Lindsey Graham is a TERRORIST!

by Serban V.C. Enache

On national television, Lindsey Graham, a republican senator, engages in a particular and detestable activity called terrorism. If the people of Venezuela and Cuba don’t choose Washington’s puppet, then they are going to suffer violence and death via invasion; because US economic warfare [forcing casualties via dearth] against both these countries is not enough. Graham wants to imitate Reagan’s invasion of Grenada and apply it to Venezuela and Cuba.

Notice how the interviewer on Fox News treats this terrorist threat as if it’s something vaguely out of the norm and thanks this subhuman filth of a senator for the interview, instead of invoking the US constitution, international law, and basic common sense against this maniac’s reprehensible proposal.

Let’s make it abundantly clear. All institutions [state, private and quasi] and all actors pressing for military confrontation and labeling diplomatic solutions as treasonous or anti-American are the scum of the earth, a cabal of death and ruin. They are war profiteers. They are a threat to other nations, including their own – a threat to all Humanity and a scourge before the eyes of any god worthy of worship. And in the interest of peace and rational dialog among and between nations, these supreme criminals should receive life sentence in prison.

I will cite three paragraphs from Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations 3rd book: Of War.

§ 32. Pretexts.

Let us, however, entertain a better opinion of nations and their rulers. There are just causes of war, real justificatory reasons; and why should there not be sovereigns who sincerely consider them as their warrant, then they have besides reasonable motives for taking up arms? We shall therefore give the name of pretexts to those reasons alleged as justificatory, but which are so only in appearance, or which are even absolutely destitute of all foundation. The name of pretexts may likewise be applied to reasons which are, in themselves, true and well-founded, but, not being of sufficient importance for undertaking a war, are made use of only to cover ambitious views, or some other vicious motive. Such was the complaint of the czar Peter I. that sufficient honours had not been paid him on his passage through Riga. His other reasons for declaring war against Sweden I here omit.

Pretexts are at least a homage which unjust men pay to justice. He who screens himself with them shows that he still retains some sense of shame. He does not openly trample on what is most sacred in human society: he tacitly acknowledges that a flagrant injustice merits the indignation of all Mankind.

§ 33. War undertaken merely for advantage.

Whoever, without justificatory reasons, undertakes a war merely from motives of advantage, acts without any right, and his war is unjust. And he, who, having in reality just grounds for taking up arms, is nevertheless solely actuated by interested views in resorting to hostilities, cannot indeed be charged with injustice, but he betrays a vicious disposition: his conduct is reprehensible, and sullied by the badness of his motives. War is so dreadful a scourge, that nothing less than manifest justice, joined to a kind of necessity, can authorize it, render it commendable, or at least exempt it from reproach.

§ 34. Nations who make war without reason or apparent motives.

Nations that are always ready to take up arms on any prospect of advantage are lawless robbers…

Trust WHO?

This documentary by Lilian Franck shines a light on how industry lobbies have infiltrated the World Health Organization and asks whether the organisation can be trusted to keep the public healthy. They WHO officials have to depend on scientists, and these scientists are supplied by the WTO’s sponsors [i.e. there is a clear and growing conflict of interest involved]. Many of these scientists, who also serve as salesmen, gave advice and made decisions that benefited the pharmaceutical industry. They even went so far as to change the criteria of what constitutes a pandemic.

“At the time of the swine flu outbreak, I was WHO general-secretary in the Department of Public Health, Intellectual Property and Medication. Nobody there was afraid,” says German Velasquez, who currently works with the Green Climate Fund (GCF). “I didn’t know anyone at the WHO who had himself vaccinated, including the director-general, who told journalists in response to their questions that she hadn’t had time but would get herself vaccinated later.”

It’s precisely this type of corruption, combined with arrogance, that feeds skepticism among the public when it comes to the opinions of so-called experts. To those excusing themselves and the WTO’s self-serving actions by invoking the transparency aspect of funding, that doesn’t solve anything and it doesn’t prove they are acting in good faith. Make time to watch this documentary, it’s well worth your time.

Trump thinks we’re all Fools

by Serban V.C. Enache

On the third day of his visit to Japan, Trump publicly insulted the intelligence of his global audience. He said he’s not looking to hurt Iran at all; that he wants the Iranians to say no to nuclear weapons, because the world has enough problems with nuclear weapons – and that he isn’t seeking regime change in Iran. Trump said Iran has tremendous economic potential and that he is willing to let that country achieve its potential if they come to the negotiating table. Utter hogwash!

Let’s take a brief lesson in recent history. Ahead of his term, during the election campaign, wasn’t Trump worried that the USA’s nuclear arsenal was obsolete? Wasn’t he afraid that the nukes won’t go off if the Government launched them? Didn’t he say he wants the US to have more and better nukes? Yes, he did. Did he also speak favorably of nuclear proliferation, if that happened on the USA’s terms? Yes, back during the campaign, he invoked Japan and South Korea as potential candidates; and just recently he entertained the notion of Saudi Arabia developing its own nuclear program. What did that disgusting wretch, Mike Pompeo say about the Iranian Government? Well, he said plenty of nasty things, but the word “thugs” was given particular airtime. What does Pompeo say about the Saudi Government, after Khashoggi’s barbaric assassination and after the butchery displayed by that same Government with the recent executions of dissenters, including the 16 year old boy that was crucified? What about the siege of Yemen? Crickets? Yeah, that’s what I thought too.

Now let’s talk about nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Israel is the single actor in the region which has nuclear weapons. Israel is not even a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. Iran’s leadership repeatedly said that it doesn’t seek to develop atomic weapons and that it desires the Middle East to be a region free of such weapons. The regime in Teheran has been following the agreement struck with the Obama administration in 2015. The International Atomic Energy Agency [the IAEA] has repeatedly confirmed that Iran is compliant with the nuclear deal’s terms. But let’s say that Iran wished to follow the US in abandoning the accord. Isn’t it hypocritical for Washington to decide which countries can and can’t have nukes? Who is Trump to decide which countries are free to better themselves [economically] and which are forbidden to? From what moral law does such a view stem, because it certainly doesn’t spring from International Law, or from Natural Law [see Vattel, Grotius & others]. I suppose it springs from the [garbage] idea that the United States is god’s chosen country, while the rest of the world’s nations are composed of inferior races. I suppose that’s what many so-called Christians in the US believe; but their god sounds a lot like the barbaric and genocidal Yahweh, and not like Jesus Christ. Then again, the USA is a place full of fake Christians that – since 1776 – has been at peace for less than 20 years. The rest of the time it’s been engaged in some type of military conflict, at home and or abroad.

Trump’s claim that he isn’t looking to hurt Iran at all is absolutely ridiculous, given his Government’s belligerent statements [from press conferences to posts on social media], military operations, and financial sanctions – going so far to threaten any other country willing to do commerce with Iran with the same belligerent actions. The freezing of a country’s foreign assets and trade sanctions is war by other means and it too produces plenty of victims. Trump’s sanctions against Venezuela, initiated in August 2017, are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in that country. The strong-arm tactic is absolutely about HURTING the other side, to squeeze concessions out of him. It has nothing to do with bargaining in good faith [positive sum outcomes for all].

I think not even Trump’s base believes him anymore when it comes to foreign interventionism. Trump has done so many 180 degree turns on this subject [and others], that one would have to be an utter fool to believe he’s adamant about anything. And that’s precisely what Trump is gambling on; the desire of the American public to remain willfully ignorant. He’s gambling on the larger hatred for the liberals and the SJWs among republicans and independents, to – in their eyes – outweigh his own broken promises and policy failures. If that happens, and it likely will, Trump and his neocons and the Deep State and all the rent-seekers and usurers and war profiteers behind them will get another term, another chance to rob and destroy nations.

The Duran: Rise of the Euroskeptics, Rise of the Greens

European Parliament elections have concluded across the EU, with results showing a surging rise of conservative right Euroskeptic parties, Green and Liberal parties. The pro-EU center left and center right have lost their combined majority. Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris discuss the implications of these surprise results.

My Comment: In a stunning result, Nigel Farage’s Brexit party won the most seats in the EU parliament, 29 vs Labour’s 10 and the Tories’ four. Everyone saw how the elites [left, right, and center] tried to sabotage the exit procedure. Everyone saw the lack of backbone. Everyone saw the lies, the doublespeak, and the tergiversations.

I welcome the harsh punishment the Conservative party received. May those crooks receive the same in national elections. As for the so-called party of Labour, it has already become a minor faction in UK political life. If Corbyn doesn’t want to go down in history as the Judas he has proven himself to be thus far, beginning with his 180 degree turn from his convictions as a Bennite [aka. pro national sovereignty] in his youth, he should negotiate with Farage’s party for a hard Brexit, and in exchange, Farage should back a dirigist economic policy, designed not to impede, but enhance labour, commerce, and enterprise.

I can already hear the critics? What? Are you nuts? Farage will never go for that! He’s a tory! He doesn’t want state intervention! I remember Enoch Powell, a staunch capitalist and free marketeer, defending on national television the [Government owned and Government managed] NHS. I can also invoke the philosophy of Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School of Economics, in defence of my suggestion, that capitalists and socialists can find common ground. Here is Carl Menger’s absolutely respectable and sensible view on the State’s role in the economy, alongside my suggestions for a set of Non-Marxist Socialist and Georgist policies. Note: the first link deals more with local government reforms, while the second link contains suggestions for a radical, post-EU & post-NATO Bulgaria, proposals which can be extrapolated to the UK.

I realize that such a scenario is highly implausible, but for the sake of argument, let me finish my logic. There is no middle ground on Brexit, not even in the eyes of voters. You’re either for hard Brexit or against Brexit. If Labour would dump its soft Brexit stance and harden it ahead of recall elections, I believe he and Farage would bag a lot of votes, but not necessarily enough to form a majority on their own; they would have to get the support of some Liberal Democrats and Greens. I know that some individuals in these two camps are in favor of land-value taxation and could be persuaded to place Britain first, instead of the neoliberal EU.

Follow the Duran website and youtube channel for future videos and great discussions. If you like their content and are able to spare a few bucks, visit their Patreon page to show your support.

The Non-Zionist One State Solution

Ian Lustick, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and specialist on the modern history of the Middle East, explains why the two state solution is a hollow and deceitful promise. Just like none of the North’s political elites envisioned a multi-racial democracy in the United States after the civil war [as opposed to a White Christian republic], the Israeli elites aren’t contemplating a multi-racial and secular democracy [Israel-Palestine] either. However, generational struggles [primarily at grassroots level] paved the way for such a change in the US, and that will be or should be the future of Israel and the de facto annexed territories of Gaza and the West Bank. However, Lustick doesn’t see such a fundamental change any time soon, and goes on to make a couple of observations on the region’s geopolitical situation, emphasizing the US-Israeli conflict with Iran and the possibility of a nuclear-free region. Ian Lustick is interviewed by RT’s Oksana Boyko. Watch the video here!