Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 26, 2019

U.S. Citizens Who Raided North Korea's Embassy In Spain Are "Dissidents"?

Spanish authorities suspected the CIA of involvement in the February 22 raid on the North Korean embassy in Madrid:

At least two of the 10 assailants who broke into the embassy and interrogated diplomatic staff have been identified and have connections to the US intelligence agency. The CIA has denied any involvement but [Spanish] government sources say their response was “unconvincing.”

The CIA countered the Spanish reports of its involvement by exposing its 'regime change' proxy group that executed the raid:

The group behind the late February operation is known as Cheollima Civil Defense, a secretive dissident organization committed to overthrowing the Kim dynasty, people familiar with the planning and execution of the mission told The Washington Post.
“This group is the first known resistance movement against North Korea, which makes its activities very newsworthy,” said Sung-Yoon Lee, a North Korea expert at Tufts University.

Sung-Yoon Lee is "Kim Koo-Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Studies and assistant professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University." He seems to believe that a violent raid by CIA related Korean-Americans on a North Korean embassy in a third country is "resistance".

The raid came a few days before the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi. It was timed to blow up the negotiations.

In late March a Spanish judge named one Adrian Hong Chang as the leader of the embassy raid. Adrian Hong Chen is the head of the Cheollima Civil Defense/Free Joseon group. The judge demanded the extradition of Hong and his abettors from the United States. One of those persons has since been caught:

A U.S Marine veteran from Southern California was part of a group of dissidents wielding machetes and fake guns when they stormed North Korea's embassy in Madrid and tied up and beat officials inside, federal prosecutors alleged in a criminal complaint released Tuesday.

Spain is seeking to extradite Christopher Philip Ahn on charges including robbery, illegal restraint and criminal organization. Judge Jean Rosenbluth denied bond for Ahn during a Los Angeles court hearing attended by his wife, mother and about two dozen other supporters.
Prosecutors said Ahn was arrested during a raid last week on the Los Angeles apartment of a co-defendant, Adrian Hong Chang, a leader of the Free Joseon group. Hong Chang was not at home and has not been arrested.

One reason that bail was denied is the extraordinary violence the group used:

The group — armed with machetes, iron bars, knives and fake guns — beat some of the workers and then tied them up with shackles and cables, prosecutors alleged. They put bags over some of the workers' heads, beat them and threatened them with the metal bars and guns, according to the court papers.

Interestingly it was Adrian Hong Chang, the group's leader, who ratted out Christopher Philip Ahn:

After the attack, Hong Chang also met with FBI agents at the bureau's office in Los Angeles and told them that Christopher Ahn, a former Marine, had participated in the attack.

One of the embassy workers later identified Ahn as an attacker from his LinkedIn profile picture.

Christopher Philip Ahn, Adrian Hong Chang

It seems that the Spanish authorities made enough of a stink to push the U.S. to seriously act against the group. But the embassy raiders still have their defenders.

At Professor Sung Yong Lee says that the prosecutor's court memo (pdf) in the Christopher Philip Ahn case is trash:

One expert told NK News they believed the U.S. government’s case, as reflected in the documents unsealed on Tuesday, had “more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese.”

“It shows the case was cobbled together in a rush when, after weeks of hedging, the DOJ, presumably upon orders from the White House and State, made the decision to quash Free Joseon,” Sung-Yoon Lee, an Assistant Professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, said.

“Sloppiness pervades the complaint,” he continued, pointing to what he said he was a number of inconsistencies in the account of the break-in.

“The criminal complaint is based entirely on implausible accounts by the DPRK staff, who had life-and-death incentives to claim having been overpowered by thugs,” he continued.

A statement carried on the website of Free Joseon last week, too, expressed “dismay” at the decision to arrest Ahn, saying the move derived from “criminal complaints filed by the North Korean regime.”

Earlier reporting from Spain contradicts the Professor's assertions. The case is not "based entirely on implausible accounts by the DPRK staff". It was the Spanish police who confirmed the violence of the perpetrators:

Police found the eight victims inside. They had been held hostage for two hours, had had bags placed over their heads, had been beaten and were scared. Two of them required medical attention.

The Free Joseon claim about "criminal complaints filed by the North Korean regime"  is also false. The prosecution of a violent crime is mandatory under Spanish law. North Korea did not even file a complain:

The North Korean Embassy hasn’t pressed charges in Spain, and officials in Pyongyang haven’t officially commented on the attack.

Professor Sung-Yoon Lee isn't finished yet. In an Los Angeles Times op-ed he argues against extraditing Ahn to Spain. The headline follows his earlier argument:

     Free Joseon is a North Korean resistance movement, not a criminal enterprise:

U.S. authorities have filed a criminal complaint alleging the dissidents used force and abused embassy staff during the Madrid action. Free Joseon denies the charges. For the U.S. to accept what is essentially a North Korean version of the events is to effectively defend the Kim regime. It sends the message to Pyongyang that its egregious crimes lie beyond the concern of the world’s presumptive champion of freedom and democracy.

The U.S. must not do Kim’s bidding. Our extradition treaty with Spain provides for a refusal to extradite if we regard the offense in question as political. The North Korean Embassy breach surely was that, and the U.S. should seek to protect the dissidents rather than hand them over to Spain.
To stand up to tyranny in the name of freedom is not only not a crime, but also a right and duty. The United States should not quash this hallowed principle.

Christopher Ahn has U.S. citizenship. Adrian Hong has a Mexican passport. Neither is from North Korea. How can they be 'dissidents'? If North Korean citizens who want to regime change the United States would violently raid a U.S. embassy in a third country would that also be a "political" act committed by "dissidents"? The argument is obviously nonsense.

But to depict the criminals as "political", "resistance" and "dissidents" serves a purpose. This week Kim Jong-un visited Russia and met President Vladimir Putin. They talked about the nuclear negotiations. The Washington Post headlined:

    Putin: Kim Jong Un needs international security guarantees to give up nuclear arsenal

Russian President Vladimir Putin emerged from his first summit with Kim Jong Un on Thursday saying that North Korea needs international security guarantees, not just U.S. pledges, to consider giving up its nuclear arsenal.
“They [North Koreans] only need guarantees about their security. That’s it. All of us together need to think about this,” Putin told reporters after the talks with Kim.

Security guarantees make of course sense. Without them North Korea will not disarm at all. But the U.S. is not-agreement-capable, say the Washington Post authors:

North Korea has pushed for a declaration to formally end the Korean War, which ended in an armistice in 1953, without a peace treaty. Kim also has denounced past U.S.-South Korea military exercises as a provocation.

Trump called off some war games and dangled the possibility of an end-of-war declaration in the future, but direct U.S. pledges of support for the Kim regime’s hold on power are highly improbable, experts say.

“Nobody is in a position to give them the security guarantees they would like to have,” said Andrei Lankov, a North Korea expert at Kookmin University in Seoul. “They want a guarantee not only against an outside attack but also against possible internal discontent. . . . On balance, it’s a non-starter.”

Kim Jong-un would not demand guarantees against genuine internal discontent. North Korea's security forces surely know how to handle such. What he likely wants is that the U.S. re-commits itself to international law and refrains from interference in the internal affairs of his country.

The creation and manipulation of "resistance" movements, like the Free Joseon group, is a typical U.S. 'regime change' instrument. Such a "resistance" is then used as a pretext for violent regime change by military force. It was the expat 'Iraqi National Congress' of Ahmed Chalabi that played a large role in the build up to the war on Iraq. Similar "resistance" support was and is used to argue for war on Libya, on Syria and -coming soon- on Venezuela.

Professor Sung-Yoon Lee asks to recognize the embassy raiders as "political resistance". Free Joseon already declared itself to be the "government in exile" of North Korea. What happens when the U.S. recognizes it as such?

It seems that what the Professor is really aiming at is 'regime change' in North Korea, if necessary by U.S. force.

Sung-Yoon Lee's professorship is named after Kim Koo, "a leader of the Korean independence movement against the Japanese Empire, and a reunification activist after 1945". Kim Koo was fiercely opposed to U.S. plans to establish a separate government in South Korea. He was assassinated in 1949 by Lieutenant Ahn Doo-hee, an agent of the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Corps in Korea and member of a far right extremist group.

One seriously doubts that Kim Koo would have lend his support to the scheme that Professor Sung-Yoon Lee peddles under his name.

Earlier Moon of Alabama pieces on the issue:

Posted by b on April 26, 2019 at 18:05 UTC | Permalink


Can you believe this shit? Thanks for the ongoing exposure of my country's criminal activities under empire. They (CIA,FBI, NSA, etc.) have all gone rogue and cannot be trusted, IMO
I think poorly of Trump except for his bringing a clear face to all of DC perfidy for empire.

I still believe the Korea will unite and kick out empire in the near future. We need to see Xi/Moon and Putin/Moon meetings like with Kim and then Western pants will fill

Posted by: psychohistorian | Apr 26 2019 18:33 utc | 1

Thanks for this update, b, and thanks for highlighting the international law aspect as that was the #1 point Putin made in the presser which was omitted by the WaPost item linked above and the AP item published in my local newspaper. Again, this is what Putin said:

"The most important thing, as we have discussed today during the talks, is to restore the rule of international law and revert to the position where global developments were regulated by international law instead of the rule of force. If this happens, this would be the *first* and critical step toward resolving challenging situations such as the one on the Korean Peninsula.

"So, what is denuclearisation all about? It implies North Korea’s disarmament to a certain extent. Naturally (I have noted this on numerous occasions and can confirm this once again), the North Korean side is also talking about this. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea needs guarantees of its security and sovereignty.

"But what guarantees can there be, except those based on international law? We can think about international guarantees, and this would probably be correct. But these guarantees also lie in the sphere of international law. Therefore we will not invent anything new here.

"How substantial will these guarantees be, and to what extent will they meet the interests of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? It is still too early to talk about this today, but it is necessary to take the *first* steps towards strengthening trust. To my mind, this seems possible on the whole." [My Emphasis]

I find it totally insane that the media would willfully omit what Putin says is "The most important thing"!! Indeed, that was the first thing I looked for in the AP story, which was missing and woefully misinforms everyone reading it, just as the WaPost and probably the NY Times does too. Thank goodness for the Kremlin's English language website!

The only way "trust" can be strengthened is for the Outlaw US Empire to cease its Outlawry and become a law-abiding nation again. Given the current cabal within the Whitehouse, such a requirement is unlikely to occur anytime soon. As such, Korea ought to become a 2020 issue.

On the CIA related pukes, I doubt they'll get extradited as the one's wanted by Italy and found guilty in absentia weren't.

Kudos to Tufts for having such a professorship in that name, but I doubt the charlatan in that position will be have his tenure revoked and fired.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 26 2019 18:48 utc | 2

Kim pulled off a nifty little sanctions-busting PR coup on the sidelines of the Summit with Putin. The Merc and Maybach bulletproof stretch limos used by Kim during the Summit belong to North Korea. According to DW News, Daimler-Benz have been asked to explain how the Heck the North Koreans got them through the sanctions cordon? D-B says they comply with ALL UN and US sanctions...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 26 2019 19:51 utc | 3

D Party Pukes Allied w/ Pompeo over sanctions relief for DPRK. Proof positive Neocons inhabit D Party as if we didn't know already. Guess they didn't get the word about needing to conform to International Law before any trust can begin to be built. But that's no surprise as D Party was first to take USA into Outlawry in 1945.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 26 2019 20:07 utc | 4

Hoarsewhisperer @ 3:

Daimler might source a lot of its supplies from suppliers in China. The company probably needs to send a lot of its specifications to those suppliers. If those suppliers communicate with one another regularly - there is no reason to suppose that they don't - and get hold of other necessary technical information from Chinese-language Internet search engines and social media, they would be able to design and make an entire Mercedes-Benz car right down to the minute details of its styling.

Try perusing this link when you have the time.

Posted by: Jen | Apr 26 2019 20:29 utc | 5

thanks for the ongoing coverage of this b..

the key points to take away from it all continue to be the same and are applicable in other hots spots at present as well..

the U.S. is not-agreement-capable -
the U.s. is not capable of abiding by international law or refraining from interference in the internal affairs of other countries -
The creation and manipulation of "resistance" movements is a typical U.S. 'regime change' instrument.

same business tactic is being displayed in all of the usa's actions where the world is not going along with usa dictatorship..

so much for the free world and democracy... the usa is about as far removed from these concepts as it can get at this point..

Posted by: james | Apr 26 2019 20:32 utc | 6

Hoarsewhisperer @ 3:

I have been trying to post a reply to you regarding those limousines that ferried Kim Jongun to his meeting with Putin but three times the reply was rejected by WordPress. It might be the link to a website of 488 Mercedes-Benz parts manufacturers in China supplying over 2,000 "parts" (including toy Mercedes cars and trucks for children) that was the cause of the rejection or the blog comments forum might be busy (because mine would have been comment 4 if it had been accepted).

Those limousines might not have been made in Europe.

Posted by: Jen | Apr 26 2019 20:38 utc | 7

It's my understanding that DPRK has unofficial observers at the BRI Forum in Beijing. Putin is there, of course, and in his address to participants again announced his #1 concern:

"It is important that we come up with effective ways of responding to the risks of a fragmented global political, economic and technological landscape and growing protectionism, with illegitimate unilateral restrictions imposed bypassing the UN Security Council or, even worse, trade wars as its most dangerous expressions....

"Russia is interested in the closest cooperation with all Eurasian partners on the basis of unshakable principles of respect for the sovereignty, rights and legitimate interests of each state. It is on these principles that we are building the Eurasian Economic Union, with our partners – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan....

"Let me emphasise that the Great Eurasian Partnership and Belt and Road concepts are both rooted in the principles and values that everyone understands: the natural aspiration of nations to live in peace and harmony, benefit from free access to the latest scientific achievements and innovative development, while preserving their culture and unique spiritual identity. In other words, we are united by our strategic, long-term interests."

One wonders what the petulant child nation's Deep State actors think of the Eurasian Challenge. Or is it possible to shunt them aside, ignore them and get on with life? That would be nice, but they pose too great a threat to global peace and stability to be ignored.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 26 2019 21:02 utc | 8


Smile Break!

You have to be a heartless zombie for the linked video to not put a smile on your face. Unfortunately, most of the USG and its vassals are just those sorts of things.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 26 2019 21:16 utc | 9

Some may note that in Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 25, 2019 the lady spoke of Huntsmans' 200 thousand tonnes of diplomacy. She said, in part: "... I insistently recommend that you study the design for the Russian Armed Forces church in Patriot Park. The Nazi Wehrmacht’s “tonnes of international diplomacy,” to use your expression, those dating back to the Great Patriotic War, are being recycled and will be used in its construction, specifically for steps leading to the church entrance."

Perhaps the implications include that the F. M. Office sees the threats of violence as a continuation of the nazi war against the USSR.

Well, if shoe fits...

Posted by: Walter | Apr 26 2019 21:55 utc | 10

@ karlof1 #4

I think "pukes" is quite appropriate for the likes of Coons. But question time - I don't understand what you meant with this next observation:

But that's no surprise as D Party was first to take USA into Outlawry in 1945.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 26 2019 21:57 utc | 11

probably a reference to nuking nagasaki and hiroshima.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Apr 26 2019 22:21 utc | 12

Anybody remember this phenomenal guy here? ;-)

What a weird story. Wouldn't Trump be fuming with rage because of this brazen attempt to derail his initiatives?

Posted by: Scotch Bingeington | Apr 26 2019 22:27 utc | 13

Scotch Bingeington @ 12:

The actor who played Oddjob in "Goldfinger" was Japanese (Harold Sakata, I believe, a former Olympic Games medalist) after the film's producers realised they didn't need to hire a Korean to play a non-speaking role. Sory to upset the apple cart.

Posted by: Jen | Apr 26 2019 22:47 utc | 14

What a privilege to read your assessment b. Much appreciated.

Especially the last part about Kim Koo. It is just typical of how they get a name and twist his work and history into their own agenda. Disgusting.

And then, all of these so called professors and experts defending the break-in of an embassy, the sovereign space of any country, in the name of resistance is just beyond the pale.

Extradite the bastards.

Posted by: Alpi57 | Apr 26 2019 23:08 utc | 15

karlof1 | Apr 26, 2019 5:16:37 PM | 8

Inspiring. Thanks for that.

Posted by: Alpi57 | Apr 26 2019 23:16 utc | 16

Zachary Smith @10--

When the USA's Senate ratified the UN Charter 89-2 on 28 July 1945, it immediately, and massively, amended the 1787 Constitution thanks to its Supremacy Clause. Most importantly, this meant the USA could no longer act in a unilateral manner as it had done in all the previous moments of its existence. This especially affected the ability to attack any nation whenever it wanted, and US History shows it loves to attack other nations. (See Smedley Butler's War is a Racket.) The organizing of former Nazis to infiltrate USSR-held eastern Europe to conduct terrorist operations began soon after Germany's surrender and is a distinct violation of the UN Charter and thus unconstitutional--it was an action outside of the law, which is what constitutes outlawry. And that is one example among thousands. Truman of the D Party was in charge at the time. The D Party at the time was still a very racist, immoral organization, not that the R Party was much better.

IMO, the 1947 National Security Act and creation of the CIA and other agencies was done to circumvent the UN Charter's prohibition on unilateral acts. One of the major episodes to occur soon after was Truman's 1948 War Scare. If you haven't, read Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948: A Successful Campaign to Deceive the Nation by Frank Kofsky, 1995. The 1949 Syrian Coup, Iranian and Guatemalan Coups of 1953 & 54 were planned by the Truman administration, and constitute the first overt breeches of the UN Charter and impeachable conduct by a POTUS. For further background, I suggest Gabriel Kolko's The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943-1945, 1968.

Of course, the USA wasn't alone in its post-WW2 banditry. European colonial nations were all involved in similar outlawry, all of which made the USSR attractive and the Anti-Communist Crusade more vicious. Oh, I should also suggest Michael Parenti's The Anti-Communist Impulse, 1970.

I also suggest this essay about the evolution of the concept of National Sovereignty. The author might be termed an apologist for US Imperialism, but he does do a good job of documenting--see especially points 14 & 15.

One of my nagging questions is how does the UN Charter affect Congress's ability to declare war, since all such things are supposed to be governed by the UNSC except in the act of self-defense. IMO, Congress can no longer arbitrarily declare war any more than POTUS can invade another nation covertly. And there are other related issues regarding the financing of the various regime change "NGOs" whose actions are unconstitutional. Tulsi Gabbard is the only POTUS candidate that's even exploring some aspects of all that, although Mike Gravel would likely join her.

Yeah, long answer, but the topic isn't as cut and dry as it seems.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 26 2019 23:36 utc | 17

Sorry for another OT intrusion, but I must share this brilliant essay by Caitlin Johnstone: "Assange’s Imprisonment Arguably Reveals Even More Corruption Than WikiLeaks Did." Indeed, I'd be morally irresponsible if I didn't. I totally agree with her simple yet ubber powerful premise embedded in the title.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 26 2019 23:55 utc | 18

Out of badness (Scottish term of art) I checked up: forgive me, please.

Posted by: Cortes | Apr 27 2019 0:11 utc | 19

@ karlof1 #16

Thanks for the link and book suggestions. Naturally no nearby libraries have either of those books. I think I'll take a pass on the first one - Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948: A Successful Campaign to Deceive the Nation by Frank Kofsky. It's pricey and doesn't review well. From Publisher's Weekly:

Kofsky, a history professor at California State University, unconvincingly argues that President Harry Truman, in collusion with Secretary of State George Marshall and Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal, fabricated the Soviet Union's perceived military aggressiveness towards the West. According to Kofsky, this trumped-up "war scare" was a great success for the Truman administration, for it frightened Congress into approving the Marshall Plan, saved the U.S. aviation industry from bankruptcy and brought about a quantum leap in defense spending. Truman deserves condemnation, the author maintains, for establishing a permanent war economy "that now serves primarily to accelerate the rate at which the quality of life in the United States declines." Kofsky's perspective on the origins of the Cold War is questionable in its ready condemnations of Truman and explanations of U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations under Stalin.

Stalin had become more and more of an asshole as WW2 progressed, and after the war he retained a strong standing army while the US demobilized. Stalin was the one who cut off Western access to the Berlin sectors assigned to them, and he was also the fellow who green-lighted North Korea's invasion of the South. The USSR had become a superpower, and it seems to me that keeping a real army around wasn't a bad idea at all. On the other hand, the Kolko book is now on my "acquire" list, for it's affordable and looks promising.

Truman was ripped out of of the Senate and on short notice was given the job of finishing WW2 and running the US. It was a learning experience, and the folks who had gradually taken power while Roosevelt was dying didn't give in easily. Quite possibly Truman didn't even know about the Nazi "rat lines" set up by the CIA. To blame his Administration for "planning" seems unfair. Back in the day, setting up contingency plans for everything was the norm, and the actual execution of those Iranian and Guatemalan Coups belonged to Eisenhower.

I think my main objection to your previous post was the implication the Democrats hadn't been up to their ears in evil in earlier times. Starting the Mexican War to protect the Slave Republic of Texas was a Dem project. In the process they stole California and territory which became several more western states. The Democrats were directly responsible for the US Civil War. I'd argue that Wilson's grinding down the Blacks, jumping into WW1, and instituting the beginnings of the modern US police state were worse than the things you speak about. In a gigantic betrayal, the Republicans threw freed Blacks to the wolves. They started an Imperial war with Spain resulting in over a million civilian deaths in the Philippines.

Again, I suppose it was the 'ranking' the 1945 events which startled me.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 27 2019 0:45 utc | 20

Zachary Smith @19--

Thanks for your reply. The key point was the changes made to International Law with the UN Charter, which is why I linked to Grandin's essay as it describes that evolution. Grabbing 1/2 of Mexico was "legal" as was separating Panama from Colombia, and all other pre-WW2 Imperialism. That isn't to absolve Polk or Teddy Roosevelt of their crimes, or their successors. It's just at the time their crimes weren't crimes--immoral, yes, crimes, no.

Kofsky's book is $1.68 + shipping @$4 from here. I found it quite good. Kolko's is $15, while Parenti's has zoomed into the rare book area at $80, which is shocking as I got mine for a dollar from the same vendor!

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 27 2019 1:16 utc | 21

@16 "One of my nagging questions is how does the UN Charter affect Congress's ability to declare war, since all such things are supposed to be governed by the UNSC except in the act of self-defense."

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prevents the Congress from declaring war. Full Stop.

This is not purely an American issue: it also prevents the legislature of any UN member state from issuing a formal declaration of war.

The British, for example, are quite open about this. There is an excellent policy paper here:

"The United Kingdom has made no declaration of war since that against Siam (modern Thailand) in 1942, and it is unlikely that there will ever be another. Developments in international law since 1945, notably the United Nations (UN) Charter, including its prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations, may well have made the declaration of war redundant as a formal international legal instrument (unlawful recourse to force does not sit happily with an idea of legal equality)."

That makes sense: Article 2(4) prohibits a member state from using force as a method of settling international disputes and - let's face it - a "declaration of war" is exactly that i.e. it is a declaratory statement that you have made the choice to abandon diplomacy and just go BANG! on someone to settle some differences.

If you sign the Charter then you agree that such declarations are prohibited.

But there are still Constitutional requirements that US Presidents and the Congress must observe, which is why (in theory, anyway) the Congress has to vote to grant a AUMF to the President.

But that has no bearing on international law and does not in any way violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

After all, a AUMF is simply a vote by the Congress saying that they have already given the necessary permission-slip to the President.

International Law doesn't care about such things, any more than it cares about the US military pre-positioning ammo dumps somewhere in anticipation of future argy-bargy, or the US military running war games that look suspiciously like a trial run for Korean War 2.

International Law only comes into play when the shootin' 'n' stabbin' 'n' killin' starts, precisely because that's when things get "international".

Everything before then is simply "domestic" stuff, including AUMF's.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Apr 27 2019 2:17 utc | 22

The Joseon royal family need to be outed from their cosy cave and make a statement. Do they wish to reassert their entitlement to Korea or no? Do they fund this dopey professor Sung-Yoon Lee or not? Do they see the USA based terrorist gang Free Joseon as their legitimate proxy or is it taking the Joseon name in vain and stealing their property right?

I get the impression the Joseon royal family is part of the South Korean oligarchy and far from being pleasant or even democratic company.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Apr 27 2019 2:33 utc | 23

"Stalin had become more and more of an asshole as WW2 progressed, and after the war he retained a strong standing army while the US demobilized. Stalin was the one who cut off Western access to the Berlin sectors assigned to them, and he was also the fellow who green-lighted North Korea's invasion of the South. The USSR had become a superpower, and it seems to me that keeping a real army around wasn't a bad idea at all."
If you really believe this Zach, you are not going to like Kolko.
The view that you outline is precisely that advanced by Forrestal and the other Cold War enthusiasts. It is quite wrong- the Soviet Union was desperately hoping for Peace in 1945. Britain and the USA were gearing up to make a surprise attack-Barbarossa Mk2. The demonstrations at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant to intimidate not the Japanese, already trying to surrender, but the Soviet Union.
Doesn't everyone know this? How long the antiquated and unconvincing propaganda themes of the late '40s seem to last in the minds of Americans. Small wonder that there was such enthusiasm for the idiocy of Russiagate-it appealed to half forgotten, ancient myths.
Most potent of which is the 'Stalin was evil and just kept getting evil-er' story for kids of all ages.

Posted by: bevin | Apr 27 2019 3:13 utc | 24

Thanks for the book ..
Grabbing 1/2 of Mexico was "legal" as was separating Panama from Colombia, and all other pre-WW2 Imperialism.
karlof1 @ 20
Legal maybe, constitutional maybe not? Article II. Presidents were not known for telling Article I critters the truth and few in America understood that private party publishers were regurgitating into their rags propaganda being feed to them by the the greatest propaganda machine in the world, that is the British secret service..

The 1896 Basil Switzerland meeting (the Mexico grab and the Panama canal swipe as well as railroads in Ottoman territory, and philanthropist Schifs (C/n remember his name exactly) redirection of Jewish Immigration to Argentina. all part of the "take the oil from the Ottomans and destroy Germany's access to it" project because Germany had good relations with the Ottomans and the Ottomans were sitting on the worlds supply of oil, Germany was the competition that had to be eliminated.. 1896 France signed a treaty with Russia, to backdoor Germany and a year later, 1897, France engineered agreement between bankers, traders and corporate giants in England and NYC which amounted to, and was intended to, force the USA to support 1913-1917 WWI effort of the Bankers, Traders and powerful private corporations to direct the USA to supply the manpower and money the oil traders and bankers needed to take the oil from the Ottoman. Two books for reference Pan Germanism , Professor Roland Greene User, 1913, 1914, and My Memoirs, 1878-1918 by Ex Kaiser William II.. 1922 (covers both sides of the war)..

D/n forget the USSC ruled every year till 1912 that the income tax was unconstitutional, in January 1913, it ruled not only was the income tax constitutional but corporations would not have to pay it, instead individual tax payers would be required to pay the taxes that would fund WWI. Minutes later the Federal Reverse Act passed on Congress. Wilson was president.
Immigrate enough of the right kind of people into British Palestine and French Syria to buy or take the land. and produce the oil. Still going on today.

And IMO ,Bevin @23 is correct Russia wanted out of the war business.. Also Russia had taken Korea, but in fairness they gave S. Korea to the USA.. to manage and they gave N. Korea their independence.. ?

WWI and WWI were about bankers and traders access to the Ottoman oil..

Posted by: snake | Apr 27 2019 4:16 utc | 25

Macron moves to prosecute journalists who revealed French arms sales in Yemen war

Looks like Jr's and Richard Bruce Cheney's war on Journalist's has metastasised since 03 forever....

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 27 2019 4:17 utc | 26

It is quite wrong- the Soviet Union was desperately hoping for Peace in 1945. Britain and the USA were gearing up to make a surprise attack-Barbarossa Mk2.

Ah, a believer in St. Stalin. At the end of the European war the Brits were exhausted. They had been dismantling divisions for some time because the replacement pool at home had dried up and could no longer keep up with casualties. The people had been at war six years, and they were sick and tired of it all - the rationing of everything, and the general poverty. When the war was clearly won they tossed out Churchill in a flash. But before he left, Churchill HAD directed his senior commanders to look into what you call "Barbarossa Mk2". They told him it was quite impossible, even though he had kept the German prisoners around for just such a try. So far as the US Army was concerned, "impossible" was an understatement. Yes, there were a few nutballs like Patton who wanted to do something like that. No wonder his men said "his guts, our blood". The US home front was frothing at the mouth to get the men home. There was so much pressure the Army was forced to start a "points" system to determine who was immediately demobilized and who would be forced to go to the Far East for the invasion of Japan. The soldiers were on the verge of mutiny as it was, and any orders to attack Russia would have introduced the Vietnam practice of "fragging" 25 years earlier.

Peaceable Stalin had been monitoring the Manhattan project from the outset, and stole plans for an exact copy. Because of the mass destruction in the USSR his atomic project didn't bear fruit until 1949, but still shocked the US to the core. I'd remind you that St. Stalin had a workable H-Bomb at the same time as the US did. The Soviet jet airplanes in Korea were equal or better to the US varieties. He had built a bomber force based on exact-copy B-29s. Oh yes, Stalin was just a better version of Ghandi. Probably when he ordered the shooting of 20,000 Polish prisoners in the Katyn forest, it was a misunderstood effort to save their souls. Or something. Right?

It's true the US prepared plans to make a mass Nuclear attack on the USSR. Eisenhower was no tree-hugger either, and under his watch the number of US nukes went from dozens to thousands. Just because Stalin was an asshole doesn't mean Eisenhower wasn't one too. So I can't deny that it was a good thing Stalin had stolen the bomb plans - there hasn't yet been a nuclear exchange. But the USSR had mirror-image ambitions with their own huge arsenals. In both cases, deterrence worked. But I'm pretty sure that's not what either side had in mind around 1955. Neither Smiling Ike nor St. Stalin.

Long range rockets - top secret both sides, and throughout the Fifties the Russians were ahead. Remember Sputnik? The damnfool Kennedy overreacted and built Polaris submarines and Minuteman missiles - in great excess. The Soviets reacted to that, and at some point both sides agreed to reductions to minimize the madness. Which was working fairly well until the warmongering/Second Coming idiots in power today took the reins.

Back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a second, if you want to embrace the BS peddled by Gar Alperovitz and his ilk, so be it. The facts are out there, and accessible to anyone who wants to learn about reality rather than fantasy.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 27 2019 4:34 utc | 27

Those limousines might not have been made in Europe.
Posted by: Jen | Apr 26, 2019 4:38:06 PM | 6

I Googled *DW News Kim's Merc Limos* and among the search results was a petrol-head/ motor-mania website which knew the precise make and model of the limos and the Russian city to which they were shipped for collection by Kim's entourage.
The story is alarming, in a good way, because you don't need to be a genius to deduce that there's no shortage of countries willing and able to help victims to circumvent US sanctions - no matter how trivial, petty or penis-envy-ish.
P.S. Thanks psycho :-)

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 27 2019 5:29 utc | 28

I use to think Brennan, moustache man and Pompeo gang were out to sabotage trump, but I don't think Agent Orange cares...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 27 2019 7:25 utc | 29

Cortes @ 18: O ye of little faith!

Try this one: in "Goldfinger" (the film), Oddjob zings Tilly Masterton with his bowler hat in the neck. Wouldja believe that the actress / model, Tania Malet, who played her (and who died recently) is Helen Mirren's first cousin and their grandfather Peter Mironoff was stranded in Britain in 2017 by the February and October Revolutions in Russia?

Posted by: Jen | Apr 27 2019 7:32 utc | 30

Someone ruined the thread with their link again.

karlof1, Zachary @ co.

Here's how I see this NK thing: Putin is paying nice lip service to a fictitious end and a problem he helped create. CHINA, RUSSIA AND ZUSA are responsible for NK's humanitarian crisis and impossible conundrum. The sanctions are collective punishment against people and much less against leaders. What they have done to North Korea is nothing short of criminal!

I saw the look on Putin's face when he waved goodbye to Kim and it translated as: Poor bastard; I can do nothing; but sympathize! And yet again and again he voted YES on sanctions! And he talks of International Law when he has the power to veto?

Here's the thing: North Korea is the LEAST responsible for this outcome and paying an inhumane price for everyone else's blundering hubris! China is indebted to North Korea and yet betrayed it again and again by not vetoing sanctions. North Korean troops joined with the Communist Liberation Army to fight for the People's Republic during China's civil war. Yes, China returned the favor and helped the North fight the South but China was promoting Communist insurgency in the region. China had a vested interest in ensuring the survival of Communism in North Korea as the U.S. was already occupying the South at the end of WWII and subsequently installed a despotic U.S.-educated Syngman Rhee, whose rule was comparable in its brutality against opposition and Communists, to the Shah's rule in Iran. China egged on the North to fight for Communism.

Stalin also played a role in encouraging the North to attack the South and even programmed the invasion to the most opportune time before giving the North his approval.

North Korea was the pawn in the three big players chessboard.

Add to this that perhaps the two worst and most vicious Presidents in U.S. history Truman and Eisenhower both of whom had a hand in the present outcome. Eisenhower was ready to nuke the North if it didn't agree to the Armistice, and only 3 years later was responsible for the abrogation of the Armistice deal by seriously violating a provision of the deal and bringing in nuclear WMDs. So really it's the fault of the U.S. that North Korea sought out deterrence as its leaders rightly perceived this serious violation in 1956 as an existential threat.

At the time of the Armistice negotiations, China and Russia should have insisted on a full peace treaty and nothing less, because the U.S. was desperate to get out of the war and it was only that lunatic Rhee the U.S. had installed that was crazy enough to take on China. If China and Russia had insisted on a peace treaty, Eisenhower would have been forced to cave as Americans were sick of two major successive wars.

It's as I stated, the U.S., China and Russia got North Korea into this position and only aggravated it throughout the years punishing North Korea for their mistakes!

It's time they fessed up to their responsibility in this fiasco and give North Korea a break. Either a peace treaty is signed and the U.S. takes its nuclear junk out and sends home the troops or North Korea gets to keep its nukes minus the sanctions. The status quo is stupid and inhumane!

Just a note on Truman: He's responsible for releasing Zionism from Pandora's box! And that's besides the catastrophic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and getting embroiled in the Korean war.

I hope he's rotting in hell!

Posted by: Circe | Apr 27 2019 9:29 utc | 31

thank you 21, i've read that the cutoff to access to berlin followed a series of attempts by the oss/cia to destabilize east germany.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Apr 27 2019 9:32 utc | 32

Correction: meant to write USSR not Russia

Posted by: Circe | Apr 27 2019 9:34 utc | 33

So the violent break-in in Spain was 'political dissidence'? Curious about something: If the US is determined to extradite Julian Assange for taking information from US government computers by hacking when Assange is obviously a 'political dissident', why would it not be appropriate to extradite 'political dissident' Christopher Ahn for taking information from NK computers in Spain by violence. Is an allegation of hacking by stealth worse than an allegation of hacking by physical violence? Or perhaps the US simply wants ex-Marine Ahn extradited to North Korea?

Posted by: Loftwork | Apr 27 2019 9:34 utc | 34

karlof1's OT

sweet. thanks for that,

and apologies, but in these trying times i feel compelled to post the very antithesis of such blessed aspiration.

Posted by: john | Apr 27 2019 9:48 utc | 35

Meyssan's lead article on NATO and the web of treaties that make European nations join us in Endless War is up at Zerohedge.

All this is both illuminating and frightening.

Posted by: Bart Hansen | Apr 27 2019 11:34 utc | 36

OT there has been a politically motivated violent attack against an MEP candidate in the UK, this of course falls under UK terrorism laws, not only is there no anti terrorist action being taken by the Police and Security Service, it is not being reported by the mainstream media. Allowing politics to be decided by whoever engages in the highest levels of physical violence is extremely dangerous to the future of the UK.

MEP candidate violently attacked

Posted by: TJ | Apr 27 2019 12:00 utc | 37

to karlofi, Zachary Smith and Circe. Thank you for your comments and especially the book lists. I know you do not always agree and of course I don't always agree with you, but I really value the discussion. I'm currently reading Edgar Snow "People on Our Side" which I believe was a karlofi suggestion. Carry on guys! And thanks b.

Posted by: Miss Lacy | Apr 27 2019 13:22 utc | 38

@ Posted by: Circe | Apr 27, 2019 5:29:19 AM | 31

Your thesis would only be correct in a world where nationalism was the scientific truth. But we don't live in this kind of universe.

Any leader who sees the world as an immutable collection of Westphalian Nation-States is doomed to build a failed long-term strategy. The real division of our times is worker vs capitalist; capitalism vs socialism. Those are the contradictions which completely explain our modern geopolitical divisions, not nation vs nation.

The North Korea/South Korea issue goes far beyond their respective peoples.

Posted by: vk | Apr 27 2019 14:47 utc | 40

I didn't take notes as I read, much less keep them. But when I read Lankov's book on North Korean, I was struck by the way the he presented certain embarrassing facts as a parenthetical comment in a non-pertinent section. And he avoided chronological order on a number of occasions, as near as I can tell to change the context. I concluded he was pretty consciously trying to serve the southern government's long term interests. (As I recall his academic position was in the south.)

When Lankov says the North Korean government wants guarantees against "possible internal discontent" this is I think a classic example of the excluded middles, a dishonest rhetorical device where the cheat pretends their are only two options. The North Korean government has every right to expect to be treated as the legitimate government of the north. This is not requiring anybody else to enforce sanctions against anyone in the north. Except of course, the US is sanctioning everyone in the north. If someone claimed in the nineteenth century that England and France should not recognize the CSA on the grounds that it is impossible to guarantee no dissent in the USA, the nonsense would be obvious. But the twentieth century example of England, France and the USA treating the elected government of Spain (the Loyalists) and the fascists rebels (the Nationalists) as somehow equal partners, so that they would be neutral is very much like what Lankov absurdly wants. The reason then was the Popular Front in Spain was too left-wing. The reason now is the north isn't capitalist enough.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Apr 27 2019 14:52 utc | 41

@ karlof1 | Apr 26, 2019 5:02:22 PM | 8

Anxious to retain my position as General Secretary of my local Masochist cell, I listen to NPR's first hour of “news” every morning.

For two days now they have been twisting themselves into knots trying to find negative ways to describe China's BRI initiative, and to denigrate the nation itself.

China is and has for some time been engaging in trade and other business arrangements with other nations, in which efforts are made to insure that all sides benefit equally. One result is that China's influence is growing. The Hegemon is furious; after all, everyone knows that the only legitimate way for a nation to extend its influence is through the dropping of bombs and the crippling of other nations' economies.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Apr 27 2019 15:53 utc | 42

@ Circe #31

Eisenhower was ready to nuke the North if it didn't agree to the Armistice...

I believe I must disagree with this statement. By the time Eisenhower was taking office, the Air Force had demolished North Korea to the point there were no targets worth mentioning left in that country. I'm afraid what "Ike" was threatening was to use nukes on China.

People who command huge armies in large conflicts develop a thick "callus" on whatever moral system they once had. Both Eisenhower and Grant had been in wars where they had to deal with the death and maiming of thousands of men, sometimes on a daily basis. This marked them, and in my opinion made each of them quite unsuited for being President. The sacrifice of Custer and his men was a mere trifle compared with the Civil War slaughters. Eisenhower had no regrets at all in sending the CIA off on 'chaos-creation' missions around the world. No problem with planning a surprise strike on the USSR. Electing successful Generals to the Presidency is probably a bad idea in most cases.

I understand almost nothing in the current North Korean hubbub, but retain a firm conviction there aren't any "good guys" involved in it.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 27 2019 16:09 utc | 43

ZS @43

"By the time Eisenhower was taking office, the Air Force had demolished North Korea to the point there were no targets worth mentioning left in that country."

I have read a few times that there was nothing left in Japan but they still dropped two nukes on it. Apparently not having worthwhile physical targets was not a deterrent to using the bomb.

Posted by: arby | Apr 27 2019 16:51 utc | 44

vk @ 40 said;"The real division of our times is worker vs capitalist; capitalism vs socialism. Those are the contradictions which completely explain our modern geopolitical divisions, not nation vs nation."

Great statement, and right on point.

What's missing in the debate here, in the U$A, over capitalism vs. socialism, is the fact that historically speaking, a MIXED
economy with the proper amount of controls over capitalism, has worked best.

Posted by: ben | Apr 27 2019 16:58 utc | 45

@ Jen | Apr 27, 2019 3:32:01 AM | 30

Re: Wouldja believe... Peter Mironoff was stranded in Britain in 2017 by the February and October Revolutions in Russia?

Pardon my little faith, but I remain skeptical. I watch RT News daily, and I'm sure if there had been February and October Revolutions in Russia two years ago I would've heard of them. ;)

Posted by: Ort | Apr 27 2019 17:13 utc | 46

vk @ 40

Your response to Circe @ 31 is a non-sequitor. Scientific truth bears no or at best a passing, correlative relationship to the political reality of "nation-states," which have developed and evolved to this point only for the entirety of human civilisation.

While I agree wholeheartedly with your marxist criticism of nation-states please also recognise the present reality of nation-state alliances of rightwing autocratic governments of which Circe is highly critical. And correct in her criticism, IMHO.

Nationalism is the rightwing antithesis of marxist communism but it certainly exists and is politically active in the world. In its current state it is increasingly dominant, many thanks to formerly marxist-inspired nation states turned political allies of the West, such as Russia and China.

Thanks to Circe for having courage to point out these alliances which go against the grain of alt media dogma but are in fact very real.

Posted by: donkeytale | Apr 27 2019 17:14 utc | 47

@ arby #44

May I suggest you try expanding your reading about Japan late in WW2. The US came to realize the war in Europe would be over before the bombs were ready, so if they were used Japan would become the target. After all the effort and money spent on making the things, it was important to get some value out of them. They had to be impressive for that to happen. So at some point a number of Japanese cities were made off-limits for the conventional bombs. I believe General Groves had Kyoto at the top of that list.


There were a few others, but for discussion that's enough. Tokyo was tempting, but 1) it was already pretty much of a mess and 2) they didn't want to throw gasoline on the fire by killing the Emperor. Already the need for him in ending the war was coming into focus. Kyoto was another touchy one - lots and lots of historic temples. Secretary of War Stimson put his foot down on Kyoto with a definite "no!" because he had spent his honeymoon there decades earler and also understood the negatives involved in destroying the place. Groves took it to Roosevelt, who sided with Stimson.

So that left Hiroshima as #1. The second bombing mission went to Kokura, but was a screwup from start to finish. The pilot finally flew to Nagasaki where the bomb was badly dropped, then barely made it to Okinawa for an emergency landing.

By now the president is Truman, and he didn't really gain control of the nukes until the third one was about to be shipped out. Finally understanding that Groves was paying no attention to him, he issued orders that third one remain in the US until he said otherwise.

Summarizing, Japan as a whole was devastated, but those reserved cities were almost pristine. I think I've read that in Hiroshima a conspiracy theory had developed that their good fortune was due to Roosevelt having relatives living there.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 27 2019 17:24 utc | 48

@ donkeytale who wrote
Nationalism is the rightwing antithesis of marxist communism....

Between the word salad ignorance and volume of your comments I can only hope that b tires of you soon. I also notice that Circe and you seem to be mutually supportive of each others "positions".

I can and do ignore some commenters but the volume of your trash is way over the top, IMO Maybe you could try limiting your comments to 10/day. I expect the quality of your message would not diminish.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Apr 27 2019 17:24 utc | 49

ZS @48
"After all the effort and money spent on making the things, it was important to get some value out of them. They had to be impressive for that to happen."

This says to me that their use was unnecessary and done for show. IOW target unimportant. Killing a few hundred thousand people was for getting some value for all the money spent and had SFA to do with ending the war.

No targets left in NK, no problem, drop it anyway and get as many people as possible.

Posted by: arby | Apr 27 2019 17:37 utc | 50


The attractiveness and usefulness of this site has taken quite a beating over the past several weeks.

If all commenters were to eschew the use of personal attacks and adhere to discussion of differences between ideas, the site would quickly regain its former value.

The easiest way to accomplish that is very simple – just edit the word “you” out of every post.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Apr 27 2019 17:59 utc | 51

so great amerikkka and amerikkkans get to decide which city to bomb with nuclear weapons...

Posted by: james | Apr 27 2019 18:00 utc | 52

amerikkkans get to decide which embassy to raid and how to rationalize it away.. past and present.. quite the culture...

Posted by: james | Apr 27 2019 18:03 utc | 53

Psychohistorian I can only surmise by your comment that you are unable to refute "nationalism is the antithesis of marxist communism" because you can only resort to tired, egenralised put downs such as "word salad".

So let me get specific, Im prepared to learn from the respected historian, in your opinion are nationalism and marxist communism sympatico in any way? Please show me evidence from your vast repository of historical knowledge that indicates that is correct and I am wrong.

Circe and I agree on some points and disagree on others. That makes us different from any other combination of posters at MoA how?

Finally, I already take your advice and limit my comments to less than 70 per week.

In fact I'll bet you a drachma that on a weekly basis I make less comments than you make.

Have a nice day Psycho.

Posted by: donkeytale | Apr 27 2019 18:06 utc | 54

Miss Lacy@38--sighting "Edgar Snow" brightens my day.

His works led to realization that history is best found in first-person writings. I.e., careful observation and interpretation of actual experiences, free of groupthink and contamination by third parties, including lies of omission. And any editing is purely for readability.

His collected papers etc. are at U. of Missouri, I think. There may be more hidden treasures there. Last I recall his heirs blocked full public access.

Posted by: chu teh | Apr 27 2019 18:07 utc | 55

Uncle $cam | Apr 27, 2019 12:17:54 AM

I propose to use Mācrōn, Macron spelled with a maximal number of macrons (macrons applied to r and n do not show properly).

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 27 2019 19:58 utc | 56

Ort @ 46: The year was 1917, not 2017, though you would have known that already. Thanks for pointing out the error.

Posted by: Jen | Apr 27 2019 20:48 utc | 57


Thanks for that link to ICH, but I was unable to watch the video after reading the article and disclaimer. I'm just so livid and fed up with the cruelty, injustice and glaring stupidity of it all! THE U.S. HAS NOT ONE IOTA OF MORAL CONSCIENCE! AMERICA! CHANGE YOURSELVES AND QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD TO BENEFIT THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO RULE US AND ENSLAVE US TO WAR, YOU...MORONS!


I have to get real with you now. I can't say, as with others who come here, how much, how little or nothing-at-all support, you have left for Trump, but how someone as knowledgeable as you EVER supported Trump in any meaningful way is beyond me. Same goes for people like the Saker, who has since soured on Trump (I think! I hope!) and people like Stephen Cohen, etc., etc.

It boggles the miiiiind, my friend. You write some excellent posts, but you have also been like Col. Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai! You have a responsibility to use your brilliance wisely even when you imagine a goal that blinds you so brilliantly from applying that wisdom. Your idealism has sometimes gotten in the way of your judgment and not everyone can perceive that or recognize when you err this way and some will use it in a way that sullies your intention. You have a certain power that you must cautiously use with righteous discrimination and judicious perception. (btw, I'm not referring to a specific comment on this thread).

Trump is the personification of Zio-American fascist hubris. Russia is but a means for him to an even greater subversive end. He doesn't give a damn about lofty geopolitical goals. He only cares about money, power and Zio-imperial domination and how his ego can benefit!

I myself, naively believed, for 5 seconds before and after his win that maybe it would take someone as disgusting and depraved as he is to revolutionize Americans into storming Congress and purging and fumigating the entire place and demanding from members stringent, stringent laws on the powerful to end their treachery against the Constitution for the goals of a Zionist oligarchy. The framers are literally turning in their graves ready to return as zombies to rescue America from its descent into militaristic interventionism for foreign ideologically-driven imperial hubris.

I was wrong and naive to ever conceive for 10 SECONDS that Americans could ever retaliate the way they did circa the late 60s and early 70s. This is the primary goal worth uniting for! Nothing else matters but stopping this MAD, psychotic, imperial ambition that is a perpetual source of misery for all mankind. Americans are so drunk on power, self-righteousness and material extravagance, they have been easy prey for the parasitic Zionist paranoia psychosis that has invaded the U.S. since Truman took office.

I was wrong for 10 SECONDS (I really don't waste time with or tolerate ignorance for more than that!) to imagine that most Americans would seize on the flagrant corruption being imposed on them with the installation of Trump to imagine everyone having a MAD AS HELL moment and finally revolutionize against the subversion of democracy. Boy, did I overestimate their ignorant level of tolerance for it!

If Americans are this tolerant to getting screwed in broad daylight by the poster child for corruption, then there is no hope they'll recognize subversion when it creeps around in the dark or ever do something about it in a revolutionary and metamorphic manner.

So it's up to the rest of the world to resist in every way!

karlof1, I am humbled by your depth of knowledge, but it's the integrity of its power that concerns me. So use your gift wisely and hopefully to strengthen resistance and not necessarily to benefit Russia, or Putin or China, specifically, cause they're not always right, ergo their multiple facilitation of the NK problem. Instead use it to school them in their historical errors, to steer them towards geopolitical courage and independence while using shared, collaborative power to confront the ZEmpire expansion. They too need their feet held to the fire. Always try to apply intellectual integrity, as much as possible, over your idealism. You don't owe anyone or any place 100% allegiance; you only owe that much to what you know is right and just.

I'll be reading and watching out for your best.

Zachary, I also appreciate reading you. Maybe, Ike intended the nukes for China but when Truman dropped his, Japan was also a war-ravaged country. Even Nixon dared to bring up nukes with Kissinger, desperate to put an end to the Vietnam war. I think it has to do with the fact that Asians have an indomitable fighting spirit that Americans are incapable of breaking except by CHEATING DEFEAT with nukes. As far as your interpretation on Truman earlier, I really must agree with karlof1.

Finally, some here wonder why I reject the Sanders sheepdog meme. Actually, I'm much more inclined to a politically purer Kucinich than a fallible liberal Zionist Sanders, but then Kucinich is not in the race, and no one else except Gabbard comes close. So, I'll explain the real reason I support Sanders above all others. Sanders is the only member of Congress to have introduced the concept of REVOLUTION and move it forward successfully into the American narrative. Proof is that the concept of revolution ushered into Congress revolutionaries like Omar, Tlaib and AOC besides making Sanders a leading Presidential contender and unwitting millionare with his books on the subject.

I want the concept of REVOLUTION to become part of the American vernacular and psyche again. So hell yeah! I support the only messenger carrying it forward! I want the concept of REVOLUTION to become a groundswell and then an earthquake! The ground is fertile for it, the urgency is palpable, so if ever there was a time when Revolution should should take flight this is the time and Sanders is planting that seed!

If someone more politically pure comes along to grab that torch away from him and manifest Revolution, then I will be the first to leave Sanders in the dust!

Jackrabbit, I'm warning you, don't come at me with your spin spam on this!

Posted by: Circe | Apr 27 2019 21:21 utc | 58

Yeah, Right @22--

Thanks for your reply! What you write makes sense and jibes with my assumptions. Wish I had more time to write.

Miss Lacy @38--

Thanks for your reply! I often wonder if my suggestions are acted upon by readers; so, thanks for providing me with your positive feedback. IIRC, the Edgar Snow book was Red Star Over China, the 1937 edition.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 27 2019 23:03 utc | 59

Circe: Jackrabbit, I'm warning you ...

You're losing the respect of a lot of people that were impressed by your early call on Trump. First, by calling anyone that disagrees with you a Zionist sympathizer, then by your pound-the-table support for Sanders, and now by this unhinged rant.

You've ignored my cogent argument that Trump is illegitimate by virtue of having been installed by the Deep State, you've ignored my advice about how to effectively argue against Zionism (here and here). You've ignored my warnings about Sanders being complicit. Instead, you you double-down and treat me as the enemy?

I think you've said some smart things. Like being first to raise the possibility that Trump might win in 2020 as a war-time President. But you're pissing it all away.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 28 2019 0:05 utc | 60


I'm not ignoring everything you write. You know and I know I've agreed with you on the fact that Trump was chosen. I've agreed with you that Hillary helped Trump be installed. I've agreed with you that Hillary is still helping Trump by formally coming out against his impeachment and cares less that her comments are divisive and a turn off to many on the Left who want Trump impeached while she's trying to protect him.

However, you have taken the cynicism about Sanders to another level when you fail to recognize the way he's changed the narrative that's not sheepdogging lip service, as he's actually bringing rebel voices with him, who threaten the establishment, actually encouraging Revolution and promoting humane non-interventionist legislation and actually voting against war. Then you have the fact that right now the Left wing primary vote is split among Sanders, Warren and in a very minimal way, for now, Gabbard, so how can he be sheepdogging? Are all three sheepdogging?

You know very well that when the DNC leaks came out in 2016, many Sanders supporters turned on the party and voted for Trump to avenge that subterfuge. So how are they sheep demonstrating this wilfulness? Now, they're coming back to Sanders representing a potential loss for Trump who won by a narrow margin in key swing states. Some here, who clearly support Trump, parrot your sheepdogging meme only because it's favorable for Trump! So how are you different? So the fact that you're so virulently, cynically attacking Sanders as complicit leads me to suspect that you hope his supporters stay home and also prefer Trump wins again. What else can I conclude? If that's the case, then you make yourself the enemy. It isn't I who is doing it, and logically, because Trump is such a rabid Zionist, then why shouldn't I suspect one thing follows the other with you as well?

The irony of Sanders is that the people in the Democratic Party who most reject Sanders are Zionists; Liberal Zionists, if such a thing exists. This is the reason I'm willing to hold my nose and support Sanders despite the fact that he is a Zionist albeit, lite. Whomever Zionists mistrust and reject I will give the benefit of the doubt to, especially, when I like what he's doing and inspiring and especially when I trust him more than all the others running and also has a good chance of beating Trump.

Posted by: Circe | Apr 28 2019 2:28 utc | 61


Your appeal for Sanders support sounds like the same lesser-evilism that the duopoly system thrives on.

Although you acknowledge Sanders short-comings, you don't seem to want to recognize how compromised he really is. I had hoped you'd see that when I wrote about the turmoil in Sanders 'OurRevolution' group over their tax status. The people who want an independent movement were disillusioned and resigned. The board is stuffed with Democratic Party loyalists.

This is how we get played time and time again. And it is people like Obama and Sanders (and even Trump!) that are most to blame because millions of people placed their trust in them to change the system for the better, and all they got in return is platitudes and excuses. For example: both Obama and Trump promised to address government corruption and to end wars/bring peace and each of them failed.

You can already see another set-up developing: Hillary, Pelosi, and Schiff have thrown cold water on impeachment, which increases the chance that Trump is elected, and the large number of Democratic primary candidates increases the chances for a brokered Democratic convention in which a compromise candidate is picked that can not beat Trump.

We can't rely on populist heros with divided loyalties (at best). And we shouldn't have to. Our best bet is to support popular Movements that bring certain change or third-parties (if only to deny the duplicitous duopoly those votes).

We are about 14-months from a primary election. This is the time to spread the word about the failure of the political system and MOVEMENTS that can effectively address that failure, not wring our hands over choices that are forced upon us.

My suggestion: advocate for the spread of Yellow Vest protests (for now).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 28 2019 3:53 utc | 62

@ 62: Finally, an avocation as a solution instead of constant criticism. Yes, the system is corrupt and broken, but I'd be interested in how you plan to spread the yellow vest movement by rhetoric alone, or, better yet, how to oppose the billionaire take-over of the U$ gov.

Right now, I fund the people and movements I believe in as I can. Do you have another solution? I'd love to hear it.

The yellow vest protests are a day-dream in today's America. Love to see it though..

Posted by: ben | Apr 28 2019 4:42 utc | 63

P.S.Maybe to you, voting is a useless exorcise, but for me, it might be just therapy, like posting at MoA.

Have you ever voted? Last "election" I voted for Jill Stein. Wasted motion?

Posted by: ben | Apr 28 2019 4:58 utc | 64


2008: Supported Obama
There really was no choice between Obama and McCain.
Began reading and commenting on blogs and followed progressive disappointment with Obama closely.

2012: Supported Jill Stein
Once again, no real choice and Obama had heavy support

2016: Supported Jill Stein but switched to Trump 2 weeks before the election
because Hillary was so terrible.
IIRC, b also switched to Trump (after supporting Sanders)

May 2017: figured out that Trump was a faux populist like Obama.
They are both members of the Deep State team.
Started my own blog and wrote about it, describing how the faux populist leadership model works and how it works so well for USA's inverted totalitarian government.

July 2018: re-discovered Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014
Kissinger, addressing the challenge from Russia and China, called for MAGA and Trump was the only MAGA Presidential candidate in 2024.
I've written about this repeatedly about Trump's having been installed by the Deep-State because it illuminates about what has happened and what is likely to happen during the Trump Administration.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Over the years I've been played along with everyone else. Again and again. And it will go on until ordinary people put an end to it. The only question is whether that point comes when the vast majority of people are destitute and desperate (as in the French Revolution) or via peaceful protest (like most Yellow Vest protests).

I'm convinced that there is no redemption or "change from within" that is possible with the duopoly system. It exists to prevent such changes. It exists to ensure that the needs of "the people that matter" are placed above the needs of the country as a whole. It is anti-democratic at the core.

The Yellow Vest protestors have reached a similar understanding of their political system. They have taken to the streets to demand change because they've seen that VOTING DOESN'T WORK in a rigged electoral system. Democracy is a mirage unless people are vigilant.

The first step toward change is to see things as they really are and not through the hopium and lesser-evil lenses that the establishment offers before every election.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 28 2019 5:39 utc | 65

@ Jrabbit 65; Thanks for your measured and honest response. I've enjoyed your writing, and your depth of knowledge since you've been posting here at MoA.

Voting and participation as best we can, is a lot like living, in ends in death, but we still get up every day, and do the best we can, with what we have to work with.

Posted by: ben | Apr 28 2019 6:05 utc | 66


Did you actively participate in Occupy Wall Street and/or Black Lives Matter?

These were also non-violent protests against the status quo and they existed in the US where you live (unlike Yellow Vest). Occupy protested income inequality and BLM the police state repression of politically powerless minorities, which of course is also related to income inequality.

As such both are similar to Yellow Vest.

Posted by: donkeytale | Apr 28 2019 14:40 utc | 67

And as I anticipate your reply along the lines of the [Democratic] Unions and Obama sponsored and/or co-opted Occupy I agree with you as I participated in Occupy and union sponsorship wasn't hidden at all.

Gilets Jaunes however is experiencing similar patterns of evolution (or devolution if you prefer).

Thousands of trade unionists and activists from leftwing parties marched with gilet jaune (yellow vest) protesters through Paris on Saturday to present a united front against French President Emmanuel Macron’s latest reforms package.

The demonstration, which passed off peacefully, came before the main gilets jaunes march in the eastern city of Strasbourg, where protesters clashed with police trying to enforce a ban in parts of the city centre.

Veterans of the protests, which have been running for six months, led off the Paris march, which was organised by the militant CGT union.

Many senior figures from the radical left marched with them, including Jean-Luc Melenchon, the leader of France Unbowed and one of Macron’s most vocal critics.

Posted by: donkeytale | Apr 28 2019 15:02 utc | 68

@65 jr.. good honest overview of your personal journey..thanks.. i agree with ben in his reply to you..i appreciate your posts..

Posted by: james | Apr 28 2019 16:02 utc | 69

Zachary Smith @ 20

I think my main objection to your previous post was the implication the Democrats hadn't been up to their ears in evil in earlier times. Starting the Mexican War to protect the Slave Republic of Texas was a Dem project. In the process they stole California and territory which became several more western states. The Democrats were directly responsible for the US Civil War. I'd argue that Wilson's grinding down the Blacks, jumping into WW1, and instituting the beginnings of the modern US police state were worse than the things you speak about. In a gigantic betrayal, the Republicans threw freed Blacks to the wolves. They started an Imperial war with Spain resulting in over a million civilian deaths in the Philippines.

Dr. Smith, you are seriously considering the Democrat Pary of the early-middle 19th Century to be same as the party of Roosevelt and LBJ, not to mention Obama, Sanders and AOC?

This mistake of seeing the two US political parties as unchanging and unchangeable political monoliths throughout history is simply non-factual.

Then you must also believe the party of Trump = the party of Lincoln? LMAO

Posted by: donkeytale | Apr 28 2019 16:21 utc | 70

Donkeytale & Jackrabbitt

The available evidence suggests that Occupy and Black Lives Matter are funded by capitalist interests, specifically Open Society Foundation & Soros. As such they were/are (however committed an individual might be) controlled and used by capitalist interests, for capitalist interests. As such they are similar to Antifa and Extinction Rebellion.

The gilets jaunes appear to be a genuine protest movement and not funded or controlled by capitalist interests unless you can tell me any different? And, if you can't, then the gilets jaunes are likely to be entirely different, far more authentic and far more of a threat to the capitalist system that Occupy, Black Lives Matter, Antifa or Extinction Rebellion.

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 30 2019 15:08 utc | 71

The comments to this entry are closed.