Trending Topics:

Why ‘give him a chance’ is not an option

on 170 Comments

Those folks who are advocating, “Let’s just wait and see” or “Every president moves to the center,” or “Give him a chance, we just need to listen to each other and respect our differences,” are ignoring some very poignant lessons of history. And there is some very recent history that is let’s just say, very instructive.  I am going to call this the Israelification of US politics.

This is no longer about which tail is wagging which dog but about two canines snarling in the same kennel and plotting the control of the whole doggy universe. Netanyahu’s twin has come galloping into the White (man’s) House from that great golden golf course in you-name-the-moneyed place, a great tsunami of rage, alienation, lies, and discontent.  Now, what exactly does that say about us?

First, let’s be clear, while we have a deeply polarized and unhappy citizenry, with a unique blend of racism and misogyny recently unleashed, he did not “win” the election. He “won” the Electoral College which has been corrupted by years of Koch brothers and friends building on the aristocratic insecurities and rural biases of our founding patriarchs.  For decades these mostly rich white males have been gerrymandering, electing conservative school boards and judges, and plotting voter suppression/ID laws and other sinister rightwing strategies, reminiscent of the poll tax and worse, aided and abetted by lax media reporting genuflecting to the gods of ratings and profits. Add to this the massive disenfranchisement of mostly Black and Brown men who have spent some critical parts of their lives in the Drug War-induced web of incarceration and post imprisonment disenfranchisement that has left vast swaths of our society totally invisible as American citizens. This is exacerbated by the consequences of Citizens United where large corporations with armies of lobbyists and lawyers loaded with bags of money are legally empowered to tilt the scales of justice in the name of free speech for all “people,” (the little man and the big corporation person alike).

All of this has deeply corrupted the political process and the ability of every man and woman and gender dysphoric person in between to understand what and why things are happening, who can actually address their concerns, and how to be thoughtful and heard when it is comes time to be counted.  And I am not referring to the currently inadequate and moneyed Democratic Party, though I do hope to live long enough to see a woman president that I can embrace with some mixture of joy and relief.

So back to Netanyahu. While there are obvious differences, the State of Israel, much like the US, shares a history of immigrants fleeing oppression, a faith in manifest destiny, a Messianic belief in the rightness and righteousness of the national cause at the expense of an indigenous and mostly ethnically cleansed native population, a can-do spirit that is a blend of hard work, determination, creativity, and a willingness to rewrite the ugly price of nationhood in the name of an inspiring national mythos. We both share a variety of progressive movements that have rarely addressed our core contradictions or challenged the assumptions that have led to our dominance in the global, industrial, and militarized world.

In 1993, after the Oslo Accords, the Israeli left took a deep sigh of relief and went home.  Over the subsequent decades, fueled by a belief in a glorious ancient past, an exploding fear of Arabs at home and abroad, (see Intifada one and two, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Daesh), and a defiant expansionism into land the entire world considers occupied, the ruling class moved right, and the racism that girded the state from the start, became mainstream and more thuggish.  Government officials called Arabs “snakes,” “monkeys,” “beasts,” a “cancer,” and asylum seekers “infiltrators” as Benjamin Netanyahu built a belligerent coalition of the ultraorthodox, national religious settlers, and (mostly Russian) immigrants. He appointed an ultranationalist, fascistic Defense Minister, Avigdor Leiberman, who talked up loyalty oaths and bombing Iran, and an Education Minister, Naftali Bennett, who supports extra-judicial killings of Arabs and has stated that the inculcation of right wing religious Zionist values is his top priority. Moshe Ya’alon, a recent, now former, Defense Minister talked of managing rather than solving the conflict, discouraged criminal investigations into war crimes by the Israeli Defense Force, and suggested that the peace process is responsible for terrorism.

There is growing chatter about annexing the 65% of the West Bank known as Area C, of prioritizing Jewish rights over democratic rights, and most disastrously, of building the mythic third temple on the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock, a move guaranteed to inflame the Muslim world until the Messiah actually shows up. More Palestinian homes have been demolished in 2016 than in any year in the past decade and the Jewish settlements are expanding like yeast on a warm summer afternoon. Israeli police officers are (officially) authorized to use live fire against stone throwers and sling shots, regardless if stones are thrown at moving cars, armored vehicles, armed security forces, or the separation wall. NGOs and human rights organizations from Breaking the Silence in Israel to the Health, Development, Information and Policy Institute in Ramallah report rising numbers of attacks, confiscations of computers, and trashing of offices. In November 2016 the Israeli Knesset members approved a bill banning the use of public loudspeakers to summon Muslims to prayer.

I will pause to refer to the Israeli Declaration of Independence that may just remind you of our own founding document (emphasis mine):

“The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

The Israeli Medical Association is facing international criticism due to longstanding allegations of doctor participation and complicity in the torture of Palestine prisoners in Israeli jails. The Israeli military and judicial systems are under attack for their widespread arrests of Palestinian men in general and night time raids grabbing children in particular and for the extensive and prolonged use of administrative detention, no charges, no trial, and needless to say, no justice. It has been reported in the press that the fight against the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign (BDS) against Israel includes both black ops and friendly front groups in the US especially on college campuses, as well as multimillion dollar campaigns from the likes of Sheldon Adelson and colleagues.

The Israelis continue to build their eight-meter high (apartheid) wall with its barbed wire and military buffer zones and surveillance cameras mostly snaking within the West Bank on Palestinian agricultural land and water aquifers in an impressive move towards self-ghettoization.  Meanwhile 20% of the Israeli population is still Palestinian and tens of thousands of mostly Palestinian men enter the country legally and illegally every year to pour concrete, pound nails, and work in the factories, trim the hedges, water the pomegranates and care for the elderly at low wages and without worker protections. And then there is the steady parade of high level officials facing trials and imprisonment for offenses ranging from rape to obstruction of justice to Bibi’s latest purchase of $1.5 billion in German submarines. He shares his personal attorney with the German sub company, but how could that be a conflict of interest?

So in what alternative universe are we living post November 8th?

In less than two weeks, our President elect has reiterated his bromance with Netanyahu (and let’s not forget Putin). He has gloried in a mythical past when America was great and the steels mills were belching great clouds of black smoke, which has nothing to do with the melting ice caps and the risks to the 11.6 million US coastal citizens who live below a three meter elevation from the sea. In blatantly racist, Islamophobic, misogynist, anti-immigrant language, he has appealed to the fears and discontents of tens of millions of mostly white people who have found themselves at the middle to bottom of the 99% with a scattering of right wing kabillionaires thrown in. The enemy has been clearly identified: brown, hijabi, accented, coming from “terror prone nations” whatever that could possibly mean, guilty until proven innocent. Children of immigrants and their parents, the undocumented millions who spray our fields and harvest our lettuce and study in our universities, now lie awake worrying about ICE and massive deportation.  Since election day, the Southern Poverty Law Center has received more than 430 reports of anti-immigrant and anti-Black behavior, most of it in elementary, middle, and high schools.  Our children are listening. All of them.

And let’s review (briefly) our dear President-elect’s appointments to date (11/21):

  1. Steve Bannon as senior White House strategist: former head of Breitbart News, an avid white nationalist who has promoted anti-Semitic, misogynist and anti-Muslim ideas, embracing the resurgence of the Confederate flag as a symbol of white supremacy and the old “war of civilizations,” the enlightened West against the religion of Islam.
  2. General Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser: twitter post: “Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL,” Islam is a political ideology turned into a “malignant cancer.” He favors an immigration ban and registering US Muslims.
  3. Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General: favors Muslim immigration ban, voted against laws that protect gay people and guarantee equal pay for women, supported efforts to roll back the Voting Rights Act, believes the Justice Department should do more to crack down on illegal immigration, supported stricter enforcement of drug laws, favors waterboarding and other torture techniques as legal and effective, voted against the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 that prohibited cruel or degrading treatment of detainees and against legislation requiring all government agencies to use only interrogation methods in the Army Field Manual.
  4. Representative Mike Pompeo as CIA Director: “Most Islamic leaders across America” are complicit in terrorist attacks for not speaking out more forcefully. He has denounced efforts to rein in some of the most polarizing post 9/11 counterterrorism programs, advocated returning to the bulk collection of Americans’ domestic phone records, and denounced the closing of CIA black-site prisons and the requirement for government interrogators to adhere to the rules of the Army Field Manual. He has close ties to and support from the Koch billionaire brothers.

Trump has expressed his intention to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, effectively killing any pretense of a Palestinian state, and the Israeli right is cheering. Meanwhile he has been embroiled in thousands of law suits, just settled the Trump University sham for $25 million dollars, and is facing numerous questions about his legally-challenged business deals and conflicts of interests. What exactly is a blind trust when Ivanka is in charge and daddy knows exactly what she is in charge of?

Let’s be real. He is doing exactly what he promised to do.  Listen up. Racist nationalism feeding on fear and economic discontent directed by an obviously-corrupted leadership with a tendency towards an optional and creative approach to truth is really dangerous. This is not the time to be patient or to normalize the fact of his presidency. Right wing nationalism is not only an Israeli or European phenomenon.  The alt-right celebrating with “Heil Victory” should send shivers up our collective spines.

But we can be different.  We can protest and organize like our lives and our children’s lives depend on it because this time they really do.  We can upset the Republican governors on the state level and the US congress in two or four or maybe– gasp– eight years, but the Supreme Court is definitely going south (and I mean that literally and figuratively) for a generation. Think about all the things you value and struggle for that make this a tolerant, cantankerous, multicultural society, like Roe v. Wade, the ACLU, the First Amendment, Black Lives Manner, religious tolerance.

The mask is off. The hard work begins in our neighborhoods, our schools, all the way to the halls of Congress. So support your Muslim neighbor, your sanctuary city, every grassroots organization working for economic and racial justice and prison reform and solar panels; listen to Bernie Sanders and John Oliver and fact check your Facebook now and again. If you see little boys grabbing a girl on the playground or hear a woman catcalled on the street or a Mexican American trashed with some racist garbage, do not be quiet.  You are next. That’s how this works.

And if they come to register your Muslim neighbors and coworkers, let the two thirds of the US population that didn’t vote for DT, all sign up to register without ambivalence.  And ladies, remember to wear that sisterly hijab with pride and defiance.  That is what we are going to need.

Alice Rothchild

Alice Rothchild is a physician, author, and filmmaker who has focused her interest in human rights and social justice on the Israel/Palestine conflict since 1997. She practiced ob-gyn for almost 40 years. Until her retirement she served as Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Harvard Medical School. She writes and lectures widely, is the author of Broken Promises, Broken Dreams: Stories of Jewish and Palestinian Trauma and Resilience, On the Brink: Israel and Palestine on the Eve of the 2014 Gaza Invasion, and Condition Critical: Life and Death in Israel/Palestine. She directed a documentary film, Voices Across the Divide and is active in Jewish Voice for Peace. Follow her at @alicerothchild

Other posts by .

Posted In:

170 Responses

  1. just on November 22, 2016, 11:10 am

    Thank you so much for this call to action, Dr. Rothchild.

    You nailed it~ it’s brilliant! It’s a searingly comprehensive assessment. I’ve been deeply troubled by all the “wait and see” and “give him a chance” chatter and nonsense. To do that is extremely dangerous and stupid. I’ve seen enough. Do the folks that blithely utter or write that drivel not have a brain, any critical thinking skills, or any knowledge of the words/deeds of these people and history? Or are they just hoping for the best when that is not even an option?

    The time is now.

    • Mooser on November 22, 2016, 1:35 pm

      It’s not like Donald Trump just pecked his way out of the egg.

      • just on November 22, 2016, 1:47 pm


      • Kathleen on November 24, 2016, 11:46 pm

        Or Clinton was not a proven and deadly war hawk sure to inflict more death and destruction on areas of the middle east that she has all ready been part of destroying,, Or that she was not as sold out to Wall Street as Trump,

        Yes on domestic issues likely to be much better, What most people were going for…of course, Even those who voted for Trump believe his trade and jobs hyperbole

  2. Citizen on November 22, 2016, 11:51 am

    Actually they hailed, not heiled. How about La Raza?

    • Maghlawatan on November 22, 2016, 3:08 pm

      I though the use of the Nazi stuff was very dull. Why not Aurangzeb or whatever the Aztec hand gestures were? Why not human sacrifice? Tsk tsk.

  3. Jackdaw on November 22, 2016, 12:48 pm


    You certainly do have some strong opinions.

  4. Steve Grover on November 22, 2016, 1:35 pm

    Geez Alice, had you told me that Trump is like Netanyahu before November 8th I would have voted for him.

    • James North on November 22, 2016, 1:37 pm

      Mooser: This is beyond ridiculous. Put your sock puppet back in the closet.

      • Mooser on November 22, 2016, 4:09 pm

        “Put your sock puppet back in the closet.”

        “James North” why do you kick me when I’m down? I’ve already admitted I cannot be responsible for myself as soon as I sign in as “Steve Grover”. The Moderators know when to stop me.

  5. Maghlawatan on November 22, 2016, 2:05 pm

    Bannon’s agenda is clear. Maintaining a white majority.
    And attacking independent women. Cancer or feminism?
    People have to reach out across the echo chamber to Trump voters because he will shaft them too. Nobody wins unless everybody wins.

    And Jews have to get real about Palestinian rights. Fuck you can also be turned on the bully.

  6. Steve Grover on November 22, 2016, 2:11 pm

    So, Jimmy are you sayin’ that Trump is Netanyahu’s sock puppet? From your mouth to G-d’s ear.

  7. Maghlawatan on November 22, 2016, 3:07 pm

    This song has already happened for Yossi Israeli
    Imagine sacrificing your child’s education for the fucking settlers.

  8. Maghlawatan on November 22, 2016, 3:15 pm

    Trump will not address themain driver of deflation and dysfunction in the economy which is the percentage of wealth controled by the 1%.
    He will not fight for workers. He will not challenge special interests. He may destroy your pension.

  9. ritzl on November 22, 2016, 6:02 pm

    Would have this same rationale be applied to Clinton if she had won? Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State? Etc. Etc. Etc.

    Is the deep state, neocon death cult any more offensive? I think it’s more offensive, has been in place for 20 yearsn and has NEVER been resisted with anything remotely approaching this requested fervor for the last decade or so as it has caused untold devastation and death for millions of human beings. (I think I just answered my own question.)

    Is long-term, neocon-based, Islamophobia/bigotry under a neoliberal administration any less destructive than right-wing bigotry, or is it just that it’s less often verbalized (and as we all know words hurt more than bullets and bombs)?

    Barring some consistent (aka non-hypocritical) application of outrage, this country is beyond recovery. When Obama and Clinton do the bigotry thing it’s just as bad as when the right does it. Worse actually because acquiescence institutionalizes the right’s more overt bigotry (eg. Obama REFUSED to get rid of the existing, Bush-era Muslim registration database; NSEERS). Enter Trump.

    The question, to me, is how to reverse neoliberal institutionalization of righty bigotry while it’s happening. Not wait until a Trump gets elected to pitch a fit. Too late.

    Finally, if any of the people who are soooooo opposed to a President Trump voted for Clinton’s war and death and crying orphans vision of a righteous, comfortable, problem-solving reality, they’ve REALLY got some soul searching to do before they start in on Trump.

    IMHO of course.

    • W.Jones on November 22, 2016, 7:41 pm

      Is the deep state, neocon death cult any more offensive? I think it’s more offensive, has been in place for 20 yearsn and …

      I think Alice might not even know what you are talking about.

      • ritzl on November 22, 2016, 10:10 pm

        Perhaps I was too colorful WJ?

        I think she is informed enough to have a pretty good idea, though my Sis and Sis IL – who are both just as ardent against Trump – did not.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 3:01 pm

        No, you weren’t too colorful, what you said was good because some of it needed to be said.

        I don’t know if she is informed enough to understand what you mean. A person like Alice , or your sisters, can have a good conscience that leads her to the right positions on Isr. Pal, but not get into deep state issues. Someone could even be familiar with important aspects of IP and not know.

        Deep State issues come up more when you take a very critical look at politics or some unexpected issue like the USS Liberty event.

    • MRW on November 23, 2016, 4:07 am

      I agree, ritzl.

    • Maghlawatan on November 25, 2016, 2:52 am

      If anyone actually wanted to drain the swamp they would have to restructure the US economy

      1 in every 5 dollars of economic activity goes to the healthcare system which is out of control and delivers worse outcomes than systems that cost half as much. It is a system for rent seeking. Everything that can be monetised is.

      7% of economic activity is incarceration

      Many states spend far less on education

      The richest 1% own 50% of everything

      The Financial sector is over 300% of GDP.

      60% of all new income between 1975 and 2007 went to the richest 0.1% of Americans

      The wars go with plutocracy which is a function of the financial system. War has 2 benefits. It is good for the arms companies and when the war is over reconstruction is lucrative . Rent seeking paradise.

      Dem or GOP is irrelevant . The problem is the war system and the sociopaths who run it along with the maximum security gulag archipelago and the sick healthcare system.

      The Iranians and the Russians are not the enemy. The Kochs and their fellow travellers are. The prison companies are . The pharmaceutical and insurance companies are

  10. W.Jones on November 22, 2016, 6:37 pm

    Video of Clinton finding Kaddafi’s death funny.

    If Clinton was elected would liberals be giving her the same resI stance they are giving Trump?
    If not, why?

    Is it better to resist war more, or less?

    And finally, has Trump’s campaign more, or less, in support of international conflicts?

    • Keith on November 22, 2016, 7:33 pm

      W. JONES- “If Clinton was elected would liberals be giving her the same resI stance they are giving Trump?”

      It is an interesting thought experiment to wonder what Alice Rothchild’s reaction would be if Trump selected Michele Flournoy for Secretary of Defense and Victoria Nuland for Secretary of State?

      • W.Jones on November 22, 2016, 8:06 pm

        Does she answer comments?

      • Mooser on November 22, 2016, 10:06 pm

        “Does she answer comments?”

        Does she make house calls?

      • MRW on November 23, 2016, 3:29 am

        If Trump were to keep Victoria Nuland anywhere near the corridors of power, it would be proof positive he’s a neocon in sheep’s clothing.

        I think we have escaped WWIII by not electing Hillary. Her only real power as a president would have been foreign policy–as Head of State complete power to act on her own–provided she didn’t sign any treaties which require a 2/3 vote in the Senate. She was a warmonger who wanted to poke the Russian bear aggressively, and put a no-fly zone over Syria which would have escalated the entire region into a real war zone. She crafted the Ukrainian disaster and ouster of a democratically elected president (“regime change”) with Nuland. And she wanted to continue the austerity programs that have so badly damaged the middle class and poor domestically since 2008. Good riddance to her. The Clinton era is dead and I couldn’t be happier.

        I also think all this mewling about Trump is premature and hyperbolic. I urge all of you to read Scott Alexander’s article “YOU ARE STILL CRYING WOLF.”
        Alexander is a pseudonym for a practicing midwest doctor who has really unpleasant things to say about Trump but calls out the commentary about him in trenchant and clearly defined terms. Dr. Rothschild would do well to read it.

      • ritzl on November 23, 2016, 11:50 am

        Thanks for the Star Codex link MRW. Very insightful and informative.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 3:02 pm

        Mooser I am sure she makes house calls.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 3:10 pm

        Yes, since Trump has not been in the White House and has not formally put any policy order concrete on the table, it’s premature to mewl. Part of that is because of his character oF unpredictability.

        You mentioned 3 major hawkish policies pursued by Clinton. How about her glee over Kaddafi’s killing?

        Part of me is relieved she did not win, while another part is apprehensive Trump could turn out to do neocon things because I was a bit disappointed in Obama.

        Your Star Codex article was so interesting like where it says

        Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. You can read the Washington Post article, Trump Got More Votes From People Of Color Than Romney Did, or look at the raw data (source)

        Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people.

  11. W.Jones on November 22, 2016, 6:58 pm

    Dear Alice,

    You write:

    In less than two weeks, our President elect has reiterated his bromance with Netanyahu (and let’s not forget Putin).

    What did Trump say about Putin you are concerned about.

    Should we ratchet back up cold war hostility and anti-Russian rhetoric?

    Oliver Stone has a new movie on Russia:

    Did you consider you might not be getting the full story, Alice?

    • Keith on November 22, 2016, 7:55 pm

      W. JONES- “Did you consider you might not be getting the full story, Alice?”

      I seriously doubt that Dr. Rothchild lacks sufficient information. Rather, I think she is on a mission. The plan seems to be to get us to forget about the Deep State and actual policies and instead to mindlessly engage in counterproductive protests against a demonized Trump. There is a continuity between administrations and many of the things Trump will do will be a continuation of things Clinton and Obama did. Yet we are to believe that things would have been radically different under a Democratic administration. One difference is that a Clinton administration would be perhaps the most militaristic in US history, hardly praise worthy. As for the predictable consequence of the demonization of Trump and his supporters and the ongoing demonstrations, I quote and link John Stauber who has studied this. In the article, there is a link to a previous article of his well worth reading.

      “The massive, continuing protests against President Trump, #NotMyPresident, are not a movement and will only benefit Trump. They are an emotional tactic devoid of strategy, and one that has made Trump stronger and stronger since it was first unleashed during the Republican primaries at the beginning of 2016. ‘Trump is a racist narcissist pig, unfit to exist, much less govern,’ or so the meme goes. But despite losing the popular vote he mat slammed Hillary and the Democrat Party. The GOP scaredy cats who were fleeing him en masse he actually rescued and rose them to control both houses of Congress.

      As of this writing the Trump protests have not abated, and now this smells of serious failure, the type of total and complete butt kicking that Republicans gave to the so-called Wisconsin Uprising. Almost six years after those massive protests against Governor Scott Walker over his disemboweling of the union movement in Wisconsin, after years of big protests with tens of thousands in the streets and a recall election attempt, the GOP is stronger than ever in the Badger State, with hegemonic control of the government in Uprising Central, Madison.” (John Stauber)

      • W.Jones on November 22, 2016, 8:12 pm

        I heard Alice speak before and expect that she is sincere in what she says.
        But it’s very strange for me when I hear professed liberals run the anti Russian lines. It’s kind of like hearing liberals support Israeli repression or portraying Palestinians as bad guys. Eg. ” uh oh, how about Carter’s bromance with the PLO”?.

        I don’t agree with some major aspects of Putin’s rule or PLO tactics, but shouldn’t we try to have positive international relations with world powers?

      • Mooser on November 22, 2016, 8:23 pm

        Trump will be eager to get in on the deep state. Do you think they will have the slightest trouble handling him? I doubt it.

      • W.Jones on November 22, 2016, 9:16 pm


        What president would you say the state apparatus had difficulty with since the country’s founding, if any?

        One candidate could be John Q. Adams.
        ” Adams enacted a part of his agenda and paid off much of the national debt. However he was stymied time and again by a Congress controlled by his enemies, and his lack of patronage networks helped politicians eager to undercut him. ”

        He was someone able to disentangle the US from European politics, disentangle the government from financial dependence, and lacked patronage networks.

        Also a very progressive thinker for his time: “Animated by his growing revulsion against slavery, Adams became a leading opponent of the Slave Power.”
        Source: ibid.

        This difficulty in influence over him by the patronage networks explains why he was a one term president.

        The truth is, Trump bears some similarities to Adams in that he has been campaigning for an independent foreign policy, and the Republican patronage networks have been very divided on him, with some Neocons supporting Clinton over Trump.

        As far as judging whether he follows a wise, diplomatic independent foreign policy on Russia and Syria like he said in his campaign, which I hope to God he does, we will have to Give Him a Chance on this.


      • Mooser on November 22, 2016, 10:09 pm

        Keith, I can’t figure out who you think Donald Trump is. He’s no Quincy Jones.

      • Mooser on November 22, 2016, 10:25 pm

        Anyway, I withdraw my objections, and will adopt a wait-and-see attitude towards Mr. Adam’s Presidency

      • Keith on November 22, 2016, 11:52 pm

        W. JONES- “But it’s very strange for me when I hear professed liberals run the anti Russian lines.”

        That is because you believe that imperial “liberals” adhere to some sort of liberal philosophy. They don’t. “Liberal” is a label attached to those who camouflage neoliberalism in a progressive vocabulary. You have imperial “liberal” power seekers and imperial “conservative” power seekers competing with each other to secure oligarchic funding. What they actually do is quite similar, the major difference is in the packaging.

      • Keith on November 22, 2016, 11:59 pm

        W. JONES- “The truth is, Trump bears some similarities to Adams in that he has been campaigning for an independent foreign policy….”

        Trump is a liar and a fraud, don’t believe a word he says. His one saving grace is that he is not Hillary. The political economy is so radically different from Adams’ time that comparisons are tenuous at best. Suffice to say, that if you are putting your hopes in Trump, you will likely be disappointed.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 3:28 pm

        It’s good to make criticisms or express apprehensions with Trump, but I don’t agree with the monolithic waterfall of pure hostility as if he is The Great Enemy that some liberals espouse. Such diatribe make zero real consideration that his proclaimed foreign policy is far better than Hillary’s. Don’t his monolithic opponents who see no good in him understand the mistakes Hillary has in her jingoistic hostility to countries like Libya, Syria, and Russia?

        Since I am a left wing antiwar antiglobalist voter, I have trouble getting excited for either of those two candidates, including making hysterics against Trump.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 3:34 pm

        I have both hopen and apprehension with Trump. My apprehension is that he could turn out to be Bush 3.0, but I will have to Wait and See if he does. My hope is that he will patch up relations with Russia and Syria.

      • Mooser on November 23, 2016, 10:26 pm

        Look at all the benifits Trump will bring you. Why what do you know, it’s the Kochs! Now, there’s something new and different.

        “I think the best way to look at DeVos’s appointment is as part of a thoroughgoing movement to breakup the public sector – schools, social insurance, roads and infrastructure, public sector unions – and basically privatize everything.”

        So new and different.

      • Sibiriak on November 23, 2016, 11:14 pm

        US Syria policy: signs of shift as Trump son meets pro-Russia Damascus figure

      • Mooser on November 24, 2016, 12:54 pm

        Gosh “Keith” what is described there in the Counterpunch article sounds an awful lot like what’s been called “wing-nut welfare”.

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 4:17 pm

        I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump had Koch bro. Backing or that De facto he was forced to take in Neocons into his cabinet just like somehow they got Obama to follow the opposite policies Obama wanted to.

    • ToivoS on November 23, 2016, 7:43 pm

      W Jones asked the author Should we ratchet back up cold war hostility and anti-Russian rhetoric?

      Unfortunately I am afraid that might happen now. Hillary ran hard bashing Putin and Russia. She seems to have created a mass following of many tens of millions liberal Democrats lusting for war with Russia. Should Trump attempt to jaw jaw rather than war war with Putin then these Dems will be mobilized to attack Trump.

      Yes, Alice has signaled that she will join that mob.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 9:17 pm


        You say “She seems to have created a mass following of many tens of millions liberal Democrats lusting for war with Russia.”

        I know, brother! It’s nuts and unpleasant. Things were nice after the Cold War, and even in the 1980’s the liberals talked about how we needed to emphasize world peace in relations with Russia. Now somehow liberals are saying it’s time for a showdown instead of respect? I can only think that it’s because of signalling from the professedly “liberal” mass media to “liberals” in the audience.

        Listen to McGovern’s talk on Ukraine at 12:47 where he relates being in the audience of DC progressives who talked about Crimea and how the speaker imagined events there:

        He says they imagine and fill in their own details (like Crimean War casualties) because the NYT and the TV doesn’t tell them otherwise. He makes a lot of good points in the video, like how no Russian president in history would give up Crimea’s bases to NATO.

      • Keith on November 23, 2016, 11:43 pm

        TOIVOS- “Yes, Alice has signaled that she will join that mob.”

        A loyal member of the blue tribe.

      • ToivoS on November 24, 2016, 7:05 am

        W Jones recommended: Listen to McGovern’s talk on Ukraine

        I most certainly did, actually from a link I believe you provided earlier. And what really struck me about that was his description of that “progressive” academic that knew nothing of what happened in Crimea in 2014. This anecdote resonated with me from my own experience with people I know and respect. These are people who were strongly in the antiwar camp in 2003 and 2004 in opposition to Bush’s war in Iraq. Today they are anti-Russian (real Putin haters) and firm supporters of Hillary. It took me some time to realize that they are not really antiwar, but opposed to wars started by Republicans. On the other hand they are eagerly prowar if a Democrat starts one or advocates for one.

        This is downright depressing. No principles at all are involved here. Blue team, yes yes yes no matter what they do, red team, no no no even if they might be trying to make peace with Russia.

        As a life long Democrat, I remember Nixon’s overture and successful efforts to make peace with China. At that time all of the Democrats I knew then supported his efforts. They may have expressed some envy that no Democratic president could have pulled that off but they applauded Nixon’s results. Something has changed in that last 20 years and I am still unclear what has happened.

      • Keith on November 24, 2016, 11:43 am

        TOIVOS- “Something has changed in that last 20 years and I am still unclear what has happened.”

        It has been slightly longer than that, but essentially two things happened. The first was the birth of the Democratic Leadership Council and the new Democrats like Bill Clinton who could attract huge amounts of corporate cash essential for victory, while simultaneously placating the voters who they were betraying. The second was the ongoing, massive redistribution of wealth and power from them 99% to the 1% such that the super rich practically own the system, including both parties and most of the NGOs. A Democratic Party of high principles would soon become cash starved and marginal rather than the well-funded party of “liberal” oligarchs such as Haim Saban and George Soros.

      • Keith on November 24, 2016, 11:55 am

        TOIVOS- “Something has changed in that last 20 years and I am still unclear what has happened.”

        For an excellent analysis of the latest phase of Democratic Party debauchery, I provide a quote and link to an article from 2013 written by John Stauber.

        “For almost a decade now the funders of the Progressive Movement, the rich Democrats of the Democracy Alliance and their cliques, networks and organizations, have employed and funded political hacks, fundraisers, pollsters, organizers and PR flacks. Over the past ten years they have dumped more and more money into the big feeding trough shared by the major players of the Progressive movement. The overall goal and result has always been to bring withering rhetorical fire and PR attacks upon the Republican Right, while creating a tremendous fear of the Right to increase the vote for Democrats. This has become Job #1 for the Progressive Movement. No one quite remembers Job #2.

        Real movements are not the creation of and beholden to millionaires. The Progressive Movement is astroturf beholden to the rich elite, just as the Democratic millionaires and operatives of the Democracy Alliance intended. The “movement’s” funding is in the hands of a small number of super rich Democrats and union bureaucrats and advisors who run with them. Its talking points, strategies, tactics and PR campaigns are all at the service of the Democratic elite. There is no grassroots organized progressive movement with power in the United States, and none is being built. Indeed, if anything threatens to emerge, the cry “Remember Nader!” arises and the budding insurgency is marginalized or coopted, as in the case of the Occupy Wall Street events. Meanwhile, the rich elite who fund the Progressive Movement, and their candidates such as Barack Obama, are completely wedded to maintaining the existing status quo on Wall Street and in the corporate boardroom. Their well-kept Progressive Movement is adept at PR, propaganda, marketing and fundraising necessary in the service of the Democratic Party and the corporate elite who rule it.” (John Stauber)

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 4:11 pm

        Thanks for writing, Toivo!

        I think you are quite a smart person and like how you have been able to take an independent consistent antiwar position here.

        I think it may have been easier for China or Russia to have detente with Nixon in that being conservative, he could speak with more authority over conservatives in the us, while a democrat trying to do detente could get accused of being weak.

        Keith calling it astroturfing the Left was a great way to put it. In the IP world the best analogy can think of is how propeace Jstreets base can include many or mostly peaceniks , but in terms of Gaza it ends up supporting war and it gets tons of cash from Soros.

        Take a hint too from the color revolutions that have backing from liberal ngos in the mideast and ukraine, but then result in fundy conservative neocon regime change when the leaders take a non globalist stance.

        This is a danger I see, that if Trump tries to take antiglobalist actual pro peace stances, the neo liberals will use “liberal” ngos as a backlash in the same way. Namely, in the color revolutions they had liberals united with conservative fundies, ultimately driving at neocon goals like overthrowing an antiglobalist, even though the liberals thought they were working for liberal values, like fighting corruption.

        Since you are quite smart and have written before, and because we’re seeing a stream of bandwagon articles that don’t challenge this prowar problem in the Left that you mentioned, I would love to see you write something on MW on this problem.

  12. W.Jones on November 22, 2016, 7:01 pm

    Here is Ray Mcgovern on Ukraine, Alice. Have you heard of him?


  13. Bandolero on November 22, 2016, 8:39 pm


    Trump just promised again to abolish TPP on his first day in office.

    If he follows through with that promise – and I think chances are really good because if he didn’t want to do that he’ld just shelved or forgotten that promise by now – his election already paid off.

    TPP is more than about the economy, it was a strategy to start a new cold war to prevent an emerging multipolar world. In other words: without TPP the American empire is dead. China takes over as the world’s leading country.

    Whatever Trump or Bibi or whoever follows them will do else will not be able to turn this changed world back to an American dominated world. Israel might hang on for a while, but since the apartheid regime of Israel is dependent on American supremacy in the world there is no way Israel can evade that reality of changed world power configuration.

    But there is more: Regarding Flynn, he looks to me quite good, as I saw the videos where some of these quotes are said to come from, and I think you misquoted him a bit. He seems to me to be out to take down Israel’s most important Arab ally, the wahhabi regime of Saudi Arabia. And by the way, he seems to be on good terms with Putin, what is a really good thing.

    And take a look on the Israel lobby, despite Bibi making a nice face with Trump they are frightened by Trump. They understand already that under Trump “America first” will rule, and the times of “Israel first” are over.

    Another great thing Trump has done is proposing Farage as british ambassador. Doing this Trump is on the path of destroying the European Union, the second biggest backer of israel after the US, because that pushes Britain out of the EU.

    And, Trump is also on the path of destroying the mainstream media hasbara machine, just read about his meeting with the leading media figures on Monday.

    However, I agree that Trumpism shouldn’t last forever. To make the end of Trump a success, it’s needed to get back the Dem party from Wall Street & the lobby, Clintonists and Chuck Schomer types, so it really serves the people it is supposed to serve. If I would be American and opposed to Trunmp that’s where I would put my energy on: conquer the Dem party to make it serve the people instead of Wall Street. If that change in the Dem party happens Trump will soon be history.

    • annie on November 22, 2016, 9:17 pm

      i agree bandolero

      • W.Jones on November 22, 2016, 9:38 pm

        Yes, great points here. One of the best things on MW is the comments section where people can share real critical ideas instead of getting on a livestock Party bandwagon that misquotes politicians who are on the opposite Party bandwagon.

        Also, yes it’s funny that he actually told the execs the kind of things Phil Weiss has said about the MSM for years.

        Personally, my main fear about Trump is not the kind if stuff that Party Liberals have been putting out in the MSM, but that he would turn out to be a secret Neocon running as an Antiglobalist.

        Also, your last paragraph is so obvious. Is it rational at all how masses turned out to protest Trump when it was the DNC itself that denied leftists an actual Left candidate in the two big parties?

    • W.Jones on November 22, 2016, 9:27 pm

      Great points, Bandolero. I didn’t even know about TPP.
      Since Trump is putting himself out as anti globalist, I do think anti globalists on the Left need to give Trump a chance.
      I mean, if he tries to register all Muslims, sure it’s something we should protest as a violation of freedom of religion, a basic part of our democracy.
      But let’s not be prejudiced to the point of announcing that he is 100 percent bad like some stereotype before we actually see what he tries to do in practice. Let’s be thoughtful and careful, while still being vigilant for our democracy.

      • Bandolero on November 22, 2016, 11:48 pm


        my main fear about Trump is … that he would turn out to be a secret Neocon running as an Antiglobalist.

        If Trump would be a secret Neocon running as an Antiglobalist, he now would not have promised to follow through with his promise to abolish the TPP, but would have promised to follow through with his promise to label China a currency manipulator on day one, a promise Mitt Romney also made in 2012. That could have also ignited a new cold war – what’s exactly the reason why neocons want it.

        However his promise to label China a currency manipulator Trump forgot now, while he didn’t forget his promise to scrap TPP. That’s a decision which strongly indicates Trump’s direction for a multipolar world order, or how you call it, anti-globalist. The Wall Street establishment isn’t happy at all with that.

      • MRW on November 23, 2016, 3:03 am

        The Muslim Registry called NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System) was created on Sept 10, 2002. It was an abysmal failure, but Obama didn’t get rid of it, did he.

        The program had three parts.

        First, it required non-citizens to register when they entered the US — a process that included fingerprinting, photo taking and interrogation.

        Second, it mandated that these people, as well as others already in the US, register and regularly check in with immigration officials. [This requirement has been in place for all green card recipients from time immemorial, but only once a year.]

        Third, it kept track of those leaving the country to make sure that temporary guests did not remain illegally. Violators were arrested, fined and even deported.

        All males 16 years of age or older from 25 countries were forced to register.

        Although no religious groups were explicitly targeted, all but one was a Muslim-majority country.

        The countries included: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen. The sole exception: North Korea.

        Trump intends to add Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan.

        The Brennan Center for Justice wrote today:

        Federal courts previously found the NSEERS program constitutional, but they also warned that they would reach a different conclusion if there were evidence that the program was based on religious animus. . . .

        And in the aftermath of 9/11, courts were willing to accept NSEERS as an emergency stopgap. Today, however, the United States has an automated entry-exist system for all foreign visitors (US-VISIT), rendering the NSEERS registration process “redundant, inefficient, and unnecessary,” according to the Department of Homeland Security’s own assessment.

      • Maghlawatan on November 23, 2016, 3:20 am

        History is a record of consequences which nobody intended to produce.

        If Trump does move against Muslims the Suez Canal might be shut down.
        Israel needs Trump to be nice to Muslims.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 3:37 pm

        Good point about the currency manipulation accusation. I think that articles from your kind of antiglobalist perspective on Trump are needed on MW. I am impressed with your knowledge. Maybe you could write something?

    • ritzl on November 22, 2016, 9:57 pm

      Yup. Well said. Trump is the inevitable result of Dems failure to serve the forgotten constituency that they neglect but which elected Trump, despite the bigoted campaign.

      Clinton could have won by a landslide if she would have done just two things right (and maybe just one thing): Advocated like she meant it, $15 minimum wage and/or trash TPP and/or fix Obamacare and/or end war/windfall to free college etc…. (the list is long). But she didn’t.

      I just don’t get this after-the-fact bitterness. It’s not a problem solving method or behavior. It’s more inward-directed as anything for not being at all prospective before the election (ie. during Obama’s eight years). My only hope is that that anger turns into non-partisan resolve and foresight. Maybe it will. There’s obviously a motivation for it to evolve in that direction, but I think also a path. Trump is the trailhead to that path imo, but it extends well into the next Dem administration (and beyond) if all this grousing is to have durable effect. Ya know, Dems lost the House and Senate in the face of Social Security privatization. That’s an almost inconceivable failure to me. Start there.

      I also read an article in the WaPo a few weeks ago that quoted a survey that found that 46% of US households don’t have $400 to cover an emergency. I bet some of that extreme economic anxiety in former Dem constituencies translated into stay-at-homes or Trump votes. Start there. Political gold mine.

      Idk. Seems like Trump’s election is an opportunity to leverage his good bits and resist his bad bits mightily, but always with an eye to building a compelling/electable political narrative (and results) that organically combines economic and racial justice as opposed to Trump’s/Republican version which separates them and forces normal moral people into an artificial mutually exclusive choice.

      Getting rid of Trump is not a binary/zero-sum anger-based activity because he’s actually right on some big issues. It’ll take some political craft to separate, co-opt (back), assemble, and argue a better vision.

      Sorry for rambling.

      • annie on November 23, 2016, 6:53 am

        don’t ever apologize for rambling ritzl.

        My only hope is that that anger turns into non-partisan resolve and foresight.

        re hope: i’d like either massive reformation of the dem party/dnc or else a strong 3rd party option.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 3:48 pm

        Thanks for writing in, Ritzl.
        Good ideas here. Yes if Hillary was not fighting Russia, Syria, and Libya and wanted to fix Medicare from being such a boon to insurance companies where the middle class gets taxed if they dont BUY healthcare, hillarys loss could be a bit disappointing.

        The best way I can explain the after the fact bitterness is that there are many Americans who are not ACTUALLY very multifaceted in critical thinking. They will just believe in whatever the democratic party or a bigwig tells them. So if they are supposedly an antiwar liberal, they could still believe in invading Libya or Serbia IF democratic party leaders like the Clintons oversee it. It’s a herd mentality!

        You finished it with some more great thoughts. I would love for you to put them in a MW article, like how we can leverage Trump’s good points and recognize what they are.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 3:49 pm

        Annie, I agree with you about reforming the Dems and a third party. I wonder if Hillary even understands why she lost working class votes.

      • annie on November 23, 2016, 4:31 pm

        i have no idea w.jones

      • Mooser on November 23, 2016, 7:06 pm

        “i have no idea w.jones”|

        “Annie” can you believe the hopes people are investing in Donald Trump”?.
        All based on his record, of course.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 9:07 pm

        So…. if Annie says that she has no idea if Hillary learned needed lessons about the working class from her election debacle…. it means people are investing high hopes in Donald Trump?

        My hope is that Trump will smooth relations with Russia and Syria instead of imposing Libya 2.0. Based on all the trashing Trump got from the “liberal” mass media over this, I think there is a basis for the hope.

        Still, I am apprehensive based on past disillusionment with politics. Was Obama’s Hope and Change what you expected it to be, Mooser?

      • Mooser on November 24, 2016, 1:21 pm

        .” Was Obama’s Hope and Change what you expected it to be, Mooser?”

        Nah, it turned out to be somewhat different then I expected. So obviously the thing to do now is go back to privatization and segregation. That’ll get rid of all that hopey-changey stuff.

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 3:53 pm

        Do you prefer to live under a nice illusion of liberal pro peace slogans that are a cover for neocon war policies, Mooser?

        “Propeace” J STREET can give you that when it comes to IP. Didn’t they support they war in Gaza?

        So much deadly betrayal by some “liberals”, Mooser, why can’t you see this?


        Trump is not going to impose Segregation. You are making this up. It’s not even conceivable outside dem. Party dog whistling. But Hillary invading Syria on behalf of fundy rebels IS conceivable.

        How do millions of pro peace liberals not get something so fundamental?


        Having to pick between Trump and Hillary would be very very hard for me as an antiwar leftist. Voting for Hillary means voting for a deadly fundy war against millions of syrians. Voting for Trump means social programs I believe in risk getting cut.

      • Mooser on November 24, 2016, 5:07 pm

        “Voting for Trump means social programs I believe in risk getting cut.”

        Like public schools.

      • Sibiriak on November 24, 2016, 7:21 pm

        W. Jones: Voting for Hillary means voting for a deadly fundy war against millions of syrians. Voting for Trump means social programs I believe in risk getting cut.

        On the domestic front, Hillary Clinton has been a stealthy champion of Wall Street interests.

        One example:

        David Sirota: “Hillary Clinton And Wall Street: Financial Industry May Control Retirement Savings In A Clinton Administration”

        Very important article, which must be read in its entirety. Quick excerpts:

        While Hillary Clinton has spent the presidential campaign saying as little as possible about her ties to Wall Street, the executive who some observers say could be her Treasury Secretary has been openly promoting a plan to give financial firms control of hundreds of billions of dollars in retirement savings. The executive is Tony James, president of the Blackstone Group.

        * * *

        […]Since 2013, Clinton has sent conflicting signals on retirement policy. During the Democratic primary, under pressure from progressive groups, she agreed to support some targeted Social Security increases and promised not to reduce benefits.

        But in paid speeches to Wall Street firms, according to recently leaked emails, she praised a presidential commission that recommended cuts to the program. Clinton has not publicly endorsed James’ plan, but her campaign’s blank slate on retirement policy provides a clear opportunity for the Blackstone president and his plan, about which he has just co-authored a book, “Rescuing Retirement.”

        Blackstone’s Tony James Touting What Looks Like Hillary’s Scheme to Gut Social Security

        It’s not hard to see the long-term game plan. Social Security will be cut due to purported need to keep the budget balanced while funding bombing runs in the Middle East. It will be turned from a universal social safety net more and more into a welfare program. That in turn makes it easier to make more cuts, since its core supporters will be further and further down the food chain.

        * * *

        Put it another way: this is just another form of looting. Obamacare was written by the health insurance lobby and look how well that has turned out. Just imagine what sort of cooking ordinary Americans will get from the kitchen of Tony James and his fellow private equity robber barons…

    • Mooser on November 22, 2016, 10:45 pm

      “In other words: without TPP the American empire is dead. China takes over as the world’s leading country.”

      Ah, that should do a lot for the rust-belt Trump voters, as all manufacturing moves to Asia.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 3:53 pm

        One reason TPP is bad is because jobs move with it to Asia, even if not China.
        Any rejection of capitalist globalist expansion by Trump is good.

      • Mooser on November 23, 2016, 7:00 pm

        “Any rejection of capitalist globalist expansion by Trump is good.”

        Yup if there is one thing Trump is against, it’s global capitalism . He keeps his money in America and his debt overseas.

        Oh that’s right, he parks his debt in the US, and borrows money overseas.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 9:01 pm


        I did not say that Trump was not a capitalist or wasn’t involved in multinational capitalism.

        If Trump is rejecting a major globalist expansion like TPP that Bandolero has described, then it’s good.

        Do you understand this?

        So if Trump announced last winter “I have decided to postpone my trip to Israel ” because Netanyahu was harsh with him, or not long ago Bannon skipped a major AIPAC fundraiser is that good or bad?

        Apparently the “Bandwagon Establishment ‘Left’ ” thinking is that it’s got to be very very bad…. because it’s from Trump.

        “The Bandwagon is Everything, The Goal is Nothing”?

    • John O on November 23, 2016, 3:11 am

      “Another great thing Trump has done is proposing Farage as british ambassador. Doing this Trump is on the path of destroying the European Union, the second biggest backer of israel after the US, because that pushes Britain out of the EU.”

      Either Trump is such an ignoranus [sic] that he doesn’t know that the US President does not – yet – have the power to nominate who gets to be ambassador to the US, or his tweet is a calculated insult to the British government. Farage, racist, anti-Semitic and thoroughly corrupt, would, of course fit right in with Trump’s other appointments.

      That an organisation that has contributed enormously to Europe’s peace and security (including ensuring peaceful transitions to democracy in countries from Spain to Slovenia) should be wrecked just because it doesn’t do enough to rein in Israel, seems a little harsh.

      • Bandolero on November 23, 2016, 1:46 pm

        John O

        The nobel peace prize winner EU wages one war after the other to expand, mostly against Moscow. The war on and destruction of communist Yugoslavia & sometimes quite bloody regime changes in Georgia, Ukraine two times already, Moldavia, Armenia, Belarus, it’s all the work of “peaceful democracy promoting” EU and it’s military twin sister NATO in the service of anti-Russian western empire expansion. Plus the terrorist destruction of Libya & Syria right now, of course all under the cover of “transitions to democracy” – but in reality in the service of western empire expansion.

        If the EU really promoted peace I would still be all for EU, but since EU promotes war eastwards like Nazis did, I started to become all against EU. A further problem with EU is that it is very hard to reform it for peace, since it is only very indirectly democratically controlled. Reform of EU seems hardly possible, that’s why it must go.

        Btw: British media reports that team Trump meticulously planned out ‘Farage for ambassador’ tweet:

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 3:57 pm

        What do you think of the EU role in Yugoslavias crushing, in its exploitative financiAL policies, especially in greece, and the way it facilitated the coup in Ukraine?

        I can’t understand it John, why some liberals are so enthusiastic about the EU. It’s a bit like being enthusiastic about NAFTA or IMF demands.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 4:02 pm

        Great points again Bandloreo. Yours is a needed voice.
        I don’t get how so many among us ” liberals” miss this stuff, like on EU backed war in Libya and other regime changes. I thought liberals were supposed to be against exploitation.

        Do EU citizens not vote for their EU delegates?
        Are pro EuroMaidan Ukrainians more mistaken about the EU than I thought?

      • Bandolero on November 23, 2016, 5:35 pm


        EU citizens vote for their delegates in the EU parliament, but that so-called parliament is largely a “consultative” body, similar to a “parliament” in Saudi Arabia.

        The real EU parliament is called the EU Council. It’s members are the heads of government of the EU member countries. The EU council does the important things, like chosing the EU government and passing the real EU legislation, like sanctions on Syria and Russia, expansion to the east, legislation to build a EU army, treaties with other countries and entities like CETA, the anti-migration agreement with Turkey and so on.

        The actual “EU government” is called the EU Commission. It’s elected for five year terms by the EU Council. The head of the Commission is called the President of the Commission, currently Jean-Claude Juncker, a transatlantic German stooge from Luxembourg. Before Juncker it was José Manuel Barroso, a non-executive chairman at Goldman Sachs International. In their 5 year terms the Commission and their President can largely do what they want, like squeeze Greece, give money to EU governments they deem following good policy and give no money to governments following what they deem bad policy.

        So, if the people in one EU member state don’t like their national government anymore, and put in charge instead a government that follows policies more for the interests of the people than the interests of Goldman Sachs, the US and Israel they can change their national government, but in the EU council they switched just one vote with that. And than the EU Commission retaliates against the government which puts the interests of their people before the interests of Goldman Sachs, by the method an economic crackdown against the popular national government until it’s on it’s knees while continuing business as usual – ie transfering wealth from the people to the corporations and their own pockets and expanding the US zionist empire.

        So, for the people in a EU nation who want a change in policy in the interest of the people – like a state sponsored investment programm, an effective job programm or peace and good relations with their non-EU-members – it’s easier to try leaving the EU than inducing a real policy change in the EU – because for a change in EU policy they would need to change at least half of the diverse EU member states governments from Bulgaria to the UK and than wait and survive years until next EU Commission elections, a near impossible task.

        That’s what’s behind all the new “anti-EU populists” left and right, from Syriza over M5S and UKIP to FN. People across the EU are fed up with Goldman Sachs and the like running their politics, but they deem it easier to leave the EU than to change the EU.

      • Bumblebye on November 23, 2016, 6:09 pm

        EU citizens do vote for MEPs. However, MEPs don’t make EU law. Neither does the EU council of leaders.EU laws are written by representatives of a bunch of companies and then debated and voted on by MEPs. The damn thing was set up with its very own ALEC hidden at its heart. Few people are aware.

      • echinococcus on November 23, 2016, 6:16 pm

        Excellent description, Bandolero.
        Not for nothing is the EU called “The second German occupation.”

      • Bandolero on November 23, 2016, 8:42 pm


        It feels more like the mafia is ruling, no one in the EU government is hold accountable for nothing, despite their completely failed policies from the financial meltdown 2009 over sometimes very bloody Anti-Russian expansion up to currently supporting the overthrow of the Libyan & the Syrian government by largely Al Qaeda driven gunmen and trying to get back to a kind of cold war status with Russia and China, so a bipolar world is created. So there are good reasons for a serious change of government – meaning to break the ruling cartel. But it’s hard to do. The guys running the show run it like a cartell.

        Just imagine: unlike US presidential elections where the people elect the President, the EU president is elected by the rulers of the EU member states. It would be a bit like if the US President would be elected by the governeurs of the US states, with the major difference that most people in the different EU nations from Romania to Sweden can’t even speak with each other to organize to bring power to account.

        For those who really hold power the term “The second German occupation” is bit misleading, I think. That’s because Germany itself is under some kind of occupation, too. It’s the US occupation which began in 1945 for at least partially good reasons and which was formally ended already, but de facto lasts still up to this day.

        The ruling class here is a kind of occupation by those who believe in enduring Pax Americana and feel free to suppress all those who’s opinion is that it would be better to have a world where there is more than one power center and act like that. While in Germany one such incident, that some one in the top power position left the Pax Americana camp to go to the multipolar Russia/China camp, happened with Schröder in 2002, Germay is still overwhelmingly ruled by the guys in believing in enduring Pax Americana, or like we call them here, Transatlantiker. It’s expectionally hard to bring these people to account, and the German political system was designed by the occupying powers in a way that politically change is especially hard to reach. Merkel is just going from 12 years chancellorship to 16, and Adenauer and Kohl reached similar lengths of terms.

        The German system was intentionally designed by it’s inventors to be hard to change in the name of being not open to take overs by forces of communism or fascism, and the ruling power here comes quite close to Wall Street, the Clintonists and the Israel lobby.

        So, in the end one may better say it’s an American occupation than a Second German occupation. There are some German people, who would like to change that and do what’s neccessary to change that, me for example, but in Germany we are a clear minority until now.

        But in other EU countries that movement is already stroger, though some of the people there and here still haven’t really understood who they are really up against. But the people who does understand this grows.

      • DaBakr on November 23, 2016, 10:45 pm

        nikki haley= UN ambassador. but cheer up. at least is isn’t palin.

        he has also made it clear he will not only seek to vilify some of the US traditional rivals and/or enemies but he damn sure isn’t going to vilify, ostracize and harangue the US’s traditional , long standing and loyal allies.

        while not disconting the assumption that mr. trumpo has been a bit of a ding dong there is really no way to do anything else other then ‘wait and see’. he has no track record with which to judge him by. as a reality star? a brand enitity? a (former) party boy. (can’t wait to see the attitude he takes towards blacks incarcerated for 20-life for dealing small amounts of crack when he was snuffing it up his nose by the bucket. )
        he is already putting out press releases from his top staff that support israeli positions on the i/p conflict and what the proper response should be when rockets are launched from either the south or the north.

        so-he is still for the most part an unknown quantity but lefties like ms. rothman completely fail to see that her opponents on the right consider her as much of a danger to a strong, peaceful and america with abundance for all. she has no concept of how the majority of americans have changed their views on race and integration. no, as is the typical knee-jerk response of extremists of both stripes its to spead fear, moral outrage and lies to whip the ignorant and gullible masses into protesting things they have very little understanding about. it was reported by numerous media outlets that the protesters at the NPI ‘conference’ in D.C. outnumbered the attendees. why? because the MSM (that is more in line with PW’s views then he would ever admit) is focusing maximum coverage on a group of some 270 nazi/white nationalists trying to milk their pathetically tiny meeting for all it can from the hysterical left. Do these nazis have any political power as a result of trump? hardly. big deal-they have an occasional platform on the basically mainstream conservative breitbart. no different themn the occasional off-the-wall op-eds printed by the NYT.

        the old cliche about putting all the religious extremists together in a compound and let them kill each other off applies to the richard spencers AND alice rothchilds of the world. the far left must disabuse itself of the notion that they have any more moral clarity or weight then conservative citizens of her own nation. which is mostly why so many zionists believe she should focus on her own moral failings rather then directing her scorn at israel. she will never been seen as anything but a hypocrite by center-left, center or center right zionist and that is the bulk of who she needs to convince she has any legitimacy in her pov.

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 5:07 am


        Can you please say a bit how the Postwar West German system was set up to prevent a change in policy, by design? (eg. how did they arrange for long chancellorships and to keep Schoder’s Russia/China axis from catching on?)

    • Brewer on November 23, 2016, 5:10 am

      Agree also.
      Cool heads will prevail, or at least salvage a little from this train-wreck. It is useful to remember that, had Hillary won, the situation would be worse. I don’t think Trump is owned to the extent that Hillary is. Under her, Syria would become another Iraq, knocking out the last opponent to the Israel project, tensions with Russia would give Israel wonderful cover for annexation and expulsion.
      Part of me wants to believe that Trump is playing a long and complex game here. Judging by the blogs, a significant bloc of voters share that belief or hope.
      Bannon doesn’t seem so bad. He must be very clever to be both pro-Israel and anti-Semitic. His reputation among his detractors stems from the content and comments in Breitbart just as Phil’s is maligned among a certain group for his involvement here.
      The political reality is probably Trump needed the pro-Israel vote . That caused him to modify his original stance which was a fair deal for Palestine. It will not be difficult for him to put Israel under some pressure however, by invoking his America First mantra and he doesn’t seem shy about walking back some of his stances. He knows the big money is against him. So far he has resisted the odious Bolton.
      I should probably add that I once had high hopes for Obama.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 4:08 pm

        Obama’s Iran deal was good. Probably he gave some resistance to Neocon pressures, like to fight Syria harder.

        But as a leftist, his administration was very weak and for me disappointing, in some ways even hurtful. Obama care is a pain because it fines the middle class if they don’t buy private companies health care. Should you be fined for not eating at restaurants?

  14. echinococcus on November 22, 2016, 11:48 pm

    The article reflects very well the Democrats’ panic in front of a possibility of peace and détente. Very far from certain in any case, but even a remote possibility of peace (which in this specific case would probably help Palestinian resistance) is anathema. Hence the outrageous propaganda that has most so-called liberals’ panties badly bunched up.
    Some expressions of it are no different than the crazy stuff one used to read in McCarthy times (see Russia, Ukraine etc.)

    But what really got me extremely disturbed is this:

    While there are obvious differences, the State of Israel, much like the US, shares a history of immigrants fleeing oppression, a faith in manifest destiny,… We both share a variety of progressive movements

    “We”? How does Dr. Rothschild identify herself with the Zionist entity?
    How far does this identification go?
    It would be important to know these things before hearing internal US policy advice.

  15. Marnie on November 23, 2016, 12:24 am

    This was another great piece by Alice Rothschild – thank you for your words of inspiration and wisdom. My family is in the states and have that stupid ‘wait and see’ attitude wrt trump. Wait and see might be an option if you’re postponing surgery on that weird lump that may or may not be carcinogenic, but it’s a dangerous, reckless and irresponsible attitude to have regarding trump. trump hasn’t created jobs, his business acumen isn’t that great considering his bankruptcies and he’s a racist, dickless, vain old bastard. I’m not throwing around the racist card, like so many throw around the antisemite card – his racism is court-documented. He’s more concerned about how many of his chins are captured in photos and his businesses, than the average americans he promised ‘great’ things to so they’d vote for him. I’ll give him that, or maybe kellyanne, for knowing exactly what to tap into to get elected and who to court for votes, though he didn’t get the majority of votes, but won on the failsafe of the right – the electoral college. (with regard to his vanity, he should get along with sara netanyahoo swimmingly). He also has no self-awareness or self-control and absolutely no governance over his tiny fingers as they tear up the twitter universe in the wee hours of the night. Who else does that besides attention-starving kardashians?

    He has to go. I don’t care where, but he can’t get the keys to the country. For every child who is fearful and senses the fear in their parents – i am so sorry. Everyone has to pull together to ‘drain the swamp’, starting with trump, his family, his appointees and all the fellators in waiting.

    He’s not a young man and looks pretty out of shape so i’m hoping he’ll stroke out or have a massive MI (or both) before January (have a very heart unhealthy thanksgiving donald) and his vice has an unfortunating hunting accident with dick cheney.

    • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 6:45 pm

      Dear Marnie,

      Hello! It’s interesting you do not live in the states. Which country are you in?
      I heard that foreign academics like that Trump is not bent on antio-Syrian military intervention, at least in his campaign claims.

      Can you please show you what you mean by his “racism is court-documented”?

      No candidate got ” the majority of votes”. He and Clinton both tend to be seen negatively by Americans.

      It’s awful and sick when you say

      He’s not a young man and looks pretty out of shape so i’m hoping he’ll stroke out or have a massive MI (or both) before January (have a very heart unhealthy thanksgiving donald) and his vice has an unfortunating hunting accident with dick cheney.

      I don’t know that MW should even clear these kinds of comments. It reminds me of when I was in Middle School prayer group and some right wing Evangelical teen prayed for Clinton to die (probably because of the abotrion issue or some other “culture war” issue). It’s the same kind of thinking the Israeli far right has about their political opponents.

      How many Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis, and Libyans has Trump killed, Marnie?
      That’s right, ZERO.

      Let’s have those of us who actually care about human rights keep our analyses and emotions thoughtful, careful and orderly.

      • Mooser on November 23, 2016, 7:25 pm

        “It’s awful and sick when you say”

        Yes, “Marnie” why don’t you follow our President-Elect’s example and moderate your speech?

      • RoHa on November 23, 2016, 8:34 pm

        “How many Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis, and Libyans has Trump killed, Marnie? That’s right, ZERO. ”

        He’s obviously not fit to be President.

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 8:50 pm


        Did Trump say that he wants to see American Muslims or Blacks die?

        If you are complaining about Trump’s immoderate speech, why make even worse immoderate speech?

        A lot of Two Party Election commentary is like people are rooting for a football team, where one team (Republicans vs. Democrats) is all good and the other team is all bad, and they go into hysterics and threats when their supposed “good” team loses. It’s very sad that many supposedly “antiwar” liberals’ “team” is the hawk who wants to dive down and eat Syria. I don’t get it except to think that it’s a herd mentality.

      • Marnie on November 24, 2016, 12:05 am

        Well, MW clears comments like mine so you can feel morally and intellectually superior. You should thank them. Where do you live? I was born in the usa and I’m a long gone mama from the u.s.a.

        W.Jones – I’m not praying for anything, personal remarks I made about tRUMP are sarcastic and I didn’t say that! But if I was praying, there’d be miracles all over. My prayers are the best. I actually have a god’s ear somewhere, but they are such great prayers. I didn’t say anything mean! You are being really mean to me W. Jones. It is so UNFAIR. I LOVE tRUMP – everybody knows that. And you know what – he loves me too! Everyone loves me! Everyone! And the next post by me is going to be great! It’s going to be……really GREAT! It’s going to be the best post MW ever published! And you – APOLOGIZE!

      • Marnie on November 24, 2016, 7:58 am

        What can I say W.Jones – Trump’s brought out my PTSD like a big dog.

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 2:25 pm

        Exactly. There is a major portion of Americans, including among liberals, who lack the full scope of independent critical thinking skills.
        Besides my apprehension that Trump could be a closet neocon, my other concern is like what Toivo expressed, that if he works hard at habing good, respectful international relations, then his neoliberal opponents will blow the dog whistle on him. A great example of this was the Lewinsky impeachment case for Clinton in the 90s when the Republicans were going to impeach him over his adultery case with monica, something that was not an issue of critical national importance. So in Trump’s case my concern is that they will blow this kind of dog whistle on “Bandwagon Liberals”. So if he says No to war in Syria against Assad, then the media will trump up some offensive comments he made or whatever his most illiberal policy is, even if its not super important and then they will use liberal protests as a kind of tool in their toolbox make him weak, and to get the Bandwagon Liberals to put the heat on, even though their goal is Neocon and not actually liberal.


      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 2:38 pm

        Due to interventions in Syria and Libya, there are very many more people with ptsd.
        Sorry, I have big difficulty crying when someone who opposes those interventions gets elected.

        I hope you and others will be able to understand why.

  16. miriam6 on November 23, 2016, 1:10 am

    Alice is worried over white supremacy under Trump?
    AFRICOM? White racist org instituted 8 yrs go under Obama / Hillary Clinton in order to recolonise Africa. Theft of millions from Haiti? Clinton Foundation stands accused
    Destruction of Libya? Under Obama / Killary – the latter caught on film gloating over death of Arab African leader
    Right wing coup in Honduras? Killary responsible ..
    ‘Super predators’? Killary insulting inner city black Americans

    • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 6:56 pm

      Yes, Miriam.

      It’s nuts. Many of my fellow “liberals” are fighting the “culture wars” by objecting to Hillary’s loss to Trump while millions of Syrians and Libyans have been devastated through actual neoliberal wars.

      “If that is your position, then I will talk only to White People” ~ HRC on the 2016 campaign trail.

      • Kathleen on November 24, 2016, 11:37 am

        “while millions of Syrians and Libyans have been devastated through actual neoliberal wars. “-

        And the majority of Americans appear to not care about the death and devastation that Clinton’s push for interventions in Libya and Syria have caused, Clearly Obama had the ability to say no but did not, Biden was against the intervention in Libya…not sure about the arming of unknown rebels in Syria,

        Clinton is covered with blood from these interventions, Maddow, Matthews (ok he mentioned a few times) Lawrence O’Donnell, Joy Reid, Wolf Blitzer etc etc allowed her to skate past her deadly foreign policy decisions and the consequences,

        Despicable and so terribly irresponsible, Such tragedy our country has caused,
        The only things learned by our military and government from Vietnam is get rid of draft so the majority of people will not feel affected by our deadly interventions and make sure the mostly complicit msm maintains willful ignorance in the public sphere. Shameful…

      • annie on November 24, 2016, 12:54 pm

        Biden was against the intervention in Libya

        according to wikileaks obama originally was too. one of the leaks was congressperson louise slaughter’s email to clinton congratulating her for “flipping” (i think that was the word she used) obama and referenced how hard she worked on it. and he was always ambivalent about going full throttle in syria to the chagrin of neocons. still, he caved.

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 2:11 pm

        This is new info to me that Biden and Obama were even against war in Libya? I always had a sense Obama was acting like a very weak brake pedal on neocon plans, not really putting gusto into the Syrian war.

        Speaking of H.C. and Libya, one thing I have never understood is why Benghazi was allowed to happen. To say that the compound was not reinforced with sufficient backup because they wanted to keep good relations with local Muslims does not make sense, because across the world in risky Muslim places the MO is not to underarm yourself.

      • Kathleen on November 25, 2016, 11:32 am

        Here is one of the articles I read during the time the Obama administration was deciding whether to militarily intervene in Libya. Seymour Hersh wrote one or two articles about how it went down, Pointed out Biden was against intervention, Clinton pushed hard, Anne Marie Slaughter and Susan Rice also.

        “”It isn’t leading from behind,” says Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former head of policy planning at the State Department, rejecting a quote in The New Yorker by an unnamed Obama adviser that came to dominate the debate over Libya. “We created the conditions for others to step up. That exemplifies Obama’s leadership at its best. The world is not going to get there without us – and we did it in a way where we’re not stuck, or bearing all the costs.”

        By the end of February, according to a senior administration official, Obama had begun “an incredibly intensive series of discussions in the Oval Office and the Situation Room” on how to handle Libya. From the start, insiders say, the players broke down into two distinct camps. On one side were top-level Pentagon and White House advisers who were skeptical of further military intervention, given the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. This group included Biden, who had argued strongly against Obama’s decision in 2009 to launch a military surge in Afghanistan, and Biden’s friend Tom Donilon, the president’s national security adviser. (The two men are close: Donilon’s wife is Jill Biden’s chief of staff.) Also in the skeptic camp were Donilon’s deputy, Denis McDonough, who had served on Obama’s campaign staff in 2008, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who dubbed calls for intervention “loose talk.”

        The skeptics didn’t disagree that a Libya without Qaddafi would be a desirable outcome. Libya sits atop the world’s ninth-largest oil reserves, producing 1.6 million barrels a day, and the colonel was an unpredictable ally at best, a dangerous madman at worst. In 1986, Qaddafi ordered an attack on a Berlin disco that killed two U.S. soldiers, and in 1988, he authorized the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, resulting in the deaths of all 270 people onboard. His personal quirks – the rambling speeches, the Bedouin tents, the sexy female bodyguards – added to his image as a villain straight out of James Bond. Since 2003, however, Qaddafi had undergone an extreme makeover, courtesy of a multimillion-dollar PR campaign that enlisted influential Washington insiders and policy wonks like Richard Perle and Francis Fukuyama. He gave up his weapons of mass destruction, helped the CIA interrogate Islamic radicals and secured Libya a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. To top U.S. officials he had become, in the infamous tweet in 2009 from Sen. John McCain, “an interesting man.”

        Despite the temptation to overthrow Qaddafi, however, the skeptics in the administration posed a set of tough questions: Would intervening on the side of the rebels make it harder to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Could it inadvertently lead us into a third ground war? Would it jeopardize cooperation from other countries in the battle against Al Qaeda? Would it undercut the rebels by putting an American footprint on what had up until now been a homegrown revolution? And did we really know who the rebels were? “There was a certain wariness to get involved militarily in a third Muslim country,” says one senior administration official who took part in the deliberations.

        On the other side of the internal debate was a faction of unlikely allies within the White House and the State Department who viewed Libya as an opportunity to enact a new form of humanitarian intervention, one that they had been sketching out for nearly a decade. Up until this point, their views hadn’t held much sway within an administration marked by its pragmatism and caution. Their formative experience in foreign policy wasn’t Iraq or Afghanistan, but memories of the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and Rwanda during the 1990s, a period in which they firmly believed that the United States had failed in its responsibilities to other countries. They would now be to Obama what the neoconservatives had been to Bush: ardent advocates for war in the name of a grander cause. Libya, in effect, represents the rise of the humanitarian Vulcans.

        One of the most vocal interventionists was Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who had been publicly apologizing for years for her failure to push for an intervention in Rwanda when she served on the National Security Council under Bill Clinton. “I would rather be alone and a loud voice for action than be silent,” she has said, even if it meant her career “going down in flames.” Obama had not only made Rice the first African-American woman to serve as ambassador to the U.N., he had made the position a Cabinet-level post, meaning that she reported directly to the president. Rice, in fact, had baggage with the Clintons, who felt slighted by her decision to join the Obama campaign as one of his earliest foreign-policy advisers.”

  17. Maghlawatan on November 23, 2016, 3:13 am

    If it was a cartoon , Scooby Do would have unmasked Trump as a dangerous fraud in 30 minutes.

    • miriam6 on November 27, 2016, 1:20 pm

      He gave up his weapons of mass destruction, helped the CIA interrogate Islamic radicals

      No doubt those Islamist rebels were turned and used to further US regime change in Libya and Syria.

  18. MRW on November 23, 2016, 4:59 am

    Dr. Rothschild

    he did not “win” the election. He “won” the Electoral College which has been corrupted by years of Koch brothers and friends building on the aristocratic insecurities and rural biases of our founding patriarchs.

    No. He won the election. Fair and square. The way people have been winning the presidential election for 227 years.

    The Electoral College is Article 2 of the Constitution. The Electoral College elects the president and vice-president, not the popular vote, otherwise candidates would concentrate their efforts in the most populous areas and ignore the majority of the nation.

    You can say you don’t like it. Fair enough. But to claim he didn’t win it properly is not facing reality. Candidates craft their election strategies to win Electoral College votes, not population numbers. Trump had 1.6 million fewer votes than Hillary, didn’t he, something like that. But he didn’t campaign in Manhattan where the votes were, where Hillary cleaned up. Or LA. Or Chicago. He campaigned in the Great Lakes states and Pennsylvania where the electoral votes were, and got what he had to win to lock up the election the way the Constitution states, which Clinton couldn’t pull off.

    You can call that bogus, but you would be wrong. It’s crazy talk.

    • Maghlawatan on November 23, 2016, 10:10 am

      The electoral college can still reject Trump on Dec 19.
      The Constitution was designed to protect the citizenry from dangerous men, demagogues, Nazis, charlatans and hucksters. Trump is at least 4 out of 5.

      • Brewer on November 24, 2016, 12:32 am

        I beg to differ. The Electoral College is, in my view, is designed as a necessary adjunct to a first past the post system. Without it, the main concentrations of population (the cities) would elect the government creating an imbalance in policies that would cripple rural industries, agriculture and devastate the hinterland.
        A better alternative is proportional representation or a Party List system.
        What protects against ” dangerous men, demagogues, Nazis, charlatans and hucksters” is the Constitution, the permanent bureaucracy, the Senate and Congress. These are yet in place. If you truly believe that Trump can evade these checks and balances, you should be sharpening your pitchfork.

      • Marnie on November 24, 2016, 2:21 am


    • Kathleen on November 24, 2016, 11:44 am

      Fair enough…the way it is. Although I would love to see the electoral college abolished,

      The popular vote for Clinton is up to around 2 million, Huge

  19. John Smithson on November 23, 2016, 9:02 am

    Dr Rothschild –

    Your piece brought to my mind the quote from Yogi Berra: “Predictions are very hard to make, especially about the future”.

    I’m sure you have many valid points, but it still remains to be seen what Trump will (try to) do and what impact it will really have.

    There are a lot of people who felt their interests were not being served by the last 10-20yrs of government and were tired of sending in cash to the feds only to have it spent on stupid wars, etc.

    For me, I will wait and see. God Bless the United States of America! May she remain free to elect what appear to be total idiots – so long as it is the will of the people (through the imperfect prism of the electoral collage).

    Oh – And it was not 2/3rd of the US that voted for Hillary. Not by a LONG SHOT.

    • Mooser on November 23, 2016, 2:10 pm

      “I’m sure you have many valid points, but it still remains to be seen what Trump will (try to) do and what impact it will really have.”

      Here’s a crazy idea! Trump will be, as he has always been, Donald Trump, and will do what Donald Trump does, with the same impact he’s always had.
      He did not emerge, dripping and perfect, from the sea on the half-shell. He’s been around for quite a while, and is a known quantity. Not even the NDA’s can change that.

      Of course, he is saying now that he will not prosecute Hilary Clinton. What a merciful man he is. I mean, look what happened to the last person the President prosecuted.

      • John Smithson on November 23, 2016, 6:24 pm

        ‘Trump on the half-shell’ – perhaps smoked or even Rockefeller style!

        Even dripping wet, I’m sure his hair would still be perfectly coiffed.

        No question he is a known entity as a business man, huckster, TV personality, serial bankruptcies, etc.

        But he is NOT a known entity as President. Let’s hope it matters/shows that he doesn’t owe ANYBODY a THING for getting into office. We actually have a FREE MAN as President.

        It’s like after you make your first batch of money (known as F*&% You money) and you don’t have to listen to your old boss.

        He’s even free to go after the pharmaceutical industry that’s been ripping off the populace with outrageously expensive GENERIC medications. Let alone the patented stuff.

        There’s no limit to the damage he might do to your (or my) and anyone else’s SACRED COWS.

        He might even act in the interest of the UNITED STATES in his foreign policy – which I’m sure scares the heck out of the neocons and other pro-Israeli types. They don’t have any control over him either.

        Me, I’m just gonna sit back and watch the show for a while. I will humbly submit that I just can’t say which way this one’s gonna go – just like I was saying in the final weeks before the election. But let’s admit – there is a chance we might see some favorable changes around here from a guy that isn’t totally tied down like Gulliver by a million special interests the way Hillary is/was.

        As for the ‘last person a President prosecuted’, you lost me on that one.

        Love your comments as always Mooser – keep up the persiflage and rapier wit.

      • Mooser on November 23, 2016, 10:31 pm

        “Let’s hope it matters/shows that he doesn’t owe ANYBODY a THING for getting into office. We actually have a FREE MAN as President”

        And his tax returns and financial statements prove it! No wonder he was so eager to show them.

  20. Kathleen on November 23, 2016, 9:50 am

    Alice this piece is so powerful and far reaching, Thank you, “The mask is off. The hard work begins in our neighborhoods, our schools, all the way to the halls of Congress. So support your Muslim neighbor, your sanctuary city, every grassroots organization working for economic and racial justice and prison reform and solar panels; listen to Bernie Sanders and John Oliver and fact check your Facebook now and again. If you see little boys grabbing a girl on the playground or hear a woman catcalled on the street or a Mexican American trashed with some racist garbage, do not be quiet. You are next. That’s how this works. -”

    This is how it works, Spot on,

    Although I would encourage folks to get out and talk with Trump voters, I did last summer in Dayton Ohio at a Trump rally, Stood outside and let people know I was a Sanders supporter but very much wanted to talk with Trump supporters, Had some amazing conversations, Some people were undecided, Many were former GM, Delphi etc workers, Most were upset with low wages and loss of jobs, Many knew as my WWII Teamster union father used to say ” both parties sold the American worker down the pike”

    More people than you might think were listening to Bernie and agree with much of what he was saying, Of course people were not exposing if they were racist or sexist, However I do encourage people to get out and talk with Trump voters, Find out why, Don’t just generalize, Clearly Trump has unleashed the ugly in people, Still not the driving force for why so many voted for Trump,

    The electoral college has always been corrupt,.

    One thing I have learned during this election process, I cast my first vote for a third party candidate in Ohio, After literally decades of putting several thousand hours in for D em candidates since I was 16 now 64 I could not face voting for a proven and deadly war hawk, Have we ever witnessed such a bloody war hawk move to the front of the line in a Presidential election? Yet I encouraged my friends who were HRC supporters to get out and work their asses off for her (as I have for so many candidates) if they believed in her, I basically knew my vote for Jill Stein (since I could not vote for Bernie) would more than likely not shift the election in any way, Clinton lost in Ohio by 450,000 and the third party vote took around 200,000 votes from who knows who, Ok I threw my vote away but could not stomach voting for such a very deadly war hawk,

    My so called liberal friends who supported the war hawk Hillary based on little knowledge about her destructive foreign policy decisions knew they stood a better deal with HRC domestically than Trump, Self interest vote which the election generally comes down to, However the anger and the personal attacks I have received because of my third party vote has been alarming,

    The lack of tolerance based on an open mind and logic has grown by leaps and bounds within the Dem party, Or maybe just maybe since this is the first time I have voted for a third party candidate in a national election I have now noticed that so called liberals can be as vehement and close minded as right wing Republicans,

    • Brewer on November 24, 2016, 1:09 am

      “After literally decades of putting several thousand hours in for D em candidates since I was 16 now 64 I could not face voting for a proven and deadly war hawk ”
      Astonishing to note that this, which I believe to be the most significant factor in her defeat, is given no airplay in mainstream coverage. It only takes about a 5% shift in the electorate to force change. Trump’s isolationist stance moved sufficient (I think baby boomer) voters to oppose Hillary. Whether Trump follows through on his pledge to end foreign entanglements remains to be seen.
      I remain optimistic. As I have pointed out above, a Clinton victory would have brought no comfort to any of us who abhor U.S. Foreign Policy. I think Alice misses this out. I am one who is content to await events at this juncture.

      • Mooser on November 24, 2016, 12:31 pm

        “I remain optimistic.”

        I read this morning that Trump seems to have little or no interest in the “intelligence briefings” which are traditionally used to scare the shit out of a new President, and make him nice and pliable for the military. First encouraging thing I have read.

  21. aloeste on November 23, 2016, 11:02 am

    kindly let these leftists stew in their own juices. taking to the streets would be best, especially if mayhem prevails. we need to guarantee eight years , not four….

    • Kathleen on November 23, 2016, 12:28 pm

      Keep in mind in a real democracy he lost, This system is rigged…electoral college, super delegates, etc etc Then remember that if he does not produce hundreds of thousands of great paying jobs his goose is cooked, Guaranteed,

      • echinococcus on November 23, 2016, 1:35 pm

        “In a real democracy”, Kathleen, there are no Democrats and Republicans to “legally” lock the whole machine for the two corrupt imperialist mafias of the single party. Only now does one hear preposterous noises from the losers re electoral college, super delegates, winner-take-all, all things that seemed to be hunky-dory as long as their anointed was not facing the business end of it. It’s great fun to watch, especially as the new one is bragging about intended to do what the others were already doing long before him, and how!

      • W.Jones on November 23, 2016, 4:14 pm

        Good response, Echin.

        In a supposed REAL democracy, would the DNC have rigged the Primaries against Sanders? In a real democracy, would Hillary have been the Dem. Candidate?

      • echinococcus on November 23, 2016, 8:28 pm

        In a real Democracy, Jones, of course a Clinton harpy could have been one of the candidates. But then, in a democracy the Democratic and Republican mafia would be totally outlawed –what with the need for properly heard multiple parties and proportional representation.

        What hurts so much in all the push and nerve upset around democracy is that at the end of the day the process itself often is irrelevant anyway: look at the admirable electoral system in the Zionist entity –at the disposal of a mass of bloodthirsty supermajority of thieves and genocidaires.

  22. Eric Blair on November 23, 2016, 6:16 pm

    Disappointing to see Mondoweiss scribes drinking the partisan Democrat Kool Aid. As a poster further up noted America is not going to get anywhere good as long as Democratic true-believers only protest bad government when the GOP is in power.

    That so many educated people believe, without thinking, that the Dems are always and in every way superior to the GOP is worrying. They can’t and won’t see that Obama continued where Bush left off and that Queen Hillary was talking up WW3 in a big way. Oh…and the Dems have been aping GOP fiscal policies serving the 0.1% ever since King Bubba turned the party into a kind of GOP lite.

    Here’s an idea: stop worshipping or blindly following a political party and reacquaint yourselves with critical thinking. You can do it when it comes to IP issues, but that’s not enough. Reading stuff by people who “get” what’s going on in Palestine but then turn around and parrot hysterical anti-Putin propaganda and support Hillary’s plans to destroy Syria even further…makes me wonder what the hell they are thinking. Are they going to castigate Trump if he _doesn’t_ rattle sabers with Putin like HRC did? Come on…you’re scaring me here.

    Maybe Oliver Stone’s film will open some minds to the concept of the deep state (which I know many Dem faithful lump in with “conspiracy theories”). Forget the D vs R freakshow. It’s a busted flush and you can’t count on the D’s moral superiority on anything. Look, I doubt Trump the billionaire will suddenly bring back the middle-class , help the poor or stop supporting Israel but all things being equal he doesn’t seem keen to start a shooting war with Russia and all that it entails. That is not a bad thing, right? One step at a time.

    You’ve seen through the BS spread by the corporate media regarding Israel/Palestine…time to toughen up a bit and consider that the Democratic Party as it stands is no better than the GOP and maybe even worse because it pretends to be the morally superior party while engaging in GOPism on the sly.

    Let the scales fall gently from your eyes and let the rotting hulk of the Democrat party go.

    • Keith on November 24, 2016, 12:24 am

      ERIC BLAIR- “Oh…and the Dems have been aping GOP fiscal policies serving the 0.1% ever since King Bubba turned the party into a kind of GOP lite.”

      What do you mean “GOP lite?” In their competition for oligarchic cash, the Dems have moved way to the right of the GOP on foreign policy. And on domestic policy, they are the can do party for the oligarchs, screwing the 99% much more effectively than the Republicans. In the age of neoliberalism, the Democrats have morphed into the compradors of the 1%. Only the willfully blind blue loyalists fail to see the transformation.

    • Brewer on November 24, 2016, 1:13 am

      I approve this message

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 6:14 am

        So well written.

  23. Maghlawatan on November 23, 2016, 6:25 pm

    The US economy is going to collapse. Trump will betray the bluecollar.
    It’s not BAU,. Maybe its best that Clinton lost cos she was a poor candidate and warmonger.
    The big play is for 2020 post crash. Do the Dems stay with the 1% or side with the people?
    Neoliberalism will have to be dismantled.

    • catalan on November 23, 2016, 6:52 pm

      “The US economy is going to collapse. Trump will betray the bluecollar. – ”
      Heyya Mag. Everything will collapse, including you and me most assuredly. The trick is, what happens between now and then. With Trump, it’s tax cuts and less regulation, I.e party time for the moneyed ones. But yes, that too shall pass, but I plan to enjoy it during my allotment.

      • Maghlawatan on November 24, 2016, 12:02 am

        Catalan, I have spent the last while researching what is going on in the US economy. And it is close to the Goetterdaemmerung imo. There is a limit to how much money can be taken from working and middle classes. None of the MSM will go near the problem. The Financial Times calls it globalisation. But the French lefty magazine Charlie Hebdo can say what it wants. It calls the problem “the pauperisation of the working and middle classes”. Israel is a subset of the US economy story. Ya’ni

    • Keith on November 24, 2016, 12:05 am

      MAGHLAWATAN- “The big play is for 2020 post crash. Do the Dems stay with the 1% or side with the people?”

      Yes, there will be a seismic shift in the political economy, however, why would the Democratic corporatists side with the people? American capitalist democracy is basically a one party system with two right wings.

      • Maghlawatan on November 24, 2016, 1:06 pm

        It is, Keith, but when the 1% become afraid of the people is when change happens. We are close to a tipping point. The Fed cannot stop the US economy from collapsing.

  24. Raphael on November 23, 2016, 9:02 pm

    I did not vote for Trump….I voted for Clinton. I had traveled to one of the swing states before the election political machine started.

    And, it was obvious to me that Trump would win; but I still voted for Clinton as a protest vote against all the Trump stands for.

    I think the reason Trump won was because a group of nervous middle class voters that no longer have a share of the piece of the American pie… voted in Trump too punish the Democratic Party.

    But, the problem is the Democratic Party will never go to the left. They, in the 60s called them pinkos; that was what people like the Trump voters of today, and those that Trump is picking for his team think. And his voters will always think this about those that were leftists and liberals.

    There is another option; by simply walking away from the political system… stop voting in the US; or become a citizen of another country and obtain duel citizenship. Move to Canada, or Israel. If your a liberal, day to day, Canada actually is more democratic then the US.

    • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 5:39 am

      “I voted for Clinton. ” “Move to … Israel.” ~Raphael


      What’s next, “I voted for Tzipi Livni. …. Come, plant a pine tree in an abandoned village?”

  25. Brewer on November 24, 2016, 1:19 am

    On a lighter note.
    Not for those who cannot abide expletives but listen to what Jonathan Pie has to say about labeling as argument:

    Here is Pie before the election – he got it right:

  26. W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 4:58 am

    I think many bandwagon Party Democrats who lament Hillary’s loss may not understand her approach to foreign policy enough.

    “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake… And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win,”
    ~Hillary, 2006

    Do you actually realize the implications of this?
    How different is that from the Neocon approach?

  27. atime forpeace on November 24, 2016, 11:17 am

    Dr Rothchild very incisive analylis of all that ails G-d’s creation.

    Bolshevism has been tried before.

  28. Bandolero on November 24, 2016, 11:34 am

    W. Jones

    “how the Postwar West German system was set up to prevent a change in policy, by design?”

    First of all, Germany was set up as a federation of states, so each election in the states and in the Bund has only a limited infkuence. The private mass media in Germany was set up based on licenses from the military command of the occupying powers USA, Britain and France – whom the US Commander didn’t like simply got no license. The FRG started being with the US Governeur for German occupation McCloy naming his brother-in-law Adenauer as candidate for the strongest party CDU – though the public wasn’t told that he was the brother in law of McCloy.

    Elections are partly based on party candidate lists, so when the party lists are done, the election is mostly over because most candidates are pro EU/Nato and on election day only minor flavor changes of the government are decided. There is a threshold of 5% to keep small parties out of parliament, so it’s hard to found a party and get a voice in parliament.Public media leaders and judges are appointed by the government for long terms in advance, the prosecution is not independent but it’s defind by law that it has to act on order of the government – so the government has the say who shall be prosecuted and who not. Censorship rules and libel laws are very strict, and punishments harsh – eg an 88 year old granny was just sentenced to two and a half years prison for “denying the holocaust.” Usual libel suits cost many thousands of Euros, so for small people it’s dangerous to say anything specific about the corruption of the powerful. Advocating against EU/Nato is usually summarized as extremism, and parties who advocate against EU/Nato – be they left or right – are systematically infiltrated by intelligence agents of influence in the name of fighting extremism. Courts with government appointed judges help the intel agents of influence in taking over parties critical of Nato/EU. Such take overs of peace parties by NATO-friendly agents we have already witnessed three times: the SPD in the 50s, the greens in the 80s/90s and currently the Left party is taken over. Politicians of major parties who give up major NATO positions are attacked by a vicious mass media system who doesn’t have to bother with libel and censorship laws.

    So, in result, for example while polling usually shows that about 70% of the German population is against having German military in Afghanistan, all leading politicians have to do it anyway, or their career is finished. Similar is it with TTIP. Who comes out with a US-critical and Russia-friendly position is accused of anti-americanism and treated as traitor to the Western alliance and Germany.

    SPD-chancellor Schröder did it anyway because he was to be replaced by a CSU politician and he won the election 2002 with the rejection of the Iraq war, but it took the media only 3 years to take his government down after that. Since he signed up with Gazprom after leaving politics, he’s still treated as traitor, though his policy of friendship with Russia and China was very successful for the German industry. Here is a typical report with the “enemies of the republic” – see how the traitor branding is done by our leading policy institutions, and don’t miss that it’s published in a US think tank, because the US opinion is what counts in Germany.

    • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 1:51 pm

      Thanks, bandolero. Very informative. I can see how as a postwar occupied country they could set up the media to be like this.

      Over in Holland the govt had a referendum on the Ukraine EU Agreement and most Dutch voted against it and now the govt approved the agreement anyway.

      How about that?

      Now that we are talking about Russia and Ukraine, One thing that surprised me about Ukraine was how their Left, including their antiglobalists, revolutionary socialists, left youth, maybe even Antifa participated in the Euromaidan, minus a few Eastern groups like Borotba. Can you explain this? I thought antiglobalist leftists were supposed to be skeptical of the EU.

      • Bandolero on November 24, 2016, 5:05 pm

        W. Jones

        In hindsight: I don’t think it’s true that the left generally participated in Euromaidan.

        The Communist party of Ukraine led by Petr Simonenko – the main organized left force in Ukraine and in a coalition with the Party of Regions government under President Yanukovich – was all against Euromaidan, and they spoke loudly against the Euromaidan, even if they were beaten up. And leftists in the Party of regions were also all against the Euromaidan, take Oleg Tsarev for example.

        But in a way you are right that there were some “liberals” groups – liberal in the sense of financed by “liberals” like Victoria Nuland, George Soros or Igor Kolomoisky – which supported the Euromaidan, and which were presented as being left wing. And they had really some liberal/left grass root support. They presented the Euromaidan as a struggle of the people against the Ukrainian oligarchy, a typical color revolution theme. The communist party instead presented the struggle correctly more as a struggle between two oligarchic clans, one pro-Russia and one pro-US, but that was of course no clever tactic to mobilize the left.

        From what I understand most left people in Ukraine stood on the fences, thought it was one more of these permanent protests in Ukraine organized by this or that oligarch using cheap activists to carry it out and they were surprized that Yanukovich was stupid enough to pull police out of Kiev after some bloody fascist/neocon false flag terror in Kiev and let another coup after the 2005 coup/colored revolution succeed. I was surprized, too.

        What has to be known about Ukraine is, that political wings based on political positions like left and right are quite weak in Ukraine. Politics in Ukraine is more like a ruleless game between various oligarchs, which recruit “activists” for demonstrations from football hooligans and other poor people paid a bit to make a demonstration good for some headlines. The political position of a Ukrainian oligarch is usually quite difficult to guess, often they played politically on both, left and right, sides simultanously, and they hardly had any problems switching sides with the weather. So instead of a game of left or right, pro-EU/US against pro-Russian, politics in Ukraine was more seen as a struggle between Yanukovichs political empire against Kolomoisky’s Privatbank empire against Akhmetov’s mining empire against Pinchuk’s steel empire against Firtash’s Energy empire and so on, meaning oligarchs fighting each other in various coalitionseach of them commanding his own forces in media, government, bureacracy, prosecutors and judges, street fighting squads aka security services, soccer clubs for a fan base for “political activism” and so on. I’ld not even be very surprized if some of the same ruling pro-EU/US oligarchs would try soon to switch back to a pro-Russian position when pro-EU-reforms threaten their power. While Kolomoisky and Poroshenko successfully mobilized the anti-Russian ultra right for the coup, the left mostly stood idle, feeling they had better things to do than doing street fighting for this or that oligarch, believing police will deal with the violence, though in the last days before the coup there were counter demonstrations organized against EuroMaidan in Kiev, people even came with buses from Crimea.

        After the coup had succeeded the left tried hard to do counter activism, but it was largely too late and the junta’s repression was vicious, not everyday and everywhere like in Odessa, were more than 40 leftwing activists were massacred in the union house, but quite vicious. Today there are no major liberal or left wing forces left in post-coup Ukraine showing their face in public, except in the Russian-backed separatist DNR & LNR regions, of course. Kiev’s politics became different colors of right and extreme right, and the old game of various oligarchs fighting each other with all means is back, too. Georgian neocon darling Saakashvili, whom I believe has brought in the special forces commiting the false flag terror on Maidan, seems to have fallen out of favor of Kolomoisky, lost his governor post in Odessa and may even lose his newly aquired Ukrainian citizenship.

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 7:35 pm


        You are right about the Com. Party and some others. But do you realize how many doctrinal socialist, anarchist, Left youth, and other Left supposedly anti globalist groups were forces supporting Euromaidan?

        I would be interested to hear your take on the article below, talking about ukrainian socialists of Left Opposition (maybe weakly affiliated with European groups like CWI?) asking the UK parliament to support the Euromaidan:

        I also heard about how anarchists and antifascist youth were trying to support Euromaidan and got roughed up by Right Sector. I also heard about how antiglobalist maidan Ukrainians boggled the minds of Greek antiglobalists.

        Kiev students threatened an indefinite strike and the cities of Lviv, Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk announced general strikes in solidarity with the protests. …
        the Confederation of Free Trade Unions (KVPU), originally born out of the miners’ strike in 1989, supported the protests.

        But when its president, Mikhail Volynets, addressed a Euromaidan rally he called for all to unite to show “our firm determination to become part of Europe” for “European values” which would prevent the regime “robbing us blind”.

        The KVPU passed a resolution in January that included a call for “organising a warning strike as a national movement of labour force resistance in order to ensure and preserve the working people’s rights and freedoms” and “forming self-defence structures”.

        This could have opened up the space for independent demands to be formulated but does not seem to have come to anything. The KVPU is not a “yellow union” — its activists were attacked by the fascists — but its leadership is wedded to illusions in European integration and unwilling to openly break with the opposition.

        The Ukrainian left is small and divided on how to respond to Euromaidan, but sections did attempt to intervene. The Left Opposition — an orthodox Trotskyist group — attempted to unite the “left Maidan” in the protest movement around a list of reformist demands.

        This article describes euromaidan as having a huge occupy wall street style force among the youth

        This article claims the Leftists of Direct Action were able to get hundreds or thousands of people protesting in Maidan:

        Vadym Gud, a veteran of Direct Action student labor union who had earlier pursued the activist path as an anarchist, was immersed in such controversies at the time.

        Within the group, Gud remarks, “we had a huge debate about getting involved in the protests.” Most leftists, he says, didn’t like the idea of signing a trade pact with the European Union. Gud, who moved toward socialism by the time of the Maidan protests, took a more pro-EU line. Perhaps, he reasoned, Ukrainian activists could help to move the EU to the political left in the event that Kiev signed an association agreement with the west.

        As it turned out, Gud was not alone. Denis Pilash, another activist affiliated with Direct Action, noted many of the ironies confronting the student left. “I was skeptical about the Maidan protests from the very outset,” he says. During his own political evolution, Pilash had focused more on social questions like poverty, inequality and police brutality rather than foreign policy issues such as Yanukovych’s tilt toward Russia and away from the EU. At the time, Pilash declares, “some Greek left colleagues wrote me and said, ‘you’re crazy, you want to be in the European Union even as we are burning the EU flag?’”
        Amidst worsening violence on the square, Gud set up an information team and a Facebook page dedicated to “revolutionary struggle” which quickly attracted a whopping 300,000 followers. Gud also conducted live online reports from the front lines, …

        Here is an example of Borotba taking an opposite view on Maidan, showing that the left was not all pro maidan:

        So, Bandolero, since I am impressed with your insights on the European Left, can you please explain what was going on with the antiglobalist leftists of Euromaidan? They said they didn’t join anti Maidan because they saw that as progovernment. I mean, they talk about their desire to shift Euromaidan into antiglobalist while supporting the removal of the government, noting how they are a fraction of protestors, most of whom were EU supporters. Does this logic make any sense, join a pro globalist movement against a government in order to make the movement antiglobalist?

        It’s so weird, but I know that they have a few hundred cothinkers at least, and there are numerous such groups… Do they actually believe in Euroskepticism? Or is their actual goal to serve as auxillaries for the Maidan, bring in more young protestors on the idea that they are going to make the protests Euroskepticism and not about supporting one ruling party over another?

      • annie on November 24, 2016, 8:36 pm

        w.jones, your first link up there The following speech was made by Zakhar Popovych” of the socialist union in the House of Commons in London on March 10. of the “Left Opposition”. i’d be wary… MAIDAN AND A UKRANIAN STORY OF A LASTING FRAUD

        In the summer of 2003, a statement by the League for the Revolutionary Party – Communist Organization for the Fourth International (LRP-COFI), denounced as a fraud the Ukrainian organization «Revolutionary Workers Organization» (RWO), which had recently been accepted as a full member organization of COFI. It “in fact never existed as a genuine organization. Its «members» and «leaders,» some of whom we had met more than once, were part of the overall scam”.The statement continued: “incontrovertible evidence has been uncovered demonstrating that a group of purported «revolutionaries» in Ukraine has perpetrated a fraud upon at least ten far left organizations internationally, and probably far more. These sinister elements have misrepresented themselves as members of political groups in Ukraine which claim to be in agreement with a wide variety of different and opposing left tendencies. The same individuals passed themselves off as members and leaders of multiple organizations. To convince international organizations of their false political identities and affiliations, they published fake leaflets and periodicals purporting to express their views and criticisms of various international organizations and other non-existent Ukrainian groups. They reported on activities they supposedly carried out in furtherance of their purported views and participated in extensive political discussions with their international affiliates….

        The scam began to unravel when the Socialist Party of Great Britain {World Socialist Movement WSM} exposed the fact that they were among the organizations deceived. Their statement is available on the internet (see point »4. Emergency Business»)…

        …One evident reason for the bizarre conspiracy was to obtain money from abroad, cashing in by pointing to the very real poverty of the Ukrainian working class. Given the sums involved, it is likely that theft was not the only reason for the scam. We do not know at this point whether it was organized by the Ukrainian secret police or the agencies of other governments. Nor do we know yet whether the perpetrators were simply common thieves”.

        and scrolling along:

        And then the tangle began to unravel … Various -mostly- British and American organizations and their small «internationals» started investigating, only to discover that their alleged fraternal organizations in Ukraine were a …scam! Apart from the LRP-COFI and SPGB-WSM, the Workers Power – League for the Fifth International (WP-L5I), Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), Workers Revolutionary Party, Marxist-humanists of US(News and Letters Committees-NLC), International Bolshevik Tendency (IBT), International Trotskyist Opposition (ΙΤΟ), Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP), Internationalist Group – League for the Fourth International (IG-LFI), New Union Party (NUP), International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (IBRP) {nowadays know as Internationalist Communist Tendency (ICT)}, possibly others too, discovered that their «fraternal» organizations (under several fictitious names, «YRM» / «RKO» / «RWO» / «RV» / «UTO» / «UWG» / «RKU,» etc.) were actually “cloaks”, staged by the same persons, who presented themselves with different names as their leaders!


        But then while “surfing” through the facebook account of Budraitskis we surprisingly found out that amongst a wide range of “friends” the following were also included: Zakhar Popovych, Alexander Zvorskiy, Aleksey Aryabinsky, Borys Pastukh, Oleg Vernik! We wouldn’t take an oath about Aryabinsky and Zvorskiy because we couldn’t find any photos available for the respective gentlemen of 2003. It may be a coincidence. The other three gentlemen however, are those who “had drawn” cde Ilya, to take part in the fraud. It is a weird thing for someone to maintain friendship with the swindlers who “had drawn” him into a fraud, isn’t it?!

        The most striking of all, however, is the fact that these swindlers still present themselves as militants, trade unionists and leaders of revolutionary organizations! We will deal only with the case of Popovych, because it is the most obvious. The truth is that the report of quoted above, mentioned that in this «conference on the future of the Ukrainian Left» there was a Zakhar Popovych that made a speech. But maybe, once again, this was devilish coincidence.

        But Zakhar Popovych who spoke at the House of Commons in London on 10 March, of which a video is presented by the IST, is not a namesake. He is the swindler of 2003. He is Zakhar Popovych of 2003, who is nowadays a «leading member» of the Ukrainian organization Left Opposition which has so far contributed greatly … as a source of information … to the “pro-Maidan” Left and Autonomy about the “social revolution” that took place in Ukraine.

        anyway, the upshot of this is they made up all these fake groups and had different names impersonating different leaders of different groups which didn’t exist — but they were allegedly representing ukranian workers. lots of supporting embeds in that first link of mine. it begs the question why they had to make up so many fake pro maidan organizations if there was a big pro maiden movement.

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 9:07 pm

        I know, Annie.
        That stuff is so weird, along with other aspects of antiglobalist Euromaidaners. It’s confusing for me. Like maybe they are not even intending to be real antiglobalists, even though they write lots of long statements, coordinate with other Left activist groups, claim to bring in hundreds or thousands of students, etc.

        It reminds me of the question of what percent of the Syrian rebels’ supporters include actual Left Syrian “student activists”, vs. how much of it is astroturf.

      • annie on November 24, 2016, 9:55 pm

        exactly jones

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 10:22 pm

        I think that this is a major issue, because Leftists in the US and Europe are going to want to reference Ukrainian Leftists in order to understand what is happening in Ukraine. Meanwhile, there are Ukrainian youth who are going to try to find out themselves what Left activist groups are saying about the events happening around them. The Euromaidan movement was in fact able to bring out a large amount of students, like the Occupy Wall Street movement and Mideast color revolutions were. So in a sense I think it may not be correct to simply call them fake groups, in the sense that in Maidan and some other events they were able to bring together a large number of youth to listen to them and get channeled into the protests. That is, they are not groups who exist on paper only. I also read interviews with Leftists and professed Marxists who volunteered to fight against DNR. It’s confusing for me, since I always thought of the Marxist Left as anti-globalist antiwar.

        Here is a good example of the kind of Left groups and figures I am confused about. Volodymyr Ishchenko is an author for the British New Left Review, and he sounds critical of Ukraine’s government after Euromaidan:

        people are very much dissatisfied with the economic crisis and with government policies. So I am not so sure about the extent to which they support official propaganda, for example, about the “revolution of dignity”.

        …it does not feel like Ukraine has become more tolerant. For example, what do you call “Europeanization”? Maidan supporters tend to promote a progressive understanding of Europe. But Europe is about progressive values, tolerance, equal rights for everyone, and so on. It seems that they indeed believed in these ideas, but it does not mean that this was the reality of the Maidan. The far right did have strong positions there, despite the fact that they were a minority – numerically a minority, but also the most active in the movement.

        But checking his writings from Jan. 2014 in the Guardian, he favored the protests as a way to bring down Yanukovych’s corrupt government, and he said he was against moves to join the EU or for rightwing forces to take over:

        Ukraine protests are no longer just about Europe

        … on Monday, students at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, one of the best universities in Ukraine, started an indefinite strike against the police state laws, aiming to stop completely teaching in their university and initiate political strikes on other campuses and workers strikes as well. If they succeed, they could show the way to a non-violent but still radical and efficient way to bring down Yanukovych’s government.

        He wrote a paper for a Nordic Left publication, aiming to survey Left groups, saying:

        Deep splits in the Ukrainian left in relation to Maidan and the civil war exacerbated this problem. Both the pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan part of the Ukrainian left were actively promoting very contradictory messages for the international left

        A free trade zone with the EU would probably lead to the de-industrialisation of Ukraine unless it was combined with big investments from western corporations, who would obviously be interested in political security and control in return for their investments. All this would be combined with an economic shock for the majority of Ukrainians, especially for the highly urbanised and industrialised eastern regions.

        US and EU elites openly supported the Maidan protests and indeed financed “democracy promotion” in Ukraine for many years. However, its scale and consequences should not be exaggerated. They were rather exploited in the EU’s and US’s interests than directly manipulated from abroad.

        So he is saying that the Maidan protests were exploited in the EU’s interests, rather than being directly manipulated? Next, he writes:

        the major turning points in terms of the radicalisation of the protest were clearly responses to police violence and governmental repression. The brutal dispersal of the first Maidan camp turned the protest into rebellion … The package of laws passed on 16 January 2014 by the pro-government majority that broke parliamentary procedures, but which did not impose a dictatorial regime as Maidan supporters claimed, nevertheless, systematically limited freedom

        ….the most systematic study of the sniper assassinations on 20 February is the one by the University of Ottawa researcher Ivan Katchanovski [3]. He concludes that at least some of the Maidan protesters might have been killed in the false flag operation

        So again I am confused – it’s like he is saying that the government is basically the side responsible for the violence by attacking protestors, but then he claims that that the Heavenly Hundred was a false flag. That’s not the kind of thing I would imagine a fake antiglobalist to say. His writing seems long and he put alot of thought into it.

        I did find an article by a critic claiming that he puts culture wars over the interests of the working class and represents a kind of Soros First World Socialism:

        Ishchenko’s is a form of radical liberalism which masquerades as a Marxian form of (even) revolutionary socialism. But it is ultimately a radical, extreme liberalism – in the pejorative sense – in terms of its views of the individual and identity politics, which among other things privileges sex and gender ‘minorities’ over the ‘reactionary’ working class , even calling the parties of the latter ‘bourgeois’…
        I read some more of the critical article and…
        *Mind blown*
        Very confused:

        Otpor! and later CANVAS. These were the fake-left protest movements organized against the socialist government of Milosevic, which the US later used to legitimize the bombing of Belgrade, an assault that lasted for 76 ceaseless days, killing thousands of innocents, and plunging the whole city into a state of terror.

      • Bandolero on November 24, 2016, 11:18 pm


        The articles you linked show that neither of the authors or of the western organisations they covered had any understanding of how the Ukraine works, and in a way it’s similar to how the same people misunderstood the fake “people’s revolutions” against oligarchy in the middle east, especially in Liby and Syria. Of course what’s happened in Ukraine was not in the best interest of the people in Ukraine, and neither was it in the interest of the EU or Russia.

        The exposed “fake leftist” organisations as described in Annies link came as a shock to them, but many people in Ukraine understand how oligarchs work – as I wrote they play it left and right, even simultanously. Setting up a “Left Action group”, a fake “Union” or fake “Workers Rights” groups staffed with their lackeys are cheap things for the oligarchs. Owning one or some fake leftist groups is generally not a bad thing for an oligarch, because these groups may prevent the establishment of a real left group against the oligarch, and also they may make hostile take overs of their assets by a competing oligarch more difficult.

        As far as I know common Maidan protesters were paid about $9 USD per day, about the double of the average Ukrainian wage – lot’s of money for many of the poor in Ukraine, but nothing for the billionaire oligarchs, even if 10.000 protesters needed to be paid. Of course, if the guy who pays them says, I want to see some red flags today, so we can claim we have the left on board, some of them come up with red flags singing leftist songs. And when the cameras are off then they put the red flags back in the box.

        I got know one of the maidan protestors from Germany, he was a schoolmate of my friend’s child and a young full fledged German Nazi youth. He went to the Maidan with his friends because it was the largest Nazi party he had ever seen and so they liked it a lot and they were even paid to be there. And they even had “fun” with the police, and if they were arrested they knew they would be released soon by a judge with no charges. As I said, judges and prosecutors in Ukraine are often on the payroll of one or the other oligarch.

        Making a big nazi party out of the maidan was a clever idea by Kolomoisky, Paruby and Yarosh, because that way they attracted many people, and good street fighters. A bit strange was that they imported commanders for these Nazi street fighters from Israeli IDF veterans, but generally they had no problems that they had Nazis work for them. As the Maidan was started, Kolomoisky was in exile, due to legal trobles in Ukraine, reportedly no in Israel though he has an Israeli passport, but his buddy Boris Filatov, whom he made his vice governor in Dnepropetrovsk after the coup was in exile in Israel, so he had likely some contacts there.

        Importing IDF veterans was even a clever tactic to be able to claim in western media that the Euromaidan was not anti-semitic, like here in this German mass media report: The jewish commandant of the Maidan. As is noted there, The Head of the Jewish Community in Ukraine, Josef Zissels, who happens to be also WJC Vice-President Chairman, was also “a strong Maidan supporter” and he also did his best to play down worries of Anti-semitism on the maidan, though many demonstrators there were openly using the Neonazi Wolfsangel as their symbol.

        So, what I’ve seen was that it was a Zionist coup in Ukraine using Nazis as their foot soldiers. But many people in Ukraine and elsewhere didn’t get that. Jews wouldn’t work hand in hand with full fledged Nazis to stage a violent coup, wouldn’t they? I had no doubt they could, but for many people that was beyond comprehension, like today they are baffled about the ZOA is fine with Trump’s top advisor Steve Bannon.

        So, what I believe what’s really behind regime change in Ukraine? Former senior professional staff member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Clifford A. Kiracofe put it well in a mid February 2014 article in the Chinese Global Times:

        … A Western confrontation with Russia over Ukraine serves no useful purpose, and can only lead to revival of Cold War tensions. … Should major power cooperation with Russia be set back by Washington’s improper interference in Ukraine, it will inevitably become difficult to find diplomatic solutions to pressing Middle East issues. … There are broader international implications. The present crisis could lead to a serious US confrontation with Russia, which would mean that major power cooperation in other parts of the world would be called into question. US and Russian cooperation in the Middle East on Syria and Iran could well be set back. This in turn could lead to heightened regional tensions and lead to the possibility of regional war. … It is well known that the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservatives express deep political and cultural aversion to Russia, and promote Cold War perspectives. Such a mindset undermines US global diplomacy and US national interests. … Using the Ukraine crisis to subvert major power relations between the US and Russia and their constructive joint action in the Middle East serves Israeli interests. It helps Israel and its neoconservative allies in the US and in Europe push for unilateral US military action against Syria and Iran.

        I think that’s the major motive for what has happened in Ukraine. Israel and the neocons wanted to sabotage the US/EU relations with Russia, so that no deal US/EU-Russian deal for the middle east could be made, and the used Ukraine for this. But many people still can’t imagine so much evil.

        I was several times in different places in Ukraine (Lviv, Kharkov and Kiev) long before the Maidan, and I do speak Russian quite fluently and a bit Ukrainian, which is not so much diffrent from Russian, so I had no problems to talk to ordinary people there. Since I had also some business in Ukraine (software development) I also know a bit about how the economy works in Ukraine.

      • annie on November 24, 2016, 11:58 pm

        i agree, the neocons can’t stand russia and want to castrate it over and over again. they’ll never get over russia. they’ve got all their chips in the US and want to conquer the ME, banking on the US. this is by far, imho, the big (and possibly only) plus w/trump .. if he follows through. the world would be a more peaceful place if there was a true US/russia rapprochement. and it makes all the sense in the world russia would not want the US breathing down its neck right on its border. like syrian people, the suffering of ukrainian people are not considered one iota by the interventionists, it’s all about expanding their reach, expanding nato and using it as their personal bully. the whole thing is a mess. this has nothing to do with democracy and stabilizing the ukraine, or liberty or anything like that. it’s all a ruse break russia break iran break anything in the way of US domination in the region. and that should stop. jeffrey goldberg in his obama doctrine article in the atlantic wouldn’t stop pressuring obama from the dramatic first sentence about the end of american hegemony in the world because of his failure to bomb syria. and hillary was going to take care of it for them. F this F it.

        part of what you skipped from the article:

        Western media reported the vulgar remarks concerning the EU by Victoria Nuland, who is US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

        The media refrained from reporting that Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan who is a key leader of the pro-Zionist neoconservative policy network.

        It is well known that the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservatives express deep political and cultural aversion to Russia, and promote Cold War perspectives. Such a mindset undermines US global diplomacy and US national interests. Thus Ms Nuland is the wrong person for a high US diplomatic position, critics say.

        same reason clinton is the wrong person.

      • W.Jones on November 25, 2016, 4:50 am


        You need to write a MW article on this stuff. I had never thought very much about the 210n1st angle you brought up, although I did know that Russia’s work in Syria seemed to be the triggering event that gave them an incentive to stir up Ukraine at that moment, as payback for Putin not rolling over in Syria like they had asked. And Syria was being targeted because of the plan in the Clean Break Doc. Yes, I am also sure most Ukrainians and Russians don’t notice that angle either. And based on A. Rothchild’s comment on Putin, I think some leftists here need to hear a different perspective like you can provide.

        The astroturf revolutionary socialism is mind boggling for me. I wonder how much their leaders are sincere about the rev. Socialism they expound. I mean, they seem to have researched the topics and made persuasive antiglobalist correct explanations about how the EU deal is bad for Ukraine.

        Another thing I’m curious about his how much the post Maidan western “technocrats” like Saakashvilis staff were serious about ending corruption. According to some of those technocrats, they could not make progress in fighting corruption due to resistance from the Administration in Kiev, and so they have been leaving over the last year, with Saakashvili’s resignation this November being the most prominent example.

    • annie on November 24, 2016, 3:05 pm

      bandolero, thank you for your several recent informed comments about germany/EU/globalization. i went to your archives and read them in succession — it’s starting to sink in. much appreciated.

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 3:35 pm

        You and bandolero are two of my favorite writers because of independent thinking on many issues.

        So many people even on the left will just follow some bandwagon or herd or authority voice, whether it is the Dem. Party leadership, the “liberal” antisyrian NYT or even a well funded “liberal” activist group that thought polices it’s members.

        I love you guys.

      • annie on November 24, 2016, 4:13 pm

        w.jones! you just made my heart jump ;) and thank you so much for everything — your always warm presence and valuable contributions.

      • ToivoS on November 25, 2016, 7:10 pm

        ditto annie. This Bandolero guy makes sense.

        From your comment above I think the anti-Russian hysteria going on right now is not just coming from the neocons. There is something deeper here that I suspect has its origins in the anti-soviet days from the 1950s to maybe even the anti-Russian days that go back the 19th century conflicts between Great Britain and the Tsar’s Russian empire.

      • annie on November 25, 2016, 10:57 pm

        toivo, yep. but i do think currently it’s driven by the neocons.

      • Maghlawatan on November 26, 2016, 12:41 am

        It’s all driven by the 1% . Wall to wall American ineptitude.
        Iraq was a complete disaster. The decision to allow Lehman Brothers to collapse was a catastrophe.

        Clinton embodied the war system
        At 4.23 the Benghazi stuff is on. They contrast how much email activity there was in 2011 while she got the war on and how much from 2012 to when the attack happened.
        “the history of President Bush’s two wars. Each began with a quick victory followed by a long period of feckless neglect in Washington while the Sunnis in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan organized insurgencies.”

        Libya was EXACTLY the same. She ran wars for the Zionists and the 1%

        and then ignored the aftermath. That is why she was so dangerous.
        It is during the time when they aren’t paying attention that the soldiers are maimed and die . 128,000 vet suicides since 1999.

        That is over 40 911s, people

        No wonder all the kids are sending each other the picture of the dog surrounded by flames saying “this is fine”.

        American Empire is probably over

        And if you want to win a war you have to have the people on your side.

  29. Ossinev on November 24, 2016, 12:25 pm

    In the event it appears perversely to have worked out well for the Yahoo and Co. Each time there is a threat of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah they can shout foul as in how can we do “peace ” business with Fatah when they are cosying up to a terrorist organisation which refuses to recognize Israel thus further convenient delaying tactics in the much wished for face to face negotiations. ( with no pre – conditions you understand as good old Israel doesn`t have pre- conditions for talks LOL ). They are terrified of the thought of peace with the Palestinians and on this Hamas is one of their their current best get out of jail cards. If Hamas was to recognise Israel tomorrow and declare a permanent ceasefire and downing of arms their would be mass disorientation and hysteria in the Jewish Israeli population .Israeli pscyhiatrists would be totally overloaded by demand and would probably have to call in foreign locums to deal with the crisis.

    • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 2:32 pm

      I think this is hard to say, although personally I would prefer to agree with you.

      The PLO put down their arms except for what they use to police their own population, and their kids are getting imprisoned and their villages are getting taken over by settlements big time, which are made safer and easier due to the PA’s pacifism. Meanwhile, Gaza is hostile and the settlements were removed, but the IDF leveled gaza.

      Maybe a catch 22 here.

      • annie on November 24, 2016, 2:35 pm

        Meanwhile, Gaza is hostile and the settlements were removed

        this makes it sound as though gaza being hostile is the reason why settlements were removed. that is not the case.

      • W.Jones on November 24, 2016, 3:24 pm

        I understand, since the plan was to switch to focusing on the west bank.

        Still, it could have been a secondary factor. If everything was hunky dory, why not stay? American and EU pressure?

        My personal preference is for them to be pacifists, but this is because of my general dislike of violence and seeing how they are way outgunned.

        Still, it looks to me like they could be in a catch 22 situation.

  30. Bandolero on November 25, 2016, 11:47 am


    Instead of writing articles for MW, I would want to recommend you to read Consortium News where Robert Parry does an outstanding job at outlining world politics with carefully chosen words.

    Regarding Ukraine, some last words. It seems to have become a bit less a hot topic recently, so even Wikipedia starts to become helpfull again. Take the Wikipedia entry for Azov Battalion for example, a fighting squad openly Nazi, admiring Hitler, displaying openly Nazi symbols like the Swastika and having the SS Wolfsangel as their sleeve badge. Just read it at Wikipedia:

    So, who was paying this band of Nazis – and others similar to this? Go to Wikipedia and lookup Igor Kolomoisky, aka Benya, who is also dubbed the “godfather” of the Maidan revolution, “a Ukrainian-Cypriot-Israeli business oligarch of Jewish descent” and the former Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and find it there:

    He also is believed to have spent $10 million to create the Dnipro Battalion, and also funds the Aidar, Azov, Dnepr 1, Dnepr 2, and Donbas volunteer battalions.

    There it is, Benya paid for the Azov Nazi battalion. For those who don’t know Benya, I think it’s worthwhile to read the full Wikipedia entry about him, especially after reading what I said here how things are in Ukraine:

    How Benya conducts state affairs and his business affairs was revealed in an audio tape of a call he made to member of parliament Oleg Tsarev from a synagogue in Dnepropetrovsk:

    The Saker put a transcription of that call into English:

    One may say he doesn’t sound like a governor there, but more like a godfather of the mafia. Well, that’s how Ukraine is governed, most people in Ukraine know it, and that’s what many ordinary people in Ukraine are fed up with.

    So, whom the Ukrainian-Cypriot-Israeli business oligarch and godfather of the Ukrainian revolution Benya is internationally connected with? Of course, it’s Victoria “f**k the EU” Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan and the neocon & Clintonist lobby backing her.

    And that brings us back to Israel/Palestine, which is in the center of the neocon drive for ever more war. Robert Parry did it well comparing that neocon thinking and behaviour to a “little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly” quality for ever more and bigger war:

    This neocon/liberal hawk band for ever bigger war must be stopped, may it cost what it costs.

    And than look what US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said after Russia and China said no to regime change in Syria:

    “I do not believe that Russia and China are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime. The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price,” Clinton warned.­

    It sounds a bit like the busniess style of Benya to me.

    While the neocons and Clintonists worked on a regime change in Syria by using Al Qaida terrorists as their proxy force, Russia & China must be punished for saying “no” to that idea. Well, and then, after Clinton said Russia and China shall pay a price, there started lot’s of strategic troubles with Russia and China, regime change in Ukraine & TPP being in the center of that.

    So, now Clinton didn’t get the US presidency, but Trump got it, and Trump made already clear that he doesn’t want to follow the neocon war path in international politics. I think that’s a really good thing.

  31. Krendall Mist on November 25, 2016, 11:34 pm

    Yes, of course, Dr. Rothchild. The “Koch brothers” corrupted American electoral politics.

  32. Antidote on November 27, 2016, 8:31 am

    I see the pro-Putin, anti-EU brigade is out in full force again, led by Bandolero.

    Typical argument: The EU (Fourth Reich, led by Germany) and American cabal is supporting Ukrainian Nazis for the purpose to oppose Putin’s righteous claims on Ukraine/Crimea. If only it were a coherent argument: nobody has any objections to Putin supporting nationalist right-wing movements across Europe, from Greece (Golden Dawn), to Le Pen and the NF in France, to Jobbik in Hungary, and Pegida/AfD in Germany – all Putin (and Trump) lovers. Yet the US/EU being on the side of Ukrainian nationalists, including those unabashedly displaying Nazi symbols and salutes (like Trump’s supporters) is unacceptable?

    First, displaying the same symbols, such as the swastika, does not mean those various groups are in any way identical with each other, in either their goals or motivations, or, for that matter, with the original Nazis.

    As for the Ukrainian situation: Anyone familiar with the long history of Ukraine will realize that Ukrainian nationhood is a very, very complicated issue. Like many if not most nations, Ukraine does not have some single tribal or ethnic/linguistic root, and like other European countries, ethnicity and language do not coincide, as is the case in the very country, Belgium, whose capital, Brussels, is the centre of the EU. Just like Dutch speakers in Flanders do not consider themselves to be Dutch, French speakers in Walloon do not consider themselves to be French, and German speakers in Eupen-Malmedy do not consider themselves to be German. Their independence movement considers to become either an autonomous region within the EU, or join Luxembourg, or Germany. It’s complicated, historically and politically. Unkraine is presently divided into Ukrainian speakers in the west, Russian speakers in the East, and a population in the middle who speak a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian. According to Putin, Ukraine is not a nation, and this has been the Russian view for, literally, centuries, and it has been the Soviet view as well. It is not the view shared by Ukrainian nationalists, esp. not the Nazi variety, but let’s keep in mind that with the exception of the brief Nazi/German occupation, after Hitler attacked his former ally Stalin, Ukraine has been subject to relentless Russification (as well as Polonization) for at least 3 centuries. Read, at least, Raphael Lemkin’s take on genocide of the Ukrainian people in both Czarist and Soviet Russia:

    Studies of Imperialism and colonialism have only recently discovered the issue of ‘inner colonialism’ which pertains to Imperial and Soviet Russia as much as it does to the US and Imperial and NAzi Germany.

    Interesting that Lemking compares homo sovieticus with homo americanus at the end of his essay on genocide. Hitler’s criticism of homo sovieticus was also that the best and brightest were eliminated. His criticism of the Anglo-Americans were that capitalism, despite ruling over vast areas of land, was still incapable of creating just societies, thus starving people along class lines

    A lot of questions Hitler asked are surprisingly rational, and modern. And they are back, with a vengeancce. One of them, also asked by Zionist pioneer Jabotinsky, is: why should some people have all the land?

    Russia is already and has long been the largest country on earth, with a small population of 150 million today. If Putin needs more people, there is no shortage of people seeking refuge or opportunity to build a better life around the globe. Why does he need the Crimea or Ukraine? And you will admit that, Western propaganda or not, the Ukrainians, on the whole, prefer independence from Russia, and EU membership. Your Farangist attempt to sell the EU as some tyrannical dictatorship that starves people into submission until they pay the greedy German bankers is absurd, and every half-sane observer will look through it. What Russia, as well as the UK and us have indeed never managed, despite creating vast empires, is to create just societies that combine individual freedom and prosperity for more than a minority of the people

    Oligarchy is the historical fall back position not only in the Uk and US but also in Russia. Russia today is a kleptocracy, with a distribution of wealth that is even more obscene than it is in the West. Rather than expand Russia, it may be a better idea for Putin to fix it first. But military might , macho allure and brilliant rhetoric and pluster is all Putin has on offer to make Russia great again.

    Sure, if the West wasn’t so messed up and hypocritical, Putin would not have been so successful, now being widely revered as the new saviour in the disenchanted and cynical western democracies. However, as with his fellow billionaires Trump or Farage, not all that glitters is gold. They are all nationalists who believe that being great naturally includes putting down others. As in : Russia is a great nation and superpower, Ukraine is not even a nation. Can’t believe you anti-Zionists are falling for that with glowing admiration while kicking Israel for the same kind of chauvinism

    • annie on November 27, 2016, 10:13 am

      Lemking compares homo sovieticus with homo americanus at the end of his essay on genocide. Hitler’s criticism of homo sovieticus was also that the best and brightest were eliminated.

      antidote, speaking of coherent arguments, this derogatory political slang/satire “homo sovieticus” term you’re using was not even coined until after both hitler and lemkin were dead. and “homo americanus” even more recently.

    • W.Jones on November 27, 2016, 3:50 pm

      Of course ” the US/EU being on the side of Ukrainian nationalists, including those unabashedly displaying Nazi symbols and salutes is unacceptable”. The US should not be supporting them or looking the other when they did in fact temporarily put Hitler’s portrait on the Rada. I am skeptical that you even believe alot of the things you put in your message.

      Can’t you see that the media and Nato are talking about Russia like the cold war was what they wanted? I can’t believe that sincere leftists would actually believe these things and promote global hegemony. It sounds too much like cointelpro type leftism.

      You ask:
      ” One of them, also asked by Zionist pioneer Jabotinsky, is: why should some people have all the land? ” that’s ironic, becauseJabotinsky wanted all the land to be for the Jewish community, ie only some people.

      ” Why does he need the Crimea or Ukraine?”
      Russians need Crimea because it has a major Russian population and series of Russian bases for the last 250 years. He needs ukraine to be at least neutral in the cold war that apparently you are encouraging.

    • Bandolero on November 27, 2016, 4:00 pm


      A lot of questions Hitler asked are surprisingly rational, and modern.

      Oh, really? I didn’t know that. Maybe we all should build momunents to honor Hitler as a vanguard of modern thinking?

      So, to get your argument against my view right, when the Ukrainian revolutionaries would not only hold ceremonies to honour the Waffen SS, but also would build a monument to honour Hitler in Kiev, we should all praise them for being the vanguard of “rational, and modern” thinking? Great idea. And what about building a monument to honour Hitler and his “rational, and modern” thinking in Washington, say directly next to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum? I guess that would be appropriate for you, too, wouldn’t it?

    • RoHa on November 27, 2016, 7:36 pm

      “If only it were a coherent argument: nobody has any objections to Putin supporting nationalist right-wing movements across Europe, from Greece (Golden Dawn), to Le Pen and the NF in France, to Jobbik in Hungary, and Pegida/AfD in Germany – all Putin (and Trump) lovers. ”

      The right wing movements may love Putin, but that does not mean that Putin supports them. I don’t know whether he does or doesn’t. Aside from polite acknowledgement, what support has he given?

      • Bandolero on November 27, 2016, 8:45 pm


        All these rightwing parties are unique, and supporting one of them doesn’t mean supporting others, too, and especially not in the same way.

        Take the French Front National for example. What seems to have happened there looks to me like the following: Socialist French President Hollande wanted to dress down that French rightwing party, and therefore he informally instructed all French banks not give the Front National a credit, so it couldn’t campaign and compete well at the ballot box. And the French banks complied with Hollande’s informal wish: despite balance sheet not being that bad, no French bank gave the Front National a needed credit and so political victory over the Front National at the ballot box seemed sure for Hollande.

        But the Front National complained that Presidential move to be a bit undemocratic, went beyond French borders to look for a credit and found a Russian bank willing to give the Front National credits French banks denied them. So that’s the proof: Putin has undermined French democracy by allowing a Russian bank to give credit to the Front National despite the French president’s best efforts to make sure they don’t get credit nowhere. And now the Front National says Putin is a fine man who thinks himself instead of simply following orders from the Western establishment.

        Can there be any more obvious proof that Putin undermined French democracy?

      • RoHa on November 28, 2016, 12:06 am

        Thanks, Bandolero.

        At the risk of seeming the mitigate the pure evil of everything even remotely connected with Putin, I have to ask whether the Russian bank needed Putin’s agreement before lending that credit.

        But perhaps everything that happens in Russia is Putin’s doing.

      • Bandolero on November 28, 2016, 7:45 am


        I’m not sure whether it’s official that Putin facilitated the Russian bank to give credit to the FN, but I don’t think it’s an important distinction. What is proven beyond reasonable doubt, is that Putin didn’t intervene to stop that. After fierce Western criticism the Russian bank instead gave the FN even more credit.

        Btw, if you don’t know Marine Le Pen, the radical rightwing presidential candidate of the FN, here’s a recent interview with her in CNBC:

        As you can see she’s so radical rightwing that all pollsters agree she has no chance of winning the Presidency anyway – at least no bigger chance than a referendum victory of the British Brexit camp or Donald Trump being elected President of the United States. It’s simply an unimaginable horror.

  33. W.Jones on November 27, 2016, 10:55 pm

    Decent article:
    “Stop this stupid sabre-rattling against Russia. It’s not their side that worries me; it’s ours.”
    A month or so back I spoke to a chap who worked on behalf of the refugees in those two benighted countries and was certainly no friend of the Assad regime. What would be the best scenario now, I asked him? ‘That Russia and Assad win as quickly as possible. That would minimise the number of civilians killed.’ But we are doing what we can to prevent that outcome, thus prolonging the war.

  34. ToivoS on November 28, 2016, 2:03 am

    Mr Jones: “Sincere leftist” Why would you think antidote is any such thing? He sounds like a raving anti-communist right out of the 1950s. His history lesson is absurd in the extreme.

Leave a Reply