Given the unprecedented propaganda and irrational absurdities coming out of the US over the past year or so, not even the most optimistic of people could have had very high hopes for the Trump-Putin meeting at the G20 Summit on Friday. The toxic atmosphere in the US, plus the fact that Donald Trump seemed to have capitulated to the Deep State within weeks of his inauguration, meant that any real thawing in relations was highly unlikely.
Yet as it turned out, the meeting was far better than even the biggest pessimist could have imagined. Scheduled to speak for just 30 minutes — which itself was a bad joke, given the urgent need for the leaders of these two nations to have serious and constant communication — they actually went on for over two hours and apparently cordially discussed a broad range of issues.
For any normal person, this would be seen as A VERY GOOD THING. But of course there are many who regard it as A VERY BAD THING.
For instance, on the idea of forming a joint Cyber Security unit so that each country could have a guarantee that the other would not "hack" the others' election, the plan was met with derision in the US. Senator Marco Rubio, for instance, suggested that such an initiative would be like partnering with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on chemical weapons.
This is a particularly funny retort for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Syrian government's stockpile of chemical weapons was destroyed by a team of US Army civilians and contractors aboard a US vessel, the Cape Ray, in 2013-14. Secondly, the US still has a stockpile of around 3,000 tons of chemical weapons, despite being a signatory to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which committed it to the destruction of their entire stockpile of chemical weapons within ten years. The complete destruction of the entire arsenal is now due to be completed around the year 2023. And thirdly, the country that leads the world in cyber-spying, monitoring, election interference and regime change by a wide margin is ... none other than the country in which Mr Rubio is a senator. Let's file his remarks in that fat 'ole bin marked "Hypocrisy".
Yet Mr Rubio's remarks pale into insignificance to those uttered by Nikki Haley, the country's second most important "diplomat". Here's what this "diplomat" had to say after her boss's boss's apparently cordial and constructive meeting with Mr Putin:
"We can't trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check."Think about that. Let it sink in. After a period of the worst relations between the two countries since — well since ever — the US President finally got to sit down and talk to his Russian counterpart, and by all accounts it went well. Which would be a cause for any normal person to be thankful. And yet just hours after it finished, the US's second highest "diplomat" blabs her mouth off that the US will never trust Russia! I shudder to think that when looking for a diplomat, Mr Trump saw Mrs Haley as the best person to represent his country.
It would be pointless to go through all the inanities uttered by the stenographers in the so-called free media. Suffice it to say that predictably, rather than welcoming the potential for a relaxation of tensions, they spent their time chiding Mr Trump for "being soft", for apparently "being played", and of Mr Putin "winning". What is WRONG with these people? Why does everything have to be about winning and losing? Can they not envisage discussions where grown-up people discuss differences and try to work towards resolution without it being about 'who comes out on top'? Apparently they cannot, for reasons I'll come to in a moment.
And of course they continued to display the effects of the debilitating Obsessive Compulsive Disorder they've been suffering from for almost a year, which compels them to talk incessantly about "hacking" and "meddling", but without ever asking a single challenging question, such as:
Words almost fail me. Faced with a choice between the two leaders striking up a rapport and finding some common ground, or the two of them squaring up to each other in a confrontation that would only increase tensions and push us closer to a potential nuclear confrontation, many (if not most) leading US politicians, plus their media lackeys, preferred the second option.
- Did the 17 intelligence agencies really all agree with a high level of certainty that Russia hacked the election? (Answer: no)
- Did the FBI actually examine the DNC servers? (Answer: no)
- Who actually did examine the DNC servers (Crowdstrike) and do they have a reliable track record of such things? (Answer: no)
- Was there any hard evidence presented of Russian hacking in the January 6th DIA report? (Answer: no)
- Has the US ever interfered in the elections of other countries, including Russia's? (Answer: yes — multiple times)
Last year, as the United States for the second time broke an agreement that they had signed with Russia to separate the so-called moderate rebels from groups like al-Nusra, the Russian Foreign Minister described the US administration using a word meaning "not agreement capable". But it now looks far worse than that. It is not just that the US administration is "not capable" of agreement, it appears to be "not rational-thought capable". Almost the entirety of Congress and the media seem to think that any détente between Mr Trump and Mr Putin, between the US and Russia, between the two biggest nuclear armed countries on the planet is tantamount to treason.
It is abundantly clear that the political and media elites in the United States are out of control. They have long since left the land of rationality, and have driven over the cliff where they are now floundering in the air of unreason before going splat on the rock of total insanity. They have so imbibed the heresy that the United States is "Exceptional" and "Indispensable" that they are now "not rational-thought capable". They are incapable of conceiving of an agreement which does not either maintain or increase US hegemony. They are incapable of conceiving of talks with another country where their opposite numbers are treated as anything other than subservient. They are incapable of welcoming a thawing of relations between the leaders of two countries that have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the lives of millions.
And because of their madness, they are driving the US and Russia towards confrontation. Don't believe it? The Russians do. Here's what one of their top generals, Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, said back in April:
"The [US] missile defense system considerably shifts the balance of offensive weapons, allowing the planning of a more efficient pre-emptive strike. Russian military experts believe that the US hopes to gain the capability to strike any region of the world, including Russia and China, with nuclear-tipped missiles with impunity."Do you understand what he's saying and how serious this all is? Unless the leaders of these countries talk to each other, as equals, with a view to reaching tangible agreements, and without their own bureaucracies and media back at home doing all they can to prevent this from happening, then the Russians will continue to view US plans as heading inexorably towards having the capability to launch a pre-emptive strike, with any response neutralised. Only someone that has let the ideology of exceptionalism blind them to what this really means, could fail to welcome the baby steps towards détente that were seen in Hamburg.
In short, too much exceptionalism hath made the US elites mad. They must be stopped.
Reader Comments
It reminds me that you can only put so much livestock on an acre of natural land in order to keep them healthy and natural. If you wish to increase the number of livestock on that acre then you must better control the livestock habits so they each eat and drink less and bear less young, or the acre will become barren and all the livestock die off...so much for your investment in livestock and property.
Think about it. If you were a leader of any other country you wouldn't want to be bullied by the US. Looking at the past you wouldn't want your country to be controlled by the US. You would put in place counter-measures.
On reflection, I suspect Ghadaffi had this in mind and created his own back-up plan: if ever invaded he made sure that other countries would become financially liable and responsible for his people. A clever but vengeful strategy..
Equally, I suspect that Korea will have a back-up plan. The San Andreas fault line is a natural vulnerability in the US. Yellowstone is a natural vulnerability in the US. The sewers are a vulnerability in the US?
Mr Trump needs to tread carefully.
Luckily for Amerca many of their citizens are extremely patriotic, armed and ready to defend their dreams.
Nukes are fakes. If they really worked, the US would have used them, over and over and over. The threat of Armageddon is a lie, but the lie works as well as a real threat if you accept the lie.
It's fear porn, meant to enslave us through fear, and to create and increase the money stream going to the death merchants and to the fear-of-death merchants.
It's all a racket. They will say anything. There is no limit.
If you say the moon is made of green cheese, there are Nobel Laureates willing to swear to that if you fork over enough money.
Don't ever imagine this crowd of academics cares a hoot about science, objective evidence, facts, honour, ethics or morality. It's all about mastheads, grad student control, 'funding', corruption, lying, horseshit. That's Acedemia.
If you actually want the Truth about something don't go near a yesterdays-Party Line garbage generator. They are rotted out.
People are intimidated from calling out academic assholes. They should not. The tools of denunciation, of 'you are crapolla' are readily to hand. Pound them. Unmask them. Hold the to their own standards.
Whatever can be said about things ancient sure as Hell you worthless corruptables have nothing truthful to constribute to that. Cut their funding. Turn them out. Pitch the lying archeologists et all overboard. Move on.