russia-insider--2020-04-15--Some Funny Racist Memes - Truth to Power - Wednesday, April 8, 2020

Here 's a recap of some of the memes I saw recently and enjoyed .
For more , check out @ @ @ @ @ : //t.me/TTPMemes If you think I missed any good ones , join the channel chat @ @ @ @ @ or put them in the comments section below !

× Disabling adblock
Disabling adblock for a specific site just takes a couple of clicks.
Usually it is as simple as clicking on the adblock icon in your browser, and choosing the ‘disable on this page or domain’ option.
If that doesn’t work this wikihow article gives more detail: https://www.wikihow.com/Disable-AdBlock
Thank you for your support!


russia-insider--2020-04-15--The Overwhelming Evidence Alexander Hamilton Was a Secret Jew - Part 1 (FTN Podcast, Audio + Transcr

The Overwhelming Evidence Alexander Hamilton Was a Secret Jew - Part 1 (FTN Podcast, Audio + Transcript)

In addition to their 'Week in Review ' coverage of political news , the FTN team does an amazing job with their so-called 'Deep Dives ' , in-depth investigations on varied subjects , from historical revisionism to how are dirt poor Latinos getting the money for the expensive journey to the US ( you guessed it , 'money-lenders ' , charging 50 % per year . )
- and many , many more .
It is a hugely valuable archive , available to subscribers .
FTN recently made this episode available to the general public , ( it was behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole thing on their YouTube Channel or at the website .
This episode is one of their most earth-shattering , and sure to be a big draw for anyone interested in US history .
Highly recommended .
Truth to Power will be bringing you excerpts from this important episode over the coming days .
Jazz , James , and Borzoi dive deep into the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton , one of America ’ s most astro-turfed founding fathers .
Little is known about Hamilton ’ s early life , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a framer of the U.S. Constitution , first Secretary of the Treasury , creator of the nation ’ s first national bank , the architect of the inherently corrupt system of debt-financed capitalism we are saddled with today , chief author of The Federalist Papers , master of media manipulation , election meddler , and almost but never actually President of the United States .
Rest assured , we thoroughly smash that early life in order to fully understand the identity of the man himself ; who he is , where he comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ultimately , in turn , how he shaped the world itself .
Only once one fully understands Hamilton from those perspectives , do the trajectory and context of subsequent historical events , from war to immigration , finance to foreign policy , and from consumerism to vulture capitalism , become crystal clear .
We 've included 2 amazing clips about the Jewish origins of Hamilton 's father , but we highly recommend you check out the full epdisode .
The full episode is now on FTN 's YouTube channel , embedded below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ About the FTN and TRS podcasts : FTN and the other podcasts on the TRS podcast platform have become required listening for anyone serious about understanding American politics .
In a highly professional and competent manner , they analyze topics , including Jewish influence , that others wo n't .
The FTN podcast in particular is hard news focused , delivering fresh dissident angles on current events that ruthlessly challenge the mainstream narrative .
Some of their episodes are free to the public , while others are behind a $ 10 monthly paywall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism today because you get access to several excellent shows for that price .
We highly recommend Eric Striker 's , ( editor of the excellent National Justice website ) , and Mike Enoch 's 'Strike and Mike ' ( 1X per week ) which are also more hard news focused .
The Daily Shoah with Mike Enoch , Jesse Dunstan , and Alex McNabb , ( 3X per week ) , which is a less formal , Joe Rogan style radio talk show , is also excellent .
Transcript to 1st clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There may be some errors but it is surprisingly accurate .
So Hamilton was born on a Danish colony called St. Croix in the Caribbean to a woman by the name of Rachel Faucette .
However , her married name was Levine .
She was married to a John Michael Levine .
And in some ways it 's spelled L-A-V-I-E-N .
The more accepted spelling is L-E-V-I-N-E. And this is a name that she kept with her until her death .
Levine was a sugar plantation and slave owner .
He named his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pretty funny .
Levine had been involved in business with other Jews at the time , when Jews were disproportionately likely to conduct commerce amongst themselves , especially on Caribbean Islands such as St. Croix .
Alexander Hamilton later characterized his stepfather , Levine , as a fortune hunter , but designed with gold , whose expensive clothes caused Rachel 's widowed mother to be captivated by the glitter of his flashy appearance and to push Rachel into reluctantly agreeing to what became a hated marriage .
According to Hamilton , Rachel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the wishes of her mother , but against her own inclination .
The full text of this letter that Hamilton wrote contains a blank space where he evidently intended to put a word describing Levine , but ultimately did not do so .
He opted for good optics , I suppose .
So Levine is the quintessential Jewish name , one more honest historian put it .
Not only that , but Jews living in St. Croix at the time were not registered as Jews .
Take this with a grain of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Levine as a rich Danish Jew .
In a letter .
So another argument here to understand this is that the Danish law at the time would have required Rachel Faucette to convert to Judaism in order to marry John Levine .
We do n't have any record of her converting to Judaism , but we know that that she did n't baptized her children .
We know that she kept the name Levine until her death .
And so if they were trading with other Jews , if they were living in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know all of these things are true , then it does n't seem likely that this odd outlier took place where Rachel Faucette stayed gentile and married a Jew and just proceeded forward .
It does n't make any sense .
They have a child named Peter Levine who is not baptized , even though it would have been a standard practice for Christian children born on St. Croix to be baptized .
Levine grew up and became a prominent shipping merchant , moving to South Carolina and 1764 .
He eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church because he was serving as this Anglican Church warden in South Carolina .
And so he sort of had to act the part .
And then during the American Revolutionary War , Peter was a monarchist Tory and a smuggler .
And we 'll get into the smuggling later .
So the burden of proof on claims Levine is not Jewish intensify .
Really , I do n't know .
Like you really have to make this case .
And the evidence out there is convincing enough that the most charitable thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to say that the burden of proof lies on those who would claim Levine is not Jewish , rather than those who claim that he is .
Even Jews are saying that Levine was Jewish .

In addition to their 'Week in Review' coverage of political news, the FTN team does an amazing job with their so-called 'Deep Dives', in-depth investigations on varied subjects, from historical revisionism to how are dirt poor Latinos getting the money for the expensive journey to the US (you guessed it, 'money-lenders', charging 50% per year.) - and many, many more. It is a hugely valuable archive, available to subscribers.
FTN recently made this episode available to the general public, (it was behind their pay-wall). You can find the whole thing on their YouTube Channel or on the website.
This episode is one of their most earth-shattering, and sure to be a big draw for anyone interested in US history. Highly recommended. Truth to Power will be bringing you excerpts from this important episode over the coming days.
From the FTN Website:
Jazz, James, and Borzoi dive deep into the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton, one of America’s most astro-turfed founding fathers. Little is known about Hamilton’s early life, which is odd considering his prominent role as a framer of the U.S. Constitution, first Secretary of the Treasury, creator of the nation’s first national bank, the architect of the inherently corrupt system of debt-financed capitalism we are saddled with today, chief author of The Federalist Papers, master of media manipulation, election meddler, and almost but never actually President of the United States. Rest assured, we thoroughly smash that early life in order to fully understand the identity of the man himself; who he is, where he comes from, what shaped his worldview, and ultimately, in turn, how he shaped the world itself. Only once one fully understands Hamilton from those perspectives, do the trajectory and context of subsequent historical events, from war to immigration, finance to foreign policy, and from consumerism to vulture capitalism, become crystal clear.
We've included 2 amazing clips about the Jewish origins of Hamilton's father, but we highly recommend you check out the full episode. The full episode is now on FTN's YouTube channel, embedded below, and on the FTN website.
Transcript follows below.
Audio clips #1 and #2
About the FTN and TRS podcasts:
FTN and the other podcasts on the TRS podcast platform have become required listening for anyone serious about understanding American politics. In a highly professional and competent manner, they analyze topics, including Jewish influence, that others won't.
The FTN podcast in particular is hard news focused, delivering fresh dissident angles on current events that ruthlessly challenge the mainstream narrative.
Some of their episodes are free to the public, while others are behind a $10 monthly paywall, probably the best value in American journalism today because you get access to several excellent shows for that price. We highly recommend Eric Striker's, (editor of the excellent National Justice website), and Mike Enoch's 'Strike and Mike' (1X per week) which are also more hard news focused. The Daily Shoah with Mike Enoch, Jesse Dunstan, and Alex McNabb, (3X per week), which is a less formal, Joe Rogan style radio talk show, is also excellent.
Transcript to 1st clip: The following is machine transcribed. There may be some errors but it is surprisingly accurate.
So Hamilton was born on a Danish colony called St. Croix in the Caribbean to a woman by the name of Rachel Faucette. However, her married name was Levine. She was married to a John Michael Levine. And in some ways it's spelled L-A-V-I-E-N. The more accepted spelling is L-E-V-I-N-E. And this is a name that she kept with her until her death.
Levine was a sugar plantation and slave owner. He named his plantation "Estate Ruby," which is pretty funny. Levine had been involved in business with other Jews at the time, when Jews were disproportionately likely to conduct commerce amongst themselves, especially on Caribbean Islands such as St. Croix. Alexander Hamilton later characterized his stepfather, Levine, as a fortune hunter, but designed with gold, whose expensive clothes caused Rachel's widowed mother to be captivated by the glitter of his flashy appearance and to push Rachel into reluctantly agreeing to what became a hated marriage.
According to Hamilton, Rachel married Levine, quote, in compliance with the wishes of her mother, but against her own inclination. The full text of this letter that Hamilton wrote contains a blank space where he evidently intended to put a word describing Levine, but ultimately did not do so. He opted for good optics, I suppose.
Transcript to 2nd clip:
So Levine is the quintessential Jewish name, one more honest historian put it. Not only that, but Jews living in St. Croix at the time were not registered as Jews. Take this with a grain of salt. Hamilton's own grandson described Levine as a rich Danish Jew. In a letter. So another argument here to understand this is that the Danish law at the time would have required Rachel Faucette to convert to Judaism in order to marry John Levine. We don't have any record of her converting to Judaism, but we know that that she didn't baptized her children. We know that she kept the name Levine until her death. And so if they were trading with other Jews, if they were living in a community with other Jews.
If you know all of these things are true, then it doesn't seem likely that this odd outlier took place where Rachel Faucette stayed gentile and married a Jew and just proceeded forward. It doesn't make any sense. They have a child named Peter Levine who is not baptized, even though it would have been a standard practice for Christian children born on St. Croix to be baptized. Levine grew up and became a prominent shipping merchant, moving to South Carolina and 1764. He eventually was quietly baptized at St. John's Church because he was serving as this Anglican Church warden in South Carolina. And so he sort of had to act the part. And then during the American Revolutionary War, Peter was a monarchist Tory and a smuggler. And we'll get into the smuggling later.
So the burden of proof on claims Levine is not Jewish intensify. Really, I don't know. Like you really have to make this case. And the evidence out there is convincing enough that the most charitable thing one could do in this case would be to say that the burden of proof lies on those who would claim Levine is not Jewish, rather than those who claim that he is. Even Jews are saying that Levine was Jewish.


russia-insider--2020-04-15--The Controversy Over Who Is Responsible for Coronavirus Is Heating Up

Let ’ s hope the Neoconservatives and American presstitutes don ’ t add a conflict with China to the ongoing virus and economic threats .
First , is the virus a bioweapon ?
Second who is responsible ?
Two sources concluded that the virus was a bioweapon .
One is Francis Boyle , who drafted the US implementing legislation for the Biowarfare Convention that became US law in , I believe , 1989 .
Boyle says the US government violates the law and has 13,000 scientists working on biowarfare research .
Boyle said in February that the gainer function of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lab at which a Wuhan scientist was present , and the HIV features were done in Australia where a Wuhan scientist was present .
He says the scientists took the work back with them and the result was Covid-19 .
Also in February or March a scientific paper by scientists in India concluded that the virus was man-made .
Their paper was taken down without explanation .
A top virologist , whose statements to the Belgium government concerning the inadequacy of the government ’ s response to the virus I have posted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indian scientists were mistaken , and that the virus is naturally evolved .
As he is not involved in bioweapons work , I do not think he is covering up illegal activity by US and Chinese governments .
He shows in his public concern every indication of being a highly principled person of unquestioned ability and character .
Moreover , his position seems to be widely shared among experts .
As for responsibility , it seems both China and the US are responsible .
It is clear from news reports that the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level 4 lab for research having to do with bats and coronavirus .
What this research was , we don ’ t know .
We only know what they say .
But the US government was aware of the bat coronavirus research and helped to fund it .
There was also a report that after the virus outbreak the president of China suddenly removed the top people at the Wuhan facility and put in charge a woman who was an expert virologist .
The Chinese president XI thought something had gone wrong at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duty of the government to protect the people .
We also know that various Chinese officials and press said the Americans had brought the virus with them when they came to Wuhan to participate in the military games .
The Chinese did not mean on purpose , but that someone among the US team was infected without having symptoms , often a feature of the virus .
There was some discussion in which US health officials seemed to acknowledge that the virus might have been active in the US before it broke lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that Trump and now the neoconservative warmongers are blaming China for keeping quiet too long about the virus .
This claim as far as I can tell is false .
It seems to be mainly propaganda against China .
We also have had reports that a US military lab in Texas was suddenly closed out of pathogen concerns by the Obama regime .
How all this fits together or doesn ’ t I don ’ t know .
As the Democrats are blaming Trump for the virus , Trump blames China as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemy ” China and is a way of showing that the Democrats are covering up for “ Communist China ” by shifting the blame to the president of the US .
The politics of the virus will make it difficult for the truth to emerge .

Let’s hope the Neoconservatives and American presstitutes don’t add a conflict with China to the ongoing virus and economic threats.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/state-department-cables-coronavirus-origin-chinese-lab-bats
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211291/U-S-government-gave-3-7million-grant-Wuhan-lab-experimented-coronavirus-source-bats.html
First, is the virus a bioweapon? Second who is responsible?
Two sources concluded that the virus was a bioweapon. One is Francis Boyle, who drafted the US implementing legislation for the Biowarfare Convention that became US law in, I believe, 1989. Boyle says the US government violates the law and has 13,000 scientists working on biowarfare research. Boyle said in February that the gainer function of the virus was done at a UNC lab at which a Wuhan scientist was present, and the HIV features were done in Australia where a Wuhan scientist was present. He says the scientists took the work back with them and the result was Covid-19. Also in February or March a scientific paper by scientists in India concluded that the virus was man-made. Their paper was taken down without explanation.
A top virologist, whose statements to the Belgium government concerning the inadequacy of the government’s response to the virus I have posted on my website, tells me that the Indian scientists were mistaken, and that the virus is naturally evolved. As he is not involved in bioweapons work, I do not think he is covering up illegal activity by US and Chinese governments. He shows in his public concern every indication of being a highly principled person of unquestioned ability and character. Moreover, his position seems to be widely shared among experts.
As for responsibility, it seems both China and the US are responsible. It is clear from news reports that the US contributed millions of dollars to the Wuhan level 4 lab for research having to do with bats and coronavirus. What this research was, we don’t know. We only know what they say. But the US government was aware of the bat coronavirus research and helped to fund it. There was also a report that after the virus outbreak the president of China suddenly removed the top people at the Wuhan facility and put in charge a woman who was an expert virologist. The Chinese president XI thought something had gone wrong at the lab and said it was the duty of the government to protect the people.
We also know that various Chinese officials and press said the Americans had brought the virus with them when they came to Wuhan to participate in the military games. The Chinese did not mean on purpose, but that someone among the US team was infected without having symptoms, often a feature of the virus. There was some discussion in which US health officials seemed to acknowledge that the virus might have been active in the US before it broke lose in a mass way.
We also know that Trump and now the neoconservative warmongers are blaming China for keeping quiet too long about the virus. This claim as far as I can tell is false. It seems to be mainly propaganda against China.
We also have had reports that a US military lab in Texas was suddenly closed out of pathogen concerns by the Obama regime.
How all this fits together or doesn’t I don’t know.
As the Democrats are blaming Trump for the virus, Trump blames China as that aligns the Democrats with the “enemy” China and is a way of showing that the Democrats are covering up for “Communist China” by shifting the blame to the president of the US.
The politics of the virus will make it difficult for the truth to emerge.


russia-insider--2020-04-15--Driven by the Dramatic Collapse of US Shale, the Trump Administration Takes Aim at Venezuela

President Trump has claimed that the US no longer needs foreign oil , and it `` energy independent '' .
Yet , now the US shale oil industry faces near total ruin , meaning that another `` war for oil '' could be in our future .
With Trump again taking aim at Venezuela , we may be closer to war than we think .
On Sunday , President Trump praised a deal reached largely by Saudi Arabia and Russia , two of the top oil producers in the world who together dominate the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreed upon production cuts would “ save hundreds of thousands of energy jobs in the United States.
” Despite the president ’ s rosy tone , most analysts have called the agreement – which presumably will freeze the Saudi-Russian oil price war that broke out last month – “ too little too late ” and have noted that a slew of bankruptcies from the U.S. shale oil industry are inevitable , despite the actions that have been taken .
Even the Federal Reserve has stated that around 40 % of domestic shale companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months if the price of oil remains under $ 30 , a figure it is unlikely to pass for some time due to slumping demand caused by global lockdowns , among other factors that have emerged as the current coronavirus ( Covid-19 ) crisis has played out .
Trump has since fielded the possibility of imposing tariffs on oil imports to drive up oil prices and favor the domestic consumption of U.S. shale oil , but it remains to be seen if that policy will materialize .
Michael Hudson , President of The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trends ( ISLET ) , a former Wall Street financial analyst and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri , told The Last American Vagabond that , not only are numerous shale oil companies set to go out of business , but the entire shale oil industry in the U.S. “ can ’ t be saved.
” “ We have peak shale oil , ” Hudson stated , “ It was always an awful idea … It ’ s an over indebted sector and is one of the first to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. government ’ s “ nurturing ” of the shale oil sector in recent years was chiefly aimed at targeting Russia ’ s oil industry by driving down global oil prices , calling it an unsuccessful “ anti-Russian cold war campaign ” that has since backfired .
He added that Trump ’ s recent overtures with respect to the shale oil industry are likely aimed at “ making an excuse to give huge loans to the shale oil producers , as if it ’ s to keep them in business , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just going to pay the loans to themselves and go out of business .
It ’ s a cover story for a huge corporate giveaway before this sector falls and goes bankrupt.
” Thus , the imminent reckoning for shale oil in the U.S. is unlikely to be stopped , despite the new production cuts and Trump ’ s efforts last month to set aside billions for the purchase of shale oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ( SPR ) , a move critics labeled as a bail-out for domestic “ Big Oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fate of U.S. shale oil is compounded by the possibility that the production cuts will not hold and that the oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia could flare up again at any time .
Previous yet recent OPEC-brokered deals of a similar nature have ended in this way , and it is very possible – if not likely – that it will happen again .
With oil extremely cheap at the moment , some of the issues raised by shale oil bankruptcies are not necessarily of immediate concern while demand remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic oil producers go bankrupt , once current lockdowns are relaxed and oil demand creeps back up to relatively normal levels , there will be less domestic oil available , despite the SPR .
As a result , the U.S. will again have to look more to other countries in order to make up the difference .
Though the media thus far has explored the economic effects of this eventuality , less attention – if any – has been given to how it will impact U.S. foreign policy .
For years , President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Middle East were no longer guided by oil due to the U.S. having obtained “ energy independence , ” “ independence ” that relies heavily on U.S. shale oil production .
However , critics – including Michael Hudson – have long charged that this claim of energy independence is a “ deliberate falsification.
” Such claims are also supported by the fact that U.S. foreign policy in Iraq , Syria and elsewhere has remained linked to oil in key ways during this period of so-called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet , the bankruptcies of 40 % ( or perhaps more ) of U.S. shale oil producers would likely greatly increase the role oil plays in guiding U.S. foreign policy .
While there are many reasons as to why oil has long been a key factor in U.S. foreign policy ( with the petrodollar ranking chief among them ) , another often overlooked reason is the U.S. military ’ s heavy reliance on oil .
Indeed , the U.S. military is the largest institutional purchaser and consumer of oil in the world and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stable and –ideally – geographically nearby source of oil has long been deemed a critical , strategic objective by the Pentagon .
The Pentagon has said as much on numerous occasions , stating recently that “ … longer operating distances , remote and austere geography , and anti-access/area denial threats [ areas or nations unfriendly to the U.S. ] are challenging the Department ’ s ability to assure the delivery of fuel .
As the ability to deliver energy is placed at risk , so too is the Department ’ s ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In other words , long distances from fuel sources as well as fuel sources located in or near areas/nations that are hostile to the U.S. directly threaten U.S. empire and its global military presence .
In addition , control and influence over global oil flows has long been a key component of military strategy , as noted in the “ Wolfowitz Doctrine.
” It is also worth noting that the economic calamity that threatens the domestic oil industry is not the only reliable , stable and geographically close oil supply to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Argentina ’ s shale oil industry in the “ Vaca Muerta ” area also faces ruin , an endeavor that had largely been “ kick-started ” by Exxon Mobilafter that company had been ejected from Venezuela and also includes considerable investments from another U.S. oil giant , Chevron – a company ordered by the Trump administration to stop doing business in Venezuela by April 22 .
Venezuela , the country with the world ’ s largest proven oil reserves , has also made a seemingly odd reappearance on the Trump administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus crisis .
On March 26 , the Department of Justice , led by Attorney General William Barr , announced narco-terrorism and other criminal charges against top Venezuelan officials , including the country ’ s president Nicolás Maduro , alleging that these officials are involved in the trafficking of cocaine to the United States .
The charges were odd for a few reasons , one of the main ones being that the U.S. government ’ s own data shows that Colombia , not Venezuela , is the source of the vast majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then , on March 31 , former CIA director and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo released a plan entitled “ Democratic Framework for Venezuela , ” where he demanded that Maduro resign and the “ opposition ” figure Juan Guaidó also relinquish his claim to the Venezuelan presidency , a claim to power that the U.S. had previously backed .
Pompeo ’ s plan calls for the formation of a council that would be led by an “ interim president ” ( a title the U.S. had previously reserved for Guaidó ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by members of Venezuela ’ s largest four political parties , including that led by Maduro .
Unsurprisingly , Maduro ’ s government rejected the plan .
The criminal charges against Maduro and Pompeo ’ s “ democratic ” plan were quickly followed with much more troubling news .
Announced at a press conference on April 1 , President Trump , alongside top government officials , announced that U.S. Southern Command would begin a new “ counter-narcotics effort ” targeting Venezuela that would include the deployment of Navy destroyers , combat ships , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official justification of this large deployment is to surveil , disrupt and seize shipments allegedly containing “ drugs ” that are leaving Venezuela .
“ We must not let narco-terrorists exploit the pandemic to threaten American lives , ” Trump said at the time .
It was also announced that other countries would be joining the U.S. in what amounts to both a military build-up and a de facto blockade of Venezuelan exports , including its oil .
Soon after the announcement regarding this new build-up and de facto naval blockade of Venezuela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using these announcements to deflect criticism about his administration ’ s handling of the federal response to the coronavirus crisis .
One report in Newsweek revealed that these initiatives with respect to Venezuela had been planned several months ago and were set to be announced this May .
That report also alleged , citing senior Pentagon officials , that the administration had decided to announce the planned crackdowns on Venezuela sooner in order to “ redirect attention.
” However , there may be another reason that these initiatives targeting Venezuela were sped up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. as well as Argentina and the implications of that for U.S. access – particularly the military ’ s access – to oil supplies once lockdowns and their associated economic effects begin to lessen .
Michael Hudson told The Last American Vagabond that the U.S. pivot towards Venezuela was “ absolutely ” related to the carnage in global oil markets and particularly the U.S. oil industry .
He further argued that the U.S. was seeking to reimpose a debt-for-oil system that it had enjoyed under pre-Chavista governments in Venezuela : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collateral [ for its debt ] with all of its oil reserves… [ Now , ] America wants to give IMF [ International Monetary Fund ] loans to Venezuela and [ oversee ] the collateralization of Venezuela ’ s foreign debt with its oil reserves and then foreclose .
[ They want to ] find an excuse to do to Venezuela what it did to Argentina , to grab Venezuela ’ s oil reserves as collateral by … preventing Venezuela from paying its foreign debt , [ thus ] forcing it to default @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to be a big part of the equation , as the U.S.-backed Juan Guaidó has long promoted IMF loans and personally sought sizable loans from that organization to finance his “ interim government , ” which controls essentially nothing in Venezuela .
More recently , the IMF rejected Venezuela ’ s request for a loan to help it combat the coronavirus crisis , but the IMF has reportedly offered to give the country such a loan were Venezuela ’ s President , Nicolas Maduro , to step down and cede authority to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is much more to be concerned about than the IMF and the U.S. ’ interest in imposing a debt-for-oil scheme on Venezuela .
As Hudson told The Last American Vagabond , one very notable “ great threat ” is the parallel between the recent U.S. policy and military moves towards Venezuela and the moves that were made by the George H.W .
Bush administration just prior to the 1989 invasion of Panama .
“ America would like to grab Venezuela ’ s oil and it wouldn ’ t be the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent mainstream media reports claimed that the sudden reappearance of Venezuela on the White House ’ s agenda was merely political theater , subsequent events suggest something else .
This past Saturday , U.S. envoy for Venezuela – war criminal and Project for a New American Century neo-con Elliott Abrams – stated that , if Venezuela ’ s Maduro did not agree to the Pompeo plan for a new “ transition government , ” a transition in Venezuelan governance would still occur , but would be more “ dangerous and abrupt.
” Abrams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the media , as the April 1 press conference and announcement had done , despite the fact that Abrams was essentially starting that “ dangerous and abrupt ” action would be taken to force Maduro from power .
There is also the added mystery of an incident that took place right before the announcement of the large deployment of U.S. military assets to target “ narco-terrorism.
” On the last day of March , a Venezuelan coast guard ship asked a Portuguese cruise ship , the “ RCGS Resolute , ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to port .
Instead , the cruise ship rammed the Venezuelan vessel , sinking it .
Maduro subsequently claimed that the cruise ship “ was being used to transport mercenaries , ” noting that Dutch authorities in Curacao , where the “ RCGS Resolute ” is currently docked , had been instructed to not inspect the ship .
The company that owns the cruise ship , however , asserts that it is carrying no passengers and disputes Venezuela ’ s account of why the coast guard vessel was sunk .
In addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that the U.S. ’ recently announced military build-up is the largest in the region since the U.S. invasion of Panama , which took place in 1989 during the George H.W .
Bush administration .
Disturbingly , the same Attorney General that greenlit the invasion of Panama once again serves in that same role in today ’ s administration , William Barr .
At the time of the Panama invasion , it was Barr who created the legal justification for the war , arguing that the U.S. had the “ legal authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manuel Noriega on drug charges , despite him not residing in the U.S. To think that Barr would not do so again is naive , especially considering that Trump had previously pushedto invade Venezuela , citing the invasion of Panama as an example of successful “ gunboat diplomacy , ” and has long talked about “ taking the oil ” of foreign countries and , in places like Syria , has used military force to do just that .
Though the 1989 invasion of Panama was dressed up in the typical rhetoric of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights , ” it was actually waged with the intention to utterly destroy Panama ’ s military .
Why would the U.S. want to destroy Panama ’ s capacity for self-defense ?
The answer lies in the treaty that then existed between Panama and the U.S. over the Panama canal , whereby control over the canal would eventually be returned to the Panamanians .
The only “ loophole ” for the U.S. to retain control of the canal , per that treaty , was if Panama became incapable of defending it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the canal was set to begin just ten days after the Bush administration ’ s invasion of Panama ended .
Not long after the invasion , in 1991 , the U.S. passed a law that ensured an indefinite U.S. military presence in the canal zone due to the fact that Panama ( thanks to the U.S. invasion ) could no longer defend that territory .
There are other notable points regarding the invasion of Panama that are seemingly relevant today as well .
For instance , media ’ s effort to manufacture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centered around pointing out Manuel Noriega ’ s involvement in narco-trafficking and Panama ’ s lack of democracy under his rule .
Of course , this rhetoric has obvious similarities to current rhetoric involving Venezuela .
However , this media campaign , in Noriega ’ s case , failed to note that the Noriega ’ s role in drug smuggling was largely on the behalf of U.S. interests and that Noriega had closely collaborated with then-President , George H.W .
Bush , when he had served as CIA director .
In addition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have been on the CIA payroll for years .
Such reports also overlooked the fact that the CIA had recently been caught driving the trafficking of drugs and weapons between Central America and the U.S. as part of the Iran Contra scandal .
If these reports had pointed this out , it would have made Noriega ’ s involvement in these matters , including his supporting role in Iran Contra , appear negligible by comparison .
Similarly , today , efforts to link Venezuelan leadership to the drug trade fail to note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a narco-paramilitary organization just a few months ago and that Colombian leadership and its military , the U.S. ’ biggest regional supporter of its Venezuela regime change agenda , both share direct ties to drug cartels .
It is also worth pointing out that , not only did the U.S. military hide the actual civilian death toll and cover up the war crimes committed during the invasion , they tested out new experimental weapons on the Panamanian people , which CounterPunch notedwas “ a kind of dress rehearsal for the Persian Gulf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readers of this article are likely aware , the Trump administration has been making strong overtures about regime change , and potentially war , in Iran alongside their push for regime change in Venezuela .
Were a similar invasion to occur in Venezuela , it seems likely that this pattern would repeat and would be treated as an experimental battlefield for a subsequent war in Iran .
The current confluence of factors suggests that such a Panama-style invasion of Venezuela is not only a possibility , but increasingly likely .
Indeed , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the few U.S. companies that have been given waivers to avoid sanctions for their operations in Venezuela ( namely Chevron ) to terminate their dealings in the country by April 22 – next Wednesday .
In addition , soon after that date , Venezuela ’ s oil sector is set to resume two joint oil ventures , one of which involves two European oil companies and another that involves Russia ’ Rosneft , which the U.S. sanctioned in February for doing business with Venezuela ’ s state oil company .
Those projects are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , respectively .
The U.S. is openly opposed to these projects going forward and has threatened sanctions ( and further sanctions in Rosneft ’ s case ) against the companies involved .
Taken in combination with Elliott Abrams ’ recent statements , the massive U.S. military build-up and the collapse of U.S. oil markets , such events seem to be pointing in the direction of an invasion being more likely than not .
There is also the added layer of the U.S. facing a new “ Great Depression ” and these major economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entering a major war .
On the other hand , there is also the fact that most of the U.S. population is on lockdown due to the coronavirus crisis , making domestic resistance against such an invasion unlikely to manifest in any significant way .
If Americans aren ’ t careful and don ’ t quickly begin to pay attention , the country could soon sleepwalk into another devastating and deadly “ war for oil .
”

President Trump has claimed that the US no longer needs foreign oil, and it "energy independent". Yet, now the US shale oil industry faces near total ruin, meaning that another "war for oil" could be in our future. With Trump again taking aim at Venezuela, we may be closer to war than we think.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about the crisis in Venezuela during a visit to Florida International University in Miami, Florida, U.S., February 18, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
On Sunday, President Trump praised a deal reached largely by Saudi Arabia and Russia, two of the top oil producers in the world who together dominate the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), saying that the agreed upon production cuts would “save hundreds of thousands of energy jobs in the United States.”
Despite the president’s rosy tone, most analysts have called the agreement – which presumably will freeze the Saudi-Russian oil price war that broke out last month – “too little too late” and have noted that a slew of bankruptcies from the U.S. shale oil industry are inevitable, despite the actions that have been taken. Even the Federal Reserve has stated that around 40% of domestic shale companies now face bankruptcy in just a few months if the price of oil remains under $30, a figure it is unlikely to pass for some time due to slumping demand caused by global lockdowns, among other factors that have emerged as the current coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis has played out. Trump has since fielded the possibility of imposing tariffs on oil imports to drive up oil prices and favor the domestic consumption of U.S. shale oil, but it remains to be seen if that policy will materialize.
Michael Hudson, President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a former Wall Street financial analyst and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, told The Last American Vagabond that, not only are numerous shale oil companies set to go out of business, but the entire shale oil industry in the U.S. “can’t be saved.”
“We have peak shale oil,” Hudson stated, “It was always an awful idea … It’s an over indebted sector and is one of the first to go.” Hudson further asserted that the U.S. government’s “nurturing” of the shale oil sector in recent years was chiefly aimed at targeting Russia’s oil industry by driving down global oil prices, calling it an unsuccessful “anti-Russian cold war campaign” that has since backfired. He added that Trump’s recent overtures with respect to the shale oil industry are likely aimed at “making an excuse to give huge loans to the shale oil producers, as if it’s to keep them in business, and then they [the oil companies] are just going to pay the loans to themselves and go out of business. It’s a cover story for a huge corporate giveaway before this sector falls and goes bankrupt.”
Thus, the imminent reckoning for shale oil in the U.S. is unlikely to be stopped, despite the new production cuts and Trump’s efforts last month to set aside billions for the purchase of shale oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), a move critics labeled as a bail-out for domestic “Big Oil” producers. In addition, the fate of U.S. shale oil is compounded by the possibility that the production cuts will not hold and that the oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia could flare up again at any time. Previous yet recent OPEC-brokered deals of a similar nature have ended in this way, and it is very possible – if not likely – that it will happen again.
With oil extremely cheap at the moment, some of the issues raised by shale oil bankruptcies are not necessarily of immediate concern while demand remains low. Yet, if enough U.S. domestic oil producers go bankrupt, once current lockdowns are relaxed and oil demand creeps back up to relatively normal levels, there will be less domestic oil available, despite the SPR. As a result, the U.S. will again have to look more to other countries in order to make up the difference. Though the media thus far has explored the economic effects of this eventuality, less attention – if any – has been given to how it will impact U.S. foreign policy.
For years, President Trump has publicly claimed on several occasions that U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Middle East were no longer guided by oil due to the U.S. having obtained “energy independence,” “independence” that relies heavily on U.S. shale oil production. However, critics – including Michael Hudson – have long charged that this claim of energy independence is a “deliberate falsification.” Such claims are also supported by the fact that U.S. foreign policy in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere has remained linked to oil in key ways during this period of so-called “domestic energy independence” under Trump. Yet, the bankruptcies of 40% (or perhaps more) of U.S. shale oil producers would likely greatly increase the role oil plays in guiding U.S. foreign policy.
While there are many reasons as to why oil has long been a key factor in U.S. foreign policy (with the petrodollar ranking chief among them), another often overlooked reason is the U.S. military’s heavy reliance on oil. Indeed, the U.S. military is the largest institutional purchaser and consumer of oil in the world and, therefore, securing a reliable, stable and –ideally – geographically nearby source of oil has long been deemed a critical, strategic objective by the Pentagon.
The Pentagon has said as much on numerous occasions, stating recently that “… longer operating distances, remote and austere geography, and anti-access/area denial threats [areas or nations unfriendly to the U.S.] are challenging the Department’s ability to assure the delivery of fuel. As the ability to deliver energy is placed at risk, so too is the Department’s ability to deploy and sustain forces around the globe.”
In other words, long distances from fuel sources as well as fuel sources located in or near areas/nations that are hostile to the U.S. directly threaten U.S. empire and its global military presence. In addition, control and influence over global oil flows has long been a key component of military strategy, as noted in the “Wolfowitz Doctrine.”
It is also worth noting that the economic calamity that threatens the domestic oil industry is not the only reliable, stable and geographically close oil supply to be hit by the crisis. For instance, Argentina’s shale oil industry in the “Vaca Muerta” area also faces ruin, an endeavor that had largely been “kick-started” by Exxon Mobilafter that company had been ejected from Venezuela and also includes considerable investments from another U.S. oil giant, Chevron – a company ordered by the Trump administration to stop doing business in Venezuela by April 22.
Venezuela, the country with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, has also made a seemingly odd reappearance on the Trump administration’s list of priorities during the current coronavirus crisis. On March 26, the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General William Barr, announced narco-terrorism and other criminal charges against top Venezuelan officials, including the country’s president Nicolás Maduro, alleging that these officials are involved in the trafficking of cocaine to the United States. The charges were odd for a few reasons, one of the main ones being that the U.S. government’s own data shows that Colombia, not Venezuela, is the source of the vast majority of cocaine that ends up in the U.S.
Then, on March 31, former CIA director and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo released a plan entitled “Democratic Framework for Venezuela,” where he demanded that Maduro resign and the “opposition” figure Juan Guaidó also relinquish his claim to the Venezuelan presidency, a claim to power that the U.S. had previously backed. Pompeo’s plan calls for the formation of a council that would be led by an “interim president” (a title the U.S. had previously reserved for Guaidó) and that the council would be formed by members of Venezuela’s largest four political parties, including that led by Maduro. Unsurprisingly, Maduro’s government rejected the plan.
The criminal charges against Maduro and Pompeo’s “democratic” plan were quickly followed with much more troubling news. Announced at a press conference on April 1, President Trump, alongside top government officials, announced that U.S. Southern Command would begin a new “counter-narcotics effort” targeting Venezuela that would include the deployment of Navy destroyers, combat ships, aircraft, helicopters and more. The official justification of this large deployment is to surveil, disrupt and seize shipments allegedly containing “drugs” that are leaving Venezuela. “We must not let narco-terrorists exploit the pandemic to threaten American lives,” Trump said at the time. It was also announced that other countries would be joining the U.S. in what amounts to both a military build-up and a de facto blockade of Venezuelan exports, including its oil.
Soon after the announcement regarding this new build-up and de facto naval blockade of Venezuela, U.S. media accused President Trump of using these announcements to deflect criticism about his administration’s handling of the federal response to the coronavirus crisis. One report in Newsweek revealed that these initiatives with respect to Venezuela had been planned several months ago and were set to be announced this May. That report also alleged, citing senior Pentagon officials, that the administration had decided to announce the planned crackdowns on Venezuela sooner in order to “redirect attention.”
However, there may be another reason that these initiatives targeting Venezuela were sped up: the carnage in shale oil markets in the U.S. as well as Argentina and the implications of that for U.S. access – particularly the military’s access – to oil supplies once lockdowns and their associated economic effects begin to lessen.
Michael Hudson told The Last American Vagabond that the U.S. pivot towards Venezuela was “absolutely” related to the carnage in global oil markets and particularly the U.S. oil industry. He further argued that the U.S. was seeking to reimpose a debt-for-oil system that it had enjoyed under pre-Chavista governments in Venezuela: “Under U.S.-backed dictators, Venezuela provided the collateral [for its debt] with all of its oil reserves… [Now,] America wants to give IMF [International Monetary Fund] loans to Venezuela and [oversee] the collateralization of Venezuela’s foreign debt with its oil reserves and then foreclose. [They want to] find an excuse to do to Venezuela what it did to Argentina, to grab Venezuela’s oil reserves as collateral by … preventing Venezuela from paying its foreign debt, [thus] forcing it to default on its foreign debt.”
This certainly seems to be a big part of the equation, as the U.S.-backed Juan Guaidó has long promoted IMF loans and personally sought sizable loans from that organization to finance his “interim government,” which controls essentially nothing in Venezuela. More recently, the IMF rejected Venezuela’s request for a loan to help it combat the coronavirus crisis, but the IMF has reportedly offered to give the country such a loan were Venezuela’s President, Nicolas Maduro, to step down and cede authority to a U.S.-backed “emergency government.”
Yet, there is much more to be concerned about than the IMF and the U.S.’ interest in imposing a debt-for-oil scheme on Venezuela. As Hudson told The Last American Vagabond, one very notable “great threat” is the parallel between the recent U.S. policy and military moves towards Venezuela and the moves that were made by the George H.W. Bush administration just prior to the 1989 invasion of Panama. “America would like to grab Venezuela’s oil and it wouldn’t be the first time,” said Hudson.
Though recent mainstream media reports claimed that the sudden reappearance of Venezuela on the White House’s agenda was merely political theater, subsequent events suggest something else. This past Saturday, U.S. envoy for Venezuela – war criminal and Project for a New American Century neo-con Elliott Abrams – stated that, if Venezuela’s Maduro did not agree to the Pompeo plan for a new “transition government,” a transition in Venezuelan governance would still occur, but would be more “dangerous and abrupt.” Abrams’ comments failed to generate much buzz in the media, as the April 1 press conference and announcement had done, despite the fact that Abrams was essentially starting that “dangerous and abrupt” action would be taken to force Maduro from power.
There is also the added mystery of an incident that took place right before the announcement of the large deployment of U.S. military assets to target “narco-terrorism.” On the last day of March, a Venezuelan coast guard ship asked a Portuguese cruise ship, the “RCGS Resolute,” that was in Venezuelan territorial waters to accompany it to port. Instead, the cruise ship rammed the Venezuelan vessel, sinking it. Maduro subsequently claimed that the cruise ship “was being used to transport mercenaries,” noting that Dutch authorities in Curacao, where the “RCGS Resolute” is currently docked, had been instructed to not inspect the ship. The company that owns the cruise ship, however, asserts that it is carrying no passengers and disputes Venezuela’s account of why the coast guard vessel was sunk.
In addition to this disconcerting event, there is the fact that the U.S.’ recently announced military build-up is the largest in the region since the U.S. invasion of Panama, which took place in 1989 during the George H.W. Bush administration. Disturbingly, the same Attorney General that greenlit the invasion of Panama once again serves in that same role in today’s administration, William Barr. At the time of the Panama invasion, it was Barr who created the legal justification for the war, arguing that the U.S. had the “legal authority” to arrest Panama’s then-dictator Manuel Noriega on drug charges, despite him not residing in the U.S. To think that Barr would not do so again is naive, especially considering that Trump had previously pushedto invade Venezuela, citing the invasion of Panama as an example of successful “gunboat diplomacy,” and has long talked about “taking the oil” of foreign countries and, in places like Syria, has used military force to do just that.
Though the 1989 invasion of Panama was dressed up in the typical rhetoric of restoring “democracy” and promoting “human rights,” it was actually waged with the intention to utterly destroy Panama’s military. Why would the U.S. want to destroy Panama’s capacity for self-defense? The answer lies in the treaty that then existed between Panama and the U.S. over the Panama canal, whereby control over the canal would eventually be returned to the Panamanians.
The only “loophole” for the U.S. to retain control of the canal, per that treaty, was if Panama became incapable of defending it. Notably, the gradual turnover of control of the canal was set to begin just ten days after the Bush administration’s invasion of Panama ended. Not long after the invasion, in 1991, the U.S. passed a law that ensured an indefinite U.S. military presence in the canal zone due to the fact that Panama (thanks to the U.S. invasion) could no longer defend that territory.
There are other notable points regarding the invasion of Panama that are seemingly relevant today as well. For instance, media’s effort to manufacture public consent for the invasion was largely centered around pointing out Manuel Noriega’s involvement in narco-trafficking and Panama’s lack of democracy under his rule. Of course, this rhetoric has obvious similarities to current rhetoric involving Venezuela.
However, this media campaign, in Noriega’s case, failed to note that the Noriega’s role in drug smuggling was largely on the behalf of U.S. interests and that Noriega had closely collaborated with then-President, George H.W. Bush, when he had served as CIA director. In addition, Noriega was well known at the time to have been on the CIA payroll for years. Such reports also overlooked the fact that the CIA had recently been caught driving the trafficking of drugs and weapons between Central America and the U.S. as part of the Iran Contra scandal. If these reports had pointed this out, it would have made Noriega’s involvement in these matters, including his supporting role in Iran Contra, appear negligible by comparison.
Similarly, today, efforts to link Venezuelan leadership to the drug trade fail to note that the U.S.-backed Juan Guaidó took selfies with a narco-paramilitary organization just a few months ago and that Colombian leadership and its military, the U.S.’ biggest regional supporter of its Venezuela regime change agenda, both share direct ties to drug cartels.
It is also worth pointing out that, not only did the U.S. military hide the actual civilian death toll and cover up the war crimes committed during the invasion, they tested out new experimental weapons on the Panamanian people, which CounterPunch notedwas “a kind of dress rehearsal for the Persian Gulf War the following year.” As many readers of this article are likely aware, the Trump administration has been making strong overtures about regime change, and potentially war, in Iran alongside their push for regime change in Venezuela. Were a similar invasion to occur in Venezuela, it seems likely that this pattern would repeat and would be treated as an experimental battlefield for a subsequent war in Iran.
The current confluence of factors suggests that such a Panama-style invasion of Venezuela is not only a possibility, but increasingly likely. Indeed, as previously mentioned, the U.S. has ordered the few U.S. companies that have been given waivers to avoid sanctions for their operations in Venezuela (namely Chevron) to terminate their dealings in the country by April 22 – next Wednesday. In addition, soon after that date, Venezuela’s oil sector is set to resume two joint oil ventures, one of which involves two European oil companies and another that involves Russia’ Rosneft, which the U.S. sanctioned in February for doing business with Venezuela’s state oil company. Those projects are due to re-initiate in May and July, respectively. The U.S. is openly opposed to these projects going forward and has threatened sanctions (and further sanctions in Rosneft’s case) against the companies involved.
Taken in combination with Elliott Abrams’ recent statements, the massive U.S. military build-up and the collapse of U.S. oil markets, such events seem to be pointing in the direction of an invasion being more likely than not. There is also the added layer of the U.S. facing a new “Great Depression” and these major economic downturns are often followed by the U.S. entering a major war. On the other hand, there is also the fact that most of the U.S. population is on lockdown due to the coronavirus crisis, making domestic resistance against such an invasion unlikely to manifest in any significant way. If Americans aren’t careful and don’t quickly begin to pay attention, the country could soon sleepwalk into another devastating and deadly “war for oil.”