The Price Of Empire

the-price-of-empire

19-01-19 09:02:00,

Authored by Umair Haque via Eudaimonia & Co,

Why America and Britain Are Self-Destructing (And What the World Can Learn From it)

It’s a striking fact of today’s world that the two rich societies in shocking, swift, sharp decline are America and Britain. Nowhere else in the world, for example, are real income, life expectancy, happiness, and trust all plummeting, apart from maybe Venezuela (No, “but at least we’re not Venezuela!” is not the bar to aim for, my friends.) 

Their downfall is, of course, a self-inflicted catastrophe. But the interesting question is: why? And what does it tell us about what it takes to prosper and thrive in the 21st century, which is something that America and Britain clearly aren’t doing, and maybe aren’t capable of doing?

Here’s an equally curious observation. America and Britain aren’t just any countries. They are the former hegemons of the world’s most powerful empires. Britain, until the first half of the 20th century, and America, picking up where Britain left off. Is this just a strange cosmic coincidence — that it is the two greatest empires of the most recent past who are the ones seemingly most incapable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century? There aren’t coincidences that great, my friends. Such tides of history always whisper lessons to be learned. What is this one trying to urgently teach us?

That there is a price to empire. A grave and ruinous one. And that price has grown over the centuries  –  so high that now, it is not worth paying anymore.

Let me explain what I mean — because it is not just about spending too much money and grasping too high. Not at all. It is about the kind of a place and people such a country ends up limited to being — and perhaps can then never really easily outgrow.

To be a great empire, you must also be a certain kind of culture, society, place— a people with a certain set of values, a certain kind of attitudes. You must cherish control and prize possession over humanity and empathy and wisdom. You must value brutal competition above all else — and train your children to be little warriors,

 » Lees verder

The Empire Blinked in 2018, Several Times, This Is Going to Make 2019 Very, Very Dangerous

the-empire-blinked-in-2018-several-times-this-is-going-to-make-2019-very-very-dangerous

10-01-19 09:53:00,

As much as we can rejoice at Empire’s retreat its advancing weakness makes for a potentially explosive situation

The year 2018 will go down in history as a turning point in the evolution of the geostrategic environment of our planet.  There are many reasons for that and I won’t list them all, but here are some of the ones which I personally consider the most important ones:

The Empire blinked.  Several times.

This is probably the single most important development of the year: the AngloZionist Empire issued all sorts of scary threats, and took some even scarier actual steps, but eventually it had to back down.  In fact, the Empire is in retreat on many fronts, but I will only list a few crucial ones:

  1. The DPRK: remember all the grandiose threats made by Trump and his Neocon handlers?  The Administration went as far as announcing that it would send as many as THREE(!) nuclear aircraft carrier strike groups to the waters off the DRPK while Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea.  Eventually, the South Koreans decided to take matters in their own hands, they opened a direct channel of communications with the North, and all the US sabre-rattling turned into nothing more than hot air.

     

  2. Syria in April: that was the time when the US, France and the UK decided to attack Syria with cruise missiles to “punish” the Syrians for allegedly using chemical weapons (a theory too stupid to be even worth discussing).  Of 103 detected missiles, 71 were shot down by the Syrians.  The White House and the Pentagon, along with their trusted Ziomedia, declared the strike a great success, but then, they also did that during the invasion of Grenada (one of the worst assault operation in military history) or after the humiliating defeat of Israel by Hezbollah in 2006, so this really means very little.  The truth is that this operation was a total military failure and that it has not been followed up by anything (at least for now).

     

  3. The Ukraine: we spend almost all of 2018 waiting for an Ukronazi attack on the Donbass which never happened.  Now, I am quite sure that some will argue that the Nazi junta in Kiev never had any such intentions,

 » Lees verder

The Empire Keeps Proving Assange Right About Everything

the-empire-keeps-proving-assange-right-about-everything

18-11-18 04:44:00,

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been charged under seal by the Trump administration. This has been revealed by a purportedly accidental copy-paste error in an unrelated court document which used Assange’s name, interestingly not long after it was reported to the Wall Street Journal that federal prosecutors “have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy because a detailed explanation of the evidence could give Ecuadorean authorities reason to turn Assange over.”

Insider sources have reportedly confirmed to the Washington Post that Assange has been charged. Because those charges are sealed, it’s impossible to know what they are or how they’re being justified. If you ask #Resistance Twitter, it’s because it’s #MuellerTime and Assange is about to be arrested under some mysterious charges involving WikiLeaks’ publication of non-government, non-classified emails in 2016. If you ask QAnon cultists, it’s because Donald Trump is planning to extradite Assange so as to rescue him and deal a fatal blow to the Deep State. If you ask people who actually know what they’re talking about, however, it’s most likely for WikiLeaks’ Afghanistan and Iraq war logs and/or last year’s CIA leak publications, and most likely using the Espionage Act. This would constitute a deadly blow to press freedoms, and arguably a greater leap in the direction of Orwellian dystopia than the Patriot Act.

It also proves once again that Julian Assange was completely right.

I’ve had so, so many arguments with people this year about Assange’s publicly stated rationale for remaining in the Ecuadorian embassy, where he was granted political asylum by Ecuador’s previous government on the basis that the US was seeking his extradition. The refrain that he can “leave whenever he wants” is extremely common, with Assange’s detractors insisting that he’d never be arrested and extradited to the United States, and that he is instead hiding from (non-existent) Swedish rape charges. The narrative that Assange couldn’t possibly be hiding from the same government which tortured Chelsea Manning has been aggressively promulgated by mainstream outlets like the The Guardian, as in this article by James Ball from earlier this year titled “The only barrier to Julian Assange leaving Ecuador’s embassy is pride”,

 » Lees verder

Empire Of Lies: Are “We, The People” Useful Idiots In The Digital Age?

Empire Of Lies: Are “We, The People” Useful Idiots In The Digital Age?

27-09-18 08:57:00,

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“Back in the heyday of the old Soviet Union, a phrase evolved to describe gullible western intellectuals who came to visit Russia and failed to notice the human and other costs of building a communist utopia. The phrase was “useful idiots” and it applied to a good many people who should have known better. I now propose a new, analogous term more appropriate for the age in which we live: useful hypocrites. That’s you and me, folks, and it’s how the masters of the digital universe see us. And they have pretty good reasons for seeing us that way. They hear us whingeing about privacy, security, surveillance, etc., but notice that despite our complaints and suspicions, we appear to do nothing about it. In other words, we say one thing and do another, which is as good a working definition of hypocrisy as one could hope for.”—John Naughton, The Guardian

“Who needs direct repression,” asked philosopher Slavoj Zizek, “when one can convince the chicken to walk freely into the slaughterhouse?”

In an Orwellian age where war equals peace, surveillance equals safety, and tolerance equals intolerance of uncomfortable truths and politically incorrect ideas, “we the people” have gotten very good at walking freely into the slaughterhouse, all the while convincing ourselves that the prison walls enclosing us within the American police state are there for our protection.

Call it doublespeak, call it hypocrisy, call it delusion, call it whatever you like, but the fact remains that while we claim to value freedom, privacy, individuality, equality, diversity, accountability, and government transparency, our actions and those of our government rulers contradict these much-vaunted principles at every turn.

For instance, we claim to disdain the jaded mindset of the Washington elite, and yet we continue to re-elect politicians who lie, cheat and steal. 

We claim to disapprove of the endless wars that drain our resources and spread thin our military, and yet we repeatedly buy into the idea that patriotism equals supporting the military. 

We claim to chafe at taxpayer-funded pork barrel legislation for roads to nowhere,

 » Lees verder

‘Our empire is coming to an end,’ says Ron Paul

‘Our empire is coming to an end,’ says Ron Paul

14-09-18 02:27:00,

Prosecutors in the UK last week claimed that Russian tourists, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, were responsible for poisoning Sergei and Yulia Skripal in March.

UK authorities stated that the two men were using aliases during their travels to the UK.

In a stunning twist of events, during an Eastern Economic Forum event, Russian President Russian Vladimir Putin said that Russian authorities had located the two men, confirmed that they are civilians, with no ties to Russian intelligence, and that their real names are in fact Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov…not aliases.

Days after Putin’s forum announcement, Petrov and Boshirov, whom Theresa May claims are professional Russia assassins, gave an exclusive interview with RT.

Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov said they visited London to “cut loose and have some fun” and that they were in Wiltshire to see two well-known tourist attractions, Salisbury Cathedral and Stonehenge.

If these two guys are Russian GRU, super assassins, then John McCain was indeed a peace maker and Hillary Clinton is a champion for human rights.

Framed tourists?

FULL INTERVIEW: 5GMT on https://t.co/3vDnGyTsS7#Skripalhttps://t.co/gU3CrrZrJC pic.twitter.com/ZaJTaNyIGf

— RT (@RT_com) September 13, 2018

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the RT interview with Petrov and Boshirov, and how RT’s Editor-in-Chief, Margarita Simonyan, may have hinted (through her line of questioning) the real reason behind the men’s visit to London and Salisbury…of which had noting to do with the alleged Novichok poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Via Zerohedge

The same day the US announced it plans a second round of “very severe” sanctions on Russia over the use of a nerve agent in connection to the West’s allegations surrounding the Skripal poisoning, the alleged perpetrators of the poison attack have appeared on RT News for an exclusive interview with RT’s Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan.

Suffice it to say the whole strange Skripal saga just got a lot more bizarre. The pair told Simonyan in the televised interview that they had nothing to do with it,

 » Lees verder

The American Empire & Its Media

The American Empire & Its Media

03-06-18 07:39:00,

Via Swiss Propaganda Research,

Largely unbeknownst to the general public, executives and top journalists of almost all major US news outlets have long been members of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). 

Established in 1921 as a private, bipartisan organization to “awaken America to its worldwide responsibilities”, the CFR and its close to 5000 elite members have for decades shaped U.S. foreign policy and public discourse about it. As a well-known Council member once explained, the goal has indeed been to establish a global Empire, albeit a “benevolent” one.

Based on official membership rosters, the following illustration for the first time depicts the extensive media network of the CFR and its two main international affiliate organizations: the Bilderberg Group(covering mainly the U.S. and Europe) and the Trilateral Commission (covering North America, Europe and East Asia), both established by Council leaders to foster elite cooperation at the international level.

In a column entitled “Ruling Class Journalists”, former Washington Post senior editor and ombudsman Richard Harwood once described the Council and its members approvingly as “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.

Harwood continued:

“The membership of these journalists in the Council, however they may think of themselves, is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class. They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it. 

They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its values and world views.”

However, media personalities constitute only about five percent of the overall CFR network. As the following illustration shows, key members of the private Council on Foreign Relations have included:

  • several U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents of both parties;

  • almost all Secretaries of State, Defense, and the Treasury;

  • many high-ranking commanders of the U.S. military and NATO;

  • almost all National Security Advisors,

 » Lees verder

US Empire Goals? Only 22 Countries Have Never Been Invaded By Britain

US Empire Goals? Only 22 Countries Have Never Been Invaded By Britain

26-02-18 12:28:00,

Oh, no, no, no, America is not a colonizer.

Before WWII, we were isolationists, hesitant to enter WWI until pressured into it by the bickering aristocrats of Europe and, again, hesitant to enter WWII until invaded by Imperial Japan, the country that bombed Pearl Harbor, causing the US to enter the war. After WWII, the US did not colonize the conquered territories. We pulled out of Europe and Japan, quickly, leaving them to govern themselves. 

Due to fears of communist expansion, after WWII, the US spent boatloads of taxpayer money and lost countless men, fighting in foreign civil wars to prevent one side of a far-flung, foreign nation from being taken over by the communist-infested other side. This was a mistake, humbly admitted by many American leaders. But we pulled out of those countries; we did not colonize them.

In recent decades, we acted in alliance [with other countries] to prevent one Arab country from overtaking another Arab country in the Gulf War. We defended our nation when it was attacked by radical Islamic terrorists, a group of student visa holders treated very well in America that committed a mass murder of 3,000 American civilians on September 11, 2001. Did America’s leaders take it too far, extending a necessary, defensive military attack on Afghanistan, the country that harbored the mass-murdering terrorists, to other countries? Yes.

Nation building was a mistake. It does not work. It was not extensive enough or long enough in duration to be labeled colonization, however, AND, unlike the colonization pursued by other countries, the US did not seize the natural resources of the countries where it tried nation-building projects. A few US companies did made bank on the war clean-up, but the oil was left intact for the native populations.

 » Lees verder

Creating an Empire of Graveyards?

Creating an Empire of Graveyards?

27-01-18 10:40:00,

Recently, a memory of my son as a small boy came back to me. He was, in those days, terrified of clowns. Something about their strange, mask-like, painted faces unnerved him utterly, chilled him to the bone. To the rest of us, they were comic, but to him — or so I came to imagine anyway — they were emanations from hell.

Those circus memories of long ago seem relevant to me today because, in November 2016, the American electorate, or a near majority of them anyway, chose to send in the clowns.  They voted willingly, knowingly, for the man with that strange orange thing on his head, the result — we now know, thanks to his daughter — of voluntary “scalp reduction surgery.”  They voted for the man with the eerily red face, an unearthly shade seldom seen since the perfection of Technicolor.  They voted for the overweight man who reputedly ate little but Big Macs (for fear of being poisoned), while swinging one-handed from a political trapeze with fingers of a particularly contestable size.  They voted for the man who never came across a superlative he couldn’t apply to himself.  Of his first presidential moment, he claimed “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe”; he declared himself “the greatest jobs president that God ever created”; he swore to reporters that he was “the least racist person you have ever interviewed”; he offered his version of modesty by insisting that, “with the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office”; and when his mental state was challenged, he responded that his “two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” adding, “I think that [I] would qualify as not smart, but genius… and a very stable genius at that!”

Of course, none of this is news to you, not if you have a screen in your life (or more likely your hand) — the very definition of twenty-first-century modernity.  In fact, by the time this piece comes out, you’ll undoubtedly have a new set of examples to cite. 

 » Lees verder

The Empire’s “Lefty Intellectuals” Call for Regime Change. The Role of “Progressives” and the Antiwar Movement | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

The Empire’s “Lefty Intellectuals” Call for Regime Change. The Role of “Progressives” and the Antiwar Movement | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

09-01-18 06:30:00,

What is now unfolding in both North America and Western Europe is fake social activism, controlled and funded by the corporate establishment. This manipulated process precludes the formation of a real mass movement against war, racism and social injustice.  

The anti-war movement is dead. The war on Syria is tagged as “a civil war”.

The war on Yemen is also portrayed as a civil war.  While the bombing is by Saudi Arabia, the insidious role of the US is downplayed or casually ignored. “The US is not directly involved so there is no need for us to wage an anti-war campaign”. (paraphrase)

War and neoliberalism are no longer at the forefront of civil society activism. Funded by corporate charities, via a network of non-governmental organizations, social activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to US led wars.

In turn, dissent has become compartmentalized. Separate “issue oriented” protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women’s rights, LGBT) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement against global capitalism.

This mosaic was already prevalent in the counter G7 summits and People’s Summits of the 1990s and also from the inception of the World Social Forum in 2000, which rarely adopted a meaningful anti-war stance.

Through staged protest events sponsored by NGOs and generously funded by corporate foundations, the unspoken objective is to create profound divisions within Western society, which serve to uphold the existing social order as well as the military agenda.

Syria

It is worth underscoring the role of so-called “progressive” intellectuals in paying lip service to the US-NATO military agenda. This is nothing new.

Segments of the anti-war movement which opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq are tacitly supportive of  Trump’s punitive airstrikes directed against Syria’s “Assad regime” allegedly involved in “killing their own people”, gassing them to death in a premeditated chemical weapons attack. According to Trump “Assad choked out the lives of helpless men women and children”.

America’s Noam Chomsky in an April 5 2017 interview with “Democracy Now” (aired two days before Trump’s April 2017 punitive airstrikes against Syria) favors “regime change”,

 » Lees verder