I’m sorry, that final cross reference does not work.
Go to this page, then down to comment 12
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/09/open-thread-2021-75/comments/page/1/#comments

Posted by: John Cleary | Oct 6 2021 18:10 utc | 4

james @1–
Please see my comment to Paco at the end of the CIA thread.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 6 2021 18:40 utc | 6

The CDC is going to create “green zones” and humanitarian settings” where people who test positive for Covid will be quarantined. I like how they use the phrases “humanitarian setting” and “green zones” instead calling it what it is detention centres. This despite the fact that they admit there is no empirical evidence such a scheme would work:

The shielding approach is an ambitious undertaking, which may prove effective in preventing COVID-19 infection among high-risk populations if well managed. While the premise is based on mitigation strategies used in the United Kingdom,24,25 there is no empirical evidence whether this approach will increase, decrease or have no effect on morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 epidemic in various humanitarian settings.

Operational Considerations for Humanitarian Settings

Posted by: Down South | Oct 6 2021 18:42 utc | 8

Down South @ 9
Read the whole document. Or as much as you can stomach. Pretty clear it is a poorly edited mishmash of various contingency plans. It is not as you say about those who test positive. It is about those at ‘high risk’. Actually doing something for those at high risk is not contemplated. At all. All that is to be done is segregation. Little things like helping with weight loss or even boosting vitamin D levels are not on the table. Just segregation.
The real risk factor being addressed is being unvaccinated. They want us locked up. And since they are kind it says we will be allowed to have latrines. Rather than just shitting in our cages. The high risk are not discussed as if they were human. Much less citizens. Just risk factors to be removed from society.They will be death camps. I don’t know if any of that is going to happen. It is pretty clear that bureaucrats are writing up planning documents for death camps.
Has anyone else here at MoA ever been segregated? Left to shit in a box or a can where you can’t move or even breathe? Nailed into a space smaller than a coffin beneath the floorboards? This is normal practice in every prison and in nearly all local lockups. No one here appears to be remotely perturbed or threatened.So glad you all feel so safe and secure. Read the document.

Posted by: Oldhippie | Oct 6 2021 19:22 utc | 10

Don’t miss Helmer’s latest.
“When the plot was hatched to bring down MH17, John Brennan was director of the CIA, Hillary Clinton was preparing to be president, Victoria Nuland ran the Russia and Ukraine desks at the State Department, and Obama was captain of the ship. From their point of view, their MH17 plot is still a success because Putin is reviled for it – the Americans, Ukrainians and Dutch have produced a tale almost nobody disbelieves. No volume of secret document hacks and dumps, Wikileaks, whistleblowing agents, investigating journalists, and truthers have made the slightest bit of difference. The villains of American plots always return from their last defeat to a fresh one. In reality, like comic strips, evil repeats; good is fantasy.”
There’s a lot more here:
http://johnhelmer.net/fiona-hill-is-the-name-of-a-comic-strip-zombie-read-how-us-warfighters-like-her-get-themselves-wet-and-woozled/print/

Posted by: downtownhaiku | Oct 6 2021 19:29 utc | 12

Whistleblower Of The Week: Frances Haugen about Facebook. Her written testimony in front a subcommittee of the “United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation”.
It’s not like Facebook isn’t causing more harm than good. Her revelations (here are some on CBS News, and here’s some more at the Guardian) aren’t particularly shocking either (and, obviously, she cares mainly about the effects on children and women).
Especially funny to me however is this quote from the CBS News article:

A 2019 internal report seen by Haugen said major European political parties, “…feel strongly that the change to the algorithm has forced them to skew negative in their communications on Facebook… leading them into more extreme policy positions.”
“You are forcing us to take positions that we don’t like, that we know are bad for society,” Haugen said, paraphrasing what the political parties told Facebook researchers in this report. “We know if we don’t take those positions, we won’t win in the marketplace of social media.”

A social media site (needless to say, private and 100% immune to anything that doesn’t happen to be the US government) can — just by changing it’s algorithms according to “major” political parties — force them by extension into more extreme policy positions that they… wouldn’t have taken otherwise?
What’s the point here? Are these parties saying that at least part of their policy positions depend on the things social media rank highest or expose to as many people as possible? Either these parties are so dependent on FB and it’s content-selection-magic that they can’t formulate their own position in fear of “losing” to some other party that happens to be better at gaming the FB algorithms – in which case: why should we listen to you, what the hell do we need you for and what exactly is our “democracy” supposed to be?
Or these parties are trying to lament the fact that US social media can and does mess with their campaigns in ways their conscience does not approve of – in which case: why do you keep using these media? Did you forget that Europe is distinct from the US and can (at least theoretically…) set it’s own rules, which could (at least theoretically…) include things like banning political campaigns from sites like FB? Do you seriously believe people will just stop caring and stop voting altogether because party sites disappear from FB?
Or is this a very convoluted way of saying “what you read about us by us on FB isn’t actually what we stand for, it’s just clickbait”?
From another perspective: this quote shows a mindset that seems inappropriate for people who feel they should run a country. It is, in essence, rational people defending their rational actions that just so happened to make the political process in Europe shittier for everyone with nothing in exchange. It’s ok though, because rational thinking led to this rational decision and that means it’s fine, even if it isn’t. They regret their rational decisions because they realize they are obviously bad but there’s just nothing you can do about it. (And of course, these people are politicians, so what they really think and what they were quoted saying above may be diametrically opposite to each other)
In any case, I don’t think these leaks on Facebook are more than just a topic to push thru media for a week or two only to move on to something different and forget about it. What does the bar think?

Posted by: pachinko | Oct 6 2021 19:52 utc | 14

@ pachinko 16
“You are forcing us to take positions that we don’t like”. . .What’s the point here?
Here’s an example. I blog a lot on military matters, on various sites (becoming fewer), and I was knocked off FB because I had declared that females don’t belong in the infantry. I didn’t “satisfy community standards” FB said. — which are determined by Facebook. The only opinion allowed was that women DO belong in the infantry, and so now we have a movement in Congress to force women to sign up for the draft, usually for the high-casualty infantry, for the next war somewhere. anywhere. . . Who can like that?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 6 2021 20:05 utc | 16

Putin addressed the energy issue in a video conference today that provides an excellent counterweight to the BigLie Media accusations of Russia’s manipulation of energy markets, and it’s for that reason I’m copy/pasting the majority:
“Now, the world economy is recovering well after the past year’s crisis. The demand for energy is growing and, hence, prices are soaring.
“As you know, the global energy market does not tolerate hectic moves and vagaries. Investment plans in this area are long-term. Therefore, any abrupt and rash actions may lead, and, judging by the current market situation, are already leading to serious imbalances like those we are seeing in the European market that has been affected this year by several unfavourable factors all at once.
“First, the rapid post-crisis recovery of the economy has ‘heated up’ the energy demand.
“Second, gas reserves in many European countries’ underground storage facilities dwindled as a result of the harsh winter in early 2021. I am referring precisely to their underground gas storage facilities, the underground storage facilities of our European partners.
“Third, the production of wind energy declined noticeably later in the summer because of hot and windless weather. It should also be taken into consideration that the energy balance has changed dramatically in Europe over the past ten years. Many countries in the region have given up their coal-burning and nuclear power plants in favour of wind power generation that is heavily dependent on weather conditions.
“And, finally, fourth, the practices of our European partners [are to blame]. These practices have reaffirmed that, properly speaking, they have made mistakes. We were talking with the former European Commission; all of its activities were aimed at curtailing the so-called long-term contracts and at transitioning to gas exchange trading.
“It turned out – and today this is absolutely obvious – that this policy is erroneous, erroneous for the reason that it fails to take into account the gas market specifics dependent on a large number of uncertainty factors. Consumers, including, for example, fertiliser producers, are losing all price benchmarks. All of this is leading to failures and, as I said, imbalances.
“As a result, the gas price has broken all historical records. Today it is approaching $2,000 per thousand cubic metres of gas, which is over ten times last year’s average price. I would like to ask my colleagues to report in detail on the developments.
“In the meantime, I would like to underscore that Russia has always been a reliable supplier of [natural] gas to its consumers all over the world, both in Asia and Europe. Russia always fulfils all its obligations in full – all its obligations, I would like to stress this.
“Right before this meeting, I looked at a reference paper from Gazprom. Our exports outside of the former Soviet republics, primarily to Europe, of course, were at a record high in 2018, dwarfing deliveries to Asia that did not have any serious impact on these figures.
“So, in 2018, we hit a record high of 201.7 billion cubic metres. In 2019, our partners asked for less, so deliveries were slightly lower at 199.4 billion cubic metres. Marked by the pandemic, 2020 saw a decline in European manufacturing, dragging gas exports down to 179.35 billion cubic metres. The economy has been recovering in 2021. In the first nine months, deliveries increased 18.8 billion cubic metres or by 15 percent year-on-year. If this momentum carries on, our fuel exports to Europe, including natural gas, can very well set a new record.
“By the way, Gazprom’s long-term gas export contracts set forth minimum and maximum supply levels, and Gazprom has never refused requests for more supplies from its consumers, as long as they filed the relevant applications. There was not a single instance when Gazprom turned down an application.
“The Federal Republic of Germany is Russia’s biggest European consumer. In the first nine months of 2021, it increased its natural gas imports from Russian by 10.12 billion cubic metres to 131.8 percent compared to the same period last year. Even in 2020, when the overall deliveries to Europe declined year-on-year, we still increased exports to Germany by 4.7 billion cubic metres, which gives us 112.9 percent.
“I have to say that there has been all kinds of speculation on Ukraine’s gas transit system and deliveries through this country. I would like to reiterate that under the contract we have to pump 40 billion cubic metres of gas through Ukraine’s gas transit system per year. In the first nine months of 2021, Gazprom increased its supplies, or should I say transit volumes through Ukraine, by more than eight percent. We have every right to believe that we will exceed our contractual obligations in terms of gas transit through Ukraine.
“Further increasing these volumes does not make economic sense for Gazprom, since costs will also be higher. It is much cheaper to supply gas using the new pipelines, saving us about $3 billion per year for the supply volumes in question.
“In addition, I would like to inform those who actually care about preserving the environment, instead of just using this as a political weapon, that the new pipelines that were launched over the past years or are about to become operational can reduce CO2 emissions 5.6 times thanks to their new equipment. Accordingly, supply volumes go up, while emissions go down. This has to do with the superior characteristics of these pipelines enabling them to pump gas at a higher pressure.
“Everyone must know this….
“I would like to emphasise that the current situation on the European energy market is another clear example of the fact that hasty, let alone politically influenced decisions are unacceptable in any sphere, but especially so when it comes to energy supply on which the sustainable operation of enterprises and the welfare and quality of life of millions depends.
“Therefore, our decisions regarding the development of the fuel and energy complex of our country, Russia, must be prudent, taking into account our national interests and, most importantly, the needs of our citizens, and, of course, they must be sustainable in the long run. We must try to take a look beyond the horizon of not just one decade, but two or three decades.” [My Emphasis]
More does follow related to the long term planning mentioned in the final paragraph above. It appears the EU made some unwise choices and has still refused to apply for an increase in gas delivery from Gazprom as Putin related. Unmentioned is the political hindrance of NS2’s completion, which would have occurred last year. It’s being filled with gas as I type in preparation for the signal to begin deliveries. Meanwhile, market middlemen–I’m reminded of the ENRON manipulations in California at the end of the 1990s–are gaming the system and making a killing. Europe is very fortunate that deep Winter has yet to arrive.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 6 2021 20:09 utc | 18

Oldhippie | Oct 6 2021 19:22 utc | 12
Down South | Oct 6 2021 18:42 utc | 9
They are describing Old Age “Care or retirement” homes in france.
My wife had a stroke on the 18th Jan. 2020. She was allowed “out” exactly three times in the first 15 months. (“OUT” being simple transfer by ambulance to another hospital or building).
Followed by a period of limited visits by me but no outside travel, and now we are back to “Must” vaccinate or get a PCR test for two days worth of visits (3 officially, but it takes one day to get the results.) … France nowadays.
Macron wants obligatory vaccines for everyone from January onwards. I don’t know where the internment camps will be situated in France – yet.
*****
The camps they are building in Oz; they called one a “wellcamp”. Near Brisbane but higher up, nearer Toowoomba.
Major runway nearby. They actually DO have problems with water supply, according to a friend who lived in the town nearby..

Posted by: Stonebird | Oct 6 2021 20:25 utc | 20

@ Don Bacon
Just out of curiosity, why no women in the trenches? I wouldn’t want to go up against some of those IDF soldiers, and Peshmerga girls terrify jihadis. If you can handle an AK, take orders and keep your cool does it matter who your are?

Posted by: Patroklos | Oct 6 2021 20:29 utc | 22

@gottlieb | Oct 6 2021 20:34 utc | 25
A replacement is needed and I don’t think Harris qualifies. Other than that you would think Biden would not last until the end of the year.

Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 6 2021 20:42 utc | 24

@ pachinko 24
Just out of curiosity, why no women in the trenches?
good question . . My comment on FB was that studies have shown that females do better than men in management. Women communicate better and have better relationships with others. (We’re talking generalities here, your mileage may differ.) They cooperate, not compete.
But the infantry isn’t management it is controlled mayhem. To me it is a guy thing, or should be, men exercising their testosterone to kill others when they’re not exercising in the field or getting drunk/laid. . .So that woman in a trench next to a horny guy with one thing on his mind . . .is a distraction, one not kind to women, which is what we should be.
I’ve been in the infantry, and I wouldn’t want any female in my family to have to go through that. Women shouldn’t be in the infantry. .Look up: military sexual assault, military suicides.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 6 2021 21:03 utc | 26

@ 3 snake… thanks.. makes sense…
@ 7 karlof1.. yes, i did read that, along with paco and stonebirds posts on this topic in the previous thread.. thanks all… it is obviously complicated…

Posted by: james | Oct 6 2021 21:13 utc | 28

@patroklos women in the IDF are explicitly forbidden in fighting units. The point of don bacon is not that. It is that FB et al deciding what opinions are legit and valid to communicate about in public sphere. FB and alphabet have to be broken up in at least continental units. This concentration of power is antihuman and dangerous.

Posted by: rico rose | Oct 6 2021 21:32 utc | 30

Posted by: John Cleary | Oct 6 2021 18:03 utc | 2
A fixer has would have dirt on all sorts of people on all sorts of things…
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 6 2021 21:03 utc | 27
I agree, the problem isn’t with the girls, it’s the guys couldn’t keep their piece in their pants, both physically and mentally. Besides the obvious harassment and distraction issues it could also bring about poor task prioritization and decisions.
Its perhaps less of an issue for the navy and air but for the trenches it’ll get battles lost and people killed.
The answer have been staring us in the face all along but the western world is just too woke to talk about it. Gender specific operational units.

Posted by: A.L. | Oct 6 2021 21:46 utc | 32

The review above of Walt and Mearsheimer’s book on the Israel lobby is wrong.
That book is thoroughly contradictory. Read it. Their general thesis and main emphasis is that the domestic Israel lobby distorts US ME policy. But in every other paragraph the authors say that the US has its own strategic interests in the ME. However, they never elaborate on those interests and they never cite any US government strategy documents on US Middle East policy.
It all adds up to a denial of US imperialism. Chomsky pointed this out in a debate with Walt somewhere in Boston. And Walt had nothing in response!
Underlying the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis is a liberal theory of the state. This should strike you as odd because they are in fact leading realist scholars. It’s actually quite lame. They basically abandon their realism in favor of a liberal pluralist theory of the state, which says that the state reflects competing domestic interests in a democratic manner. As any realist or Marxist would point out, this is rubbish.
Alt right trash love Walt and Mearsheimer because they unintentionally legitimate the racist theory of US foreign policy.
Walt and Mearsheimer are actually just too scared to look at the actual motivations of US ME strategy because to do so would force them into being Marxists…but then they would lose their jobs at Harvard and Chicago polisci.

Posted by: Prof | Oct 6 2021 21:51 utc | 34

downtownhaiku #14 Thank you for the Helmer link. Good laugh especially the Obummer sirens.
karlof1 #20 Thank you for the Putin speech on gas and the EUsa. We are unlikely to see that repeated in western main stream propaganda.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 6 2021 22:30 utc | 36

@ Posted by: downtownhaiku | Oct 6 2021 19:29 utc | 14
We are in real life, above ground Alice in Wonderland world.
The Empire , like the Queen of Hearts, scrambling about shrieking ‘off with their heads!’
Her Court of fools – the lesser, house slaves – keeping up the pretence.
The Empire is Dead.
Long live the new All Human Empire!!

Posted by: D.G. | Oct 6 2021 22:48 utc | 38

Tom Fowdy writes about the truths Biden can’t admit:
“But the claim was built upon thin air. It was not China that undermined American jobs, but its very own ultra-capitalist neoliberal system, where businesses sought the cheapest possible price in manufacturing in order to deliver the biggest possible profit margins.
“Indeed, one might ask when did American firms themselves ever care about American jobs? Has any US politician ever thought about that? Rather than the mythology of the so-called ‘unfair practices’, the reality was that US businesses themselves had seen China as an opportunity thanks to its massive – and subsequently cheaper – labor force, which offered many advantages in comparison to US manufacturers.
“It is important this point is emphasised because the Trumpian narrative consistently depicts the situation as a zero-sum game where China is always profiting at the expense of the US, as opposed to American businesses profiting off China and exporting their products back to the US.
“This is a conscious choice Western economies made from the 1980s onwards, and it is no surprise that the logic of the trade war ignored this, reflecting no economic realities whatsoever. Why didn’t businesses flock back home? Because China’s supply chains and manufacturing infrastructure are now developed to the point where they are more competitive than others, and have the ability to absorb shocks.
“Inevitably, Trump’s tariffs did not change anything and China has continued to export goods to the US at higher rates than ever. As one study noted, ‘Decoupling has been greater in the minds of politicians and pundits than the reality of firms in China.’
“Despite this, it would be politically incorrect in the US to admit that the tariffs have been a failure and to readily change course. Trump’s levies have come to represent an untouchable, religious-like symbolism, part of the holy gospel of decoupling, where the mantra of ‘America First’ and being tough on China are automatic.
“If the Biden administration decided to unilaterally drop all of the tariffs, and admitted they are having a negative effect on America, as honest as this would be, it would be politically ruinous for the president. He does not have the political space or consensus to remove those tariffs, unless he markets it in the light of delivering gains for America.”
Funny that a British national writing for a Russian publication would defend Biden’s inability to tell the truth in an op/ed that will never be read by the many millions of US citizens that desperately need to be told those truths. The reality Fowdy exposes then leads him to ask a very important question: What’s in it for China:
“But here lies the sticking point: why should Beijing bow down to one-sided trade terms because the other side is politically unable to offer serious compromise? Most of America’s demands are not based on serious economic logic, and are therefore non-starters. It is this consideration which makes the self-defeating Trump tariffs simply unmoveable. And so the administration talks about getting around them through exemptions, but doesn’t talk about getting rid of them.” [My Emphasis]
Fowdy is able to write about that sort of twisted activity because China replied in this article in the manner Fowdy describes:
“Beijing, however, will still eye an opportunity in these signals, and while any dialogue may be difficult or even frustrating, it recognizes the importance of stabilizing its relationship with the US and avoiding full decoupling.”
And that’s also the likely topic to be discussed between Yang and Sullivan, although keeping the underlying truths from being overtly admitted by China seems to be one of its negotiating points. The Orwellian nature of the entire affair initiated by Trump has made it close to impossible for the liars to finally admit the truths of the matter.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 6 2021 23:21 utc | 40

John Cleary @ 2, 40:
Your comments are very intriguing. Are you able to confirm that Fraudian hack George Monbiot’s father was Deputy Chairman for the Tories some 15 or 20 years ago?
Also I’d heard that MI5 or MI6 had considered Prince Charles to be a security risk after the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in September 2001 because of his closeness to the Saudi royals and his reliance on their money to fund his charities. I see from these articles (here and <here)”>https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-02-24-charles-of-arabia-how-britains-next-king-bolsters-autocratic-gulf-regimes/”>here) by Declassified UK writers that the British royals and the oil sheikhdom monarchs are still very cosy with one another. It’d be interesting to learn how much Wahhabi extremism in Britain is encouraged by the links between these sordid families through the money poured by the oil sheikhdoms into funding Prince Charles’s charities and British Muslim communities who have to accept the money because they cannot raise enough on their own and/or are denied sufficient funds by Her Maj’s government.

Posted by: Jen | Oct 7 2021 0:12 utc | 42

Anybody here have any thoughts on the US demand for supply chain data from chip manufacturers?
“To-hai Liou, a professor at the National Cheng-Chi University in Taiwan, told local media that the information request is “certainly targeting China”. The US wants to further restrict TSMC from selling important chips to China in the future, he said.“
https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-war/article/3151347/us-demand-chip-supply-data-tsmc-samsung-apple-others-sparks-debate

Posted by: Obsequious | Oct 7 2021 0:49 utc | 44

@james
Good memory. Yes, ‘Has China Won’ is worth reading but it is not without flaws. No theoretical framework. Tries too hard too blame China for something. And the author has the annoying habit of trying to council the Americans to see the light. He doesn’t get the crisis of imperialism and capitalism at play in the US/China rivalry. That’s a systemic crisis, and we need to oppose American imperialism as a basic starting point.
Jude Woodward’s book on Asia’s New Cold War is better analytically and empirically.

Posted by: Prof | Oct 7 2021 1:38 utc | 46

@JohnCleary 2. I am not sure that Ben Elliot is any sort of mastermind behind the scenes. His Aunt is Camilla Parker Bowles, Prince Charles’ long time girlfriend and now Consort and he parlayed his posh upper middle class English connections into a genuine concierge business driven by an atypical sense of energy and hard work. He was always in society magazines going out with models like Sophie Dahl and the New York celebrities loved him. With most big business and the establishment funding the anti democratic movement to overthrow Brexit, Boris Johnson’s 2019 campaign needed money, which Elliot helped source from his rich connections, most of whom I suspect are not usually interested in political patronage. The one you might need to keep an eye on is his best friend Zac Goldsmith, who seems to be pulling a lot of extreme eco puppet strings on Boris as payback.

Posted by: Mark T | Oct 7 2021 2:12 utc | 48

@45 Obsequious
Spitballing here but before you can weaponize a product you need to secure the entire supply chain to make sure a retaliatory action can’t torpedo the plan by denying some essential ingredient or technological step.
All part of the longer term strangulation of China, much like Japan in the late 30’s or with Panasonic in the 70s

Posted by: Les7 | Oct 7 2021 2:22 utc | 50

I’ve been following Mearsheimer for about a decade and he’s a bit of a Captain Obvious realist thinker. Yes he criticizes the US actions in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan) and even US policies in Ukraine, but that’s it. I will give him credit for one of the only mainstream “intellectuals” calling a spade a spade when he says that these policies have been a disaster. BUT…. he never goes to the next logically step and says what his alternative policy would be. In fact when when I’ve listened to him closely, three things stick out to me, 1 – he seems to agree with the hard power goals of the US Empire (expand its power internationally, cripple America’s enemies, diplomacy is the just the threat of force, not a dialogue to discover a compromise ) his objection is only to the specified failed policies. 2 – he views foreign policy as totally divorced from domestic policies, Foreign policy will obviously always be somewhat independent from Domestic policy. But a huge amount of the US’s current domestic problems are being caused by the financial demands of US foreign policy that is starving the domestic economy of desperately needed investment. 3 Lastly, He believes that every State (i.e. China and Russia) will behave exactly like the US if they were in their position, again, I think this is pure projection on his part, thinking that every Country is just as delusional as the US has become.

Posted by: Kadath | Oct 7 2021 3:15 utc | 52

Not my area of expertise (few things are) but – as the CIA is in the habit of promoting colour revolutions and coup d’etats here there and everywhere, is there a chance they are funding Steve Bannon and his ‘Boots on the Ground’ revolution in waiting?

Posted by: digital dinosaur | Oct 7 2021 3:57 utc | 54

Posted by: Prof | Oct 6 2021 21:51 utc | 35 and Kadath @ 53..
The review above of Walt and Mearsheimer’s book on the Israel lobby is wrong.
That book is thoroughly contradictory. Read it. Their general thesis and main emphasis is that the domestic Israel lobby distorts US ME policy. But in every other paragraph the authors say that the US has its own strategic interests in the ME. However, they never elaborate on those interests and they never cite any US government strategy documents on US Middle East policy.
It all adds up to a denial of US imperialism. Chomsky pointed this out in a debate with Walt somewhere in Boston. And Walt had nothing in response!
Underlying the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis is a liberal theory of the state. This should strike you as odd because they are in fact leading realist scholars. It’s actually quite lame. They basically abandon their realism in favor of a liberal pluralist theory of the state, which says that the state reflects competing domestic interests in a democratic manner. As any realist or Marxist would point out, this is rubbish.
Walt and Mearsheimer are actually just too scared to look at the actual motivations of US ME strategy because to do so would force them into being Marxists…but then they would lose their jobs at Harvard and Chicago polisci.
<= yes but they did put the facts together to prove their point, but they invented at each proof, reader doubt regarding the very point their fact made? Present the facts that prove the point and then <=deny the proof means what it means. I listed some of the facts below.. <=== Remember governed Americans cannot vote for the President or the Vice President Why? Because these two persons are in charge of the foreign policy.. Since 1788, the PIGO dream has been to use government as a tool to make money with. ..that dream began in naval power and the colonizations, trading and slavery that sea faring nations undertook beginning in 1550s or so.. Its the same people, doing the same things in the same way. There is just no authority to deny them hence, a 2nd government is needed. Walt and Mearshemmer intro Page 5 " The lobby is a loose coalition of individuals and organizations [PIGOs] that actively works to move U. S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction on page 7<= " The U.S. has played an important steadily increasing role in the M. E. security issues since WWII, driven initially by oil, then by anti communism and, over time, by its growing relations with Israel. ..Since the six-Day War of 1967, a salient feature and arguably the central focus --of America's ME policy has been its relationship with Israel. For the past four decades, in fact, the USA has provided Israel with a level of material and diplomatic support that dwarfs what is provides to other countries. That aid is largely unconditional, no matter what Israel does the level of support remains for the most part unchanged. page 8. <=The USA has also undertaken policies in the broader ME that reflected Israel's preferences. Since the early 1990s, for example, American policy toward Iran has been heavily influenced by the wishes of successive Israeli governments. Many policies pursued on Israel's behalf now jeopardize USA national security. page 10. <= ..a considerable number of Americans -almost 40% recognize that USA support for Israel is one of the main causes of anti-Americanism around the world. In a national poll taken in October 2006, 39% of the respondents said that they believe that the "work of the Israeli Lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran.. On page 14, under the title "HOW WE MAKE OUR CASE " the authors say To make our case, we have to accomplish three tasks.. Specifically, we have to convince readers that the USA provides Israel with extraordinary material aid and diplomatic support, the lobby is the principal reason for that support, and this uncritical and unconditional relations is not in the American national interest. on page 24, under ECONOMIC AID "The most obvious indicator of Israel's favored position is the total amount of foreign aid it has received from America's Tax Payers [<=extraction of bits of wealth from every American by control over the nation state].. As of 2005, direct USA economic and military assistance to Israel amounted to nearly $154 billion (USD). page 26, the real sea of change took place following the Six-Day War in June 1967. After averaging roughly $63 million annual from 1949 to 1965 (>95% of which was economic assistance and food aid), average aid increased to $102 million per year from 1966 to 1970. Support soared to $634.5 million in 1971 (roughly 85% was military assistance) and more than quintupled after the Yom Kippur War in 1973..
The CRS “Israel preferred that the aid be in the form of loans, rather than grants, to avoid having a USA military contingent in Israel to oversee a grant program. <= where does unaccountable money go? In most countries it goes into the pockets of a few? Israel now receives ..about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, an amount roughly 1/6 of America's direct foreign assistance budget and equal to about 2% of Israel's GDP. 3 billion/yr is generous, but it is hardly the whole story. page 27 Because the USA normally runs budget deficits, transferring the aid all at once requires it to borrow the necessary amount of money up front, and the CRS estimates that it cost USA taxpayers between $50 and $60 million per year to borrow funds for the early-lump sum payment. page 28 Estimates for the cost of the 1992 loan guarantee[s on loans made by private bankers to Israel] range from $100 million to $ 800 million. I could go on and on.. anyone who has not read the book is just not informed.. Considering the dangers in publishing the book, i think Mearsheimer and Walt did a great job with their point. To me the book demonstrates that Article II of the constitution of the USA is not about Domestic America <=the founders left the domestic stuff (Article I), including taxing the governed to support the whims of outsiders to the congress and house .. Article II is about military power, foreign diplomacy and defending PIGO profit-making <=around the globe..colonization and globalization (C&G) is the intentional essence of Article II. and the hint to C&G intent is also collaborated in Article VI [1] All debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the USA under this constitution, as under the Confederation. <= suggest colonization, slavey, and privatized monopoly and corporate and banking power should continue unabated.. To me Article II and Article VI adopt and incorporate into the constitution an Americanized version of the European "rule the world" syndrome.. my opinion.

Posted by: snake | Oct 7 2021 4:34 utc | 56

karlof1 #41

“Beijing, however, will still eye an opportunity in these signals, and while any dialogue may be difficult or even frustrating, it recognizes the importance of stabilizing its relationship with the US and avoiding full decoupling.”
And that’s also the likely topic to be discussed between Yang and Sullivan, although keeping the underlying truths from being overtly admitted by China seems to be one of its negotiating points. The Orwellian nature of the entire affair initiated by Trump has made it close to impossible for the liars to finally admit the truths of the matter.

I would have thought that the first step in any ‘decoupling’ has to be between the fanatics in the State Department and the the neo cons. That is not going to happen. Katherine Tai is unlikely to return from any talks any substantial gain. Perhaps she will be able to publish a meager press statement. The USA is not agreement capable but is belligerent capable as it demonstrated in Alaska when Blinken had his arse handed to him on a blunt stick.
Why should China concede anything to the USA when it escalates war talk at every opportunity and postures ignorance regarding Taiwan. Why should China even care that US oligarchs are bleeding from Trump’s idiot tariffs when these same oligarchs exercise zero ability to alter the course to Trump v.2 or a Congress of Trumpsters in the next year or or two.

The US will hold “frank conversations” with China on trade in the near future, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in a speech on Monday, which is a positive signal indicating the two nations’ upcoming trade talks could be more constructive, as economic frictions between the world’s two largest economies have undercut both in the past three years, experts said.

I doubt it. Katherine Tai will be frank and persuasive in her blind condescension toward China while outside the room the US Navy will be looking for a rock or a freighter to run into in the South China Sea.
For there to be ‘constructive’ the USA needs to adopt conciliatory, win win practices. They can’t and they won’t. They are simultaneously openly sabotaging chip supply lines between China and Taiwan let alone purchases from third countries of lithography technology for their own chip production.
China will likely be polite within limits but in their minds will be the burning question ‘since when did the USA Trade office take over the State Department?ain’t seen no sight of that”. And that is all that counts to see these talks produce anything other than a mealy mouthed US press release.
Biden and his team of fleas are gonna stagger on until the repugnants trash them in the mid terms. Katherine Tai might do better seeking a trade deal with New Caledonia but then State Department just shat on the French face there. Oh well…

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 7 2021 4:46 utc | 58

UPDATE: PLA sends ‘record-breaking 56 aircraft near Taiwan island in a single day’ in consecutive drills. I guess they were all within the notification zone.
Taiwan orders airlift of diapers for its elite.
The neo cons in State must be having kittens at this ‘provocation’ – “Quick send the 6th fleet. Do we have a workable 6th Fleet? Order more spare parts from China quick!”

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 7 2021 5:25 utc | 60

Pat Lang: USA must nuke China over Taiwan. Never mind that Russia’s currently helping them create an early missile-attack warning system. Unlike this Colonel, I hope other competent authorities in America are grasping the implications. This exceptional neo-confederate cretin needs to lay off the booze… https://turcopolier.com/would-the-us-go-to-war-with-china-over-taiwan/

Posted by: Col. Blimp | Oct 7 2021 5:43 utc | 62

That giant sucking sound you hear is a silicon chip fabricator wurlitzer with an enormous appetite for cash.
Here is a gripping yarn on the chip business from Semianalysis.
This industry has all the hallmarks of a sucker born every minute to keep it going while the profits a siphoned off through separated marketing companies. If investors are not hedged in both aspects then they are fleeced.

In 2008, Mubadala, the Abu Dhabi government owned sovereign wealth fund assisted AMD in divesting their manufacturing assets and spinning them off. They were compensated with a combination of direct payments, investments in AMD, and shares in the new firm, GlobalFoundries. The divestiture was a multi-year journey, but by 2012, AMD was completely detached financially. AMD was still tightly intertwined due to the WSA (wafer supply agreements), but that is a story for another day. The GlobalFoundries spin-off helped keep AMD alive, but for Mubadala it became an endless money pit.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 7 2021 6:15 utc | 64

Thanks spudski, I used Edge to browse Helmer’s website and it worked.

Posted by: Menz | Oct 7 2021 7:11 utc | 66

Interesting read by Caitlin Johnstone

So the Facebook “whistleblower” all the mass media are loudly amplifying today is pushing for regulations that Facebook just happens to fully support, likely because the trillion-dollar corporation knows it will impose costs that make the emergence of future competitors impossible?
Cool. That’s not suspicious at all.
* * *
They said we need internet censorship because Russia.
They said we need internet censorship because Covid.
They said we need internet censorship because election security.
They said we need internet censorship because Capitol riot.
They said we need internet censorship because domestic extremists.
Now they say we need internet censorship because Facebook whistleblower.
Pretty sure they just want internet censorship.

The Richer You Are the Creepier You Get

Posted by: Down South | Oct 7 2021 7:25 utc | 68

Why else would they be mandated vaccinations?

Moses @ 31
You can’t prepare for a future biological war by vaccinating people against yesterday’s virus
Once you mandate vaccines you need to keep a record of who has and who hasn’t been vaccinated. Hence, the vaccine passport. Purpose of the vaccine passport? Now there’s a rabbit hole!

Posted by: Down South | Oct 7 2021 7:40 utc | 70

uncle tungsten | Oct 7 2021 4:46 utc | 59
“China will likely be polite within limits but in their minds will be the burning question ‘since when did the USA Trade office take over the State Department?ain’t seen no sight of that”.”
Actually it is bigger than that.
This is a manifestation of GPPP.
I am a bit surprised to learn that it has a name, but it is the concept of Corporations giving orders to Governments. These are bits taken from the article – but I must admit I haven’t read the totality yet, but I shall do so when I get the time.
https://in-this-together.com/what-is-the-global-public-private-partnership/

The GPPP controls global finance and the world’s economy. It sets world, national and local policy (via global governance) and then promotes those policies using the mainstream media (MSM) corporations who are also “partners” within the GPPP.
Often those policies are devised by the think-tanks before being adopted by governments, who are also GPPP partners. Government is the process of transforming GPPP global governance into hard policy, legislation and law.
***
The revised role of governments meant that they were no longer leading the way. The traditional policy makers weren’t making policy anymore, other GPPP partners were. National government had been relegated to creating the GPPP’s enabling environment by taxing the public and increasing government borrowing debt.
This is a debt owed to the senior partners in the GPPP. They are also the beneficiaries of the loans and use this comically misnamed “public investment” to create markets for themselves and the wider the GPPP.
***
Under our current model of Westphalian national sovereignty, the government of one nation cannot make legislation or law in another. However, through global governance, the GPPP create policy initiatives at the global level which then cascade down to people in every nation. This typically occurs via an intermediary policy distributor, such as the IMF or IPCC, and national government then enact the recommended policies.
The policy trajectory is set internationally by the authorised definition of problems and their prescribed solutions. Once the GPPP enforce the consensus internationally, the policy framework is set. The GPPP stakeholder partners then collaborate to ensure the desired policies are developed, implemented and enforced. This is the oft quoted “international rules based system.”

It seems to clarify the relative “weights” of Governments and other “players” in a largely unlegalised form of worldwide Government.

Posted by: Stonebird | Oct 7 2021 8:28 utc | 72

Stonebird #73

Under our current model of Westphalian national sovereignty, the government of one nation cannot make legislation or law in another. However, through global governance, the GPPP create policy initiatives at the global level which then cascade down to people in every nation. This typically occurs via an intermediary policy distributor, such as the IMF or IPCC, and national government then enact the recommended policies.

Thank you. That is roughly similar to the UN system of covenant setting at the General Assembly then followed up by those nations that are agreeable to establish national legislation in conformity with the UN Agreement. Nations that brag about the UN agreements they are party to need to demonstrate that agreement in their local jurisdictions.
The International Covenant on the Rights of the Child was tested out in Australia in a case referred to as the Teoh case. It wound its way to the High Court where the court affirmed that the national government cannot have one face to world by championing its agreement to the covenant and an entirely opposite face to its people when it came to the implementation of the rights of the child covenant. The family won their battle.
In panic the Keating Government in its dying days rushed though an infamous piece of legislation blockading future access by Australian citizens to international agreements at the UN unless expressly permitted by the government (the ‘crown’ as it is).
I would trust the UN before anything emanating from a Global Public Private Partnership. I see these partnerships as nothing more than a pickpocket wearing a tuxedo.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 7 2021 9:37 utc | 74

BREAKING: CIA creates new ‘mission center’ to counter China

Posted by: vk | Oct 7 2021 12:14 utc | 76

“Keyword Warrants” – Feds Secretly Ordered Google To Identify Anyone Searching Certain Information
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/keyword-warrants-feds-secretly-ordered-google-track-anyone-searching-certain-names
Be careful what you wish for
when you hit Enter. The Feds are watching.
For example, does the following search get you flagged
and dumped into a list of suspects?
https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+of+alabama+blog
Halloween is coming, when searching for treats
maybe you should forget about Atomic Fireballs and such.
Think twice.
Look over your shoulder and click wisely.

Posted by: librul | Oct 7 2021 12:27 utc | 78

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 7 2021 5:25 utc | 61
UPDATE: PLA sends ‘record-breaking 56 aircraft near Taiwan island in a single day’ in consecutive drills. I guess they were all within the notification zone.

According to the map graphic at your link the Taiwanese air identification zone extends to a considerable distance North into mainland China. Any PLAN aircraft taking off from a Chinese airbase, or overflying Chinese territory, would therefore constitute an “incursion” into Taiwan’s ADZ. Bizarre. But very American. Good for headlines.
I see no reason Taiwan should not extend its ADZ over the entirety of the land mass occupied by the PRC. After all, the KMT won in 1949.

Posted by: Sushi | Oct 7 2021 14:28 utc | 80

How the CPC creates mass propaganda to program its own population: I Forced China to Change its Propaganda

Posted by: Antonym | Oct 7 2021 15:00 utc | 82

IPCC AR6 fine print has some interesting details c/o Judith Curry
Breaking the hegemony of climate models

With the very large range of climate sensitivity values provided by the CMIP6 models, we are arguably in a period of negative learning. And this is in spite of the IPCC AR6 substantially reducing the range of ECS from the long-standing 1.5-4.5C to 2.5 to 4C (reminder: I am not buying this reduction on the low end, more on this soon).
…
[IPCC AR6] “A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to 0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to 0.2°C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979, and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s.”
Compare this to the statements in the AR5 SPM:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
…
[Judith Curry views]
#1 Global climate models (ESMs) remain an important tool for understanding how the climate system works. However, we have reached the point of diminishing returns on this unless there is more emphasis on improving the simulation of modes of internal climate variability and advancing the treatment of solar indirect effects.
#2 We should abandon ECS as a policy-relevant metric and work on better understanding and evaluation of TCR and TCRE from historical data.
#3 In context of #1, I question whether the CMIP6 ESMs have much use in attribution studies.
#4 ESMs have lost their utility for policy applications. Policy applications are far more usefully achieved with climate emulator models. However, the use of climate emulators distances policy making from a basis in physics. This is particularly relevant for the legal status in various climate lawsuits of 21st century climate projections and the ESMs in various climate lawsuits.

This is interesting – the ozone hole is attributed to the 1970s cooling. As such, maybe we need to start making CFCs again to offset the projected warming (/sarc).

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 7 2021 15:18 utc | 84

@ Posted by: Krungle | Oct 7 2021 15:08 utc | 84
They just answered your question:
PLA presence around Taiwan ‘targets secessionism, foreign forces’

Posted by: vk | Oct 7 2021 15:23 utc | 86

@ Posted by: juliania | Oct 7 2021 15:20 utc | 86
What? Everybody calls what happened in China a revolution (both the 1911 and the 1949 ones).

Posted by: vk | Oct 7 2021 15:25 utc | 88

more evidence that evolution isn’t linear: almost all vertebrates use a method to develop limbs that is different than the “original” one.
why?
How Limb Development Evolved in Vertebrates

The results are significant to developmental and evolutionary biologists, including paleontologists that have recently identified fossils that support the idea that preaxial limb development is the ancestral mode of limb development in vertebrates. They also give insight on evolutionary questions about the transition from fins as vertebrates acquired limbs and moved onto land.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 7 2021 15:37 utc | 90

Sorry, vk, you are correct of course. I ought to have questioned, in my parenthesis, …(…only three kinds?) My distinction is between the civil war kind and the colonial one. My point being the world has been ‘colonized’ by Mammon.

Posted by: juliania | Oct 7 2021 15:45 utc | 92

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 7 2021 15:42 utc | 92
“The EU Is Panicking Over Skyrocketing Energy Prices”
Gee I’ve heard that Iran has a good deal of oil and gas they might be willing to put on the market. Venezuela could probably help out too.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 7 2021 15:57 utc | 94

@92 clue, re: eu … the storage levels are tight but are now high enough in EU that they have avoided the worst outcome for the winter, unless something exceptionally bad happens in the LNG market and traders decide to totally screw the less-wealthy european countries by defaulting for mega profits in Asian LNG. Prices will remain high but should fundamentally be coming down from where they are. It’s simply false that there isn’t enough natgas supply, they’re just being stubborn about the transport terms.

Posted by: ptb | Oct 7 2021 16:01 utc | 96

Matthew Ehret on Climate Change and the extent to which humans are culpable. May have been uploaded at an earlier date, but I have been a bit busy to keep up on MOA.
https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/08/11/in-defense-of-co2-astro-climatology-climategate-and-common-sense-revisited/

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Oct 7 2021 16:04 utc | 98

juliania @86–
Revolution is another way to describe a Revolt, a Mutiny. They all share the aim to overturn and replace power structures that service the rich at the expense of everyone else. Ultimately, such clashes are part of the ongoing, 4,000+ year-old Class War between Creditors and Debtors. To be sure, historical analysis over those years has avoided such framing preferring obfuscation given the class doing most of the historical writing. The advent of the printing press initiated the radicalization of the impoverished masses, who at first used the religious schisms to advance their attempts at liberty and justice. I can’t recommend strongly enough the works of Peter Linebaugh which are essential Bottom->Up history that’s been ignored for centuries–you’ve read my insistence that his The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic, written in association with Marcus Redicker be read by one and all. The same goes for learning what Dr. Hudson has to teach, particularly what the Classical Political Economists were all about, especially Marx, and what their political goals were and why they didn’t attain them. That leads me to the pan-European Revolutions of 1848–which are mostly swept under the rug, especially within USA schools–and the revolt that led to the Paris Commune in 1871. The capstone is to then examine what Bismarck learned from all that as he established a unified Germany and his very different style of political-economy.
At that point, it becomes time to measure what was done in reaction to all that by Royalist forces and their allies by looking at the First World War as a revolt by the elite to destroy the German model and replace it with what we see today. Of course, the elite got much more than they bargained for, but far fewer of them died than the tens of millions they exterminated in their efforts. The end result saw what were essentially Royalist forces taking command of the USA and replacing the UK’s global empire with their own, although it would take time for the Financialists to regain control over the Industrialists as the ongoing Class War resumed.
Admittedly, the above is merely a sketch, an outline of the Big Picture within which the revolutions and revolts have occurred. IMO, the best slogan is credited to the French Revolution but actually appeared much earlier in England during the fight against Enclosure which became the English Civil War, which was in fact a Revolution–Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. That call is at the root of every subsequent revolt and revolution since the overthrowing of Oligarch ruling structures and their institutions have been the universal targets. As you can see, there’s a very good reason why the Outlaw US Empire’s elites don’t want people to learn any of that history. Thankfully, there’s a cadre of excellent historians who continue to be published that can teach us that history. But the student must want to learn it. The one way I know of to entice that desire is to tie that history to today’s happenings that affect the student’s wellbeing.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 7 2021 16:15 utc | 100