theduran--2020-02-07--Iraq Says ISIS Did the Attack that Trump Killed Soleimani For.

Iraq Says ISIS Did the Attack that Trump Killed Soleimani For .
Soleimani Was ISIS ’ s Main enemy .
Did ISIS Fool Trump There ?
Scott Ritter on Why Soleimani Is a Hero to Almost All Iraqis On February 6th , the New York Times headlined “ Was U.S. Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran ?
and presented the Iraq Government ’ s evidence that ISIS had actually done the December 27th rocket-attack which had killed an American contractor ( an Iraqi translator for U.S. forces ) , for which Trump killed Iran ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The NYT reporters were unable to obtain from the Trump Administration any of their alleged secret evidence that Soleimani was behind that attack .
Though Iraq ’ s Government was forthcoming with answers and evidence to the reporters ’ questions , America ’ s Government was not .
Even some of America ’ s mainstream news-media have previously reported that Soleimani was an extremely effective general in the international war against ISIS .
Whereas Russian media openly state that Qasem Soleimani was the world ’ s most effective general against ISIS , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them provide buried in a report facts which support that conclusion , such as here and here and here , and some news-media of other nations ( even of predominantly Hindu India ) also are public about the fact .
( Even in anti-Muslim India , General Suleimani is recognized as having been a global leader in the battles against both ISIS and the Taliban — both of which fundamentalist-Sunni groups threaten not only Shiite Iran but Hindu India . )
So , on January 3rd , Trump assassinated the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Sunni-terrorist group ISIS .
And the U.S. Government calls Soleimani a ‘ terrorist ’ , because America ’ s billionaires want to grab Iran back like they had it after the CIA coup in Iran in 1953 and before the Iranians overthrew the U.S.-imposed dictator Shah in 1979 .
However , by killing General Soleimani , Trump may have benefitted not only ISIS but also America ’ s billionaires — the same group that had conquered Iran in 1953 by means of that CIA coup .
On January 12th , Aaron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former Marine and then lead U.N. weapons-inspector in Iraq during 1997-98 .
The topic was Trump ’ s assassination of Soleimani , and the ways in which that action will affect America ’ s relations with both Iraq and Iran .
Ritter , who had been a Republican , was always outspoken against Democratic Party U.S. President Bill Clinton ’ s caving to the Republican Party ’ s pressure to comply with the CIA ’ s and MI6 ’ s plan to use the U.N. ’ s weapons-inspections team in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to kill Saddam Hussein ; and Ritter vociferously opposed George W. Bush ’ s and Tony Blair ’ s lies that they possessed evidence that any weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq when the U.N. team departed Iraq in August 1998 ( or subsequently ) .
On the seventh day of the U.S.-UK invasion of Iraq , Channel 24 TV in Lisbon Portugal headlined 26 March 2003 , “ US defeat in Iraq ‘ inevitable ’ ” and reported their brief interview with Ritter , in which he said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we may win some tactical battles , as we did for ten years in Vietnam , but we will not be able to win this war.
” The Lisbon station reported , at that time : “ A combination of bad weather and heavy fighting in central Iraq has slowed the advance of coalition troops marching on Baghdad .
Ritter resigned in August 1998 after accusing both Washington and the United Nations of not doing enough to support the weapons inspectors.
” The U.S.-UK regime wanted to conquer Iraq .
Ritter has consistently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saddam Hussein , but he has blamed especially CIA , MI6 , and the neoconservatives ( imperialists both Republican and Democratic , Tory and Labour ) , for refusing at that time to even consider Hussein ’ s authentic need for there to be a firm wall separating U.S.-UK intelligence away from the U.N. ’ s weapons-inspections .
Ritter perceived that U.S.-UK were determined for regime-change in Iraq ( and takeover by the empire ) even before Bush came into power in 2001 .
Though Ritter did not , and never does , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he has constantly criticized its actions .
Whereas both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden praise their own long experience in foreign affairs as being consistent neoconservatives , as a qualification for them to be President , Ritter has a solid record opposing such experience as being a qualification — instead of as being an absolute disqualification — for becoming America ’ s Commander-in-Chief .
Right now , Ritter is just as opposed to Donald Trump as he was opposed to George W. Bush .
And this is why he is going public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , to warn the American public about the country ’ s leadership .
Here , along with links to sources supplied by me , and with added occasional explanatory comments from me [ italicised between brackets ] , are what I consider the key passages in Ritter ’ s January 12th interview : “ Ex-US intel officer : Pompeo ‘ lying through his teeth ’ on Iran ” 3:00-4:20 : The Iraqi Government can revoke the status-of-forces agreement that currently exists … and when this happens it will radically alter the rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them as illegal occupiers .
5:30-9:00 : Qasem Soleimani , he ’ s a legend in Iran , in Iraq , and Syria , and anywhere where , frankly speaking , he ’ s operated , the people that he worked with view him as one of the greatest leaders , thinkers , most humane men of all time .
I know in America we demonize him as a terrorist , but the fact is he wasn ’ t , and neither was Mr. Muhandis [ the other leader Trump killed in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] .
[ Abu Mahdi al- ] Muhandis is a more difficult character from an American perspective because he has a history that dates back to what we call terrorist bombings of American embassies of Kuwait [ 1983 ] .
He was involved in creating Kata ’ ib Hezbollah militia in 2003 , and he has been somebody who has been violently oposing the American occupation of Iraq from the very beginning .
… The PMF ( Popular Militia Forces ) came into existence when ISIS swept into Iraq from Syria in 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a branch of al-Qaeda , to wage war against Shiites and non-Muslims , in October 2006 , and took hold in Mosul in Iraq ’ s Kurdish north in 2008 ] , quickly occupying the city of Mosul , and they were driving down on the Iraqi city of Baghdad .
The U.S. armed and trained Iraqi army had collapsed , litterally thrown down their weapons and ran away , and there was nothing standing between ISIS and Baghdad until Ayatollah Sistani the head Shia authority in Iraq , issued a fatwa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in defense of Baghdad .
And this is the creation of the Popular Militia Forces , these tens of thousands of Shia youth , who came together and joined existing militias like Hezbollah , like the JAM of [ Muqtada ] al-Sadr , they all coalesced .
Hezbollah played an important role in this , but they only had a few thousand men .
We ’ re talking about mobilizing somewhere around 40-50 thousand and this is where Qasem Soleimani showed , he came in from Iran and led the creation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then motivated them to confront ISIS in ferocious hand-to-hand combat , in villages and towns outside of Baghdad , driving ISIS back and stabilizing the situation until this allowed the United States to come in and get involved in the ISIS fight , but if it weren ’ t for Qasem Soleimani , and Muhandis and Hezbollah , Baghdad might have had the black flag of ISIS flying over it , and so the Iraqi people haven ’ t forgotten who stood up and defended Baghdad from the scourge of ISIS .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — yes , his name was first and foremost , but Muhandis played a major role and his death is a serious blow to the PMF , Hezbollah , and to all of the Iraqi people .
And I don ’ t think that the United States understands that .
There is a tremendous amount of hatred on the streets of Iraq today , toward the United States for killing a national hero .
9:30-10:45 : [ responding to interviewer ’ s pointing out that Soleimani used “ brutal tactics ” and also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Siege warfare is a reality of warfare , it is a two-way street .
And we also have to remember that propaganda cuts both ways .
… You have to look at the facts at play .
Is it possible that there was wrongdoing on the part of Qasem Soleimani ?
Yes .
But I will tell you this : If you go to Syria today and talk to the Syrian civilians who were liberated by the forces manned or motivated by Qasem Soleimani , they are deeply grateful .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … trained and organized by the United States , they ’ re not going to be so happy about his success , and they will do their best to slander this man ’ s name .
Even the neoconservative-neoliberal Foreign Policy magazine headlined on 6 November 2014 “ Breaking Badr : Meet Hadi al-Amiri , the unabashedly pro-Iranian leader of Iraq ’ s most powerful Shiite militia .
His bloodthirsty fighters might be Baghdad ’ s best hope of stopping the Islamic State.
” He ’ s a member of Iraq ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and written Wikipedia negatively for “ the role of Al-Ameri and his Militia Badr , also of Qais Al-Kazali and his militia Asaib Ahl al-Haq , in the organization of the repression , the assassination and the kidnapping of the demonstrators ” while not even mentioning that those demonstrators , whom al-Amiri opposes , are being supported by the U.S. and UK Governments in order to restore the control they had over Iran during 1953-1979 .
The U.S.-UK regime uses al-Qaeda and even ISIS as proxy-fighters in order to reconquer Iran and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those “ demonstrators ” are simply naive , not jihadists .
Like Ritter said : “ War is hell.
” And consider what the U.S.-UK regime has been doing to Julian Assange for his having helped the public to know that its publics are not the people that those Governments have been serving and protecting in all of this .
The question here , then , is : war for whom , and against whom , and why ?
Even when the Government is the enemy of its own citizens , handing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no way to bring democracy there .
If those demonstrators , whom al-Amiri opposes , are trying to hand Iraq over to the U.S.-UK regime — which is a proven enemy of the publics everywhere since at least 2001 — they ’ re only making things worse , no matter what the CIA and MI6 say .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The @ @ @ @ @

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Iraq Says ISIS Did the Attack that Trump Killed Soleimani For.
Soleimani Was ISIS’s Main enemy. Did ISIS Fool Trump There?
Scott Ritter on Why Soleimani Is a Hero to Almost All Iraqis
Eric Zuesse
On February 6th, the New York Times headlined “Was U.S. Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? and presented the Iraq Government’s evidence that ISIS had actually done the December 27th rocket-attack which had killed an American contractor (an Iraqi translator for U.S. forces), for which Trump killed Iran’s second-most-powerful leader, General Qasem Soleimani. The NYT reporters were unable to obtain from the Trump Administration any of their alleged secret evidence that Soleimani was behind that attack. Though Iraq’s Government was forthcoming with answers and evidence to the reporters’ questions, America’s Government was not.
Even some of America’s mainstream news-media have previously reported that Soleimani was an extremely effective general in the international war against ISIS. Whereas Russian media openly state that Qasem Soleimani was the world’s most effective general against ISIS, no U.S. media do, but some of them provide buried in a report facts which support that conclusion, such as here and here and here, and some news-media of other nations (even of predominantly Hindu India) also are public about the fact. (Even in anti-Muslim India, General Suleimani is recognized as having been a global leader in the battles against both ISIS and the Taliban — both of which fundamentalist-Sunni groups threaten not only Shiite Iran but Hindu India.) So, on January 3rd, Trump assassinated the world’s most effective general who led the elimination of the Sunni-terrorist group ISIS. And the U.S. Government calls Soleimani a ‘terrorist’, because America’s billionaires want to grab Iran back like they had it after the CIA coup in Iran in 1953 and before the Iranians overthrew the U.S.-imposed dictator Shah in 1979. However, by killing General Soleimani, Trump may have benefitted not only ISIS but also America’s billionaires — the same group that had conquered Iran in 1953 by means of that CIA coup.
On January 12th, Aaron Maté on YouTube interviewed Scott Ritter, the former Marine and then lead U.N. weapons-inspector in Iraq during 1997-98. The topic was Trump’s assassination of Soleimani, and the ways in which that action will affect America’s relations with both Iraq and Iran.
Ritter, who had been a Republican, was always outspoken against Democratic Party U.S. President Bill Clinton’s caving to the Republican Party’s pressure to comply with the CIA’s and MI6’s plan to use the U.N.’s weapons-inspections team in order to acquire information that could subsequently become used in order to kill Saddam Hussein; and Ritter vociferously opposed George W. Bush’s and Tony Blair’s lies that they possessed evidence that any weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq when the U.N. team departed Iraq in August 1998 (or subsequently).
On the seventh day of the U.S.-UK invasion of Iraq, Channel 24 TV in Lisbon Portugal headlined 26 March 2003, “US defeat in Iraq ‘inevitable’” and reported their brief interview with Ritter, in which he said, “Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war.” The Lisbon station reported, at that time: “A combination of bad weather and heavy fighting in central Iraq has slowed the advance of coalition troops marching on Baghdad. Ritter resigned in August 1998 after accusing both Washington and the United Nations of not doing enough to support the weapons inspectors.” The U.S.-UK regime wanted to conquer Iraq.
Ritter has consistently been critical both of Clinton-Blair and of Saddam Hussein, but he has blamed especially CIA, MI6, and the neoconservatives (imperialists both Republican and Democratic, Tory and Labour), for refusing at that time to even consider Hussein’s authentic need for there to be a firm wall separating U.S.-UK intelligence away from the U.N.’s weapons-inspections. Ritter perceived that U.S.-UK were determined for regime-change in Iraq (and takeover by the empire) even before Bush came into power in 2001. Though Ritter did not, and never does, speak of any “Deep State”, he has constantly criticized its actions. Whereas both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden praise their own long experience in foreign affairs as being consistent neoconservatives, as a qualification for them to be President, Ritter has a solid record opposing such experience as being a qualification — instead of as being an absolute disqualification — for becoming America’s Commander-in-Chief. Right now, Ritter is just as opposed to Donald Trump as he was opposed to George W. Bush. And this is why he is going public, now, as he did back then, to warn the American public about the country’s leadership.
Here, along with links to sources supplied by me, and with added occasional explanatory comments from me [italicised between brackets], are what I consider the key passages in Ritter’s January 12th interview:
——
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=423&v=L9X36QbLulg
“Ex-US intel officer: Pompeo ‘lying through his teeth’ on Iran”
12 January 2020, Aaron Mate, The GrayZone
Scott Ritter
3:00-4:20: The Iraqi Government can revoke the status-of-forces agreement that currently exists … and when this happens it will radically alter the rules of engagement … and it will expose them as illegal occupiers.
5:30-9:00: Qasem Soleimani, he’s a legend in Iran, in Iraq, and Syria, and anywhere where, frankly speaking, he’s operated, the people that he worked with view him as one of the greatest leaders, thinkers, most humane men of all time. I know in America we demonize him as a terrorist, but the fact is he wasn’t, and neither was Mr. Muhandis [the other leader Trump killed in that car and called a ‘terrorist’]. [Abu Mahdi al-]Muhandis is a more difficult character from an American perspective because he has a history that dates back to what we call terrorist bombings of American embassies of Kuwait [1983]. He was involved in creating Kata’ib Hezbollah militia in 2003, and he has been somebody who has been violently oposing the American occupation of Iraq from the very beginning. … The PMF (Popular Militia Forces) came into existence when ISIS swept into Iraq from Syria in 2014 [ISIS actually started in Iraq, as a branch of al-Qaeda, to wage war against Shiites and non-Muslims, in October 2006, and took hold in Mosul in Iraq’s Kurdish north in 2008], quickly occupying the city of Mosul, and they were driving down on the Iraqi city of Baghdad. The U.S. armed and trained Iraqi army had collapsed, litterally thrown down their weapons and ran away, and there was nothing standing between ISIS and Baghdad until Ayatollah Sistani the head Shia authority in Iraq, issued a fatwa calling upon all Shia men to mobilize in defense of Baghdad. And this is the creation of the Popular Militia Forces, these tens of thousands of Shia youth, who came together and joined existing militias like Hezbollah, like the JAM of [Muqtada] al-Sadr, they all coalesced. Hezbollah played an important role in this, but they only had a few thousand men. We’re talking about mobilizing somewhere around 40-50 thousand and this is where Qasem Soleimani showed, he came in from Iran and led the creation of the PMF as a viable fighting force, and then motivated them to confront ISIS in ferocious hand-to-hand combat, in villages and towns outside of Baghdad, driving ISIS back and stabilizing the situation until this allowed the United States to come in and get involved in the ISIS fight, but if it weren’t for Qasem Soleimani, and Muhandis and Hezbollah, Baghdad might have had the black flag of ISIS flying over it, and so the Iraqi people haven’t forgotten who stood up and defended Baghdad from the scourge of ISIS. It wasn’t just Qasem Soleimani — yes, his name was first and foremost, but Muhandis played a major role and his death is a serious blow to the PMF, Hezbollah, and to all of the Iraqi people. And I don’t think that the United States understands that. There is a tremendous amount of hatred on the streets of Iraq today, toward the United States for killing a national hero.
9:30-10:45: [responding to interviewer’s pointing out that Soleimani used “brutal tactics” and also killed American troops] War is hell. Siege warfare is a reality of warfare, it is a two-way street. And we also have to remember that propaganda cuts both ways. … You have to look at the facts at play. Is it possible that there was wrongdoing on the part of Qasem Soleimani? Yes. But I will tell you this: If you go to Syria today and talk to the Syrian civilians who were liberated by the forces manned or motivated by Qasem Soleimani, they are deeply grateful. Of course, his enemies [Sunni jihadists] … trained and organized by the United States, they’re not going to be so happy about his success, and they will do their best to slander this man’s name.
——
Even the neoconservative-neoliberal Foreign Policy magazine headlined on 6 November 2014 “Breaking Badr: Meet Hadi al-Amiri, the unabashedly pro-Iranian leader of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite militia. His bloodthirsty fighters might be Baghdad’s best hope of stopping the Islamic State.” He’s a member of Iraq’s Parliament who is reported by the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia negatively for “the role of Al-Ameri and his Militia Badr, also of Qais Al-Kazali and his militia Asaib Ahl al-Haq, in the organization of the repression, the assassination and the kidnapping of the demonstrators” while not even mentioning that those demonstrators, whom al-Amiri opposes, are being supported by the U.S. and UK Governments in order to restore the control they had over Iran during 1953-1979. The U.S.-UK regime uses al-Qaeda and even ISIS as proxy-fighters in order to reconquer Iran and to keep Iraq conquered. But many of those “demonstrators” are simply naive, not jihadists. Like Ritter said: “War is hell.” And consider what the U.S.-UK regime has been doing to Julian Assange for his having helped the public to know that its publics are not the people that those Governments have been serving and protecting in all of this. The question here, then, is: war for whom, and against whom, and why? Even when the Government is the enemy of its own citizens, handing that Government over to an enemy Government is no way to bring democracy there. If those demonstrators, whom al-Amiri opposes, are trying to hand Iraq over to the U.S.-UK regime — which is a proven enemy of the publics everywhere since at least 2001 — they’re only making things worse, no matter what the CIA and MI6 say.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-07--Boris vs. Barnier. Both sides dig in as trade negotiations loom (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the trade deal negotiations between the UK and the EU , with both sides already digging in and taking tough positions , as both sides set up new trading rules post Brexit .
The EU ’ s chief negotiator Michel Barnier has already warned that the European Union will only agree to a trade deal with the United Kingdom if Boris Johnson gives European fishing boats access to UK waters .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The European Union has lost one of its most important member states .
The United Kingdom accounted for around one-sixth of the EU ’ s population and economy .
Without it , the EU will still be one of the world ’ s premier economic powers , but it will suffer a loss of dynamism .
Still , there is hope for a fruitful , cooperative EU-UK relationship .
The first step is to negotiate a trade agreement .
But it would be a mistake to concentrate too much on the details of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides , but the minutiae of the UK ’ s trading relationship with Europe will not determine its economic fate .
The most likely outcome is a deal that eliminates tariffs for both sides , but even a return to standard World Trade Organization rules would not be the end of the world .
While a better trade deal might prevent the loss of a few percentage points of GDP over the next decade , other variables , such as the quality of education , investment , and domestic regulation , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any case , the EU is much more than a market .
It has its own currency and has abolished fiscal-policy frontiers across a massive geographic area .
The UK did not participate in either of these key areas of integration and would not have done so anytime soon .
As such , the EU has actually lost only a “ one-third ” member .
The relationship with the UK needs to be managed properly .
But the fact is that European leaders and policymakers have much more pressing issues to address .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the EU ’ s priorities is the European Green Deal , which is an area where the UK could continue to participate , given its shared concerns about climate change .
In the long run , however , the EU ’ s efforts to complete the eurozone and the Schengen area of passport-free travel will put it and the UK on diverging paths .
Economists will continue to debate whether the euro was ever a good idea , with Anglo-Saxons sticking to the line that , “ It can ’ t happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it won ’ t last.
” The euro crisis did seem to vindicate the UK ’ s skepticism .
And yet opinion polls over the past few years show that the European population has moved beyond the academic debate .
By the latest count , close to 80 % of Eurobarometer respondents think the euro is “ good for the EU.
” For younger generations that have never known any other currency , the very question of whether they would prefer some newly introduced national currency is nonsensical .
There is a reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost elections in which they have explicitly advocated an exit from the eurozone .
Even an arch-populist like Matteo Salvini of the League party in Italy has abandoned the “ No Euro ” slogan on which he once ran .
Similar political dynamics apply to passport-free travel .
The Schengen area is still a work in progress , but the direction of its evolution is clear : rather than retreating on the principle of freedom of movement , member states are gradually reinforcing the EU ’ s external border .
Over time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not need permanent controls or fences between member states .
True , there are still some internal controls left over from the 2016 refugee crisis , but these are exceptions that prove the rule .
In most cases , however , Europeans enjoy passport-free travel on the continent .
In the UK , these advances have been dismissed as part of the much-derided quest for “ ever closer union , ” which the British electorate never embraced .
Nonetheless , EU integration will continue among the remaining 27 members , leading to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have supported anyway .
The most conspicuous ( and long-term ) of these projects is European defense .
Ironically , while the UK was in the EU , it always opposed proposals for a joint defense force .
But now that it is on its own , it supports the idea , because it will facilitate EU-UK defense cooperation .
The UK has already become accustomed to playing second fiddle in its “ special relationship ” with the United States , so it is not unreasonable to think that it could accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In most cases , the UK would inevitably follow Europe ’ s lead , while maintaining its sense of cultural superiority at home .
British diplomats would be able to revive their pre-membership tradition of remaining aloof and mystified by European polyglots ’ impractical schemes .
Of course , for such an arrangement to work , the EU will have to make a good-faith effort to consider the UK ’ s legitimate interests .
That will require overcoming some bad habits .
In its dealings with other neighbors , including the Balkan countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Switzerland , the EU tends to behave like an acknowledged hegemon , often assuming a “ take it or leave it ” position .
To be sure , in economic terms , the EU ’ s relative size speaks for itself .
But it is the UK that will be stronger in many other areas , not least security and intelligence , where the EU has limited capacity , while most individual member states have almost none at all .
Given these broader considerations , the EU would be mistaken to exploit its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the beginning of March .
Brexit could ultimately lead to a productive special relationship in which the UK remains a close partner of the EU and makes a valuable contribution to Europe ’ s peace and prosperity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the trade deal negotiations between the UK and the EU, with both sides already digging in and taking tough positions, as both sides set up new trading rules post Brexit.
The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier has already warned that the European Union will only agree to a trade deal with the United Kingdom if Boris Johnson gives European fishing boats access to UK waters.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Authored by Daniel Gros via Project Syndicate:
The European Union has lost one of its most important member states. The United Kingdom accounted for around one-sixth of the EU’s population and economy. Without it, the EU will still be one of the world’s premier economic powers, but it will suffer a loss of dynamism.
Still, there is hope for a fruitful, cooperative EU-UK relationship. The first step is to negotiate a trade agreement. But it would be a mistake to concentrate too much on the details of those talks. Trade is important to both sides, but the minutiae of the UK’s trading relationship with Europe will not determine its economic fate. The most likely outcome is a deal that eliminates tariffs for both sides, but even a return to standard World Trade Organization rules would not be the end of the world. While a better trade deal might prevent the loss of a few percentage points of GDP over the next decade, other variables, such as the quality of education, investment, and domestic regulation, are ultimately more important for growth.
In any case, the EU is much more than a market. It has its own currency and has abolished fiscal-policy frontiers across a massive geographic area. The UK did not participate in either of these key areas of integration and would not have done so anytime soon. As such, the EU has actually lost only a “one-third” member. The relationship with the UK needs to be managed properly. But the fact is that European leaders and policymakers have much more pressing issues to address. Brexit is now a sideshow.
Chief among the EU’s priorities is the European Green Deal, which is an area where the UK could continue to participate, given its shared concerns about climate change. In the long run, however, the EU’s efforts to complete the eurozone and the Schengen area of passport-free travel will put it and the UK on diverging paths.
Economists will continue to debate whether the euro was ever a good idea, with Anglo-Saxons sticking to the line that, “It can’t happen, it is a bad idea, it won’t last.” The euro crisis did seem to vindicate the UK’s skepticism. And yet opinion polls over the past few years show that the European population has moved beyond the academic debate. By the latest count, close to 80% of Eurobarometer respondents think the euro is “good for the EU.”
For younger generations that have never known any other currency, the very question of whether they would prefer some newly introduced national currency is nonsensical. There is a reason why Euroskeptic parties and candidates have consistently lost elections in which they have explicitly advocated an exit from the eurozone. Even an arch-populist like Matteo Salvini of the League party in Italy has abandoned the “No Euro” slogan on which he once ran.
Similar political dynamics apply to passport-free travel. The Schengen area is still a work in progress, but the direction of its evolution is clear: rather than retreating on the principle of freedom of movement, member states are gradually reinforcing the EU’s external border. Over time, that will give voters confidence that they do not need permanent controls or fences between member states. True, there are still some internal controls left over from the 2016 refugee crisis, but these are exceptions that prove the rule. In most cases, however, Europeans enjoy passport-free travel on the continent.
In the UK, these advances have been dismissed as part of the much-derided quest for “ever closer union,” which the British electorate never embraced. Nonetheless, EU integration will continue among the remaining 27 members, leading to further projects that the UK probably would not have supported anyway. The most conspicuous (and long-term) of these projects is European defense. Ironically, while the UK was in the EU, it always opposed proposals for a joint defense force. But now that it is on its own, it supports the idea, because it will facilitate EU-UK defense cooperation.
The UK has already become accustomed to playing second fiddle in its “special relationship” with the United States, so it is not unreasonable to think that it could accept a similar relationship with the EU. In most cases, the UK would inevitably follow Europe’s lead, while maintaining its sense of cultural superiority at home. British diplomats would be able to revive their pre-membership tradition of remaining aloof and mystified by European polyglots’ impractical schemes.
Of course, for such an arrangement to work, the EU will have to make a good-faith effort to consider the UK’s legitimate interests. That will require overcoming some bad habits. In its dealings with other neighbors, including the Balkan countries, Ukraine, and even Norway and Switzerland, the EU tends to behave like an acknowledged hegemon, often assuming a “take it or leave it” position.
To be sure, in economic terms, the EU’s relative size speaks for itself. But it is the UK that will be stronger in many other areas, not least security and intelligence, where the EU has limited capacity, while most individual member states have almost none at all.
Given these broader considerations, the EU would be mistaken to exploit its economic advantage when the trade talks start at the beginning of March. Brexit could ultimately lead to a productive special relationship in which the UK remains a close partner of the EU and makes a valuable contribution to Europe’s peace and prosperity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-07--Assange’s case represents ‘failure of western law’ – says UN’s Nils Melzer

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Johanna Ross , journalist based in Edinburgh , Scotland… An interview was recently given by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture , Nils Melzer , to Republik on Julian Assange .
The headline reads “ A murderous system is being created before our very eyes ” .
During the interview , Melzer details just why he has got so involved in Assange ’ s case and what the implications of it are for the future of humanity .
Just to recap , Julian Assange , the former Wikileaks editor , was arrested last year after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where he sought asylum for fear of being deported to the US to face charges relating to his publication of leaked documents .
It was back in 2010 that Wikileaks published damning evidence of torture and unlawful killings carried out by the US army , provided for by Chelsea Manning .
He subsequently was wanted by Sweden on charges of rape , charges which have since been dropped , and which it has been suggested were part of a set-up to engineer Assange ’ s deportation to the US .
Ecuador finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last April , by inviting them into the embassy to extract Assange , after seven years of interment within the embassy walls .
The Wikileaks founder ’ s ordeal is set to continue however , it seems .
The 48-year old is currently wasting away inside Belmarsh prison , where he was kept for months in solitary confinement , before incredibly , prisoners themselves protested and asked that he be allowed to mingle with the others .
The authorities recently agreed to this concession , but it all too little too late it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroyed by the US and British governments , for essentially trying to tell the truth .
As for Nils Melzer , he explains in his recent interview why he has specifically got involved in Assange ’ s case .
His reasons are given as follows : 1 .
He says that Assange was disclosing evidence of systematic torture by the US army , but he himself has been persecuted for this .
2 .
Assange has been so ill-treated that he is now exhibiting signs of psychological torture .
3 .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a country which Amnesty International has condemned for its use of torture .
He also feels that the case has a special symbolic significance for the future of our democracies .
There are many extraordinary points made in Melzer ’ s interview , which I thoroughly recommend reading : the made-up rape allegation and fabricated evidence in Sweden , the pressure from the British authorities not to drop the case , the biased judge , detention in a maximum security prison , psychological torture – and future extradition to the US , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in jail for exposing war crimes .
But I think one of the most significant is the role that the media has played in this case .
For Melzer admits that even he , initially , until he became aware of all the facts , was prejudiced against Assange as a result of what he saw and heard in the media .
And it was the mainstream media that first began publishing false accusations that Assange had been accused of rape , the media that blackened his character .
The role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not be underestimated .
Even now , very few mainstream journalists are willing to cover his plight .
Melzer states that the whole point of Assange ’ s ‘ show trial ’ has been to intimidate journalists from doing what Assange did : “ The message to all of us is : This is what will happen to you if you emulate the Wikileaks model.
” He believes the case is a scandal and ‘ represents the failure of Western law ’ .
If convicted , he will consider it to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press.
’ If anyone was to be convicted , Melzer argues , it should have been the individuals who carried the massacres and torture Julian Assange reported on .
But to date , not one has been charged , nor any criminal investigation been carried out into their actions .
Instead , Assange has been the victim of a new harsh reality : “ It is becoming a crime to tell the truth ” Melzer states .
On Wednesday it was reported that a petition has been signed by over 130 prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s release .
The signatories include names such as former German vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel and previous vice president of the European Commission , Gunter Verhuegen .
The petition states that Assange ’ s continued detention in the UK ’ s highest security prison – Belmarsh – violates his human rights , particularly given his poor state of health .
But these pleas are likely to fall on deaf ears .
In Assange ’ s case it ’ s clear who is calling the shots , and that even European governments have been at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And yet western nations follow the US ’ s lead at their own folly – our democracies are crumbling before our very eyes .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Johanna Ross, journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland…
An interview was recently given by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, to Republik on Julian Assange. The headline reads “A murderous system is being created before our very eyes”. During the interview, Melzer details just why he has got so involved in Assange’s case and what the implications of it are for the future of humanity.
Just to recap, Julian Assange, the former Wikileaks editor, was arrested last year after spending years incarcerated in the Ecuadorian embassy, where he sought asylum for fear of being deported to the US to face charges relating to his publication of leaked documents. It was back in 2010 that Wikileaks published damning evidence of torture and unlawful killings carried out by the US army, provided for by Chelsea Manning. He subsequently was wanted by Sweden on charges of rape, charges which have since been dropped, and which it has been suggested were part of a set-up to engineer Assange’s deportation to the US. Ecuador finally gave him up to the UK authorities last April, by inviting them into the embassy to extract Assange, after seven years of interment within the embassy walls.
The Wikileaks founder’s ordeal is set to continue however, it seems. The 48-year old is currently wasting away inside Belmarsh prison, where he was kept for months in solitary confinement, before incredibly, prisoners themselves protested and asked that he be allowed to mingle with the others. The authorities recently agreed to this concession, but it all too little too late it seems for a man who has been destroyed by the US and British governments, for essentially trying to tell the truth.
As for Nils Melzer, he explains in his recent interview why he has specifically got involved in Assange’s case. His reasons are given as follows: 1. He says that Assange was disclosing evidence of systematic torture by the US army, but he himself has been persecuted for this. 2. Assange has been so ill-treated that he is now exhibiting signs of psychological torture. 3. There is a high chance of him being extradited to a country which Amnesty International has condemned for its use of torture. He also feels that the case has a special symbolic significance for the future of our democracies.
There are many extraordinary points made in Melzer’s interview, which I thoroughly recommend reading: the made-up rape allegation and fabricated evidence in Sweden, the pressure from the British authorities not to drop the case, the biased judge, detention in a maximum security prison, psychological torture – and future extradition to the US, where he could face up to 175 years in jail for exposing war crimes. But I think one of the most significant is the role that the media has played in this case. For Melzer admits that even he, initially, until he became aware of all the facts, was prejudiced against Assange as a result of what he saw and heard in the media. And it was the mainstream media that first began publishing false accusations that Assange had been accused of rape, the media that blackened his character.
The role of the media in Assange’s downfall cannot be underestimated. Even now, very few mainstream journalists are willing to cover his plight. Melzer states that the whole point of Assange’s ‘show trial’ has been to intimidate journalists from doing what Assange did: “The message to all of us is: This is what will happen to you if you emulate the Wikileaks model.”
He believes the case is a scandal and ‘represents the failure of Western law’. If convicted, he will consider it to be a ‘death sentence for freedom of the press.’
If anyone was to be convicted, Melzer argues, it should have been the individuals who carried the massacres and torture Julian Assange reported on. But to date, not one has been charged, nor any criminal investigation been carried out into their actions. Instead, Assange has been the victim of a new harsh reality: “It is becoming a crime to tell the truth” Melzer states.
On Wednesday it was reported that a petition has been signed by over 130 prominent Germans in favour of Julian Assange’s release. The signatories include names such as former German vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel and previous vice president of the European Commission, Gunter Verhuegen. The petition states that Assange’s continued detention in the UK’s highest security prison – Belmarsh – violates his human rights, particularly given his poor state of health.
But these pleas are likely to fall on deaf ears. In Assange’s case it’s clear who is calling the shots, and that even European governments have been at the mercy of the US’ demands. And yet western nations follow the US’s lead at their own folly – our democracies are crumbling before our very eyes.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-09--Who can NOW say America hasn’t become a mega-corporate dictatorship?

Jon Hellevig posted on January 16th at The Saker , “ Capitalism in America : How a Dismal Decimal is Robbing Americans Blind ” the most extensive and up-to-date compendium anywhere , of data on economic inequality in America , and one fact especially stands out from it : “ Today Top 1 % are losers compared with Top 0.1 % – the Dismal Decimal – who are where the music plays .
Top 0.1 % now holds as much wealth as Bottom 90 % combined.
” These top 0.1 % people also donate the lions ’ share of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their candidates and against the candidates who are financed instead by the other Party ’ s billionaires .
Any candidate who isn ’ t backed by the billionaires of any Party is a rarity and ( except for the independent Bernie Sanders , who is truly an exception ) has no realistic chance of winning or keeping a seat in Congress .
That drastic inequality of wealth in America — “ Top 0.1 % now holds as much wealth as Bottom 90 % combined ” — is calculated by Deutsche Bank , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Income and Wealth Inequality ” .
Here ’ s more from that study : On page 3 is shown that U.S. is comparable to Chile , Israel , Mexico , Portugal , and Turkey , as being at the top of the nations studied , in “ inequality in household disposable income.
” On page 6 : “ A record high 30 % of households have no wealth ” in the United States .
On page 7 : All-time high median net worth in constant dollars was 2007 , at $ 119,000 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rose to $ 78,000 by 2016 .
On page 8 : “ US : Top 0.1 % owns as many assets as the bottom 90 % ” On page 10 : U.S. has higher income-inequality than any other OECD nation .
On page 11 : Income-inequality is rising faster in U.S. than any other OECD nation .
On page 15 : Top 1 % in pre-tax income in the U.S. in 2014 was $ 1.3 million+ .
So : if the top 0.1 % in income in America are also the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then the individuals in America who draw $ 6 million+ annual income own as much as do all 90 % who aren ’ t in the top 10 % .
When a nation ’ s billionaires control not only its mega-corporations but its government , that small group — who do business with one-another — constitute a national dictatorship which is just as bad as in feudal times when a tiny aristocracy ( who also did business with one-another ) controlled the government and were a collective dictatorship over the entire nation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t required in order for there to be a dictatorship .
Most dictatorships are aristocratic , not monarchical .
Furthermore , in almost all monarchies , the king represents , and comes from , his class — the aristocracy .
A collective dictatorship is no better , or worse , than is a one-person dictatorship .
There are , according to the latest count by Forbes ( as of 2019 ) , 607 billionaires in the U.S. , and these people include , for example , Jack Dorsey who controls Twitter , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control Google , as well as Mark Zuckerberbg who controls Facebook .
Of course , Bezos , Buffett , the Waltons , the Kochs , and hundreds of others , are also among these 607 : but , still , it ’ s this group of people ( plus perhaps a hundred of the mere centi-millionaires ) who actually control mega-corporate America including its government — they also hire and control millions of employees and other agents such as law firms and lobbyists — and the other 330 million Americans do not possess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for them , and sell to them , and buy from them , and view the world through their media .
Most importantly , the other 330 million Americans receive their television and radio and newspaper and magazine ‘ news ’ from the country ’ s billionaires , and vote for the U.S. President and members of Congress on the basis of that news , which is virtually entirely filtered by appointees of these 607 people , not only as being controlling owners of the media but as being ( controlling ) the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media .
The largest advertisers participate , with the media-owners , in controlling the media .
It ’ s all the same group of fewer than a thousand individuals , who collectively control America .
Some of them — such as Trump , and Bloomberg , and Steyer — are also in politics or trying to be , because they want to be controlling America even more directly than they already do , so that their power will be even greater than it already is .
Of course , Trump has already succeeded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from what he has been doing to America as its President , a fair representation of the billionaire class ’ s political intentions , though he is more blatant about it than , for example , Tom Steyer is , who was the biggest political donor in the 2016 campaign year , having given $ 91 million to help Hillary Clinton and other Democratic politicians .
He was the top donor that year to defeat Bernie Sanders , and thus help Clinton win the Party ’ s Presidential nomination ; so , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this billionaire actually is : a neoconservative and a neoliberal .
No matter what Tom Steyer and another Democratic Party Presidential candidate , Michael Bloomberg , might say in order to win votes , that ’ s what they all actually are : neoconservative , and neoliberal .
They support American imperialism , and they support America ’ s billionaires — they are the actual beneficiaries from American imperialism , and from an American economy that funnels more and more of the nation ’ s wealth into their control .
Here are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ After US killing of Iran ’ s Soleimani , narrative control on social media is getting worse ” “ The U.S. Police-State Is Now Undeniable : The Assange Case ” “ America Is One-Dollar-One-Vote , Not Really One-Person-One Vote.
” “ Capitalism in America : How a Dismal Decimal is Robbing Americans Blind ” If America were a democracy , then there would be no “ narrative control on social media , ” because social media wouldn ’ t be allowed to censor whatever they want to censor .
They wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the Government from punishing anyone for any type of “ speech , ” but doesn ’ t say anything to limit America ’ s aristocrats from censoring out whatever they want to be censored-out — using their “ social media ” so as to reduce the ability of anyone to say or to link to what those super-rich don ’ t want the public to have access to .
Censorship by the billionaires is accepted in America .
And they do it ( through their hired agents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept imprisoned ( in one way or another ) for around a decade and is now being drugged in a British maximum-security prison while awaiting extradition to the U.S. for final slaughter , and he has never been convicted of anything , but Americans — alone of all the world ’ s people in this regard — approve of this , and accept both a Democratic President Obama and a Republican President Trump perpetrating this illegal punishment of him for revealing truths about their dictatorship .
Not only are Americans unique in being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unique in being hostile to Wikileaks .
( That ’ s the only international study which has yet been done on these matters . )
And , also consequently , the United States has a higher percentage of its people in prison than does any other nation — and virtually all of them are lower class , not the type of criminal who murders by giving an order or by signing a contract or by selling a dangerous or toxic product but by knifing or shooting someone .
The crooks who do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they don ’ t merely violate the laws , they ( through their lobbyists etc . )
also write the laws .
This working through agents , whom they pay , is how it comes to be that America is now scientifically proven to be one dollar one vote instead of one person one vote .
And that is how it comes to be the case that the billionaire Trump can push into law a $ 32 billion taxpayer-giveaway to the investors and top executives in America ’ s biggest banks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stockholder dividends and to cut their workforce .
And , as “ Capitalism in America : How a Dismal Decimal is Robbing Americans Blind ” documents , it ’ s no longer the top 1 % but now is instead the top tenth of one percent who are raking money in from the poorer 99.90 % of the U.S. population .
You ’ ve now got to be pretty rich in today ’ s America in order to be robbing from virtually everyone else .
“ Top 0.1 % now holds as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The top 0.1 % are now scamming even the rest of the top 1 % .
But , of course , in this nation where the top 0.01 % have been writing the laws ( via their lobbyists ) for decades now , none of them is anywhere among the millions of Americans who are in prison .
To be that rich is to have a stay-out-of-prison card , no matter how many people you ’ ve harmed or even killed by your dangerous or harmful products or services , such as trick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a higher percentage of its residents in prison than does any other nation on this planet .
Furthermore : they ’ re almost all poor people , and generally speaking not only convicts but even ex-convicts are ’ t even allowed to vote in America — they are not allowed to vote in this country that ’ s controlled by fewer than a thousand individuals , almost all of whom are obscenely wealthy and/or are agents of individuals who are .
So , since the richest thousand out of 330 million Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep themselves out of prison , what chance will the very poorest Americans who are in prison get to rewrite the laws and enforcement that placed them there ?
Realistically , now : Who can say that America hasn ’ t become a mega-corporate dictatorship ?
America ’ s billionaires have effectively replaced the formal democratic republic that America ’ s Founders produced in their Constitution , replaced it by today ’ s actual dictatorial republic , which is an insult to that Constitution , and to the individuals who wrote it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse, originally posted at Strategic Culture
Jon Hellevig posted on January 16th at The Saker, “Capitalism in America: How a Dismal Decimal is Robbing Americans Blind” the most extensive and up-to-date compendium anywhere, of data on economic inequality in America, and one fact especially stands out from it: “Today Top 1% are losers compared with Top 0.1% – the Dismal Decimal – who are where the music plays. Top 0.1% now holds as much wealth as Bottom 90% combined.” These top 0.1% people also donate the lions’ share of the money that finances political ads and organizations for their candidates and against the candidates who are financed instead by the other Party’s billionaires. Any candidate who isn’t backed by the billionaires of any Party is a rarity and (except for the independent Bernie Sanders, who is truly an exception) has no realistic chance of winning or keeping a seat in Congress.
That drastic inequality of wealth in America — “Top 0.1% now holds as much wealth as Bottom 90% combined” — is calculated by Deutsche Bank, in their January 2018 study “US Income and Wealth Inequality”. Here’s more from that study:
—
On page 3 is shown that U.S. is comparable to Chile, Israel, Mexico, Portugal, and Turkey, as being at the top of the nations studied, in “inequality in household disposable income.”
On page 6: “A record high 30% of households have no wealth” in the United States.
On page 7: All-time high median net worth in constant dollars was 2007, at $119,000, declined to $67,000 in 2010, and rose to $78,000 by 2016.
On page 8: “US: Top 0.1% owns as many assets as the bottom 90%”
On page 10: U.S. has higher income-inequality than any other OECD nation.
On page 11: Income-inequality is rising faster in U.S. than any other OECD nation.
On page 15: Top 1% in pre-tax income in the U.S. in 2014 was $1.3 million+.
Top 0.1% was $6 million+.
So: if the top 0.1% in income in America are also the top 0.1% in wealth in America, then the individuals in America who draw $6 million+ annual income own as much as do all 90% who aren’t in the top 10%.
—
When a nation’s billionaires control not only its mega-corporations but its government, that small group — who do business with one-another — constitute a national dictatorship which is just as bad as in feudal times when a tiny aristocracy (who also did business with one-another) controlled the government and were a collective dictatorship over the entire nation’s population. A king isn’t required in order for there to be a dictatorship. Most dictatorships are aristocratic, not monarchical. Furthermore, in almost all monarchies, the king represents, and comes from, his class — the aristocracy. A collective dictatorship is no better, or worse, than is a one-person dictatorship.
There are, according to the latest count by Forbes (as of 2019), 607 billionaires in the U.S., and these people include, for example, Jack Dorsey who controls Twitter, and Eric Schmidt and John Doerr who mainly control Google, as well as Mark Zuckerberbg who controls Facebook. Of course, Bezos, Buffett, the Waltons, the Kochs, and hundreds of others, are also among these 607: but, still, it’s this group of people (plus perhaps a hundred of the mere centi-millionaires) who actually control mega-corporate America including its government — they also hire and control millions of employees and other agents such as law firms and lobbyists — and the other 330 million Americans do not possess such control, but instead only work for them, and sell to them, and buy from them, and view the world through their media. Most importantly, the other 330 million Americans receive their television and radio and newspaper and magazine ‘news’ from the country’s billionaires, and vote for the U.S. President and members of Congress on the basis of that news, which is virtually entirely filtered by appointees of these 607 people, not only as being controlling owners of the media but as being (controlling) the largest advertisers in all of the major media. The largest advertisers participate, with the media-owners, in controlling the media. It’s all the same group of fewer than a thousand individuals, who collectively control America.
Some of them — such as Trump, and Bloomberg, and Steyer — are also in politics or trying to be, because they want to be controlling America even more directly than they already do, so that their power will be even greater than it already is. Of course, Trump has already succeeded at this, and we can see from what he has been doing to America as its President, a fair representation of the billionaire class’s political intentions, though he is more blatant about it than, for example, Tom Steyer is, who was the biggest political donor in the 2016 campaign year, having given $91 million to help Hillary Clinton and other Democratic politicians. He was the top donor that year to defeat Bernie Sanders, and thus help Clinton win the Party’s Presidential nomination; so, that’s the type of Democrat which this billionaire actually is: a neoconservative and a neoliberal. No matter what Tom Steyer and another Democratic Party Presidential candidate, Michael Bloomberg, might say in order to win votes, that’s what they all actually are: neoconservative, and neoliberal. They support American imperialism, and they support America’s billionaires — they are the actual beneficiaries from American imperialism, and from an American economy that funnels more and more of the nation’s wealth into their control.
Here are some recent studies which document this dictatorship:
“After US killing of Iran’s Soleimani, narrative control on social media is getting worse”
“Top Assange Defense Account Deleted By Twitter”
“The U.S. Police-State Is Now Undeniable: The Assange Case”
“America Is One-Dollar-One-Vote, Not Really One-Person-One Vote.”
“Trump Tax Cut Hands $32 Billion Windfall to America’s Top Banks”
“Capitalism in America: How a Dismal Decimal is Robbing Americans Blind”
If America were a democracy, then there would be no “narrative control on social media,” because social media wouldn’t be allowed to censor whatever they want to censor. They wouldn’t have that power. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the Government from punishing anyone for any type of “speech,” but doesn’t say anything to limit America’s aristocrats from censoring out whatever they want to be censored-out — using their “social media” so as to reduce the ability of anyone to say or to link to what those super-rich don’t want the public to have access to. Censorship by the billionaires is accepted in America. And they do it (through their hired agents).
Consequently, Julian Assange is kept imprisoned (in one way or another) for around a decade and is now being drugged in a British maximum-security prison while awaiting extradition to the U.S. for final slaughter, and he has never been convicted of anything, but Americans — alone of all the world’s people in this regard — approve of this, and accept both a Democratic President Obama and a Republican President Trump perpetrating this illegal punishment of him for revealing truths about their dictatorship. Not only are Americans unique in being hostile toward Assange, but Americans are unique in being hostile to Wikileaks. (That’s the only international study which has yet been done on these matters.)
And, also consequently, the United States has a higher percentage of its people in prison than does any other nation — and virtually all of them are lower class, not the type of criminal who murders by giving an order or by signing a contract or by selling a dangerous or toxic product but by knifing or shooting someone. The crooks who do the most harm are the richest ones, and they don’t merely violate the laws, they (through their lobbyists etc.) also write the laws.
This working through agents, whom they pay, is how it comes to be that America is now scientifically proven to be one dollar one vote instead of one person one vote.
And that is how it comes to be the case that the billionaire Trump can push into law a $32 billion taxpayer-giveaway to the investors and top executives in America’s biggest banks, which then use the money to increase stockholder dividends and to cut their workforce.
And, as “Capitalism in America: How a Dismal Decimal is Robbing Americans Blind” documents, it’s no longer the top 1% but now is instead the top tenth of one percent who are raking money in from the poorer 99.90% of the U.S. population. You’ve now got to be pretty rich in today’s America in order to be robbing from virtually everyone else. “Top 0.1% now holds as much wealth as Bottom 90% combined.” The top 0.1% are now scamming even the rest of the top 1%. But, of course, in this nation where the top 0.01% have been writing the laws (via their lobbyists) for decades now, none of them is anywhere among the millions of Americans who are in prison. To be that rich is to have a stay-out-of-prison card, no matter how many people you’ve harmed or even killed by your dangerous or harmful products or services, such as trick mortgage contracts or toxic pharmaceuticals.
America has a higher percentage of its residents in prison than does any other nation on this planet. Furthermore: they’re almost all poor people, and generally speaking not only convicts but even ex-convicts are’t even allowed to vote in America — they are not allowed to vote in this country that’s controlled by fewer than a thousand individuals, almost all of whom are obscenely wealthy and/or are agents of individuals who are. So, since the richest thousand out of 330 million Americans basically write and enforce the laws which keep themselves out of prison, what chance will the very poorest Americans who are in prison get to rewrite the laws and enforcement that placed them there?
Realistically, now: Who can say that America hasn’t become a mega-corporate dictatorship?
America’s billionaires have effectively replaced the formal democratic republic that America’s Founders produced in their Constitution, replaced it by today’s actual dictatorial republic, which is an insult to that Constitution, and to the individuals who wrote it.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-09--Leftist Neo-McCarthyite Witchhunters Hypocritically Mourn the Death of Kirk Douglas

“ used his star power and influence in the late 1950s to help break the Hollywood blacklist ” as CNN reported on February 6 .
Similar eulogies have followed this line from MSNBC , the NY Times , Washington Post , as well as many Hollywood celebrities .
at the age of 103 has resulted in a sickening level of hypocrisy from the leftist mainstream media outlets .
These outlets have written countless homages and memorials honoring the life of the man who What makes this so sickening is not that these memorials are untrue , but rather that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the heirs to the fascist McCarthyite machine which Kirk Douglass and his close network of collaborators fought so courageously against during their lives .
In recent decades , barring a few exceptions , Hollywood ( just like much of the mainstream media ) has become a branch of the CIA and broader military industrial complex .
While fake news agencies as CNN spin false facts to the intellects of mushy-minded Americans , Hollywood prepares the fertile soil for those false seeds to grow by shaping the hearts and imagination in their victims through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tom Clancy ’ s Jack Ryan , Spielberg ’ s Bridge of Spies , Red Sparrow and Bitter Harvest are just a few of the most popular propaganda films which portray Russians as the nefarious villains of the earth and heroically elevate the CIA to patriotic heights .
Hacked emails from Sony pictures published on WikiLeaks provided a smoking gun when it was revealed that the Obama administration had courted Hollywood execs to the task of promoting films to “ counter Russian narratives ” and all of this in the midst of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to attacks on Chinese scholars in America and an attempted coup against a sitting U.S. President .
YET , just as Hollywood can serve as a force of great evil , Kirk Douglas and his small network of collaborators demonstrated that it could equally serve as a force of great good .
This is because films exhibiting a spirit of honesty and courage can bypass the gatekeepers of intellect and strike at the inner being of the audience rendering a people , under certain circumstances better patriots of their nation and citizens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the important question of “ what truly made Kirk Douglas and his small but influential network of collaborators so important during such a dark period of World history during the peak of the Cold War ?
” The above quote from a CNN memorial cited Douglas ’ s efforts to end the Hollywood Blacklist .
For those who are not aware , the blacklist was the name given to the “ untouchables ” of Hollywood .
Those writers , directors and producers who courageously refused to cooperate with the fascist hearings of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictatorial leadership of Senator Joseph McCarthy and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover .
By the end of the hearings , hundreds of careers were destroyed and examples were made of ten leading writers led by the great Dalton Trumbo- who were not only given prison sentences for defending the U.S. Constitution , but who became un-hirable for years after their release .
Not only this , but anyone caught employing them were threatened with similar penalties .
In spite of that grim reality many of them continued to work under pseudonyms with Trumbo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1950s ( Roman Holiday and the Brave One ) .
During this dark period , a network of brave film makers formed who worked very closely together for 20 years which centered around Trumbo , Kirk Douglas , David Miller , John Frankenheimer , Stanley Kramer , Burt Lancaster and producer Edward Lewis .
Many of the films produced by these men not only carried stories which shook the foundations of the newly reorganized deep state , but also strove to awaken the moral sensibilities of Americans whose complacency had permitted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and racist police state within .
Kirk Douglas responded to this early on by forming his own studio called Bryna Productions which created the anti-war classic Paths of Glory ( 1957 ) and Spartacus ( 1960 ) .
Paths of Glory told the true story of the unjust execution of several French soldiers who refused to obey a suicide mission during WW1 and provided a strong statement against irrational wars but also arbitrary political power run amok .
Set in 72 BC , Spartacus told the true story of a Thracian slave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Rome and spoke directly to the civil rights movement in America and fight against imperialism more broadly .
What gave Spartacus its strategic potency to end the Blacklist was due to the fact that it was written by the leading untouchable “ commie-lover ” of America… Dalton Trumbo .
Kirk Douglas ’ last minute decision to use Trumbo ’ s real name was more of a risk than most people realize , and in later years , Douglas described this period : “ The choices were hard .
The consequences were painful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I had friends who went into exile when no one would hire them ; actors who committed suicide in despair … I was threatened that using a Blacklisted writer for Spartacus — my friend Dalton Trumbo — would mark me as a ‘ Commie-lover ’ and end my career .
There are times when one has to stand up for principle .
I am so proud of my fellow actors who use their public influence to speak out against injustice .
At 98 years old , I have learned one lesson from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I hope that Trumbo , a fine film , will remind all of us that the Blacklist was a terrible time in our country , but that we must learn from it so that it will never happen again.
” When the newly-elected president John Kennedy and his brother Robert crossed anti-Communist picket lines to first attend the film , and then endorsed it loudly , the foundations of the Blacklist were destroyed and the edifice of 15 years of terror came crashing down .
Kennedy ’ s death in 1963 sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugs and insanity .
Films like Frankenheimber ’ s Manchurian Candidate ( 1962 ) , and 7 Days in May ( 1964 ) attempted to shed light on the deep state takeover of America but it was too late .
During the 1960s , Douglas , Ed Lewis , Trumbo and Frankenheimber continued to work closely together on films like Lonely are the Brave , Town without Pity , the Fixer , Last Sunset , Seconds , The Train , Devil ’ s Disciple , Johny Got His Gun , the Horsemen and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had set in too deeply and nothing came as close to the artistry of the dense 1957-1964 period of creative resistance .
One little known film stands out quite a bit however , and since so little is known of this small masterpiece , a word must be said now .
Ten years after Kennedy ’ s murder , Trumbo , Edward Lewis , David Miller , Mark Lane and Garry Horrowitz created a film which could be called “ Trumbo ’ s last stand ” .
This film was called Executive Action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ long-time collaborator Burt Lancaster as a leading coordinator of the plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy .
Edward Lewis , who had also produced Spartacus with Douglas earlier , spearheaded this film which tells the story of a cabal of oligarchs who arrange the murder of John Kennedy using three teams of professional mercenaries ( former CIA men fired after the Bay of Pigs fiasco ) .
This incredibly well-researched storyline infused fiction with powerful facts and was based upon the work of Mark Lane- a close friend of the Kennedys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights activist ( the only legislator to be arrested as a Freedom rider fighting segregation ) .
During a powerful dialogue between James Farrington ( Lancaster ) and the leader of the cabal Robert Foster ( played by Robert Ryan ) , the gauntlet is dropped , as the true reason is given for the need to murder Kennedy in chilling detail : Global Depopulation .
“ The real problem is this James .
In two decades there will be seven billion human beings on this planet .
Most of them brown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hungry .
All of them determined to love .
They ’ ll swarm out of their breeding grounds into Europe and North America… Hence , Vietnam .
An all-out effort there will give us control of south Asia for decades to come .
And with proper planning , we can reduce the population to 550 million by the end of the century .
I know… I ’ ve seen the data.
” James : “ We sound rather like Gods reading the Doomsday book don ’ t we ?
” Foster : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not only will the nations affected be better off .
But the techniques developed there can be used to reduce our own excess population : blacks , Puerto Ricans , Mexican Americans , poverty prone whites , and so forth ” .
Although the film was pulled from most American theaters , it still stands as one of the most direct and chilling refutations of the lone-gunman narrative and is also the only film this author is aware of which showcases the deeper neo-Malthusian agenda underlying the murder of Kennedy which feared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create as outlined in my previous paper “ Remembering JFK ’ s Vision for the Future that Should Have Been ” .
The oligarchs attempting to play God in today ’ s world , just as their predecessors who oversaw JFK ’ s murder know that hunger , war and disease are not the natural state of humanity , but simply means of checking population growth .
It is worth keeping in mind that those same media and Hollywood outlets mourning Douglas ’ passing are the perpetrators of this Malthusian legacy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ JFK ’ s legacy under a revived space program to establish permanent human colonies on the Moon and Mars as well as establish cooperative relations with Russia and China which provides humanity its last , best chance to end the oligarchy ’ s pandemic of wars , disease and hunger forever .
Matthew Ehret is the founder of the Canadian Patriot Review , author of the Untold History of Canada and BRI expert on Tactical Talk .
His articles appear regularly on Zero Hedge , Strategic Culture , Sott , the Duran and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at [ email protected ]

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
“used his star power and influence in the late 1950s to help break the Hollywood blacklist” as CNN reported on February 6
. Similar eulogies have followed this line from MSNBC, the NY Times, Washington Post, as well as many Hollywood celebrities.
at the age of 103 has resulted in a sickening level of hypocrisy from the leftist mainstream media outlets. These outlets have written countless homages and memorials honoring the life of the man who
What makes this so sickening is not that these memorials are untrue, but rather that it is these same MSM/Hollywood forces that are the heirs to the fascist McCarthyite machine which Kirk Douglass and his close network of collaborators fought so courageously against during their lives.
Hollywood and the CIA Today
In recent decades, barring a few exceptions, Hollywood (just like much of the mainstream media) has become a branch of the CIA and broader military industrial complex. While fake news agencies as CNN spin false facts to the intellects of mushy-minded Americans, Hollywood prepares the fertile soil for those false seeds to grow by shaping the hearts and imagination in their victims through the important hypnotic power of storytelling. Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan, Spielberg’s Bridge of Spies, Red Sparrow and Bitter Harvest are just a few of the most popular propaganda films which portray Russians as the nefarious villains of the earth and heroically elevate the CIA to patriotic heights.
Hacked emails from Sony pictures published on WikiLeaks provided a smoking gun when it was revealed that the Obama administration had courted Hollywood execs to the task of promoting films to “counter Russian narratives” and all of this in the midst of a renewed Cold War terror which has led to attacks on Chinese scholars in America and an attempted coup against a sitting U.S. President.
YET, just as Hollywood can serve as a force of great evil, Kirk Douglas and his small network of collaborators demonstrated that it could equally serve as a force of great good. This is because films exhibiting a spirit of honesty and courage can bypass the gatekeepers of intellect and strike at the inner being of the audience rendering a people, under certain circumstances better patriots of their nation and citizens of the world.
This brings us to the important question of “what truly made Kirk Douglas and his small but influential network of collaborators so important during such a dark period of World history during the peak of the Cold War?”
Ending the Blacklist: Douglas and Trumbo
The above quote from a CNN memorial cited Douglas’s efforts to end the Hollywood Blacklist. For those who are not aware, the blacklist was the name given to the “untouchables” of Hollywood. Those writers, directors and producers who courageously refused to cooperate with the fascist hearings of the House on Un-American Activities run under the dictatorial leadership of Senator Joseph McCarthy and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. By the end of the hearings, hundreds of careers were destroyed and examples were made of ten leading writers led by the great Dalton Trumbo- who were not only given prison sentences for defending the U.S. Constitution, but who became un-hirable for years after their release. Not only this, but anyone caught employing them were threatened with similar penalties.
In spite of that grim reality many of them continued to work under pseudonyms with Trumbo even winning two uncredited academy awards during the 1950s (Roman Holiday and the Brave One).
During this dark period, a network of brave film makers formed who worked very closely together for 20 years which centered around Trumbo, Kirk Douglas, David Miller, John Frankenheimer, Stanley Kramer, Burt Lancaster and producer Edward Lewis. Many of the films produced by these men not only carried stories which shook the foundations of the newly reorganized deep state, but also strove to awaken the moral sensibilities of Americans whose complacency had permitted the creation of a new Pax Americana abroad, and racist police state within.
Kirk Douglas responded to this early on by forming his own studio called Bryna Productions which created the anti-war classic Paths of Glory (1957) and Spartacus (1960).
Paths of Glory told the true story of the unjust execution of several French soldiers who refused to obey a suicide mission during WW1 and provided a strong statement against irrational wars but also arbitrary political power run amok.
Set in 72 BC, Spartacus told the true story of a Thracian slave who led a two year freedom struggle against Rome and spoke directly to the civil rights movement in America and fight against imperialism more broadly.
What gave Spartacus its strategic potency to end the Blacklist was due to the fact that it was written by the leading untouchable “commie-lover” of America… Dalton Trumbo. Kirk Douglas’ last minute decision to use Trumbo’s real name was more of a risk than most people realize, and in later years, Douglas described this period:
“The choices were hard. The consequences were painful and very real. During the blacklist, I had friends who went into exile when no one would hire them; actors who committed suicide in despair … I was threatened that using a Blacklisted writer for Spartacus — my friend Dalton Trumbo — would mark me as a ‘Commie-lover’ and end my career. There are times when one has to stand up for principle. I am so proud of my fellow actors who use their public influence to speak out against injustice. At 98 years old, I have learned one lesson from history: It very often repeats itself. I hope that Trumbo, a fine film, will remind all of us that the Blacklist was a terrible time in our country, but that we must learn from it so that it will never happen again.”
When the newly-elected president John Kennedy and his brother Robert crossed anti-Communist picket lines to first attend the film, and then endorsed it loudly, the foundations of the Blacklist were destroyed and the edifice of 15 years of terror came crashing down.
Kennedy’s Murder and Trumbo’s Revenge
Kennedy’s death in 1963 sent America into a spiral of despair, drugs and insanity. Films like Frankenheimber’s Manchurian Candidate (1962), and 7 Days in May (1964) attempted to shed light on the deep state takeover of America but it was too late. During the 1960s, Douglas, Ed Lewis, Trumbo and Frankenheimber continued to work closely together on films like Lonely are the Brave, Town without Pity, the Fixer, Last Sunset, Seconds, The Train, Devil’s Disciple, Johny Got His Gun, the Horsemen and more. Sadly, the cultural rot had set in too deeply and nothing came as close to the artistry of the dense 1957-1964 period of creative resistance.
One little known film stands out quite a bit however, and since so little is known of this small masterpiece, a word must be said now.
Ten years after Kennedy’s murder, Trumbo, Edward Lewis, David Miller, Mark Lane and Garry Horrowitz created a film which could be called “Trumbo’s last stand”. This film was called Executive Action (1973) and starred Kirk Douglas’ long-time collaborator Burt Lancaster as a leading coordinator of the plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Edward Lewis, who had also produced Spartacus with Douglas earlier, spearheaded this film which tells the story of a cabal of oligarchs who arrange the murder of John Kennedy using three teams of professional mercenaries (former CIA men fired after the Bay of Pigs fiasco). This incredibly well-researched storyline infused fiction with powerful facts and was based upon the work of Mark Lane- a close friend of the Kennedys, NY State Attorney, and civil rights activist (the only legislator to be arrested as a Freedom rider fighting segregation).
During a powerful dialogue between James Farrington (Lancaster) and the leader of the cabal Robert Foster (played by Robert Ryan), the gauntlet is dropped, as the true reason is given for the need to murder Kennedy in chilling detail: Global Depopulation.
Farrington is told by Foster:
“The real problem is this James. In two decades there will be seven billion human beings on this planet. Most of them brown, yellow or black. All of them hungry. All of them determined to love. They’ll swarm out of their breeding grounds into Europe and North America… Hence, Vietnam. An all-out effort there will give us control of south Asia for decades to come. And with proper planning, we can reduce the population to 550 million by the end of the century. I know… I’ve seen the data.” James: “We sound rather like Gods reading the Doomsday book don’t we?” Foster: “Well, someone has to do it. Not only will the nations affected be better off. But the techniques developed there can be used to reduce our own excess population: blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, poverty prone whites, and so forth”.
Although the film was pulled from most American theaters, it still stands as one of the most direct and chilling refutations of the lone-gunman narrative and is also the only film this author is aware of which showcases the deeper neo-Malthusian agenda underlying the murder of Kennedy which feared the optimistic vision he had threatened to create as outlined in my previous paper “Remembering JFK’s Vision for the Future that Should Have Been”.
The oligarchs attempting to play God in today’s world, just as their predecessors who oversaw JFK’s murder know that hunger, war and disease are not the natural state of humanity, but simply means of checking population growth.
It is worth keeping in mind that those same media and Hollywood outlets mourning Douglas’ passing are the perpetrators of this Malthusian legacy, and are deathly afraid of a renewal of JFK’s legacy under a revived space program to establish permanent human colonies on the Moon and Mars as well as establish cooperative relations with Russia and China which provides humanity its last, best chance to end the oligarchy’s pandemic of wars, disease and hunger forever.
From Strategic Culture
Matthew Ehret is the founder of the Canadian Patriot Review, author of the Untold History of Canada and BRI expert on Tactical Talk. His articles appear regularly on Zero Hedge, Strategic Culture, Sott, the Duran and Fort Russ. He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com