spite Russia. In the meanwhile, they are content with recycling old clichés which are in fact already monopolized by the ruling regime’s ideology and pay lip service to Catholic fundamentalism as “Polish culture,” a thesis which has historically been propagated by Atlanticism in stressing Poland’s “Western” identity. Accordingly, the result has been a “march of patriots” whose directionless marching displays decisively pathological, reactionary, and infantile tendencies. It goes without saying that this movement lacks any genuinely constructive proposals. Nevertheless, by the sheer number of the youthful forces and its accelerating aggressive outbursts (indicative of its own anxiety), this growing movement has proven to be a force worth reckoning with. Moreover, this is one force that if not co-opted by the regime, can be co-opted by anti-Atlanticist forces or spiral into chaos and ultimately produce some form of lumpen, vulgar fascism instead.

The co-option of this movement was precisely the task of PiS. Relying on its “conservative” image and banal anti-EU sentiments while employing a “strategy of silence” by avoiding to touch on the sharp issues, such as Ukraine, which the nationalist mobs themselves are incapable of resolving, PiS won the vote of the average Polish nationalist whose allegiance proved to be the minuscule percentage advantage over PO. The remnants of the Polish Left, conglomerated within the United Left alliance, and the new party Razem (Together), failed to address this trend at all. The pitiful condition of the Polish labor movement and the Left’s failure to address the fundamental problems of Polish Atlanticism caused their copy-and-paste social-democratic pleas  to fall on deaf ears for the last time.

The move to neutralize expanding nationalist initiatives with the victory of PiS appears to have been a calculated plan of the Polish oligarchy. With PiS in power, the masses of “nationalists” at the annual independence day march in Warsaw on November 11 – despite managing to draw a significantly larger number of participants than in earlier years – found themselves disoriented and engaged in mere ritual. How could the march chant denunciations of a PO government when such a government no longer existed? How could participants demand the liquidation of the remainder of leftist forces when the left had been decisively defeated? Moreover, the mild Kulturkampf of PiS on social issues such as homosexual marriage and abortion as well as its opposition by inertia to accepting immigration quotas for Poland has seemingly satisfied what would otherwise be radical oppositional demands by the stirring nationalist pool.

What has emerged is somewhat of a paradox resultant of the dialectics of the situation. While PiS has appeared to coax the burgeoning “patriotic” wave, new actors on the Polish political scene have seized the initiative to utilize this misdirected patriotic sentiment, as well as the crisis of the left, to call the very Atlanticist paradigm in Poland into question. The most important of these is Zmiana (Change), a new political party that has been slandered by Poland’s oligarchical and Western-owned media as a “Russian Fifth Column” on account of the genuine threat which it poses in exposing and constructively opposing the Atlanticist ideological, political, and economic paradigm in Poland.

zmiana_ekran

Zmiana is a distinctly syncretic force which strives to overcome the traditional left-right dichotomy and has the potential to unify the best elements of the anti-Atlanticist left and right in a front for social justice, national liberation, and a multi-polar world. Zmiana is perhaps the most promising new initiative which has sought to expose and confront the current paradigm for the masses of Poles who lack a representative oppositional force in the political arena and are in danger of being co-opted in the wake of false “patriotic” forces or rendered irrelevant in the context of a collapsed left.  Zmiana is not just another populist party. Its political program draws from a rich history of political syncretism in Poland and it seeks to put the question of Poland’s geopolitical identity and its role in the world back on the table using the critical perspectives of both left and right. Zmiana, moreover, is backed up and reciprocally reinforced by a growing number of independent news services that threaten to undermine the Polish oligarchy’s tight grip on information monopoly.


The Polish question once again

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n aiming to better orientate the knee-jerk, reactionary forces seen in nationalist crowds or the recycling of old slogans from the Polish People’s Republic and social-democratic banalities on the left, new initiatives and groups such as Zmiana are acting as catalysts in transforming political discourse in Poland. Their efforts are not only part of a global syncretic ideological project, but are crucial in challenging the foundations of the Atlanticism in Poland in the midst of ongoing political transpirations. PiS forms the perfect target since its pseudo-nationalist pretensions can be exposed and thereby reveal the fundamentally Atlanticist nature of the Polish oligarchy obscured by the liberal-democratic myth of “competing parties” and “left vs. right.”

Polish geopolitics is in crisis. The Atlanticist paradigm has reduced Poland to an object of geopolitics instead of being a subject. And this subjugation of Poland has had negative consequences for the Polish people and has turned a supposedly finally independent Poland into an attack dog in the name of anti-Polish interests. But what are “Polish interests?”

Decades of Atlanticist rule have smothered the potential to re-investigate, clarify, and discover the Polish raison d’etat and Poland’s historical geopolitical role and identity in an emerging multi-polar world. The Atlanticist paradigm is a spit in the face of the reality that Polish statehood and the historical path of the Polish identity are vastly more complex than constantly presented. While one can easily accept the reality that Poland now stands, or alternately is held, within the camp of the Atlanticists, one could argue that this outcome is the temporary result of a rich, turbulent, violent, and undetermined history of a people who only emerged in the nation-state form in 1945. Poland’s identity, like other nation-state products of WWII-era agreements and the subsequently established order, is still in flux and open to question.

Poland’s unique geopolitical condition and its rich historical dilemma on its identity between East and West, offer the potential to position Poland as a bridge between the heart of the Eurasian project and Europe. In a multi-polar world, Poland has the potential to play a role bridging European and Eurasian integration and realizing its controversial yet undeniable identity in a constructive way. Moreover, the liberation of Poland from the confines of Atlanticist hegemony would simultaneously threaten the Atlanticist rule in the Baltic countries and send shockwaves through its Western neighbor, reinvigorating a European continental project and undermining Atlanticism’s beachhead in Central and Eastern Europe.


polski-lejek-1


In doing so, Poland could also pull in its wake the Visegrad group of the Central European states into an integration project based on common values, shared history, and economic ties. If Poland fails to re-address its situation and the Atlanticist elite continues to drive Poland into a suicidal crusade against Russia and its neighbors, yet another partition of Polish lands in one form or another could once again prove to be the “solution” to European and Eurasian political tensions which, as history shows, would only create further issues. No hotheaded nationalist movement would be able to stop or respond to such a debacle.

The battle against the falsification and distortion of Polish history in the service of the “road to Europe” paradigm is becoming increasingly relevant. The recent electoral sweep of PiS, the emerging “nationalist” factor influencing and demanding responses from the Polish oligarchy, the defeat of traditional left and right parties, the increasingly harmful effects of Atlanticist policies, the emergence of new anti-Atlanticist projects taking a stand for the “Polish idea” on the basis of a syncretic ideology, and the heightened confrontation between the Eurasian and Atlanticist projects in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, provide a fertile context for a new political discourse in Poland and the “Polish question.” 

Analysts ought to realize the re-emergence of the “Polish question” in the sphere of geopolitics and integrate it into a larger understanding of the crisis of the European Union, Atlanticist hegemony in Europe, and the contours of a multi-polar world that are increasingly drawing themselves out and putting a state such as Poland at the center of a number of geopolitical intersections. The cordon sanitaire is showing signs of a worsening sickness whose cure is once again up to debate. “Curing” Poland is urgently becoming one of the cornerstones to transforming Europe and forging a multi-polar world.

The Polish translation of this article can be found at wolnemedia.net

Original article published in two parts at Gianalytics.org



NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP CLICK HERE

The protean Jafe Arnold is a senior editor and translator at Fort Russ and the Center for Syncretic StudiesHe is also Editor-in-Chief at Eurasianist Internet Archive, from January 1, 2016 to present.  All of these sites are fraternal sites.

MAIN IMAGE: Nationalist demonstration in Poland. 


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. 

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationWhat will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?


black-horizontal

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Please see our red registration box at the bottom of this page

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary. In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.

horiz-black-wide
REMEMBER: ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal

THE GREANVILLE POST

For media inquiries contact us at greanville@gmail.com




U.S. Senators Are Even More Neoconservative than Are Trump’s Appointees 

horiz-black-wideDispatches from Eric Zuesse
pale blue horiz


The confirmation hearings for the members of incoming President Donald Trump’s national-security team showed that neoconservatism dominates the U.S. government today: neoconservatism didn’t end after George W. Bush’s alleged certainty that “Saddam’s WMD” existed in 2002, turned out to have been merely an excuse — not an authentic reason — to invade Iraq, and so to spread death and mass-misery (as every invasion does). These confirmation hearings, in fact, made clear that virtually all of Congress is neoconservative — at least as much as was the case back in 2002, when Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq before weapons inspectors finished their work (and so Bush was able to order them out, and to invade Iraq).


These hearings displayed 100% neoconservative U.S. Senators — no Senator who isn’t a neoconservative. These Senators, of both Parties, in their questioning and comments, were all far to the right of the incoming President, Donald Trump. (Democrats might be to the ‘left’ of Republicans on some domestic matters, but both Parties are neoconservative, which is a far-right foreign-affairs ideology.) 
 ..

This fact was shown clearly, as the Senators probed each appointee with questions that challenged him (since all of these nominees are males) as being insufficiently hostile toward Russia, and also (though to a lesser extent) insufficiently hostile toward Iran, and toward other countries (especially Syria and China) that have friendly relations with Russia. This obsessive hatred of Russia is the standard neoconservative position — neoconservatism’s defining reality, regardless of whether neoconservatives admit to being haters at all, of anything.


WITH ITS BUILT-IN PENCHANT FOR CONSTANT WAR THE US CONGRESS IS AN ASSEMBLAGE OF ENEMIES OF HUMANITY, INCLUDING OF COURSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHO HAVE YET TO FIGURE OUT WHO AND WHAT THESE POLITICIANS REPRESENT IN THEIR LIVES. A DISGRACE MADE POSSIBLE BY MASSIVE IGNORANCE, UNRELENTING PROPAGANDA AND RESULTING CONFUSION.


Each one of these nominees, in turn, provided responses which indicated that he, too, is far to the right of Trump. The Senators were apparently satisfied with each one of the nominees, on that basis — a neoconservative basis.
 ..
Also, each one of the Senators probed the nominee, in order to make certain that the interviewee favors steep increases in ‘defense’ spending (another essential mark of neoconservatism — unlimited military spending), even if other federal spending is required to stay the same or else be reduced. Even the Democratic Senators want ‘defense’ spending increased even if domestic spending gets reduced. Democratic Senators on the panel showed themselves as being just as emphatically in favor of abolishing existing limits on ‘defense’ spending as the Republican ones are.

“The Senators probed each appointee with questions that challenged him (since all of these nominees are males) as being insufficiently hostile toward Russia, and also (though to a lesser extent) insufficiently hostile toward Iran, and toward other countries (especially Syria and China) that have friendly relations with Russia. This obsessive hatred of Russia is the standard neoconservative position — neoconservatism’s defining reality, regardless of whether neoconservatives admit to being haters at all, of anything…”


If what U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower in 1961 had referred to as “the military-industrial complex” owns all of Congress today, then the results of these interviews with nominees still couldn’t have been any more neoconservative than they, in fact, were.

 ..
Great pressure was thus being placed, by the interviewers, upon each nominee, to increase greatly U.S. ‘defense’ spending, and to exhibit hostility toward Russia and the other countries that are the standard ‘enemies’ in the view of neoconservatives. Regardless of whether Trump wants unlimited ‘defense’ spending (and is merely pretending to want to cut programs like the scandalous F-35), Congress certainly does.
..
Neoconservatism can, very practically, be defined by the nations that it places unquestioningly as being America’s ‘friends’ (Israel, Europe — especially the parts that were formerly communist — Japan, and all of the fundamentalist-Sunni Gulf Cooperation Council [Arab monarchy] nations); and as being America’s ‘enemies’ (Russia, Iran, China, and any nation that’s allied with one or more of those three). Nothing that either a ‘friend’ or an ‘enemy’ nation does is actually pertinent to a neoconservative’s national favors or hatreds: each of these nations is permanently what it is; and, for example, Russia being no longer communist and no longer the Soviet Union, doesn’t really affect a neoconservative’s hatred of Russia. Neoconservatism is — in that sense — ethnic, tribal: rigidly loyal to labeled ‘friends’, and also rigidly hostile to labeled ‘enemies’. It’s permanent war for perpetual ‘peace’, because to stop trying to conquer the ‘enemies’ is viewed as ‘immoral’, actually shameful and maybe even ‘cowardly’ — no matter how few the aristocracy actually are who benefit from all this mass bloodshed, crippling, refugees, and destruction. It’s an upside-down ‘morality’. That’s what neoconservatism is.
 ..

America’s Congress is at least 90% neoconservative, not only in the Senate, but also in the House. To judge by these hearings, the Senators were virtually united, that Russia is America’s #1 enemy (a key mark of neoconservatism is the demonization of Russia); and, while most seemed to consider Iran to be enemy #2, some Senators and House members placed China in that category (#2). North Korea was also mentioned by many.


 ..
Eliminating, or even reducing, jihadism, is definitely well below the second national-security priority (if it’s an authentic concern at all), for members of the U.S. Congress, with Russia certainly being the #1 enemy in their eyes. Furthermore, no member of Congress considers the Saudi government — the government that is owned by the Saud family — to be an “enemy” at all, nor do they consider, to be an enemy, any other of the fundamentalist-Islamic Arab royal families (such as the ones who own Qatar, or who own UAE, or who own Kuwait), even though the Saud family are the main funders of jihadist groups around the world, and those other royal Arabs provide most of the rest of the financing that makes jihadist terrorism possible. So, practically speaking, the U.S. Congress considers the chief financial backers of jihadist groups to be U.S. ‘allies’, not to be “enemies” of the U.S., at all.
 ..
For example: as one strong friend of the royal Arabs, Hillary Clinton has said in private:
 ..
“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”
 ..
Saudi Arabia is owned by the Saud family; so, she knew that they are the main funders of Al Qaeda etcetera (or, like Osama bin Laden’s former bagman said of Al Qaeda’s financing, “Without the money of the — of the Saudi, you will have nothing”). That family controls the government, and all the rest of their aristocracy do whatever the Saud family tells them to do. Hillary wasn’t naive.
 ..
And, elsewhere (also in private), she referred to “the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” 
 ..
And she also devoted a lengthy cable to U.S. Embassies, to the desirability of dealing with this problem (their aristocracies’ funding of jihadist groups around the world) also in Kuwait, and UAE — two more U.S. ‘allies’. But there’s no evidence she followed up on that.
 ..
And so, former U.S. Senator Clinton was simply a normal member of the U.S. Senate which is under display even now, as being even more neoconservative than President-elect Trump’s national-security appointees are.
 ..

For example, during the hearing on January 12th, in which Trump’s choice to head the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department, James Mattis, was grilled by each member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the retired Marine General Mattis was pressed on whether he supported eliminating the ‘defense’ spending-cap that Congress in late 2012 imposed to begin on 1 January 2013, as the 2013 Budget Control Act, or “sequestration.” General Mattis replied by calling the 2013 Budget Control Act a “self-inflicted wound.” (He had already told this very same Senate Committee, on 27 January 2015, “The Senate Armed Services Committee should lead the effort to repeal the sequestration that is costing military readiness and long term capability while sapping troop morale.” So, they already knew that he’s a hard-liner about lifting the spending-cap on the military — just not on the rest of the budget, because he had also said on 27 January 2015, “If we refuse to reduce our debt or pay down our deficit — … No nation in history has maintained its military power while failing to keep its fiscal house in order.” So, these Senators are clear about removing the limit only on ‘defense’ spending.) 


“…although Trump’s appointees might be less neoconservative than the Senators, and less neoconservative than was Trump’s predecessor, Obama — and Trump is far less neoconservative than is Hillary Clinton — Trump still could turn out to be a neoconservative President. This isn’t because the American public are neoconservative (they definitely aren’t), but because the American plutocracy is. The U.S. government represents them — not the American public.


Mattis said in this January 12th confirmation-hearing, that Russia “has chosen to be both a strategic competitor and an adversary” and “we still engage with the soviet union.” (It’s common for high U.S. military, and even diplomatic, officials, to slip back into calling Russia “the Soviet Union,” still 25+ years after the Soviet Union ended, and its Warsaw Pact of military allies ended, and their communism ended. This insanity is normal for America’s leaders.)
..
He was asked about Donald Trump’s having questioned whether NATO (the anti-Russia military alliance) needs to be continued, and Mattis said “If we did not have NATO today, we would have to create it. NATO is vital to our national interest.”
 ..
He was questioned regarding whether he agrees with Trump’s having challenged President Obama’s campaign aimed to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, and Mattis said that the real issue is only about the speed with which Assad must be removed. He said that what is needed is “a more accelerated campaign than the President-elect has called for” — in other words, he said that not only was President Obama too slow in this matter, but that Mattis will be advising Trump to reverse position on this and to out-do Obama on it. (A Democratic Senator, Bill Nelson of Florida, had asked those questions, and he seemed to be pleased with Mattis’s super-hawkish responses. Washington’s neoconservatism is bipartisan.)  
 ..
Responding to another Senator, Mattis said that there’s “an increasing number of areas in which we’ll have to confront Russia.” We’re not doing it enough, he thinks.
 ..
He was asked whether he shared President-elect Trump’s distrust of the U.S. intelligence-services, and he replied, “I have a very very high degree of confidence in our intelligence community.” The CIA and other people who were united in saying that Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2002 and that they needed to be immediately eliminated, are trusted by Mattis as much as they were trusted by Bush.
 ..
He was asked about Israel and said that it is eternally an ‘ally’ of America, and that Israel is “the only democratic nation in the Middle East.” No Senator asked him whether apartheid South Africa was also a ‘democratic’ nation. On 13 January 2017, Brandon Turbeville headlined about the only secular nation in the Middle East, “Grand Mufti Of Syria Discusses Secularism In Syria – Human Beings Live In States, No Countries Based On Religion”; and, previously, I had pointed out that even Western polling in Syria consistently showed that the vast majority of Syrians want Assad to continue as the country’s leader, and that it was Barack Obama who was criticized by U.N. Secretary General Ban ki-Moon for refusing to let the Syrian people determine, in a free and internationally monitored democratic election, whom the nation’s leader should be. (Obama knows that they would elect Assad; so, he doesn’t want democracy, there.) 
 ..
Perhaps a lot of false ‘facts’ are in Mattis’s head, but he maintains them with consistency — and any falsehoods that he believes are of the type that made his nomination to become the U.S. Secretary of ‘Defense’ all the more attractive to the members of the U.S. Congress. 
 ..
In my previous article, “Trump Team Targets Iran”, I documented that:
 ..
All four of the persons selected by U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump for the top U.S. national-security posts are committed to replacing the outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama’s #1 military target, Russia, by a different #1 military target, Iran. Iran has long been the #1 military target in the view of Michael Flynn, the chosen Trump National Security Advisor; and of James Mattis, the chosen Trump Secretary of Defense; and of Dan Coats, the chosen Trump Director of National Intelligence; and of Mike Pompeo, the chosen CIA Director.
..
So, although Trump’s appointees might be less neoconservative than the Senators, and less neoconservative than was Trump’s predecessor, Obama — and Trump is far less neoconservative than is Hillary Clinton — Trump still could turn out to be a neoconservative President. This isn’t because the American public are neoconservative (they definitely aren’t), but because the American plutocracy is. The U.S. government represents them — not the American public.
 ..

Now we’ll see whether Donald Trump will be the boss, or whether the neoconservatives whom he appointed to the top U.S. national-security posts will be.


Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org


About the author

EricZuesseThey're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.



black-horizontal

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

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS


Main image: Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis during confirmation hearing.