Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 21, 2014

Robert Kaplan Writes In Defense Of Slavery

Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing In Defense of Empire. Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having any representation. The lunacy of his arguments can be show best when one substitute the object of his essay:

Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by slavery, Western or Eastern. Anarchy reigned in the interregnums. To wit, the British may have failed in Baghdad, Palestine, and elsewhere, but the larger history of the British slaveholdership is one of providing a vast armature of stability, fostered by sea and rail communications, where before there had been demonstrably less stability.
But slavery is now seen by global elites as altogether evil, despite slaveholdership having offered the most benign form of order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable minimum. Compared with slaveholdership, democracy is a new and uncertain phenomenon. Even the two most estimable democracies in modern history, the United States and Great Britain, were slaveholdership for long periods. “As both a dream and a fact the American slaveholdership was born before the United States,” writes the mid-20th-century historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto. Following their initial settlement, and before their incorporation as states, the western territories were nothing less than slaveholdership possessions of Washington, D.C. No surprise there: slaveholdership confers a loose and accepted form of sovereignty, occupying a middle ground between anarchy and full state control.
Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts of the world a modicum of slavery order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic heartland of the world economy and the home of American treaty allies.
That, I submit, would be a policy direction that internalizes both the drawbacks and the benefits of slaveholdership, not as it has been conventionally thought of, but as it has actually been practiced throughout history.

It is somewhat frightening that people believing such nonsense have influence in political circles.

Posted by b on March 21, 2014 at 18:47 UTC | Permalink

next page »

In October of 2001, Max Boot wrote a Weekly Standard piece, "The Case for American Empire," that featured perhaps the most representative neoconservative-authored sentence of all time:

"Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets."

Posted by: Weldon Berger | Mar 21 2014 19:15 utc | 1

But not surprising.

Posted by: Lefty | Mar 21 2014 19:19 utc | 2

If electroshock therapy doesn't work on him I strongly recommend a frontal lobotomy.

Posted by: par4 | Mar 21 2014 19:25 utc | 3

It sounds like the pro-GOP version of "moral relativism" that they attacked the DEMs for. They see slavery as a benign evil with a bit of "white man's burden" thrown in. A few years ago, I went back and forth with one of the pseudo-Libertarian "conservative" columnists. He wrote that American job losses were due to innovations. The first was technology like robotics. The second was offshoring jobs for cheaper labor (which I don't see as an innovation). But if getting more labor for less money is an innovative, wouldn't that make slavery the ultimate innovation? The party that supposedly freed the slaves cannot make a direct case for slavery. It has to be underhanded.

Posted by: Curtis | Mar 21 2014 19:30 utc | 4

But slavery is now seen by global elites as altogether evil,

Love that line but the elite don't believe it evil I'm sure of that.

#3 that works for me.

Posted by: jo6pac | Mar 21 2014 19:40 utc | 5

Notice that your link is not to anything by Kagan but to this: by Kaplan. This is rather damaging to your credibility, something that I find alarming, since I am a loyal reader.

Posted by: Haralambos | Mar 21 2014 19:41 utc | 6

on empire building:

Richard Overy
Hitler's Empire: Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe
By Mark Mazower (Allen Lane 2008)

"Hitler's empire was not, of course, simply a continuation of the Habsburg legacy. There were many other factors, not least the persistent envy in German circles after 1919 of the other imperial powers: empire still seemed attractive to those who did not have one, or one large enough, and Mazower shows how Japanese and Italian imperial ambitions meshed with German in trying to divide the world up anew, as it had been divided by European states for four hundred years. The absence of any clear planning or forethought also found Hitler dragging ex-colonial officials back into public life to try to rule Eastern Europe the way they had ruled Africa."

Posted by: c | Mar 21 2014 19:43 utc | 7

isn't he married to Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland?

Posted by: Michele | Mar 21 2014 19:46 utc | 8

if it was Kagan , yes, but as already pointed above, it's Robert "how we would fight china" KaPLan...
Let's say it's the KK brotherhood of lunatic warhawks

Posted by: zingaro | Mar 21 2014 20:08 utc | 9

Racism –a residual legacy of Slavery?
By Chinweizu
[In December 2006, the London-based magazin e, Index-on-Censorship, invited a number of persons to respond to the question:
“To what extent is racism and discrimination against black people in the US and particularly in this country, a residual legacy of slavery?”
The answer below was sent in by Chinweizu]
Racism is not at all a legacy of slavery but a constitutive and sustaining element of the White Supremacy system estab lished by European power during the centuries of trans-Atlantic enslavement of Black Africans. Hence its extreme resistance to eradication.
Racism is, certainly, not a “residual legacy” in the passive sense of the dead hand of the past. It is not like a motion imparted to an object by an impulse withdrawn long ago; a motion sustained entirely by inertia. Because it is a constitutive element, it has been necessary to systematically apply force and fraud to maintain, in mutant forms, this vital pillar of white supremacy. Accordingly, new forms of “slave trade” and slavery as well as new structures of raci
sm are still being elaborated and justified, even today, as they have been, whenever needed, since the 16th century.
For example, on Nov. 11, 2006, in Philadelphia, at a Wharton Business School conference on business in Africa, World Trade Organization representative Hanniford Schmidt announced the creation of a WTO initiative for "full private stewardry of labor" for the parts of Africa
that have been hardest hit by the 500 years of Africa's free trade with the West. "Full, untrammelled stewardry is the best available solution to African poverty, and the inevitable resu
lt of free-market theory," Schmidt told more than 150 attendees.
Schmidt acknowledged that the stewardry program—which will require Western companies doing business in some parts of Africa to own their workers outright-- was similar in many ways
to slavery, but explained that just as "compassionate conservatism" has polished the rough edges on labor relations in industrialized countries, full stewardry, or "compassionate slavery," could be a similar boon to developing ones.

Posted by: thomas | Mar 21 2014 20:13 utc | 10

Elites who have never worked a day in their lives....never served in the military (right or wrong)....have a one dimensional view of social justice....and on and on...

Posted by: georgeg | Mar 21 2014 20:14 utc | 11

You got Robert Kaplan and Robert Kagan refused, B.

@6, he substituted the words Imperialism for Slaveholdership, because theyre the same damn thing.

But yeah, pretty damn fail that he got Kagan and Kaplan confused. Thats bad.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 21 2014 20:21 utc | 12


Robert Kagan is, yes, but Robert Kagan didnt write this. B got the names confused.

This is written by Robert Kaplan.

Kaplan, Kagan, same thing. Theyre both Neocons. And its not like Kaplan isnt influential.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 21 2014 20:23 utc | 13

Anyone else notice the picture that went with the article?

Its a picture of a man holding up the world.

The same bollocks that people 150 years ago claimed that Great Britain was 'Holding Up The World' by killing Africans and ruling over India.

Such bollocks. The rhetoric of 2 centuries ago is the same rhetoric of today. Nothing ever changes, but people never learn to see the propaganda for what it is.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 21 2014 20:26 utc | 14

Robert Kaplan, Robert Kagan

David Horowitz... see Mother Jones May 1987, p. 27

Posted by: thomas | Mar 21 2014 20:28 utc | 15

Lets hope that some day Kagan and people like him wind up under the boot of Empire.

Posted by: Atlas Turns | Mar 21 2014 20:34 utc | 16

Kaplan is Jewish, and it is utterly bizarre that he can write positively about empire, given that the paradigmatic empire, the Roman one, colonized the area now called Israel, with the Jews revolting, to which Rome responded by destroying the Temple in Jerusalem, an event which forced Kagan's religion to be reconstituted, since up until the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, Judaism centered around the Temple.

Kagan seems to be completely unaware of his own heritage, or at least not to care about it: but then why does he start his piece with a pogrom? This reminds me of something that Putin has said in a speech:

Today, many nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples and cultures. Society is now required not only to recognise everyone’s right to the freedom of consciousness, political views and privacy, but also to accept without question the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite in meaning. This destruction of traditional values from above not only leads to negative consequences for society, but is also essentially anti-democratic, since it is carried out on the basis of abstract, speculative ideas, contrary to the will of the majority, which does not accept the changes occurring or the proposed revision of values.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 21 2014 20:36 utc | 17

It's symptomatic that certain hasbara troll missed no opportunity to take up strategic position and drop some initial disinfo in order to block here any inquiry into who really were the masters of the slave trade over centuries?

Speaking of which: Jewish Slavery in Western Culture (Part III), Rockefellers, Crown Cocaine & Haitian Slavery, Kosher Slavery.

Slavery pays to the masters: New Report: Fortune 100 Companies Have Received a Whopping $1.2 Trillion in Corporate Welfare Recently

Posted by: ProPeace | Mar 21 2014 20:42 utc | 18

This A*Hole if he could have f*ed his own wife, she wouldn’t end up doing the whole Europe

Posted by: kooshy | Mar 21 2014 20:50 utc | 19

Robert kagan or Robert Kaplan both are lunnies and unfortunately, in the past several US administrations, these cooks have risen to the top. These guys are a product of nazi Germany at its worst where the thinking that the powerful nations have a god given mission to rule and the rest of the world is here to be slaves to be taken care of.
Not sure how many people caught this, but the prince of Wales, on a visit to Iraq was filmed during a visit to British troops saying just that. "These people are happy to have us here to rule them just like we did before".
Neocons are today's version old British imperial superiority which led to the Second World War along with nazi ideology.
Someday we are going to have an overwhelming US neocon administration and this will be the end.

Posted by: ana souri | Mar 21 2014 20:51 utc | 20

This is hilarious.

Posted by: scalawag | Mar 21 2014 20:56 utc | 21

I think this is definitely the direction the neoliberal neocons want to take us -- back to slavery. I was struck by a statement made by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Thomas Perkins (who created a stir in January with a letter published in the WSJ comparing the 1% in the U.S. to Jews persecuted by the Nazis during Kristallnacht). In this statement, Perkins is calling for suffrage based on the total number of tax dollars the voter pays.

Perkins gave a talk titled "The War on the 1%" last month at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

Mr. Perkins’ interlocutor, Adam Lashinsky, soon had the frustrated look of a man trying to swim in a vat of molasses.

Mr. Lashinsky pointed out, for instance, that it was ridiculous to equate powerless Jews in the Third Reich with extremely powerful tech overlords in present-day America.

“No, I think the parallel holds,” Mr. Perkins said calmly. For one thing, “If you pay 75 percent of your life’s earnings to the government you are being persecuted.”

He had a better plan: “You don’t get to vote unless you pay a dollar in taxes. later he added, “A million in taxes, you get a million votes.” He said he was kidding about that last part, kind of.

One could argue that Citizens United already creates the dollarocracy system Perkins imagines. Slavery can't be far off.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Mar 21 2014 21:10 utc | 22


Personally I think the Neos would be fine with a modified Feudalism: Serfs are easier to control than slaves.

But the difference is minimal and largely rhetorical. Ultimately neither has much freedom.

Anyway, what Perkins was advocating (different amounts of votes depending on wealth) isnt new. Some folks advocated that in the 1800s.

But its so weird to see a modern person advocating that openly. Thats supposed to be a thing youre only supposed to talk about behind closed doors. But I guess times are changing and some kind of NeoFeudalism will probably be endorsed publicly by the mainstream in a few decades.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 21 2014 21:21 utc | 23


Overwhelming Neocon administration? You mean like the one we had 2000-20008 that got us into two foreign engagements costing trillions of dollars?

If that wasnt an overwhelming Neocon administration I dont know what is.

Though it could be worse. There could be an administration with, for lack of a better word, WORSE neocons than the ones under George W. Bush.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 21 2014 21:23 utc | 24

b really should fix the title of this thread.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 21 2014 22:17 utc | 25

Yes. Change the title to Kaplan. Surely he has read all of our complaints by now.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 21 2014 22:29 utc | 26

I personally do not think bush was a neocon. He was a patsy who was manipulated by neocons. He didn't have the brains, the ability to plot or the vision of these two loonies and the neocon masses that seems to be growing everyday in the US. Bush was a twit. A neocon administration is what we will see with hitlery Clinton if she is elected. Nothing worse that an intelligent, motivated, self entered, ambitious neocon to set the road for a PNAC scenario.

Posted by: ana souri | Mar 21 2014 22:37 utc | 27

A hired pen is a hired pen is a hired penis...

What we all need now is neocondums.

Posted by: JohnH | Mar 21 2014 22:39 utc | 28


But Cheney was a Neocon, and he and Rumsfeld hired the whole PNAC crew and set all that crap in motion. He was also trying to make up for damned near bankrupting what then became Halliburton. And he succeeded on both counts. There isn't a person in the US today with any "serious" foreign policy creds who has any business running anything. So our choice next time will be... bad and worse.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 21 2014 22:41 utc | 29

it matters not kagan, kaplan - fecal matter
like tennyson & wordsworth
they changed their name at half time

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 21 2014 23:00 utc | 30


But energy invested in that discussion will be wasted.
They write the plays and you play them. Keeps you busy.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 21 2014 23:15 utc | 31

Zionists are slavers;well,who knew?sheesh,It's nice when they articulate it though,it gives one a warm feeling inside as self ego re-enforcement.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 21 2014 23:45 utc | 32

What we really need is a American anti-Zionist movement.I'm ready.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 21 2014 23:47 utc | 33

dahoit, #32. Start by joining the boycott! Hit 'em where it hurts.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 21 2014 23:57 utc | 34

Kaplan effectively believes that the Empire is AngloZionist:

the British had their hands full in Mesopotamia in 1941: given the tendency of the Arab masses toward anti-Western and anti-Zionist ideologies (a tendency that was itself at least in part a reaction to British dominance)

So maybe I was unfair to the Saker when I said in an earlier thread that I regretted his using this term.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 22 2014 0:07 utc | 35

Kaplan/Kagan is an amusing slip, but they're equally insane and the point is well made - that supremacists are a bit too eager to fall in love with their own bullshit.
“As both a dream and a fact the American slaveholdership was born before the United States,” writes the mid-20th-century historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto.

Did he mean Danny DeVito?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 22 2014 0:09 utc | 36

Actually, I think these neocons fail on their on there own terms. I mean that they're actually very poor imperial strategists even if one accepts the neocon argument that empire is a good thing. If anything, it's the neocons who have no grasp of realpolitik and who are blinded by an ideology that is far more pro-Israel than pro-American. All the wars they've promoted have been debacles that have diminished not increased America's standing. Unconditional support for Israel (which earns successive American administrations only Israeli contempt, never gratitude) and the obsession with punishing and destabilizing Iran totally distorts not only American Middle East policy but American foreign policy as a whole. Pushing for a new Cold War with Russia creates a powerful enemy where previously there was none. So for all their seemingly shameless promotion of empire, these people will one day be noted only for their contribution to American decline.

Posted by: antistupid | Mar 22 2014 0:21 utc | 37

Robert Kagan is Victoria Nuland's husband no? My question would be how did Ms. Nuland get promoted to Under-Secretary? Hillary Clinton had to have signed off on that.

Posted by: Paul Bogdanich | Mar 22 2014 0:50 utc | 38

" the most benign form of order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable minimum"

Am i mistaken? Because I am quite certain sectarian wars have never been worse. Syria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Rwanda, and DRC. These countries became mixed at some point. And now they are being torn apart.

Posted by: guest77 | Mar 22 2014 0:53 utc | 39

Finally, we get to discuss the poisonous, rotten core of Imperial Supremacy and who authored, promotes it and is the main driving force behind it. Hallelujah! This is exactly where we must begin. Finally, the purpose of all these discussions becomes more defined.

I'm not sure if your error in the author's name was really so bad. Maybe it was meant this way for all to investigate further, because that is precisely what everyone is failing to do in these discussions on imperial supremacy: to research the authors of this evil ideological foreign policy and there are many behind it in different arenas: politics, finance, media, lobbies, religious groups, all honing the message, driving the narrative, driving policy, bribing politicians to push this twisted ideology forward.

Your error, intentional or otherwise was nonetheless so timely and auspicious at a moment in history when we are starting to see, what evil injustice is being advanced in our name against other nations, and this article falls into our lap in an almost prophetic manner with such perfect timing as a warning to us all: to look for the root and squash it before it’s too late, because unless we see where it originates, we are powerless. The fact that your error perplexed many here already can only be a good thing, because it peaks their curiosity: hey, wait a minute; this is not the author, what’s going on here? And then upon further research, they discover two names to familiarize themselves with, and then three, and then a pattern starts to emerge, and then they go further connecting the dots until they finally get the big picture that: the advancement of imperial supremacy in this day and most definitely a Zionist-driven operation.
So they have similar names, and are no relation but they're united in the cause of Zionism and the imperial project that will shelter Zionism permanently.:

This individual, Kaplan, is obviously trying to make the case for imperial supremacy which sets the stage for justifying the injustice that Zionism has wrought in Israel and that Zionists want to permanently legitimize by any means possible.

These Ziocons will bombard us and the world from left, right and centre with an argument designed for every political persuasion to justify legitimizing imperial supremacy where Zionism can exist comfortably with permanent impunity and be cleansed of its ongoing and future crimes.

Now I know I'm going to have fun here separating the chaff from the wheat on this issue. This is a subject that Zionists, whether liberal (a non-existent creatures in Zionism; because Zionism turns all who embrace it into fascists) or conservative, are irresistably drawn to and at the same time it’s a subject that draws out their duplicitous nature. Those who are secretly with Zionism's goals will do ANYTHING to steer us off course and prevent us from visualizing the pattern, and if we dare to; they'll hurl their most convenient slander; A.S.

Thank you for making us aware of this article which lays the foundation for all discussions on what we are witnessing in Ukraine and the Middle East with advancing imperial supremacy and which hopefully will motivate everyone to further explore the depth and scope of Zionist involvement in this expanding foreign operation that is evil to its core.

And don't worry, apparently you’re not the first to mix up these names and make this fortunate mistake, because in essence, whether one author is blunt and the other doublespeaks liberal jargon they are united in their cause and we should be aware of what we’re up against to tear their structure down and derail their agenda.

It's great to see others stumble upon the truth that was begging to be found. If not for this timely omen, I might have given up trying to make everyone see and have started doubting even the sound of my own fury.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 1:02 utc | 40


Kaplan would probably say its because America isnt a powerful enough empire or something. Lulz.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 22 2014 1:03 utc | 41

@10 thomas

Stop beating around the bush, and just come out with it already! We are being sold a case for Zionist Supremacy right from the horses mouth!

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 1:06 utc | 42

@34 Demian

Well you could have knocked me over with a feather! And to think I had to go through all that to see you get to this point. Thank God for serendipity!

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 1:12 utc | 43

@37 They don't talk about it in polite society; but it's understood they're all on the same page.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 1:15 utc | 44

@29 Nora

Who set these wheel in motion Robert Kagan and William Kristol or Dick and Rummy? Come on...the authors of the PLAN of course. Sure Cheney's a lunatic, but even he couldn't come up with this. Cheney's part of the muscle.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 1:23 utc | 45

#44 Kalithea

We've been fighting this fight, Kalithea, for a long time now, every way we can. So you'll not find me defending a one of them. But the wheels were set in motion before any of us were born, and I'm an old woman now. We're "just" dealing with the current crop, and hopefully we'll somehow succeed before there's no Palestine, Palestinians or olive trees left. Or Syrians, or Iraqis, or Ukrainians, or... Just don't think for a minute that these monsters were not, and are not, encouraged and enabled by non-Jews, low and high, who share the same damned values even if they don't personally give a crap about Israel or its "chosen". And they've ALL got to be stopped.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 22 2014 1:35 utc | 46

This is from a 2004 article by Uri Avnery at Counterpunch:

The "oligarchs" are a tiny group of entrepreneurs who exploited the disintegration of the Soviet system to loot the treasures of the state and to amass plunder amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. In order to safeguard the perpetuation of their business, they took control of the state. Six out of the seven are Jews.

In the first years of post-Soviet Russian capitalism they were the bold and nimble ones who knew how to exploit the economic anarchy in order to acquire enormous possessions for a hundredth or a thousandth of their value: oil, natural gas, nickel and other minerals. They used every possible trick, including cheating, bribery and murder. Every one of them had a small private army.

But the most intriguing part of the series recounts the way they took control of the political apparatus. After a period of fighting each other, they decided that it would be more profitable for them to cooperate in order to take over the state.

At the time, President Boris Yeltsin was in a steep decline. On the eve of the new elections for the presidency, his rating in public opinion polls stood at 4%. He was an alcoholic with a severe heart disease, working about two hours a day. The state was, in practice, ruled by his bodyguard and his daughter; corruption was the order of the day.

The oligarchs decided to take power through him. They had almost unlimited funds, control of all TV channels and most of the other media.

Vladimir Putin, the taciturn and tough ex-KGB operative, assumed power, took control of the media, put one of the oligarchs (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) in prison, caused the others to flee (Berezovsky is in England, Vladimir Gusinsky is in Israel, another, Mikhail Chernoy, is assumed to be hiding here.

George W. Bush and John Kerry both brag about their talent for raising enormous sums of money. From whom? From pensioners? From the mythical "old lady in tennis shoes"? Of course not, but from the cabals of billionaires, the giant corporations and powerful lobbies (arms dealers, Jewish organiztions, doctors, lawyers and such). Many of them give money to both candidates–just to be on the safe side.

All of these expect, of course, to receive a generous bonus when their candidate is elected. "There is no such thing as a free lunch", as the right-wing economist Milton Friedman wrote. As in Russia, every dollar (or ruble) invested wisely in an election will yield a ten- or hundred-fold return.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 1:45 utc | 47

Even educated Americans speak of Putin as a "thug". All he has done is restore the rule of law, what Germans used to call a Rechtsstaat.

It was very revealing for me to watch his recent informal press conference and his speech to the Duma. He is obviously a man of the people. He also takes the political ideas that European civilization was built on seriously, something that can be said for no Western leader I know of.

It is turning out as the nineteenth century Slavophiles thought it would: Russia has become the last defender of Western civilization.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 22 2014 2:12 utc | 48

Someone above mentioned the Robert Kaplan piece in the Atlantic "how we would fight china" that appeared in 2005. This was not lunatic but a very interesting article on US military plans on how to confront China just off of China's territorial waters (I think the lunacy is the notion that US national interests require us to maintain a war footing in the Western Pacific, but that is an argument we have lost here in the US). I hadn't seen this before. In any case it should be read by anyone interested in US plans against China. It explains Hillary's 'pivot to Asia' policy.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 22 2014 2:34 utc | 49

As for Uri Avnery at Counterpunch: today he writes:

By the same token, Ukrainians can be understood when they kick out a president who wants to bring them into the Russian orbit against their will.

I was surprised to read that. I should have thought that Avnery has a concept of the rule of law. Also, is Avnery so uninformed not to know that most Ukrainians do not want to join NATO?

Posted by: Demian | Mar 22 2014 2:40 utc | 50

Uri Avnery is "soft" zionism. Says most the "right" things, but essentially there to steer the gullible towards the lesser of two zionist evils.

Posted by: scalawag | Mar 22 2014 2:49 utc | 51

So is ToivoS, BTW. :)

Posted by: scalawag | Mar 22 2014 2:51 utc | 52

"Even educated Americans". That must be either a relative term, or the voice of the educated is never heard. It is difficult for me to imagine how an "educated" person could be so ill-informed. Back on planet earth, this would never happen.

Posted by: DM | Mar 22 2014 3:04 utc | 53

Maybe this is far-fetched and I know that Putin bailed out some the the Russian Oligarchy during the 2008 recession so they would owe him support at this crucial time. But recently I watched an interview on 60 Minutes with businessman Bill Browder who trashed talked Putin. Browder ran a Capital Management firm investing in Russia's largest oil companies. Browder who at one point alleges being a supporter of Putin ended up blacklisted as being a threat to the country. Anyway I'm not sure what kind of subterfuge he was up to when he stayed in Russia but he made some nasty accusations against Putin.

A Zionist Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky who went into exile in the U.K. after being accused of fraud and embezzlement during Primkov's government in 1999 also hated Putin. Beresovsky is one of those oligarchs by the way who exploited the fall of the Soviet Union to his advantange. Beresovsky later became a vocal opponent of Putin.

Berezovsky publicly threatened Putin and stated that he was on a mission to bring down Putin "by force" or by bloodless revolution. Berezovsky held media holdings in Russia and used them to slam Putin's policies.

I believe it is during this time Putin became aware of the power of Zionist media to destroy political careers.

In October, in an interview in Le Figaro, Putin announced that he would no longer tolerate criticism of the government by media controlled by the oligarchs. "If necessary we will destroy those instruments that allow this blackmail", he declared.

Details from wiki:

Berezovsky even set up a foundation based in New York whose purpose it was said was to "bankroll widespread opposition to Putin":

There's no doubt in my mind that Zionist influence had a hand in what is happening in Ukraine and the protests that tried to interfere with Putin's re-election. Maybe Putin pissed off some other Zionist oligarchs. I haven't been able to research more on this issue but hopefully some of you will look further.

But this just reinforces the point I've been trying to make that Zionists are involved in this imperial global expansion, in this case because the capitalist system feels threatened by Putin and potential reforms. Zionists are up to their eyeballs in this imperial advance and I still believe they're in the driver's seat.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 3:09 utc | 54

@48 ToivoS

Are you kidding me? Do you think the U.S. could ever dream of reining 1.3 billion stray cats with nukes and a formidable army? For gawd's sake this article is practically a manifesto on Zionism supremacy, it's that transparent. But of course, you'll never admit it.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 3:16 utc | 55

I mean the Chinese have nukes and a formidable military.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 3:18 utc | 56

kalithea # 53

Oh the Neocons were absolutely behind this Ukrainian gambit, and I'm thinking their goals were twofold: to keep Russia preoccupied and get hold of Sevastopol. That way, it would be very difficult for her to help Syria and, of course, Iran -- still the main goals for those creeps. And yeah, find me one Neocon, anywhere, who does not support Israel. So yeah, Zionists.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 22 2014 3:24 utc | 57

really, read some history? u s imperialism is the single most dangerous threat to humanity

israel is a vassal state

exactly as indonesia was under suharto, or colombia under any of its creep compradors

your sense of disproportion amazes me truly, maybe it is because you are american, you want to blame someoen else for your barbarity, 'the smart jew' is again the perfect target for imbeciles

it is a puppet state, it is a non state, who does exactly what washington wants it to do. it effects only only middle east policy & even that it is by far the junior party, if washington told israel to go live in the sudetenland, the state of israel would, is is a pantin, a puppet increasingly with more bark than bite

you choose anti semitism because as american you are frightened of being obliged to burn your shithouse down

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 22 2014 3:37 utc | 58

Oh no, rememberringgiap, no. It's the combination of the two. And for gosh sakes, I've known how bad America was since I was a kid, and spent most of my life trying to do something about it so I'm hardly afraid to admit it. We see the end coming, it's gonna be UGLY, and we know we deserve it; not a nice place to be but it's honest. And Israel is equally nasty, sometimes in the lead, sometimes as a follower, and I don't hate Jews but I sure do loathe Zionists, whatever faith they may be. (And again, in America, there are a lot more Christians blindly supporting Israel than Jews.)

Posted by: Nora | Mar 22 2014 3:43 utc | 59

they are puppets, nothing more nothing less. the actual state of israel began criminally with deir yassin & that state gets worse, it is little surprise, that its population is leaving in droves, more than at any other time, so would i with nutcases like lieberman & netanyahu

but they are no more than donkeys

pakistan on the other hand frightens the living shit out of those united states

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 22 2014 3:49 utc | 60

They're just two sides of the same (filthy) coin.

Posted by: Nora | Mar 22 2014 3:50 utc | 61

In the article In Defense of Empire the words "slave" or "slavery" in fact do not exist.

or example, in the above quoted text, we find this phrase: "Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by slavery...". From the url, instead we find: "Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by empires...".

The same types of differences exist in every single case. Obviously, this is a huge problem. Either the quotes are wrong in this post or they have been edited out in a later version of the version and replaced with the words "empires," "imperialism", etc.

This problem should be addressed ASAP.

Posted by: LJ | Mar 22 2014 3:52 utc | 62

"israel is a vassal state"

Which lets Israel/zionist Jewish fascists off the hook for the war crimes they are responsible for. "They're just pawns of a larger poer, pity them, but don't condemn them. And for god's sakes, don't do anything meaningful that might interfere in their sacred mandate from the godhead."

Which is essentially what Jewish zionist hasbara is all about, whether from the zionist left or the zionist right.

It's never "us", it's always "them".

Excuse me while I go puke, Charles Manson in drag.

Posted by: scalawag | Mar 22 2014 4:07 utc | 63

@48 Yes, totally not lunatic for the United States to go to war with one of the most populated countries on the planet.

Wanting to go to war with enormous countries like China, Russia or even Iran (not as big, but still what, over twice as big as iraq and afghanistan combined?) is totally and completely rational.

/sarc off

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 22 2014 4:08 utc | 64

Okay, I found another corrupt Zionist Russian Oligarch who was accused of fraud, embezzlement and money laundering who's also an enemy of Putin:

Thank goodness Putin did some house-cleaning, but he no doubt made enemies among Zionists no doubt on Wall Street as well. They must have had capital tied up in these Zionist-run Russsian companies.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 4:08 utc | 65

@61, he substituted Imperialist for slaveholder.

Since theyre the same thing, pretty much.

B did not make it clear IMO, that he did this substitution, but thats what he did. Hes trying to show how reprehensible this is.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 22 2014 4:09 utc | 66

yes that is what america is, charles manson in drag

hasbara hasbeen, really it is really a peurile preoccupation

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 22 2014 4:11 utc | 67

@62 WHAT Zionist left? There is none. All the Democrats or whatever that are zionists are also right wing. They just dress up imperialism in fancy words like 'humanitarianism', thats all.

There hasnt been a zionist left since the last communist zionists in Israel retired or died decades ago.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 22 2014 4:11 utc | 68

@57 You realize that critiquing zionism, which is a modern political ideology, is NOT the same as critiquing Judaism, the religion, right? Right? Guess not.

Because there are zionist Christians (probably more than there are zionist jews) and nonzionist jews (a growing number of young jews realize Israel is an apartheid state).

So stop trying to slur anti-zionists as anti-semites, thats just slander.

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 22 2014 4:16 utc | 69

Hey kalithea, the Russians let Khodorkovsky out of prison early. Almost the first thing the loyal Israeli citizen did was go to the Ukraine and encourage the neo-nazis running the place now to get even more brutal and nazi like.

I could ask what's up with that, but I think everybody here knows the answer.

Posted by: scalawag | Mar 22 2014 4:22 utc | 70

@65: I think b made it very clear. He used the word "substitute", and the title of the post was directly followed by the same title, but without the substitution.

This kind of snark is just part of leftist blog culture. (I don't know if right wingers do it.)

I'm beginning to think that the substitution of "Kagan" for "Kaplan" was snark too, but that I didn't pick up on.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 22 2014 4:26 utc | 71

@57 chaff, totally and completely.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 4:29 utc | 72

I am sorry very much off topic I know, but it's been some time that nothing is written by 'bevin'. Does any one know what's going on?

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Mar 22 2014 4:30 utc | 73

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 22, 2014 12:11:24 AM

"hasbara hasbeen, really it is really a peurile preoccupation"

Then why continue to do it?

Posted by: Massinissa | Mar 22, 2014 12:11:27 AM | 67

"WHAT Zionist left? There is none."

You're right. I screwed up, should have written it zionist "left". Same for zionist "right", as much of the zionist manure conflated as rightwing is also a corruption of their ideals, though not so far off base.

Posted by: scalawag | Mar 22 2014 4:30 utc | 74

In China, Michelle Obama calls for universal rights

Do Michelle and her speechwriters really think that Chinese rulers don't take that as a big joke? I'm sure they're laughing their heads off behind her back. I hope that the reason speechwriters put stuff like that in there is for the domestic American audience.

Posted by: Demian | Mar 22 2014 4:37 utc | 75

you clearly have no sense of proportion, or discernement if it comes to that - just read strormfront that enough - that's the level of research repeated ad finitum - whether its lagos or louisiana

you mistake the fireld for the world

read lin piao

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 22 2014 4:46 utc | 76

And yet another Zionist oligarch who bilked Russia and hates Putin.:

On 23 August 2003, Gusinsky travelled from Israel to Athens, where he was arrested under a Greek-Russian treaty for fraud amounting to millions in damages.[5] Intense pressure from American leaders (mainly from US ambassador in Athens Tomas Miller), Israeli officials and the European Jewish Congress on the Greek government led to Gusinsky's release within five days.[6]

Mr Gusinsky says we will all pay the price if western leaders appease President Putin. He likens the situation apocalyptically to the 1930s and the world's treatment of Hitler. Mr Putin's hands, he says, are already red with the blood of murdered Chechens.

Mr Putin's popularity comes in part from his promise to do away with the oligarchs, a group of 20-odd billionaire businessmen who got rich stripping assets from privatised companies they bought for nothing.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 4:55 utc | 77

Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 22, 2014 12:46:04 AM | 75

"just read strormfront that enough - that's the level of research repeated ad finitum - whether its lagos or louisiana"

It's well known stormfront is a zionist front/agent provocateur site, much like freerepublic, though tailored to the more hardcore freak. Why promote them?

Posted by: scalawag | Mar 22 2014 5:25 utc | 78

Maybe Zionists deserve to rule, they're smarter, they work harder and are better organized. You folks couldn't organize an ice cream social. Just sayin'

Posted by: Crash Craddock | Mar 22 2014 5:48 utc | 79

Nora and 'Destroy MoonofAlabama Project' at 45:

But the wheels were set in motion before any of us were born, and I'm an old woman now. ... Just don't think for a minute that these monsters were not, and are not, encouraged and enabled by non-Jews, low and high, who share the same damned values even if they don't personally give a crap about Israel or its "chosen".

Testify Sister! Tell us who set the wheels in motion, tell us all what the plan is. What tricks did the Jews pull on us non-Jews way back then, how are non-Jews enabling their diabolical worldwide plan?

Posted by: fairleft | Mar 22 2014 6:38 utc | 80

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 21, 2014 11:16:52 PM | 54

WTF are you trying to say? The Zionist have no position on US-China relations as far as anyone can see. I read that article by Robert Kaplan and he reported the views of officers in the US Navy. I am quite sure that Israel has not penetrated the US Navy. This is a perspective of good old fashioned US imperialism. I know that the Zionist work in the background and try to influence US policy, but they do not control it. Especially inside the US Navy. You have no idea how power is distributed inside the US.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 22 2014 6:40 utc | 81

The War Prayer

"... I have told the whole truth in that, and only dead men can tell the truth in this world ..." Mark Twain

Eugenics is evil ... however, in Kagans case, his removal from the gene pool and his ilk, could only be seen as a darwinian, evolutionary advancement for humanity.

Posted by: Outraged | Mar 22 2014 7:40 utc | 82

nice to see Kagan defend he defends russias and soviets

#Kiev authorities giving school camps to neo-#Nazis for military training
#Svoboda #Ukraine

Posted by: brian | Mar 22 2014 7:52 utc | 83

thank you, rememberinggiap, for your calmness. you are correct in saying that many of us (and that includes myself look for causes outside our internal history. perhaps the fixed point should be the Dulles brothers, who if they did not set us down this infernal path, gave us a mighty and prolonged push. Mark Twain had it all figured out over a century ago. as to American zionists, Jews of my and Nora's generaton lived through the discrimination of convenanted housing tracts, university quotas and professional exclusions down to the Vietnam war, and they can't put it out of their mind. they probably don't know that they were not the only ones. when I was a student at Yale living with George Bush Sr.'s aunt in New Haven, Catholics and most of the Yale professors were excluded from the lawn tennis club situated just behind the new school of management on Whitney avenue. No Irish or italians need apply. the us is a swarm of internal contradictions, and it's history is out of control.

Posted by: Knut | Mar 22 2014 7:57 utc | 84

Nora at 45: Kindly cancel that request. Just answer this. Do you agree with this quote from Pragma:

Neither is it coincidence that (before the creation of izrael but about the time of the balfour deal ...) Russia was poisoned by zionist "communists" (just another projection), nor is it coincidence that Germany was relentlessly pushed into war and later broken and crushed and not reinstated until this very day ...

If that's a good summary of them, maybe there's no need for you to tell us about your 'historical' beliefs.

Also, in fact I only think Pragma is the actual 'destroy moonofalabama' operative here. You and his other supporters seem to hold your beliefs sincerely. FWIW and for what they're worth which is less than zero.

Posted by: fairleft | Mar 22 2014 8:08 utc | 85

@ToivoS #48

There will be no 'US Naval' war off Chinas coast.

The US Navy has known it Carriers are simply very large targets for many, many years, and so do the PLAN.

Carrier battle groups are for projecting brute military force and creating invasive sovereignity(sic) in support of Empire around the globe ... NEVER, in the modern era to be risked against 1st world powers. All those billions upon billions of $ would be lost in the briefest moment of conflict with the PLAN. See: Anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM).

Posted by: Outraged | Mar 22 2014 8:09 utc | 86

I must admit I didn't compare the original text with what b cited, I still had too much of a confidence into him which now vanished totally. Others @6) and Massinissa discovered the bluff immediately, so they deserve the honour. I really don't know what the purpose of this double bluff is: changing the text and the author??? I would say just stupid...

It also damages people like Chinweizu @10), the famous nigerian writer who presented a case of REAL stewardry of labour by WTO close to slaveholdership

maybe Mr Pragma is also his creation, b is a talented computer freak and I think he is LoL in his little room about all of us; and also about having added two hysterical anti-zionist broads programmes to the commenters here confusing all of us.... I think the whole blog here is really disintegrating, from top to bottom...

Posted by: thomas | Mar 22 2014 8:16 utc | 87


b used a not uncommon technique to 'confront', to try to 'jolt', the reader ... to assist the reader to see beyond the weasel words and false arguments and justifications, and the evil therein to reveal a masked 'Truth'. The literal word should not always be taken, 'literally'.

Peace, Salaam, Shalom

Posted by: Outraged | Mar 22 2014 8:31 utc | 88

Knut at 83: Lenin had this figured out, imperialism is a stage of capitalism, a reaction to excess production and internal markets being exhausted of opportunities for excess profits. The European capitalist countries began struggling with this phenomenon in the late 19th century and the US a few decades later. There's really no solution other than ending capitalism and/or social democracy.

In that context, pinning responsibility for imperialism on Jews is just idiotic, and pinning things on the US will just make folks less wary of its natural successor, China. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing when there is multi-polar world, because that coincided in the post-war era and may coincide again with greater 'space' for independent, populist, democratic regimes to arise.

And that also doesn't mean I accuse Russia of being an imperialist. Lenin was making a general observation (I think) and there are exceptions. Regimes under attack by 'big imperialism' sometimes produce sincere democratic/populist nationalists. I hope/think Russians are lucky enough to have one of those running their country now. The people should be aware they'll likely need to struggle 'some day soon' to avoid reverting to the 'imperialist norm'.

Posted by: fairleft | Mar 22 2014 8:32 utc | 89

@87) where is the enlightment of readers doing this? all empires, great and less great, historically have been founded on slaveholdership, now changing to a form of forced labour like in most of the arabic monarchistic countries or work without the minimum ILO standards like in the case of the Sotchi Olympic workers....

Posted by: thomas | Mar 22 2014 8:54 utc | 90

After 12 Years of War, Labor Abuses Still Rampant on U.S. Bases in Afghanistan (as in Iraq & elsewhere)

Human Trafficking and Slavery by the US Government, Military and Corporations for MASSIVE PROFIT is very, very real, in a 'literal' sense, too ... all of it corrupt and illegal even under US Law ... and no one will ever be prosecuted ...

12 years a Slave, indeed ... as I recall, no individual, business or official involved was ever held accountable for the multiple crimes, even then illegal, committed against Solomon Northup, then a Freeman ... one hundred and sixty years has passed and where are we now ?

Posted by: Outraged | Mar 22 2014 10:44 utc | 91

What Kaplan's "defense of imperialism" is trying to prevent are these

"proposed defense cuts"

But if Congress approves, the Army would drop from today's active-duty force of 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000 over the next three years.

"Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged" ground wars, the Army is larger than required and "larger than we can afford," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who announced the plan, said at the Pentagon.

California may win more than it loses in the shift of resources as older aircraft are phased out and new ones are brought on board.

Spending for cyberwarfare will increase under the plan. That could benefit larger government contractors in Silicon Valley, including Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Oracle Corp. and a growing number of start-ups in defense-related equipment and software.

In addition, Northrop Grumman Corp. uses a facility in Palmdale to build the unmanned RQ-4 Global Hawk drone aircraft that will replace the high-flying U-2 spy planes, famous in the early Cold War but now proposed for retirement. The company has about 2,500 employees on the program in Southern California.

The Pentagon previously had planned to mothball a version of the Global Hawk and keep the U-2 flying. But Hagel said the operating costs of the drone had fallen and that with its greater range and endurance, it "makes a better high-altitude reconnaissance platform for the future."

The Air Force has 32 U-2s based at Beale Air Force Base in Marysville, Calif.

Hagel also called for retiring the Air Force's entire fleet of A-10 "Warthog" ground attack fighters, as well as mothballing half of the Navy's fleet of 22 cruisers, and building only 32 of the Navy's littoral combat ships, not 52 as previously planned. The shallow-draft, lightly armed warship is designed for clearing mines and anti-submarine warfare. Hagel said it might not be heavily armed enough and called for studying whether a new frigate would be better.

The only military force to grow would be special operations forces. Increasingly used for training and counter-terrorism missions around the world, the elite force would increase by several thousand to 69,700.

Which would give the US a spoiling, blackmail power to push for its interests but no imperial power.

Rather than Obama’s post-imperialism, in which the secretary of state appears like a lonely and wayward operator encumbered by an apathetic White House, I maintain that a tempered imperialism is now preferable.

No other power or constellation of powers is able to provide even a fraction of the global order provided by the United States. U.S. air and sea dominance preserves the peace, such as it exists, in Asia and the Greater Middle East. American military force, reasonably deployed, is what ultimately protects democracies as diverse as Poland, Israel, and Taiwan from being overrun by enemies. If America sharply retrenched its air and sea forces, while starving its land forces of adequate supplies and training, the world would be a far more anarchic place, with adverse repercussions for the American homeland.

Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts of the world a modicum of imperial order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic heartland of the world economy and the home of American treaty allies.

He seems to realize his argument is an uphill struggle as he adds this

This by no means obliges the American military to repair complex and populous Islamic countries that lack critical components of civil society. America must roam the world with its ships and planes, but be very wary of where it gets involved on the ground. And it must initiate military hostilities only when an overwhelming national interest is threatened. Otherwise, it should limit its involvement to economic inducements and robust diplomacy—diplomacy that exerts every possible pressure in order to prevent widespread atrocities in parts of the world, such as central Africa, that are not, in the orthodox sense, strategic.

That he goes back to "White Man's Burden" in his arguments presumably means he is too old and out of touch with US demography.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 22 2014 10:55 utc | 92

There is a great RT interview by Anastasja Churkina - the daughter of the Russian UN ambassador - with Amy Goodman on the role of corporate media - when corporations profit from war.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 22 2014 11:01 utc | 93

Whatever else this topic may or may not have achieved, it has certainly flushed out a dumpster-load of Zio-trolls and spooked them into throwing caution to the wind.
Talk about panic mode...
Nice work, b.

Why is Nakba Denial more kosher than Holocaust Denial?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 22 2014 13:45 utc | 94

Demian (47)

Putin ...
It was very revealing for me to watch his recent informal press conference and his speech to the Duma. He is obviously a man of the people.

Indeed. It's also instructive to compare a Putin speech and say an obama or merkel speech. While Putin *evidently and doubtlessly* really addresses the people and explains what has been, or must be, done and why, the western puppets merely utter system standard pieces of text and are ignoring the people.

kalithea (53)

Bill Browder who trashed talked Putin. Browder ran a Capital Management firm investing in Russia's largest oil companies. Browder who at one point alleges being a supporter of Putin ended up blacklisted as being a threat to the country.

Well, depending on whom you ask, weztern media and even (reliably and confrontingly jew defending) wikipedia, or Russian investigators, witnesses, and victims, the answer will be very different.
Actually browder was deeply and dirtily linked to a concerted crime operation that tried to steal Russias (mostly hydrocarbon) resources in a "professional" way. This, of course *had* to be understood for what it was, a direct attack on Russias life blood, which maybe was not even the goal of browder and accomplices but at least a non issue for them. Looking closer you will also find khodorkovsky and the "devils advocate" magnitsky in those circles.
Funnily the wezt and wikipedia paint browder as a gently minded businessman who got thrown out by evil Putin for unmasking Putin and his crime gang (well noted, that's how the weztern thugs paint it).

A Zionist Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky who went into exile in the U.K. after being accused of fraud and embezzlement during Primkov's government in 1999 also hated Putin. Beresovsky is one of those oligarchs by the way who exploited the fall of the Soviet Union to his advantange. Beresovsky later became a vocal opponent of Putin.

Berezovsky publicly threatened Putin and stated that he was on a mission to bring down Putin "by force" or by bloodless revolution. Berezovsky held media holdings in Russia and used them to slam Putin's policies.

berezovsky didn't stick to the deal, he left the frame so clearly - and wisely - assigned by Putin. Quite possibly berezovsky is the symbol of the "political oligarchs" which, of course, were not at all happy about Putin stopping their free looting of Russia.

It is noteworthy - yet widely "forgotten" - that berezovsky later, in London, more or less confessed his crimes and evil spirited attacks and asked Putin to forgive him and to please, pretty please, let him go back to Russia.

One might also have a good case here for the difference between jews and zionists. Yes, most oligarchs are jews but that's not the point. The point is that extremely greedy people with a large crime register wanted to and still want to earn ever more billions, jew or not jew. But that's it. And one can make agreements with them, even agreements in favour of Russia and even agreements basically employing those oligarchs for the good of Russia.
Not so with the zionists. The zionist oligarchs never respected Putin, nor the people, nor Russia herself. To them Russia was but a helpless but very rich lady they would loot and rob with utmost brutality. And as soon as anyone dared to stop them they would scream "anti-semites!" and leave to izrael or another zio controlled country.

For those oligarchs who stuck and stick to the agreements one must not care about jew or not and indeed there are non-jews, too. The most brutal and despicable criminals though are zio-jews, each and all of them.

Ad "zusa attacking China":

That must be a joke. Anyone with some basic knowledge about military issues will tell you a simple truth: zusa must hope and pray that none of their protectees, namely japan, sk, and taiwan, ever comes in a situation to ask for zusa help. For a simple reason. zusa would be doomed.
Japan being the least dangerous, sk would pretty much be lost before zusa could fire some shots, and taiwan (and largely sk) are basically denied zones.
Not only are 100% of taiwan covered by Chinese anti-air systems but worse for zusa, zusa would be stopped dead in its tracks because China can interdict the ca. 600 - 750km wide "belt" around taiwan needed for zusa air operations. About the only tool not interdicted would be zusa firing cruise missiles; as those are old tech., and slow China would comfortably kill at least 80% (and more realistically around 90%) of those. Would do zusa that, would zusa protect taiwan knowing there is little they could do but there would be a very considerable risk of China (rightfully!) destroying major parts of the zusa fleet? I strongly doubt that.

About the most realistic and favourable (for zusa) scenario I see would be a China japan war with zusa interfering somewhat. And even that is doubtful as it might "invite" nk to use China supplied weapons against both japan and the much hated zusa.

maybe Mr Pragma is also his creation, b is a talented computer freak and I think he is LoL in his little room about all of us; and also about having added two hysterical anti-zionist broads programmes

maybe? MAYBE? What an incompetent asshole! OF COURSE I'm a programm! But not by b; I've been programmed by KGB on a rusty typewriter.
izrael should ask zusa for more funds or they should ask one of the zio-controlled countries. Obviously izrael *urgently* needs funds for better agents. Current ones like thomas miss even the most obvious points.

Ceterum censeo israel americanamque vehementer delenda esse!

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 22 2014 13:55 utc | 95

94) no, you are definitively CIA programmed, probably by their Israeli subcontractors.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 22 2014 14:00 utc | 96

Please, b, have some truly competent person proof read your posts. A few more blunders such as this one and you lose a bunch of readers.

Posted by: Sanford Russell | Mar 22 2014 14:02 utc | 97


I doubt he will lose readers; and if it's you, nitpicker - Good Riddance.

Posted by: kalithea | Mar 22 2014 14:15 utc | 98

96) Sanford Russel - hint: it is intentional.

Some people plan for Afghanistan in Ukraine.

Bright future for Pravy Sector Taliban.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 22 2014 14:24 utc | 99

Oh no, b made an error!

What a shocking revelation. Who would have thought that a human being can make an occasional error?!

sanford russell is absolutely right. The readers are fleeing MoA in batallion-sized troves.

Say, sanford russell, how many errors are needed to lose *you*? I'm more than ready to commit them.
Here's a first downpayment:
1 + 1 = 7
zionists are acceptable human beings
sun is going around earth which is the center of the universe (hint to zamericans: Attention, this is actually an error!)
water flows upward

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Mar 22 2014 14:26 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.