Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 02, 2014

Stephen Walt Confuses Marketing Claims With Products

I admire Stephen Walt for his work exposing the Israel Lobby in the United States and I do like his general realist position. But this is some serious claptrap nonsense not worth the electrons it is traveling on:

All three post-Cold War presidents have made their fair share of errors, but there is a common taproot to many of their failings. That taproot has been the pervasive influence of liberal idealism in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, an influence that crosses party lines and unites Democratic liberal internationalists with Republican neoconservatives. The desire to extend liberalism into Eastern Europe lay behind NATO expansion, and it is a big reason that so-called liberal hawks jumped on the neocon bandwagon in Iraq. It explains why the United States tried to export democracy to Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East, instead of focusing laser-like on al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks.

This is utter bullshit. All the "liberal idealism" is just a marketing ploy to sell imperial wars for global hegemony. The wars and actions of the post cold-war presidents had nothing to do with liberalism and all to do with resource grabs and general hatred against any independent entity.

If there were a "liberal idealism" based foreign policy how could the U.S. be allied to the Saudis, to a colonial Israel and dozens of nefarious dictatorships throughout the world? When have the neocons or the liberal interventionists ever argued for overthrowing the Saudi regime or the playstation king dictator of Jordan?

Any talk of "liberty" or "promoting democracy" by Washington think tanks and politicians is ALWAYS just a marketing argument that has nothing to do with the real products they are peddling.

That a supposed realist is selling this false claim of "We are only exporting liberal values. If that creates a mess it was not intended" is disturbing especially because the reality is quite different. The creation of the "mess" is what the policy intends and its result.

Here Noam Chomsky looks at the factual record of the real U.S. foreign policy and finds that it is nothing but a corporate protection racket that has nothing to do do with "liberal idealism".

After the cold war ended and the "threat" of the Soviet Union vanished Washington continued to rape other countries just like before. With the "threat of communism" gone it simply used different arguments, all of the false, to sell the rape of Panama, El Salvador, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Libya and other not so open wars.

Non of these wars had anything to do with "liberal idealism". That claim only helped to sell the wars at home. In none of these wars and their aftermath were "liberal ideals" any concern for those who implemented U.S. policies. The money spend in and after these wars ended in the pockets of U.S. fat cats and the policies implemented in those foreign countries were only to ensure that those countries would stay enslaved to Washington's demands.

How a "realist" studying the actual historical records can not see that is beyond me.

Posted by b on July 2, 2014 at 18:14 UTC | Permalink

next page »

I guess every once in a while Walt has to show that he is a member of the club and that he can talk the talk. He's a professor at the Kennedy School of Government. He can't actually say that the US deliberately does harm to other countries which pose no threat to it.

I'm surprised he didn't write that all US wars and interventions are justified, because the USG is committed to protecting the rights of LGBT people. I guess he saved that for a future column.

Posted by: Demian | Jul 2 2014 18:49 utc | 1

I agree with walt, there are people thinking like this in the white house, nothing special, walt is right.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2014 18:53 utc | 2

Can't disagree with b about the fucking nonsense that comes out of the mouths of American war criminals to provide cover for their continued war of aggression, however, let's not bring in Noam "George Carlin" Chomksy in order to spread his patented "I'm on your side" Establishment propaganda horseshit.

Yup, just like the TOTALLY IRREVERENT comedian Georg Carlin, NC plays the role of the iconoclastic outsider all the while being in fact a well-rewarded celebrity member of the Establishment.

In the last year alone, NC - Zionist to the fucking end - would have us believe that:

1) the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is just "sitting out" all of the the shit in Syria/ME as the Israelis are TOTALLY SCARED - kneeslap - about those crazy jihadists mercenaries getting too close. Ummm, no.

2) considering the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks fairy-tale nonsense is a waste of people's fucking time

In the piece b links to here's NC on the US:

Second, it [the US] is an unusually open society, possibly uniquely so, which means we know more about it. Finally, it is plainly the most important case for Americans, who are able to influence policy choices in the U.S. — and indeed for others, insofar as their actions can influence such choices. The general principles, however, extend to the other major powers, and well beyond.

3) the US is an "open society"(?!!!!!)). Holy fucking fuck.

4) the US political system can be changed/influenced by the American people(?!!!!!). Holy fucking fuck.

But on the heels of #3 and #4 NC saves his best for last. Just today in The Nation, NC tells all of his sycophantic bitch groupies that he opposes the BDS movement against the apartheid genocidal state of Israel.

How 'bout them gatekeeping apples, huh?

What a fucking POS Chomsky is, truly a fucking POS.

Cue all of the NC groupies who are going to tell me how I shouldn't call out a person who - sniffle - has done just sooo much for the fake left over the years.

Fuck him. Really, fuck him.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jul 2 2014 19:03 utc | 3

You're critique of Walt is bang on.

The problem with Walt and the so-called 'realists' lies in their very theoretical framework. If, as realism posits, states are driven by the structure of 'anarchy' in the nation-state system to act in their 'national interest' for 'security' purposes, then the reality of US foreign policy (as Chomsky exposes) can only be explained by deviant forces like the Israel lobby.

What Walt and the realists totally exclude from their analysis is the fact that US foreign policy is a real manifestation of the class interests of US elites. The real history of US foreign policy is not 'liberal idealism' or 'realism' but hegemonic aspirations to dominate global capitalism.

Realism is useless for grasping this.

Posted by: h | Jul 2 2014 19:11 utc | 4

I thought that liberal idealism was a synonym for what Chomsky calls global corporatization by force.

A lot of Americans equate liberalism with the provision of government services, forgetting its original association with savage capitalism.

In any case, liberalism has nothing to do with freedom, democracy, and human rights, values that Democrats are trying to bury almost as fast as Republicans, as Americans are slowly figuring out.

Posted by: JohnH | Jul 2 2014 19:20 utc | 5

Walt is capable of much deeper analysis, as is clear from his book, The Israel Lobby. This is a brief, fluffy piece suitable for its venue, Foreign Policy -- especially nearing a holiday weekend when its readers are inebriated with Patriotic fervor. Rather than challenge the MSM narrative that America goes to war to spread our values, Walt points out that wars do not facilitate the spread of what we claim our values to be. Perhaps in the midst of drumbeats for war, that point will be enough caution for the average American media consumer to hesitate about falling into martial step.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jul 2 2014 19:20 utc | 6

thanks b.. i agree with your viewpoint here.. even if walt is catering to an american audience who have been trained to act in unison every time th at big bad word 'liberal' is voiced in the usa, it is still bullshit..

i really agree with you here..
"The wars and actions of the post cold-war presidents had nothing to do with liberalism and all to do with resource grabs and general hatred against any independent entity."

Posted by: james | Jul 2 2014 19:21 utc | 7

Raimondo on Chalabi, the Israeli Lobby, the neocons and ISIS.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jul 2 2014 19:41 utc | 8

every president in living memory has gotten away with treason. whatcha gonna do?

Posted by: john | Jul 2 2014 20:11 utc | 9

Walt is not an anti-imperialist. He accepts that the US is the world's only superpower and his criticisms are that the US is going about exerting its influence in self destructive ways. One of his themes is that US military power should be maintained "over the horizon" and trying to actively occupy too many foreign lands is weakening the US. This over the horizon posture carries with it that the US can get its way by the threat. I think he is correct that there are too many international relations experts that are liberal interventionists -- they maintain that the US must be actively involved to promote liberal values. That certainly was the major argument that carried the case for attacking Libya. Of course, liberal interventionists are thoroughly hypocritical and, in fact, occupy the positions of influence they have because they serve imperialists real goals. Walt has been arguing that those goals can be achieved with considerable less expense. And what he is really worried about is that the US is in danger of undermining its own power and influence by being actively involved in too many wars.

His and Mearsheimer's basic case against Israel is that the US is wasting its power and influence over an inconsequential piece of real estate.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 2 2014 20:20 utc | 10

The list of countries is always getting longer, but the seminal and frequently overlooked countries in my view are the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Two independent separate entities that Washington is salivating over joining together in a most imperfect union so that they maybe thoroughly exploited and shattered. The best and brightest of these countries have been absorbed, consumed and digested.
The things the USA is pushing now stinks to high heaven

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 2 2014 20:30 utc | 11

Listening to the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - oops, I mean WINEP's - conference today with the KRG representatives here are a few takeaways, not done yet.

These KRG guys are basically taking the nonsense ISIS caliphate borders as a given reality - i.e., "Now that we have these new borders that need to be defended w/ more US weapons natch etc "

They said they will have independence referendum but may not "implement" the decision until the it's kosher - nudge, wink - with the rest of the world.

When directly asked about what the KRG could be given to stay in the Iraqi government:

Response: No matter what we are NOT going back to how things were before June 9th. No matter what Iraq was violating constitution. It's over. Basically, no more negotiation about territories w/ Baghdad only referendum.
If the ISIS caliphate remains we DON'T HAVE A BORDER with Baghdad anymore.

These fucking guys are already talking about the REALITY of the 3rd state - the ISIS caliphate - and how the 2 OTHER states - Iraq and Kurdistan - will have to deal with this 3rd threat state. Pretty quick doncha think boys?

Yup, all according to the apartheid genocidal Israeli plans. Fucking scum.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jul 2 2014 20:34 utc | 12

I will say you are completely correct, in the tone of the post, but "liberalism" especially outside of America is synonymous with the freemarket cult, the American system of financial pillage and primary mechanism of enforcement. Liberalism sounds better than imperialism and so does "idealism" when the word that should have been used was "ideology".

Posted by: Marc | Jul 2 2014 20:55 utc | 13

@JSorrentine #12:

Funny how the AngloZionist Empire (I think the term is applicable in this case) is breaking up yet another country at the very same time that it is continually screaming about the absolute importance of maintaining the "territorial integrity" of the former Ukraine.

Posted by: Demian | Jul 2 2014 20:57 utc | 14

The liberal interventionists and neocons share the same delusions about the "indispensable country"; but in addition to that they have succumbed to the same temptations of power and avarice. The mindset in which they operate is the worst problem the country has to face. That has to be thoroughly discredited and ridiculed for the crime and the sham that it is, before we can address our other problems. We can not have democracy exist together with empire, as Chalmers Johnson warned us. We have to choose one over the other.

Excellent article b, you said it very well.

Posted by: Copeland | Jul 2 2014 21:00 utc | 15

More from the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's conference with the KRG at WINEP today:

New reality - of independent Kurdistan - must be reflected in the new US policy and ALSO the new reality of the Islamic ISIS state which they believe is durable.

My comment: I'm sorry. This whole fucking ISIS charade was all a fucking Zionist rollout from the beginning. It was a Zionist blitzkrieg. In 3 weeks we've gone from not hearing about ISIS to the creation of 3 states all according to Zionist plans.


New reality, new reality, new reality....Nice script, fuckers, we get it.

We cannot talk about a united Iraq. Kurdistan needs to then arm itself and then fight ISIS state.

Yup, these guys are moving - like everything in this ISIS charade - real fucking fast all with help of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel as seen at WINEP.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jul 2 2014 21:06 utc | 16


Kurds and zionists is what cause the mess in great part in middle east.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2014 21:07 utc | 17


Right, which goes along with what b's op is all about.

NOT ONE FUCKING WORD coming out of the mouths of the US/Israelis MATTERS ANYMORE (if it ever did)!!! They'll say WHATEVER they need to get their murderous shit done and then do the exact OPPOSITE if need be.

The people of the world have to learn that hypocrisy, mendacity, shame etc etc all that shit is for sucker peons and NOT for TPTB.

Note: while engaging in this type of behavior is par for the course for seasoned sociopaths like Obama, Kerry, Clinton et al. - I do believe that it takes a psychological toll on many of their minions thus the excessive pay packages, the hookers, drugs, child sex slaves etc etc whatever they need to take the edge off of being a traitor to humanity and their fellow human beings.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jul 2 2014 21:18 utc | 18

Thanks b, just more perversion of the word "Liberal".

Liberal Definition
adj. adjective
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
n. noun
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
A member of a Liberal political party.

Posted by: ben | Jul 2 2014 21:29 utc | 19

Kerry is outraged at the revenge killing of that Palestinian kid. Israel is in big trouble now.

Posted by: dh | Jul 2 2014 22:21 utc | 20

'All three post-Cold War presidents have made their fair share of errors, but there is a common taproot to many of their failings.'

this sort of language (error/failure) is regularly used by the defenders of the US wars, regime changes, assassinations etc : because it conceals from the masses by words that these are criminal actions.

US only ever commits 'errors' and is sorry sorry sorry!

Posted by: brian | Jul 2 2014 22:25 utc | 21

Posted by: Demian | Jul 2, 2014 4:57:31 PM | 14

you will notice that empires depend on local or imported patsies...those drenched in ideologies be they islamist or fascist or even democratic, to carry out the dirty work of regime change, so eg US can stand back and plead innocence.

the ukrainian people on the maidan are the ones to blame for whats happened in their counry as their greed has been the tool the US has manipulated to bring chaos...and with syria, the guilt is on stupid sunni muslim, driven by te media lies and islamist ideologym to wage war on syria....
Patsy is almost a full time occupation for some people

Posted by: brian | Jul 2 2014 22:32 utc | 22

@22 What they do is dismiss things like My Lai, Abu Ghraid, Haditha, Azizabad etc. as aberrations. Shit happens. Our guys are under stress.

Posted by: dh | Jul 2 2014 22:52 utc | 23

I agree except I don't like the "realist position." Isn't the "realist position" one where you don't give a shit about right or wrong or the rule of law or justice? Like a mafia thug saying "bad stuff happens." If we insisted on and made sure it was continually discussed that our elected leaders are obligated to abide by the rule of law in international affairs then we would have a hell of a lot less human suffering.

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Jul 2 2014 23:03 utc | 24

Yes Tom. But there are still plenty who think the US was fighting the Vietnam war with one hand tied behind their backs. Rule of law and total war are incompatible in those minds. Shoulda nuked the goddam gooks they say.

Posted by: dh | Jul 2 2014 23:09 utc | 25

@brian #22

Yeah, I think it's obvious to everyone who isn't a patsy himself (nice old-fashioned American word which isn't used much anymore, like "racket") that USG adapted its use of jihadists in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Chechnya, Syria, etc. to the Ukraine, substituting Banderite Nazis for jihadists.

Slightly off topic: a piece in Counterpunch today praises a NY Times article which I had not seen anyone mention here. To quote the article's lead:

Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians at Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor’s operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: “that he could kill” the government’s chief investigator and “no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,” according to department reports.

So a murderous criminality has become a normal, constitutive part of how the American system functions, even when viewed in completely internal terms. But aside from the very rare NY Times piece that everyone except for the odd Counterpunch writer ignores, the only place where this issue is treated by American "civil society" is in fictional films and TV shows like 24 (which had a story line about a US military contractor firm going completely rogue). Obviously, a government's depending on private militias as USG now does is a sign that the country that it "governs" is no longer what "conservatives" like to call a republic.

Posted by: Demian | Jul 2 2014 23:12 utc | 26

@Tom Murphy #24:

Yes, realism was developed as a school of thought of international relations in the US during the Cold War to serve as a rationale for US foreign policy being completely immoral, given that the "evil" of communism needed to be faught.

Still, realism isn't all that different from how Clausewitz or Bismark saw international relations. Neoconservatism, in contrast, is a view of international relations built on the central Old Testament idea that the Jews are the master "race".

(Waiting for "somebody" to attack me for my "bizarre" interpretation of the Old Testament.)

Posted by: Demian | Jul 2 2014 23:20 utc | 27

Empire is a helluva drug.

Posted by: Thepanzer | Jul 2 2014 23:24 utc | 28

@Tom Murphy

No, you have to understand the realist theory of international relations.

Realism starts from the assumption that states are the only actors of world affairs, that states always act in the national interest, and that the "anarchy" of the state system (i.e., the lack of a global state) means that competition and conflict are inherent to world order. "Offensive realists" go on to assert that security is best achieved through aggressive means; in contrast, "defensive realists" like Walt argue for restraint. But both variants share the same theoretical framework.

You should immediately note that economic factors, not to mention issues of class and exploitation, are totally disregarded by realist theory.

As a result, it has little ability to explain what b and Chomsky reveal as the real dynamics and history of the global political economy.

Walt sees the US behaving like a domineering hegemon, but can't explain this behavior through his theory of defensive realism. Hence he falls back on stupid notions of "liberal ideology" or the "Israel lobby."

If you have read Chomsky or Gabriel Kolko or William Appleman Williams or Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin, or if you just read the news and pay attention to reality, you know that US foreign policy is driven by two key interests: the global expansion of US capital and global primacy for the US state itself.

Walt's framework is fundamentally incapable of grasping these twin dynamics of US grand strategy.

Hence he doesn't look at the economics and class dynamics of US foreign policy in any of his research.

To be honest, he's a very weak thinker of international politics. He has no expertise on any region of the world and doesn't even understand the motives of his own government.

Posted by: h | Jul 2 2014 23:27 utc | 29

Both Walt and Chomsky are examples of particular indoctrinations. Both, due to this, are blinded by their indoctrinations. Both also contribute a valuable understanding in some areas of their work. And finally, both deserve equal praise for their useful contributions, and both deserve equal condemnation for their work which is biased rubbish and gatekeeping of their particular indoctrinated memes. I think everybody here who is not some warped, indoctrinated zombie knows what sort of indoctrination these two represent, so I wont spell it out.

Two things about the hopped up MoA blog entry.

1. Timing. Walt's rightwing American establishment leanings are not a secret. He's well known for these views. This is one reason why he does get media exposure. Outside of exposing zionist and Israeli influence, his other work has been fairly uncontroversal, and definitely not oppositional to the western capitalist hierarchy.

So why be so upset with his views now? Are the zionists/Israelis doing another purge of their critics within the western establishment? Did he recently say something to upset them, such as criticize one of their current ongoing war crimes? Or economic scams?

2. Condemning Walt and promoting Chomsky is just plain chickenshit parochial chauvinism. Chomsky smeared Walt as a very obvious part of a pro-Israeli smear campaign against the man after his work on the Israel lobby was published. This is like doing a hit piece on Frankenstein and using Dershowitz as the "control" authority to give it clout.

These are questions that are not being asked here, and should be.

Posted by: scalawag | Jul 2 2014 23:50 utc | 30

@h #29:

he's a very weak thinker of international politics. He has no expertise on any region of the world and doesn't even understand the motives of his own government.

If he wrote as if he understood the motives of his own government, he wouldn't have gotten tenure. Why do you think that the best American analysts of the Empire, namely Chalmers Johnson and Sheldon Wolin, are emeritus professors? It is part of Wolin's account that academe has become part of the corporate/totalitarian system.

Why do you look down on the liberal Walt for not looking at "economics and class dynamics of US foreign policy", when the self-proclaimed "left" in academe doesn't even do that anymore? Everything is about identity politics for them. USG has caught up with them, with the State Department making the affirmation of the rights of LGBT people a cornerstone of its policy.

Posted by: Demian | Jul 2 2014 23:52 utc | 31

Posted by: scalawag | Jul 2, 2014 7:50:16 PM | 30

"This is like doing a hit piece on Frankenstein and using Dershowitz as the "control" authority to give it clout."

Finkelstein. Jesus, what a spellchecker...

Posted by: scalawag | Jul 2 2014 23:53 utc | 32

Chomsky is quite right in reminding people that the situation in Israel is very different from that in Apartheid South Africa.
In fact, as Chomsky points out, the position of the Palestinians is, in several key respects. much worse than that of the black communities in South Africa.
He also points out that while investment in South Africa was drying up as the regime came to its end, investment in Israel, particularly US investment is increasing rapidly.
It is seriously misleading to compare the Bantustan system with Israel increasing repression of Palestinians. South Africa depended on African labour and the presence of African communities where it could exploit them. Palestinians are being gradually expelled from the Israeli economy which imports migrants from Africa and south Asia in order to displace native Palestinians.
I don't agree with everything Chomsky says- the right of return must never be compromised- but he is absolutely right in his judgement that the BDS movement will not bring down the Israeli colonial state.
He is also right to remind people that it was not boycotts but the increasing strength of armed opposition, including Cuban volunteers, which led to the white ruling class recognising that Apartheid's days were numbered. And that the white minority in South Africa was a tiny fraction of a population in which disenfranchised blacks outnumbered them by more than ten to one.

whether Chomsky is right or wrong people are quite capable of judging for themselves. Sorrentine gives a link and anyone interested should follow it- J. seriously misrepresents Chomsky's position.

As to Walt on Liberalism, it should be remembered that the Cold War was begun by the "liberal" Truman government, and involved many of the New Dealers. It offered Liberals a perfect opportunity, at a time when pressure from McCarthyite ultra patriots was growing, to jump the socially progressive ship, at a time when the economy was booming and wages rising, and join the anti-communist lynch mob both internally and externally. To put it in perspective: the conservative view in the US, in Congress and in the Republican party generally, was 'isolationist' and regarded the expenditure of money on foreign interventions as a characteristically Rooseveltian (Wilsonian) extravagance.
It was only after Truman and Acheson had (on the advice of Republican Senator Vandenberg) scared the American people enough to mobilise support for vast military expenditures and inaugurated the permanent war economy, that the Republicans made Truman's policies bi-partisan.

Where Walt is mistaken is in thinking that anyone with enough brains to tie his shoelaces has believed this "exporting democracy" guff since the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which didn't occur). How he puts his shoes on is unclear.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 3 2014 0:09 utc | 33

@scalawag #32:

Finkelstein. Jesus, what a spellchecker...

Dude, I hope you're not running Windows, the form that slavery takes in computing.

Speaking of Finkelstein, I wonder why he didn't get tenure...

Posted by: Demian | Jul 3 2014 0:10 utc | 34

@bevin #33:

Where Walt is mistaken is in thinking that anyone with enough brains to tie his shoelaces has believed this "exporting democracy" guff since the Gulf of Tonkin incident

Do you really think that what Walt writes for an official organ of the Empire honestly represents what he thinks? That is like thinking that Soviet academics actually believed what they wrote in Soviet journals on social, political, or economic issues.

Walt is a member of the establishment. What he can say or write is much more limited than what a blogger like Justin Raimondo allows himself. When you take an academic like Walt to actually write what he believes in a public information source, you overlook that we are already living under a totalitarian system, as Wolin has argued.

Posted by: Demian | Jul 3 2014 0:33 utc | 35

Posted by: Demian | Jul 2, 2014 8:10:02 PM | 34

"Speaking of Finkelstein, I wonder why he didn't get tenure..."

A person could better spend their time wondering why Kevin MacDonald still has his tenure. Who works for who? ;)

Posted by: scalawag | Jul 3 2014 0:50 utc | 36

4) the US political system can be changed/influenced by the American people(?!!!!!). Holy fucking fuck

more subtle defeatism perhaps purposely injected in a comment that justly criticizes Chomsky for overpassivity on the BDS

Posted by: truthbetold | Jul 3 2014 0:55 utc | 37

Chomsky's fundamental misdirection--neglected by bevin above--is to pretend that Israel is an appendage of the US govt and that Israeli networks have no deep influence on US policy

#29 global expansion of US capital?

the logic of Imperialism as described by Hobson over a century ago, is that predatory groups control and profit from imperial policy at the expense of everyone else; for all his faults, Walt dared to point out the obvious fact that a transnational network whose interests often conflict with those of "US capital" has gained substantial control over US policy.

those connected to this network that has engineered the destruction of the US dollar are best positioned to profit from it; their capital is not "US"

Posted by: Cu Chulainn | Jul 3 2014 1:20 utc | 38

@scalawag #36:

I hadn't heard about that nut.

It's still hard for universities to fire someone once they've gotten tenure. The author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century still has tenure at a prestigious American university.

Posted by: Demian | Jul 3 2014 1:43 utc | 39

@38 Cu Chulainn. i agree with you, especially your first and last sentence.. ditto brians general comments on this thread..

Posted by: james | Jul 3 2014 1:46 utc | 40

What do you think of this, bevin ?

Scary stuff, eh? What if they cross the Bering Strait, subdue Alaska "the last frontier", and enter the craven colony of Canada? They could seriously corrupt the men there away from the view of the world. That would really screw things up for you people. I mean, it's not like such "scary beings" are the approved sort, like FEMEN or Pussy Riot.

Posted by: scalawag | Jul 3 2014 1:48 utc | 41

J Sorrentine needs to get out a bit more, and live in a few other countries before he starts mouthing off about what is and is not the case, internationally.

Relative to the vast majority of countries out there, yes: the US is one of the most open.

That doesn't mean it is open enough, and Chomsky would argue, like Sorrentine, that it isn't.

Posted by: Taiwan-hand | Jul 3 2014 2:57 utc | 42

If you consider liberalism as Bentham's panopticon, unbridled and damaging Free Trade, and Madisonian "democracy" (the kind of democracy that makes sure the prerogatives of the rich are protected from the grasping, grimy mitts of the common man) then sure, the US has been spreading this "liberalism" as fast as it can.

Walt doesn't mean this, of course.

Scalajerk has it right on Chomsky - he should be respected for his decades of herculean intellectual work and activism - especially re: Latin America, Civil Rights, and the war in Vietnam - and criticized for his failings which certainly include his stance on Israel. I think the guy at Rancid Honeytrap does a decent job on this. But after all Chomsky is an American intellectual and an Anarchist in the vein of an Orwell (a man who did some pretty nefarious things in his day) to boot - so to expect more, to try and attack him for being something other than he is and disown the good he has done is a real mistake. But those who will are free to make them I suppose, but it is still a mistake.

What seems to me to really be happening it the US and its allies still trying to squash the last vestiges of socialism - the polar opposite of the above mentioned "liberalism" - from the globe. It is still at this game and the sole focus of the color revolutions seem to be socialist countries, former Soviet allies, and the left-wing sectors of neutral societies - Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Belarus, China, the `stans, Iraq, Burma, Zimbabwe, Georgia, Haiti, Angola and on down the line - the US is still hell-bent on picking the fruits its' Cold War "victory" left to it: locking the globe into its version of "free market" capitalism. A vision of the world that leaves the status quo more or less exactly as is - with the US/West as the "desirable" "rich" nations, and everywhere else a struggling places where the hard work is done for nothing - places that quote-unquote best and brightest people will always want to get out of.

The New American Century. Just like the 20th Century was, except without all those pesky leftists around.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 3 2014 3:00 utc | 43 US law №2277

"The text of American law aimed against Russia in the context of the situation in Ukraine. The document, which is now taking a good illustration of the thesis of the article about "the end of American hegemony"
When you read this text, note the scale of opportunity the US in terms of military and non-military influence on the situation. Of course, as usually in such bulky concepts is realized not all, but many. So, read this document in order to better understand changes in the rhetoric and actions of the Kremlin from March to July. What Americans will not refuse, as it is in complex and system approach to the situation."

Text of the law at the link.

"PS. It is not difficult to see from the document, the fear of some adherents "cunning plan" showdown with the U.S. because of Donbass, empty, as sanctions and a collision occurs regardless of Donbass, for example on the background of systematic demands for a return to the Crimea and to fully withdraw the troops. The consequences of failure to comply with the terms of the U.S. in this case will be equal to the consequences of a continuation of the current policy in the Donbass.

It is well visible that the junta will be sponsored by the war to a victorious end, and in Russia itself will begin to prepare the ground for the next color revolution, with a concomitant strengthening of the military-strategic pressure on the borders of the Russian Federation. Economic sanctions against key companies obviously intended to push the economy of the Russian Federation from the state of stagnation into recession. It is obvious that the Russian Federation did in Donbass, it is already assigned to blame."

As one of the comment writers put it:

"This act America essentially declared war on Russia."

Posted by: scalawag | Jul 3 2014 5:45 utc | 44

Al Gore clearly demonstrated in 2005 that Americans are suckers for 'perceived majority bias'. The Warmist-Globalists claims of "97% of all scientists" was stolen from Madison Avenue and Fleischmann's margarine campaign, "97% fat free", selling Americans synthetic hydrogenated corn FAT, pure artery-hardening corn lard, and hyping it as '97% fat-free'. And they did sell a lot of it, and Al Gore became a $Baire selling his Dubious Truths, and we are still trapped by UN-IPCC Globalistas, heading towards a National Climate Tithe that will put the Federal jackboot on your job, your food, your energy and your housing.

Fast forward to Mark Zuckerberg's Dr. Mengele-style experimentation on an entire nation of guinea pigs, with his 'Happy Face-Sad Face' experiment, that by dialing up and down the media feed 'meme of the day', he proved you can stampede Americans into auto-depression, schizophrenic foreign policy and maniacally fascist outbursts against The Perceived Other.

Gore and Zuckerberg are right out of '1984'. Now the public mindspace is becoming a Full Spectrum Dominant propaganda campaign for Neo Liberalism, state privatization, drowning societies in synthetic and largely 'bicycled' loans the people will never see, bankrupting their savings and pensions, burying them in illegal 'debts', until their entire country and their whole futures are owned by Globalistas and ruled by Deep Government.

For me the crowning 'aha' moment was learning that the day Obama was first inaugurated, the Pentagon launched its AfriCom putsch, and the Nigerian government nationalized the natural resources away from The People, over to the State. Nigerians became cattle, moved from place to place by a corrupted National government, the same way that Afghans are, who never HAD a Federal government, until Cheney's people created a new National currency, a National flag, even a National anthem, in ENGLISH, while bmobs were raining down on Kabul.
Cheney's people even wrote out the Afghan Minerals and Hydrocarbons Acts, in ENGLISH, in November 2001, just 60 days after the WTC came down, giving only infinitesimal royalites to their Afghan Overlord Karzai, just enough to pay the upkeep on his Republican Guard.

Wait, we went into Afghanistan to get OBL?! Why doesn't that make the media? Because the media is OWNED by the Globalists, and now they're trying to conflate all the many horrible losses and miscalculations and war crimes of the MIC onto Obama and 'liberal philosophy.' Not over to Neo-Liberalism, mind you, no, but to those who believe in health and human services liberal thought, the only reason we have to pay taxes really, and that faith is being stripped away by a pan-media Globalist skullf*ck.

It's working...and a new Republican fascist society mirroring Ukraine will take over USA. There is no way to stop it. Big Brother watches everyone. They know every word you've ever written, and every dollar in your bank account, while you're sucking on their media feed.
It's over. Resistance is futile. The Fourth Reich of 1000 Years is an inevitability now.

'We won, you lost. It's just business, get over it. NOW GET OFF MY LAND!"

Posted by: chip nikh | Jul 3 2014 6:36 utc | 45

Western liberalism in action: Shells devastate entire streets in eastern Ukrainian town (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

Posted by: scalawag | Jul 3 2014 8:12 utc | 46

from wsws:

New York Times backs Poroshenko’s offensive in Ukraine
By Alex Lantier
3 July 2014
As the US puppet regime in Kiev launches a new offensive in eastern Ukraine, the New York Times is stepping up its campaign of lies and distortions, praising the assault and covering up the danger of the Ukrainian civil war escalating into a broader regional or even global war.

Since February’s pro-Western putsch installed an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, the Times has recklessly pressed for a confrontation with Russia. It covered up the fascist character of the groups that led the putsch, such as the Right Sector militia, and fabricated photos to back up Washington’s false charges that opponents of Kiev in eastern Ukraine were simply Russian agents. Now, the Times is demanding that Washington and its European allies support Poroshenko’s attack and step up sanctions designed to isolate and economically destroy Russia.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 3 2014 10:06 utc | 47

Some of the people here deriding Chomsky and Walt need to consider something: they can reach a much larger audience than we can, and aspects of their thinking are still dangerous enough to get people to question the THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE(TM).

Take Walt, for example. Classical Realism was grounded in, and justified by, the goal of maximizing the national interest. Some may deride this as amoral, jingoistic, or whatever. But it is also true that our current policies (whether marketed as neo-conservatism or humanitarian imperialism) are definitely NOT in the national interest--where 'national' is understood to represent the preponderance of the people here. Since most people here are at least somewhat nationalistic anyway, arguing against our policies on those grounds could be rhetorically quite effective. After all, once the majority of the people accept that our policies are not in the national interest, they will then begin the process of trying to figure precisely whose interests they are in... and that could lead them straight off the reservation. I'm speaking here from experience: something like this happened to me about twenty years ago during the Clinton administration's Yugoslav Wars--and here I am.

Conclusion: where some are inclined to dismiss Walt or Chomsky as 'gatekeepers', they could just as easily turn out to be gateway drugs for certain segments of the population.

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Jul 3 2014 10:52 utc | 48

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 3, 2014 6:06:25 AM | 47

jewish owned NYT: of WMDS in iraq fame, so no surprise they back fascists, even neonazis

Posted by: brian | Jul 3 2014 11:34 utc | 49

Posted by: chip nikh | Jul 3, 2014 2:36:45 AM | 45

Yes, and the faulty thinking at this space, something you've done nothing to dispel, is that these "Globalists" are somehow relegated to America, Britain and Israel. It's farcical to think China's and Russia's Elite don't have a place at the banquet table. Think Salamander writ large — applying to the entire world. Sure, America's Elite may be Raymond Jonkhere but Russia's and China's Elite are Vincent Noël. It's an organism — a Salamander, so if you chop its tail off, it just grows another. The whole thing must be smashed. I see no evidence from anyone commenting at this space that they're interested in smashing the entire organism, and because such an effort is so monumental, you only get one chance. If you don't get it right, it'll come back stronger and more proficient. As it stands now, most of you are already thoroughly defeated because you can't even see it clearly. You're relegated to whining about it on the internets which has accomplished exactly nothing in twenty years — in fact, it can be reasoned it's had a deleterious effect in fooling people into thinking their expressions on the internet mean something or have some kind of effect. It doesn't and they don't, but that won't stop the incessant griping.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Jul 3 2014 11:58 utc | 50

b. you beef with Walt is semantics. I think he might agree with you that that's the sales pitch and not the real goal

Posted by: scottindallas | Jul 3 2014 12:13 utc | 51

Cold, Most people in US and Europe know they're being screwed, but are powerless to do anything about it. Algeria comes to mind - when they figured out they were being screwed they gathered-up and produced weaponized revolutions with great bloodshed in which many died, both French and Algerians. That's what it will take to escape a neoliberal world order. Elections are rigged in US, and democracy in EU disappeared with the introduction of the euro. Now they don't even have a choice between the lesser of two evils.

The neoliberals have a well defined plan to turn the world into a fascist entity. And right now they're winning. Even the pro-Russians in the east are not fighting against a neoliberal world order, they're fighting for fucking 'freedom'.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 3 2014 12:43 utc | 52

@ Cold N. Holefield no. 50,

Stop your griping.

Posted by: sleepy | Jul 3 2014 12:44 utc | 53

Both Walt and Chomsky are examples of particular indoctrinations. Both, due to this, are blinded by their indoctrinations. Both also contribute a valuable understanding in some areas of their work. And finally, both deserve equal praise for their useful contributions, and both deserve equal condemnation for their work which is biased rubbish and gatekeeping of their particular indoctrinated memes. I think everybody here who is not some warped, indoctrinated zombie knows what sort of indoctrination these two represent, so I wont spell it out. - scallawag @ 30.

A judicious and indulgent summing up. Let's go there.

Walt is an establishment hack. Chomsky is a coward about 9/11, that is really too bad. He could just say he doesn’t know much about it and a ‘new investigation is needed’ yada yada. (A la Chris Hedges.) That doesn’t suit, of course, for various reasons he has to uphold the US narrative, while at the same time trying to go for the grand scope, so there is a contradiction there which is extremely painful, of which he is aware.

He skips, fudges, what is called one of the defining events of contemporary history?

Btw it makes him very nervous. That judgement comes from one meet where I was present and he was questioned about 9/11 and he was terrified. He was being filmed. I have met the man twice, he is very amiable and convincing.

See here a lot of prevarication and lies and frankly, BS. (..> massive applause for him in the linked vid.) Now maybe one can’t expect more or different, but what does that mean then? Why or how are gate-keepers to be admired?

Note his massive appeal to State (US), Science, Authority:

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 3 2014 14:28 utc | 54

Whining on the Internet has no effect? I suppose somebody who thinks that would have trouble explaining how decades of writing by the philosophes eventually had an effect in the French Revolution.

Posted by: lysias | Jul 3 2014 15:05 utc | 55

lysias, you got that right. As I've said before this is the most important resistance blog on the internet. There are others, but most try to appeal to more mainstream audiences, therefore resistance "lite". This blog is "hard". That's why Cold and others like him are here - we're hard, therefore something of a threat to TPTB.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 3 2014 16:10 utc | 56

would have trouble explaining how decades of writing by the philosophes eventually had an effect in the French Revolution.

Posted by: lysias | Jul 3, 2014 11:05:35 AM | 55

Ummm — not really. It's simple — that was then and this is now. A lot has changed. Your opinion isn't considered or solicited, and most don't even have one so distracted are they by the hectic over-stimulation of everyday life.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Jul 3 2014 16:17 utc | 57

Yes, a lot has changed since the 18th century. A much larger proportion of the population is literate than were in 18th century France. People are much less preoccupied with finding food to put in their mouths, and have considerably more leisure to think about other things.

Posted by: lysias | Jul 3 2014 16:21 utc | 58

Walt is being ironic. He does that a lot. His use of the word Liberal is clearly code for neo-liberal (my definition of which is 'privatise everything from which a dishonest (and excessive) profit can be screwed/squeeezed').
The heading and byline prepare the ground for the irony which follows; and his early use of the expression "their desiderata" (instead of "The Disiderata") makes it pretty clear that he's being funny.

The factor which made Israel Lobby so successful is that it is (imo) the longest piece of bullet-proof prose in the history of Communication. Neither The Lobby nor the Neocons could find a single sentence to quote out of context in order to make a non-feeble argument against it. He's in the fight for the long haul, not to be overtly sensational or abrasive.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 3 2014 16:30 utc | 59

and have considerably more leisure to think about other things.

Posted by: lysias | Jul 3, 2014 12:21:48 PM | 58

I wouldn't disagree, but what are those other things they now have the leisure to think about? I'd call them trivial distractions. Most aren't thinking what YOU want them to think, therefore, your revolution won't be televised because there will be no revolution because of televised everything. In otherwords, the revolution is every day any day, it's just not the revolution you ordered and at this rate, never will be. I've learned to accept that. One day, you will too — maybe, but if not, futility's not so bad for ventilation purposes.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Jul 3 2014 16:34 utc | 60

You may have learned to love Big Brother. I never will.

Posted by: lysias | Jul 3 2014 16:47 utc | 61

Cold Assholefield

"It's an organism — a Salamander, so if you chop its tail off, it just grows another"

Of course this has never happened, the American Empire's engine of global capitalism hasn't collapsed ---yet.
The premise that Beijing or Moscow would then become the engine of Globalization is absurd.
Holefield knows this; he also knows that he prefers greatly this collapse never happens, being an apologist for
American imperialism himself.

Posted by: truthbetold | Jul 3 2014 17:10 utc | 62

A good article by Norm Pollack at CP:

"...The liberal mask Obama presents in justification for the Democratic party’s proclivity toward war, intervention, and sacrifice of the class interests of working people and minorities at home, is just that, a mask that covers inner moral emptiness as well as fools the constituency to be addressed and the public at large....

"...the elasticity of liberalism allowed for grandiosity on the world stage—doing good by killing the enemies of Virtue. For Team Obama, every war is a “just war,” every expansion of American business testifies to the society’s greatness as the incubator of democracy—our products, corporeal expressions of political idealism, that which is devoted to setting all of humankind free.

"Probably few propagators of US ideology, from the president down, believe what they are saying and doing. Liberals are as complicit in the Mass Deceit as conservatives. Market penetration, sale of military hardware overseas to “friends and allies,” counterrevolution to thwart popular movements on the Left to head off supposed communist enslavement and sheer chaos, all have a life of their own integral to the profit- and-security needs of capitalism. But they have far greater utility both for profit and security when dolled up in salvational dress..."

Liberalism has always been an imperialist ideology. Neo-liberalism is simply, as the term suggests, a new version of Liberalism. It retains all its key features in an age in which the benign side effects of liberalism-those qualities which gave it a good name relative to e g feudalism- no longer exist, except in the memories of Whig historian/ideologists.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 3 2014 17:50 utc | 63

@Hoarsewhisperer (59)

Glad at least one other reader is "getting" Walt. I find it alarming that so many here have failed to make the distinction between his normative (on the one hand) and descriptive (on the other) narratives. I've always thought of the readers on this forum as being well informed and sharp critical thinkers...but sometimes (like now) I wonder.

Posted by: etienne | Jul 3 2014 19:55 utc | 64

"For Team Obama, every war is a “just war,”

Some might say, O "opposed " the Iraq War. O even claimed to....when it didn't matter.
But when he addressed the departing troops, he blessed the war (not just their bravery) and specifically thanked them
for making Iraq a stable democracy.
Iraq was neither stable, even then, nor a democracy.
But as Billy Kristol told Katrina of The Nation on a national talk show debate.....Obama blessed Bush-Cheny's surge, so
the "left's" opposition was proven wrong by one of their own.
Rather than distance herself from the charlatan Obama's sellout remarks, not wanting to alienate the "base"....Katrina fell silent.
Her original point...that Cheney and Co had no right to speak out on Iraq now....essentially lost, thanks to Obama himself
and the "base's" reluctance to criticize him.

Posted by: truthbetold | Jul 3 2014 20:09 utc | 65

@54 Noirette, "9/11 Truth" is societal cancer. The top promoters refuse to even respond to the facts that debunk their illogical and false assumptions.
What they are doing is suppressing the evidence that debunks their theory. Here is another attempt to try to reason with one of the top promoters (Mike Rivero):


I have made repeated attempts to communicate with you about your erroneous theories, especially your flawed research with regard to the WTC collapse. Why can't you even respond? You do realize that civilized people communicate with others even if they disagree about their theories.

You have been deceiving people by suppressing the fact that the evidence of fire-induced collapse was visible and was captured in photos and video. How do you rationalize making webpages that suppress the fact that floors were sagging and exterior load bearing columns were bowing inward? David Ray Griffin wrote, "in fire-induced collapses – if we had any examples of such – the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes." BUT we can see that there was bowing and sagging!

We can see the effects of the fire as they took their toll on the buildings. We can see the load bearing columns getting progressively worse as time went on. That is what I tried to explain in the very first video I uploaded to YouTube which should have put an end to the ignorant BS several years ago:

Images of WTC 1 showed gross deformations of an exterior wall prior to final collapse. Images of the south face of the tower taken approximately 5 min prior to collapse showed inward bowing of the exterior columns, reaching an observable maximum of 55 in. near column 316 on the 96th floor. The inward deflection appears to extend over the entire south face of the building at this time and is visible vertically between the 94th and 100th floors. Photographs taken approximately 30 min prior to this time do not show any inward bowing of the south face of WTC 1.
Images of WTC 2 revealed some details of how the building deformed during the time between aircraft impact and collapse and revealed how the portion of the building above the impact zone moved relative to the bottom of the building during initial stages of collapse. Approximately 18 min after the impact of the aircraft, the east face of WTC 2 exhibited inward bowing of up to 10 in. in the region of the 79th to
83rd floors. This inward bowing increased to 20 in. at a time 5 min before collapse of the tower.

Hanging floor slabs at the 82nd and 83rd floors were visible in window openings on the east and north faces, respectively, and the positions of these slabs changed over time, suggesting a slow collapse mechanism of certain parts of the flooring in this area of the tower." 

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, WTC Investigation,Findings and ConclusionsChapter 7, p281 - 282

Could you please respond to me?


Posted by: Tom Murphy | Jul 3 2014 21:03 utc | 66

Regarding Kurdistan;Uh,a nation that never existed in history,now set up by Alciada and Zionist nexus.Yeah,like that is going to end well for the Kurds.Sort of like the Ukraine,who've only been in existence since 93? and now set up by US in a proxy war which might possibly end in their destruction.Lie down with dogs,you get fleas.
Re Chomsky;You can take the boy out of Zion,but you can't take Zionism from the boy.The South African govt.made the error of not absconding with and consuming the free press,like Zionism did in the west.
Re Israeli revenge;Uh,a dominant religious theme.Today I read in MW? that David offered Saul 200 foreskins of dead Philistines for his daughters hand.sheesh.

Posted by: dahoit | Jul 3 2014 21:40 utc | 67

People do really believe that stuff. It sometimes takes the incantation of magic words backwards to snap Americans out of belief in national ideology.

Posted by: Crest | Jul 3 2014 21:40 utc | 68

66;I have no window onto the truth of what happened that day ,9-11-01,but I know that the official narrative is BS.
And Lysias deals in facts,Mr.Colden,while you wallow in the mud of ignorance and revenge.Your comment the other day about Israel haters hard ons over Israeli deaths illuminates your lack of the empathy we possess,as no one gets hard ons over dead people but ghouls and Israelis,not even the dreaded(ooh) Isis.
I'm all in for peace love and understanding myself.

Posted by: dahoit | Jul 3 2014 22:07 utc | 69

Liberal idealism is a marketing ploy, a sales pitch in deed.
The way the government, the parties (another sales pitch, two cheeks
of the same backside) use it is nothing but Orwell. Same with terms like "Democracy", "Freedom", "international community" - you name it.
It's a big hoax!
And MSM is their propaganda bullhorn. It's a shame! Calling
murder the "right to protect", describing the shelling of civilians
"moderate" and protesters "terrorists" - the Orwell-machine is
running hot.

Posted by: slirs | Jul 3 2014 22:15 utc | 70

bevin @ 63: "Liberalism has always been an imperialist ideology."

Love your postings mostly, but the above statement is pure, unadulterated horseshit.

Posted by: ben | Jul 3 2014 22:52 utc | 71

ben, you are wrong. I just lost a long post explaining why, suffice it say that two sources of modern liberalism, the creole revolutions in the US and Spanish colonies and JS Mill's philosophy, are central to imperialist ideology.

Liberalism appeared "progressive" among other reasons because it sought the transfer of power from European monarchs to colonists. Often, as in the US where the War of Independence was led by a land speculator who risked losing tens of thousands of acres of illegally "purchased" land, the basic issues had to do with the fate of aboriginals. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, banning the purchase of Indian land except by the Crown and preventing colonists from crossing the Alleghany mountains, was a major grievance. In Spanish colonies there were similar issues. Colonists wanted the liberty to plunder-and enslave- on their own account without restraint from Europe.

As to Mill, who was a key figure in the East Indian Company's rule of India, he was an ideologist of both imperialism and representative democracy. The Liberals shared a contempt for non-European cultures with a cynical and ruthless justification of the employment of military force in order to bring foreigners under imperial rule. Their attitude towards workers was equally contemptuous.

Then there was the great French liberal de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the leaders in colonising Algeria, a fervent defender of the theft of North African land and the enslavement of muslims.

Conservatives often opposed imperial adventures, Burke being a prime example, while liberals wrecked civilisations, and caused untold millions of deaths, by tearing down, for example, China's government in order to impose liberal trade policies. In China among the disasters was the imposition of opium on a government which rightly feared mass drug addiction. This was a policy carried out under the direction of one of Bentham's executors and disciples. In India the demolition of controls over grain storage and distribution, and a refusal to allow famine relief, born of market monomania, were policies imposed by liberals, often liberals of the highest distinction. Macaulay, for example, who held the view that a shelf of English literature was worth all the books ever written in Asia- a judgement of astonishing ignorance but the founding principle of an educational system which still exists.

All those American college professors who joined the CIA in the late forties were real inheritors of the liberal tradition. Their ideology lives on in Samantha Power, Obama and those vast swathes of the Democratic party's leading cadres who cannot get their heads around the notion that imperial wars are never justifiable and that imperialism is, and always has been, a force for evil, dyed with the blood of those it has wiped out in serial genocides.

Of course there is much more to it, as their always is, but my assertion, far from being bullshit is hard to deny: Liberalism is the wellspring of western imperialist ideology.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 4 2014 1:32 utc | 72

"Whining on the Internet has no effect? I suppose somebody who thinks that would have trouble explaining how decades of writing by the philosophes eventually had an effect in the French Revolution.

Posted by: lysias | Jul 3, 2014 11:05:35 AM | 55"

You surely do know that the french "Revolution" was no revolution but a coup? Have you ever even bothered looking at their declaration? See that all-seeing eye at the top, the pillars, the fascia in the middle? You know, the thing that gave name to Fascism?

Posted by: T2015 | Jul 4 2014 6:24 utc | 73

economic warfare:
ITAR-TASS MOSCOW, July 04. /ITAR-TASS/. US attempts to hamper interaction between a number of countries and Russia and drive Moscow-Washington relations into a deadlock, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the newspaper Kommersant in an interview published on Friday.

"The United States has curtailed tried-and-tested and effective formats of dialogue and cooperation with us, the formats that have proven their relevancy," Ryabkov recalled. "This applies primarily to the bilateral presidential commission and the dialogue on economic matters. The US administration came to consider that this dialogue is not needed".

"I did not suppose that matters regarding trade, investment, and access to markets can so simply fall victim to geopolitical considerations," the diplomat acknowledged. "It turns out that this can happen. Incidentally, such decisions are initiated by the government of the country which inscribed on the banners of its economic growth and might that the market decides everything and that it must be regulated with the smallest possible interference".

"At present," the deputy minister went on to say, "the market turns into a foreign-policy instrument". "Forbidden tricks which have nothing to do with market interests and considerations of economic efficiency are employed on an increasingly wide scale," Ryabkov pointed out. "All that is subordinated to purely geopolitical task of restricting and even throwing back a country or countries which by virtue of their foreign-policy course or something else do not suit the USA".

"Those are tricks from the past, very distant past. In this, just as in many other manifestations of harmful disruptive activity of US political forces with regard to economic operators, we see a reflection of a lack of confidence as to extent to which US interests can be ensured in the future," he emphasized. "If one resorts to such tricks, it means that the array of foreign-policy tools is not so wide".

Ryabkov also drew attention to a number of other "manifestations of such mentality that put one on his guard". "Such as, specifically, an increasingly wide use of the instrument of sanctions, including measures to limit the bank servicing of normal economic activities. This is none other than a new offensive (weapon), in some respects even a strategic foreign-political weapon of the USA," he remarked.

The deputy minister also commented on information that had appeared in a number media that the US Ambassador to Slovenia sought to persuade the authorities of that country to refuse to receive Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov next week. "If this is true, which I cannot judge, I leave that on the conscience of the American side," Ryabkov said. "We know for sure that the US administration sought to prevent allies and buusinessmen, through exerting pressure on them, from participating at a proper level in a whole lot of important-to-Russia forums and meetings".

"This is a disruptive line. It for certain has no impact on our political course, but it drives Moscow-Washington relations into a deadlock," Ryabkov stressed. At the same time, Ryabkov said, "Specifically, I have no information on the situation (the actions of the US Ambassador in Ljubljana)". "My comments concern, on the whole, the Americans' attempts to prevent others from normally developing relations and conducting dialogue with the Russian side," he added.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 4 2014 7:54 utc | 74

here's some good news:
Russia to spend $3 billion on Crimea development in 2015
News | 04.07.2014 | 05:14

The Russian government will spend 100 billion rubles (about $3 billion) in 2015 on Crimea’s development, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said on Thursday.

This sum will include expenditures on the construction of a bridge across the Kerch Strait to link mainland Russia and the Black Sea peninsula, the finance minister said.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 4 2014 8:08 utc | 75

@ 69: liberalism is just another superficial phrase for satanism, the ages old "do what thou willst will be the whole law". It was there for Eons before Crowley was even born, he just repackaged it into something with more "modern" mass-appeal.

Posted by: T2015 | Jul 4 2014 8:51 utc | 76

I'm sure this will go over just swimmingly, okie...! New Ukraine DM Vows Army Will Retake Crimea

Pledges 'Victory Parade' in Sevastopol He's smoking some serious sh*t, if ya ask me...!

Posted by: CTuttle | Jul 4 2014 9:04 utc | 77

No shit. Ctuttle.

Posted by: MRW | Jul 4 2014 9:10 utc | 78

T2015 @72
I take it that you regard Fascism as the epitome of evil. Much worse say, than American neo-conservatism or neo-liberalism.

Posted by: Klystron | Jul 4 2014 9:11 utc | 79

Klystron - you actually make a difference there? Today, USA is definitely a fascist/corporatist state beneath the thin surface of "freedom", or what's left of it. As is the EU, despite it not even being a country.

Look at the symobols:

I am actually using the term rather loosely, for any form of totalitarian socialist thinking, be it left or right or more recently "green". Stalin's USSR was clearly fascist for example, although it called itself communist - they just switched the symbols and names, "party" instead of Duce and "proletariat" instead of nation/race/religion.

Also pretty much all "environmental" movements are fascists/eugenicists, which you only realize when they get some power and start acting more freely (see Green Party in Germany for example).

Fascism is, as symolized in the Fascia, any sort of collectivism which diminishes an individual for the "greater good". That is also the source of the false thinking, there is no such thing as "greater good". It is always just some petty egoistic whim of the current dictator(s).

Posted by: T2015 | Jul 4 2014 9:52 utc | 80

Whooo, T2015, that's same serious hasbara you brought in with that cyberwaves link. The fascia was adopted by the fascist in Italy representing the merger of state and corporate power. But it had a long history before as representing simply 'unity' as wiki says

The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity; a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is very difficult to break.
- which, after the French Revolution represents 'fraternity'.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 4 2014 10:02 utc | 81

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Major General Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), one of the most colorful officers in the Marine Corps' long history, was one of the two Marines who received two Medals of Honor for separate acts of outstanding heroism.

Posted by: Alan | Jul 4 2014 11:20 utc | 82

Why the hell do you Nazis always use the term "hasbara", even shen the topic has absolutely nothing to do with anything jewish? You guys are all quite psychotic, especially because you're actually shouting "hasbara" to a blonde "aryan" christian...

No need to view everything so narrowly, it's not about semantics. We are talking about a certain kind of authoritative collectivism, where individual freedoms are wiped out for the "greater good" (as if there ever was such a thing).

What you just cited is the very core of fascism. "E Pluribus unum" etc. are all just variations of the same theme - a single human is nothing, the "big all" (folk, nation, the party) is everything. That is literally what it means. Hitler called it "cells in the body of a nation" for example.

And sorry but fascias were used for punishment - sticks for beating and axe for the more severe sort of punishment. It is a power sybol, yes, but one of brutal dictatorial power.

Again, the masonic coup in France was definitely not a "revolution". It was a bloody coup and installed a dictatorship. The only reason not to call it fascist is that there were no corporations as we know them nowadays and thus you can't call it corporatism.

Posted by: T2015 | Jul 4 2014 11:24 utc | 83

@ Alan: funny how he spent exactly 33 years there... what a coincidence.

He also abuses the term capitalism - it should be called fascism instead, whioch would be more correct.

Capitalism is the natural state of the world, but capitalism includes an actually free market and the banks investing into the domestic economy - both of which we haven't had for decades, we have completely rigged monopolized markets and banks "investing" into themselves (or the asian sweat shops, or whatever gives some fast and easy cash).

Posted by: T2015 | Jul 4 2014 11:28 utc | 84

" In fact, there is even congressional legislation authorizing the president to use armed force to “rescue” any American brought to the Hague for trial — the “Netherlands Invasion Act,” as it is sometimes called in Europe. That once again illustrates the importance of protecting the security of state power."

So there we have it in a nutshell. One law abrogating all other laws, placing the U.S. empires murderers, torturers and any other monstrous actors entirely above any law worldwide. In this day and age the few quoted lines above are a far more accurate definition of liberal than what ben cites from a dictionary... and it would behove millions (billions?) of so-called liberals to admit it.

I live in the belly of the beast.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Jul 4 2014 13:13 utc | 85

Sorry, the above quote was from the linked Chomsky piece.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Jul 4 2014 13:14 utc | 86

T2015 at 83:

Capitalism is the natural state of the world, but capitalism includes an actually free market and the banks investing into the domestic economy - both of which we haven't had for decades, we have completely rigged monopolized markets and banks "investing" into themselves (or the asian sweat shops, or whatever gives some fast and easy cash).

1. There is nothing or everything natural about any economic arrangement, since people are capable of choice and free will. And what does it matter what is 'natural' ... Milk going sour is natural but we all insist on doing unnatural things to it so it doesn't do what is natural.

2. In modern history capitalism has never co-existed with a free market. A free economic market is not compatible with a free political market in which the most monied and connected acquire and use the most power in order to most benefit themselves. So, you either need to have an unfree political market in which political influence (including of course media influence) is distributed evenly (in that case the working class would immediately and 'unnaturally' reform the market in ways that mainly benefit the working class), or you will _always_ have an unfree economic market that benefits those with the most political power. Choose one or the other.

3. Why does 'capitalism' require banks to invest into the domestic economy? How strange and narrow is your definition of 'capitalism'? Heck, my favorite capitalism would require banks to invest in the domestic economy too, but I don't call my favorite version of something 'the one and only' ...

Posted by: fairleft | Jul 4 2014 13:22 utc | 87

T(roll)2015, I'm getting really tired of your confused and self-contradictory bla bla. You've dominated this thread since yesterday, with nothing but nonsense. You need to scoot; go troll on another site.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 4 2014 13:34 utc | 88


Yes, what bevin is saying is fucking nonsense - what else is new - and the same faulty reasoning can be seen in his bitter remarks in which he equates Marxists with the worst of the Stalinists - myself included. Why don't you just go on a Reign of Terror, Jsore?

See, with a more refined mind, one would come to the more correct conclusion that when the original authors/creators of an ideological system create their systems there often springs up a secondary mythologizing of said system that usually spreads faster - especially among the masses - and which contains many elements that were not part of the original system of thought and at which the original authors/creators would be horrified.

Marx and Engels surely would have been horrified at what became of their thoughts as Marxism became mythologized and took the place of religious thought in populace after populace during the 20th century, etc.

Bevin laughably tries to cram so much history etc concerning American and the colonies into a cohesive statement in a vain attempt to prove his initial incorrect point it's not very hard to see how he ends up equating myself and other Leftists with the Pol Pot and all the rest. But history as a discipline is like that in the hands of the amateur: one often comes up with a theory first and then has to shave, sand down and jimmy facts to fit into said theory. Oh well.

Aside: funny that, huh? I prefer to vehemently castigate the living breathing murderers and criminals among us while bevin and his coterie take solace in academically tarring long-dead thinkers with crimes committed long after they were gone and once their ideas had been firmly turned into bastardized myths. This might be a clue as to the nature our "disagreements", huh?

There are many many examples of this besides liberalism and Marxism.

How about "Americanism" for lack of a better word? And you hopefully know that I am no fan. Yes, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of aristocratic fucks that only wanted to cement their control over the colonies back in the day but they too would have been horrified in knowing that in drafting the blueprints for the American experiment they also created the Frankenstein monster of the MYTH of Americanism which - unfortunately - went lumbering on - faster and faster - beyond the control of its creators until it we see it made manifest in the murderous embodiment of today.

But to say that the authors of these systems of thought inherently knew how the bastardized myths that they had created would be cynically used by murderers and criminals generations later is quite absurd even though it does read like a professor wrote it and thus should be given credence.

It is really one of the ironies of history that thought systems - whatever the authors' original intent or what the original documents say - many times take on mythological natures that lead to actions/beliefs that are entirely antithetical to what the "founders" originally had intended.

That's why it is my belief that we shouldn't give much time/effort into trying to dissect/understand the philosophical systems of the blatant murderers and war criminals of today who happen to be at the helm of our respective nations: what they think - or to b's OP - what they CLAIM they think - is completely irrelevant because even if they are sincere in their statements - chortle - they are adhering not to an original system of thought but the murderous mythological mutation of a previous system of thought unshackled from what the original authors had ever intended. Their fucking crimes condemn them through whatever philosophical lens one would like to view them from/through.

Surely, one could waste their time picking apart the original texts and phrases of said systems in an attempt to lay blame at the feet of the authors of each systems but that would be an activity only recommended for those who are trying for tenure.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jul 4 2014 14:57 utc | 89

JSore PCR agrees with you:
Washington’s War Crimes Spread from Africa and the Middle East to Ukraine

Paul Craig Roberts

A person might think that revulsion in “the world community” against Washington’s wanton slaughter of civilians in eight countries would have led to War Crimes Tribunal warrants issued for the arrest of presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama and many officials in their regimes. But the vocal part of “the world community”–the West–has become inured to Washington’s crimes against humanity and doesn’t bother to protest. Indeed, many of these governments are complicit in Washington’s crimes, and there could just as well be arrest warrants for members of European governments.

The one exception is Russia. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has published a White Book on violations of human rights and the rule of law in Ukraine. Propagandized Americans think that all the violations in Ukraine are made by Russians. The White Book carefully and accurately documents reported violations that occurred in Ukraine for four months from December 2013 through March 2014.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 4 2014 15:13 utc | 90

JSore, more likely he's read enough of your posts here, that he can 'channel' you.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 4 2014 15:17 utc | 91

Here's a look at one of the essential components of the finance - capitalist pig ruling

class paradigm

today Novorussia, tomorrow Detroit

Posted by: Marc | Jul 4 2014 22:04 utc | 92

"Yes, what bevin is saying is fucking nonsense - what else is new - and the same faulty reasoning can be seen in his bitter remarks in which he equates Marxists with the worst of the Stalinists - myself included. Why don't you just go on a Reign of Terror, Jsore?"

I would be interested to read where i have "equated Marxists with the worst of the Stalinists."in
Marxists don't tell lies Sorrentine: you do.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 5 2014 1:40 utc | 93

I have just read my comment @72. I defy anyone reading it to make a rational connection between the points I touch upon and Sorrentine's characterisation of them.
Dealing with a systematic liar is bad enough. What is really shocking is the way that Sorrentine hides his intellectual idleness and vacuous rants behind the astonishing claim that he is not only a "leftist" but a Marxist.
Neither a reputable member of the political left nor a student of Marx would be as systematically dishonest as he is in his attacks on my remarks on liberalism and imperialism which are actually rather conventional wisdom on the left and have been for more than a century.
The evolution of liberalism into fascism, for example, was long ago explained by Leon Trotsky.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 5 2014 1:53 utc | 94

@bevin #94:

The only thing I've read by Trotsky was something he wrote about war communism. Can you give a reference for his explanation of the evolution of liberalism into fascism? (As for the US, I like Sheldon Wolin's take on it, according to which the American system has evolved from liberalism not into fascism, but into inverted totalitarianism.)

My only disagreement with you in your comment #72 is that you place Obama on the same level as Samantha Power. For better or worse, Power is an intellectual; she has taught at Harvard and written several books. Obama is not an intellectual. He was the first person to be made editor of the Harvard Law Review to have never published an article. (I don't know if any people with the same lack of publications have been chosen as editors since then.) Also, someone like Vitaly Churkin can have a good laugh at Power's expense. There is nothing to laugh about with Obama: the degree of his evil is just too horrifying.

Posted by: Demian | Jul 5 2014 2:32 utc | 95

Demian, inverted totalitarianism is fascism on steroids.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 5 2014 11:59 utc | 96

The latest IAE special report "World Energy Investment Outlook” states:

"It will require $48 trillion in investments through 2035 to meet the world’s growing energy needs, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday from Paris. “But this won’t materialize unless there are credible policy frameworks in place as well as stable access to long-term sources of finance. Neither of these conditions should be taken for granted.”

Instead, NASA and the Pentagon have proposed only a $40 trillion investment to send a manned mission to Mars, a/k/a G-d of War, to beseech the Gog of All Magogs to return with them to Earth and then 'eradicate all those cockroaches' Bibi speaks so eloquently about.
See, they saved US $8 trillion, and got rid of all the useless mouths to feed! WIN-WIN!!

"We won, you lost. It's just business, get over it. NOW GET OFF THE EMPIRE'S LAND!"

Posted by: chip nikh | Jul 5 2014 23:29 utc | 97

@hoarsewhisperer#59&@etienne#64: I hear you!

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jul 5 2014 23:43 utc | 98


Interesting comparison between liberalism and satanism:

I used to work at a State level Environmental Authority, and one of the old-timers took me aside after our hellion neo-liberal Administrator launched us on another 'green' mission to outlaw, in this sombre case, 'evil' creosote timbers used for docks. "Oh, they are fearsome bad!" she shrieked, a real Hillary nee Billy Graham shaking of fists to the sky. "We must find a way (cook the research) to outlaw the pernicious scourge of creosotism!"

And so they did, which brings me back to the old-timer, who whispered this Administrator was from a Wikken Coven, and every time they found a way to get something outlawed, they would dance naked under the full moon and make some awful sacrifice to their pagan gods.

Of course, I laughed, everyone makes fun of their chief administrator behind their back, but then the stories return again, in different forms from different people, someone who knew her from back in the day, when she rode on the Magic Bus with the Yippies, was it?

Anyway, long story short, outlawing creosote piling removed all the old fishing docks across the State, which wiped out the fishing industry, sank all the wooden boats and all the old retirees living on them, while replacing them with $MM taxpayer-subsidized gated marinas and $M glass boats that rock idly at their floats until the weekend, or until some poor sap's bad investments require him/her to burn their yacht for the insurance money.

The Administrator, it turns out, has a waterfront home overlooking the old creosote timber mill, and her place now is worth several $Ms as prime waterfront next to the new marina. She no longer has to raise her voice, retired after 30 years on a Satanic pension for life.

And that, my friends, is American NeoLiberalism in a nut shell.

"We won, you lost. It's just business, get over it. NOW GET OFF STATE PROPERTY!"

Posted by: chip nikh | Jul 5 2014 23:50 utc | 99

@ fairleft 87:

1. Natural is meant in the basic sense, as selling and buying service/products. Nothing ideological or political there.

2. Exactly what I said, "IF we had a free market", which means that we never had it abd thus never had real capitalism (but rigged monopolism and monetarism instead)

3. this one is triky: investing in domestic economy is making it stronger, securing work, securing the market, general progress etc. Investing in Chinese sweat shops only enriches the monopolists and bleeds the domestic market and economy (see USA nowadays for example, 50000 companies and 10 Mio. Jobs moved to China)

Posted by: T2015 | Jul 7 2014 7:45 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.