lewrockwell--2020-02-10--Don’t Tell Me Not To Smoke!

Don’t Tell Me Not To Smoke!

David Hockney has revealed he has no regrets about his five-decade nicotine addiction and will continue smoking as an act of defiance .
The 82-year-old British artist told The Sunday Times Magazine that three medics who have advised him to kick the habit have now passed away before him .
He said : ‘ I ’ ve had three doctors in the past 40 or so years .
They all told me to give up smoking and now they ’ re all dead.
’ Despite having a minor stroke in 2012 and a heart attack 30 years ago , Hockney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smoking any time soon , after claiming the health scares were down to stress .
When asked if he had any regrets in life , the Yorkshire-native said : ‘ No .
I can honestly say that , for the last 60 years , every day I ’ ve done what I want to do .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 ‘ Not many people can say that .
I ’ ve been a professional artist .
I didn ’ t even teach much , just painted and drew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live life with purpose and pleasure has always been fundamental to him and his art – as such it ’ s no surprise that David won ’ t be curtailing his smoking habit .
The renowned artist – known for his contributions to the 1960s pop art moment – is even giving up life in his home of 55 years , Los Angeles , to move to Normandy , France , as the French are more relaxed about smoking .
Speaking to the Wall Street Journal Magazine in September 2019 , the art @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about smoking and that it is something he will never give up .
‘ I ’ ve smoked for more than 60 years , ’ he said .
‘ But I think I ’ m quite healthy .
I ’ m 82 .
How much longer do I have ?
I ’ m going to die of either a smoking-related illness or a non–smoking-related illness.
’ David has long been a pro-smoking activist , having campaigned in 2009 for the relaxing of the smoking ban in the UK .

David Hockney has revealed he has no regrets about his five-decade nicotine addiction and will continue smoking as an act of defiance.
The 82-year-old British artist told The Sunday Times Magazine that three medics who have advised him to kick the habit have now passed away before him.
He said: 'I've had three doctors in the past 40 or so years. They all told me to give up smoking and now they’re all dead.'
Despite having a minor stroke in 2012 and a heart attack 30 years ago, Hockney says he won't give up smoking any time soon, after claiming the health scares were down to stress.
David Hockney (pictured in May, 2015) has revealed he will continue smoking as an 'act of defiance'
When asked if he had any regrets in life, the Yorkshire-native said: 'No. I can honestly say that, for the last 60 years, every day I’ve done what I want to do.
'Not many people can say that. I’ve been a professional artist. I didn’t even teach much, just painted and drew every single day.'
A desire to live life with purpose and pleasure has always been fundamental to him and his art - as such it's no surprise that David won't be curtailing his smoking habit.
The renowned artist - known for his contributions to the 1960s pop art moment - is even giving up life in his home of 55 years, Los Angeles, to move to Normandy, France, as the French are more relaxed about smoking.
Despite having a minor stroke in 2012 and a heart attack 30 years ago, David (pictured in February 2018) said he won't give up smoking any time soon after claiming the health conditions were due to stress
David is seen smoking in support of groups campaigning against legislation to ban smoking in public places at the Labour Party conference on September 28, 2005 in Brighton, England
Speaking to the Wall Street Journal Magazine in September 2019, the art icon said Americans have become too censorious about smoking and that it is something he will never give up.
'I've smoked for more than 60 years,' he said. 'But I think I'm quite healthy. I'm 82. How much longer do I have? I'm going to die of either a smoking-related illness or a non–smoking-related illness.'
David has long been a pro-smoking activist, having campaigned in 2009 for the relaxing of the smoking ban in the UK.
He backed a cross-party group of MPs who wanted the ban to be relaxed to allow people to light up in designated rooms in pubs.
Hockney told the BBC's Politics Show at the time that he was appalled to find that his local cafe in east Yorkshire no longer even allowed people to smoke at tables outside because they were frightened that smoke would waft inside and breach the law.
Smoking was banned in England in all public indoor spaces, including work places, pubs, restaurants and nightclubs in 2007. The ban also applies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.


lewrockwell--2020-02-10--Optimize Your Kidney Health With a Low-Acid Diet

In this interview , Dr. Lynda Frassetto , a nephrologist and professor emeritus in the department of medicine at University of California San Francisco ( UCSF ) , shares important information about how acid in your diet affects your kidney health and longevity .
EMF*D : 5G , Wi-Fi & Cel ... Dr. Joseph Mercola Buy New $ 22.49 In the initial stages of their work , Frassetto and Sebastian worked on neutralizing acid in the diet using bicarbonate .
Then , just over a decade ago , they started looking at low-acid diets .
While all foods contain precursors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fruits and vegetables contain a lot of alkali precursors that are metabolized into bicarbonate , like citrate or malate .
Frassetto ’ s interest in low-acid diets began with the paleo diet , promoted by Loren Cordain , Ph.D .
According to Cordain , many foods in our modern diet were unavailable to our ancestors , such as processed grains and sugars .
He believed a diet closer to our ancestral diet would be healthier , and one of the reasons for this is because any diet high in fruits and vegetables ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be lower in acid .
As explained by Frassetto : According to Frassetto , most kidney disease in western countries is more advanced kidney disease caused by high blood pressure and Type 2 diabetes .
Three-quarters of patients on dialysis are there due to high blood pressure and diabetes .
So , ultimately , anything that helps improve diabetes and high blood pressure will also improve kidney health .
One strategy known to significantly lower your risk of Type 2 diabetes is fasting , including time-restricted eating .
I ’ ve previously interviewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada , who uses fasting to reverse diabetes in his patients .
Exercise is yet another strategy that will lower your risk of diabetes , and thus protect your kidney health .
Acid isn ’ t the only thing that can damage your kidneys .
High-protein diets can also cause harm , thanks to the ammonia generated .
As for which may ultimately be worse for you — high acid or high protein — Frassetto explains : Patients with advanced kidney disease will typically get exogenous alkali — usually a combination of sodium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been shown to slow the advancement of the disease and delay the need for dialysis .
The sodium citrate will also lower your risk of kidney stones .
Potassium bicarbonate should not be used when you have kidney disease .
The reason for this is because , when you have kidney failure , potassium can accumulate to lethal levels .
Controlling blood pressure and diabetes are also important when you have kidney disease , as is controlling proteinuria ( damage to the glomerular barrier ) .
The protein klotho is helpful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and phosphate is another acid that has to be excreted by your kidneys .
Interestingly , transgenic animals that have been genetically edited to overexpress the klotho gene also live 10 % to 40 % longer .
Klotho is a membrane transporter and a soluble protein .
When you eat a high-phosphate diet , you release fibroblast growth factor 23 ( FGF23 ) , which attaches to klotho as a cofactor and then goes to the kidneys , where it removes the transporters that allow your kidneys to reabsorb phosphate .
This helps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with age and declining kidney function , you need more and more FGF23 to get rid of the phosphate .
FGF23 also prevents the actions of 1-alpha hydroxylase , an enzyme necessary for the activation of vitamin D , and vitamin D is necessary for the production of klotho .
So , as you get older and continue eating a high-phosphate diet ( which is easy since phosphate is in most foods ) , your FGF23 goes up while your vitamin D and klotho levels go down .
As a result , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus incurring more and more damage .
The answer , then , is not only a low-acid diet .
You also want your diet to be relatively low in phosphate .
What is a high-phosphate diet ?
Frassetto explains : To get an idea of how well your kidneys are functioning , you ’ d typically start with a renal panel .
This will give you your blood urea nitrogen level and serum creatinine .
Your GFR is then calculated based on your gender , age , race and serum creatinine level .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ panel , other tests may be prudent .
While most people are familiar with oxidative stress , acidotic stress is another type of stress that can take a significant toll on your health .
Frassetto believes both are equally important , especially where kidney disease is concerned .
Acidotic stress also plays a role in aging .
Fat for Fuel : A Revolu ... Dr. Joseph Mercola Best Price : $ 7.40 Buy New $ 11.89 To summarize , a low-acid diet is basically a diet high in fruits and vegetables , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the more protein you eat , the more fruits and vegetables you need to maintain a healthy balance .
A low-acid diet is also low in or devoid of dairy products .
Keep in mind that by the time most people are sent to a nephrologist , they ’ ve already lost three-quarters of their kidney function .
So , to make a difference , you really want to start thinking about your kidney function early on .
Get regular blood tests of your BUN and creatinine , and a urinalysis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , address it as soon as possible .
While the kidney transplant process has improved a great deal in recent years , the number of available donors is limited , so the number of patients on dialysis has steadily risen .
As noted by Frassetto , dialysis is extremely expensive , and just barely keeps you alive .
Moreover , while end-stage renal disease is covered by Medicare in the U.S. , it only really covers dialysis .
It does not cover all needed medications , for example .
The take-home message is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end-stage therapies .
The answer is preventing the problem in the first place .
The role of dietary acid is a fairly recent discovery that is not widely known , but that can make a big difference in your renal health .
Avoiding high-phosphate foods could go a long way toward improving and maintaining your kidney function as you get older .
Cronometer , a free online nutrition tracker , is an easy way to track the amount of phosphorous is in your diet .
The National Kidney Foundation ’ s website1 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joseph Mercola

In this interview, Dr. Lynda Frassetto, a nephrologist and professor emeritus in the department of medicine at University of California San Francisco (UCSF), shares important information about how acid in your diet affects your kidney health and longevity.
“When I was in internal medicine training, I happened to have a really super mentor, Dr. Eli Friedman, at the State University of New York (SUNY) in Brooklyn,” Frassetto says. “He made nephrology sound really interesting.
And so, after I finished my residency and was a hospitalist for a couple of years, I decided to go back and do nephrology, because people who did nephrology just have a better understanding of physiology than most internists do.
I thought that would help make me a better doctor. After I finished my fellowship, I started working with Anthony Sebastian here at UCSF. He was interested in diet acid load in people who were relatively healthy.
The kidneys do a lot of things. One of the things they do is they get rid of acid. We know that as kidney failure progresses, you have trouble getting rid of the acid. It accumulates in your system and has a lot of bad side effects.
We also know that, as you get older, your kidneys tend not to work as well. What Tony was looking at was, in otherwise healthy, older people — whose kidneys just aren’t working as well as they did, let’s say, 40 or 50 years earlier — does eating a high-acid diet have any potential side effects?”
Low-Acid Diets as a Means to Protect Kidney Function
EMF*D: 5G, Wi-Fi & Cel... Dr. Joseph Mercola Buy New $22.49 (as of 09:53 UTC - Details) In the initial stages of their work, Frassetto and Sebastian worked on neutralizing acid in the diet using bicarbonate. Then, just over a decade ago, they started looking at low-acid diets. While all foods contain precursors that can be metabolized into acids, fruits and vegetables contain a lot of alkali precursors that are metabolized into bicarbonate, like citrate or malate.
Frassetto’s interest in low-acid diets began with the paleo diet, promoted by Loren Cordain, Ph.D. According to Cordain, many foods in our modern diet were unavailable to our ancestors, such as processed grains and sugars.
He believed a diet closer to our ancestral diet would be healthier, and one of the reasons for this is because any diet high in fruits and vegetables (and devoid of processed food) will be lower in acid. As explained by Frassetto:
“If you look at any large population, and you just look at the average kidney function over time, on average, everybody’s kidney function declines. But if you look at specific individuals, kidney function either declines much more slowly or may even level out.
The question is, ‘How related is that to eating a low-acid diet or doing things that wouldn’t bother your kidneys?’ This has actually been looked at by Dr. Donald Wesson, a nephrologist at University of Texas (UT) Southwestern.
He’s looked at both alkalized supplements and fruits and vegetable diets in people with Stage 2 kidney disease, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between 60 and 90, and Stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD), which has an estimated GFR from 30 to 60.
[GFR is] an estimate of kidney function. So, if you’re 50 years old, your GFR is about 90. If you’re 80 years old, your GFR is about 60. On average, people who are older are going to have … Stage 2 or Stage 3 CKD.
Wesson showed that in these people, if you either give them alkalized supplements like baking soda, or put them on a diet with more fruits and vegetables, that you could slow the rate of decline …
If you extrapolate that from people with kidney failure to just older people, the idea would be that, maybe, you can slow the rate of decline of your kidney function, even if you’re otherwise healthy and just getting older. That’s the idea.
Everything that you do, everything, is related to kidney function in some degree. Because the kidneys get rid of a lot of things. The worse the kidneys work, the worse everything works.”+
Fasting Also Protects Kidney Function
According to Frassetto, most kidney disease in western countries is more advanced kidney disease caused by high blood pressure and Type 2 diabetes. Three-quarters of patients on dialysis are there due to high blood pressure and diabetes. So, ultimately, anything that helps improve diabetes and high blood pressure will also improve kidney health.
One strategy known to significantly lower your risk of Type 2 diabetes is fasting, including time-restricted eating. I’ve previously interviewed Dr. Jason Fung, a nephrologist in Canada, who uses fasting to reverse diabetes in his patients. Exercise is yet another strategy that will lower your risk of diabetes, and thus protect your kidney health.
Acid Versus Protein Damage
Acid isn’t the only thing that can damage your kidneys. High-protein diets can also cause harm, thanks to the ammonia generated. As for which may ultimately be worse for you — high acid or high protein — Frassetto explains:
“All proteins contain acid precursors. If you’re eating a high protein load and you don’t have enough alkali to help the kidneys either buffer or get rid of the acid, then that’s ultimately bad for your kidneys. But you do need to eat a certain amount of protein, or you’re going to have problems building things too.
This is really a balance question. It’s not that protein is bad. It’s that, if you’re eating a lot of protein, you should also be eating a lot of alkali. That will help you not use the body systems to neutralize or buffer the acid in your system. The whole idea is that you want to maintain your blood pH within the range considered to be normal.
To do that, you either move the acid inside the cells, you break down the muscles to supply glutamine, ultimately to the kidneys, to excrete the acid as ammonium. You also break down your bone, which is calcium hydroxyapatite, which is the alkali.
Or, you have to decrease the amount of endogenous acids that you produce in order to be able to maintain your blood pH. Your body has a lot of ways of dealing with the acids that the kidney has to get rid of.
So, if you’re giving the body exogenous alkali, meaning you either take bicarbonate or you eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, you don’t need to break down your bones and muscles in order to be able to neutralize the acid in your system …
Hydrogen ions are balanced at the level of 10-9, which is a super-low level of free hydrogen ions in the body. And the changes that you can make to that without going outside the range of normal and becoming ill is not very big.
There are only a couple of things you can do here. Either you’re going to break down your body systems or you [need to] give your body exogenous alkali.”
Patients with advanced kidney disease will typically get exogenous alkali — usually a combination of sodium bicarbonate and sodium citrate — as it’s been shown to slow the advancement of the disease and delay the need for dialysis. The sodium citrate will also lower your risk of kidney stones.
Potassium bicarbonate should not be used when you have kidney disease. The reason for this is because, when you have kidney failure, potassium can accumulate to lethal levels. Controlling blood pressure and diabetes are also important when you have kidney disease, as is controlling proteinuria (damage to the glomerular barrier).
How Klotho Benefits Kidney Function
The protein klotho is helpful for ridding your body of phosphate, and phosphate is another acid that has to be excreted by your kidneys. Interestingly, transgenic animals that have been genetically edited to overexpress the klotho gene also live 10% to 40% longer.
Klotho is a membrane transporter and a soluble protein. When you eat a high-phosphate diet, you release fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23), which attaches to klotho as a cofactor and then goes to the kidneys, where it removes the transporters that allow your kidneys to reabsorb phosphate. This helps maintain a normal phosphate balance.
However, with age and declining kidney function, you need more and more FGF23 to get rid of the phosphate. FGF23 also prevents the actions of 1-alpha hydroxylase, an enzyme necessary for the activation of vitamin D, and vitamin D is necessary for the production of klotho.
So, as you get older and continue eating a high-phosphate diet (which is easy since phosphate is in most foods), your FGF23 goes up while your vitamin D and klotho levels go down. As a result, your kidneys start reabsorbing more phosphate, thus incurring more and more damage.
The answer, then, is not only a low-acid diet. You also want your diet to be relatively low in phosphate. What is a high-phosphate diet? Frassetto explains:
“First off, dairy products. All dairy products contain essentially four things: calcium, phosphorus, protein and fat … So, for kidney failure patients, we pretty much eliminate dairy products.
And then colas. They add phosphatidic acid to a lot of things, including soda. We try to get people not to drink stuff that has phosphatidic acid in it. And then there are some other specific foods, like chocolate and nuts that we tell people with advanced kidney failure to avoid … Beans are another high source of phosphate.”
Assessing Your Kidney Function
To get an idea of how well your kidneys are functioning, you’d typically start with a renal panel. This will give you your blood urea nitrogen level and serum creatinine. Your GFR is then calculated based on your gender, age, race and serum creatinine level. Based on the results of your renal panel, other tests may be prudent.
“In terms of just looking at kidney health, there are two things that we look at,” Frassetto says. “One is [the estimated] GFR number. Two is, ‘Do you have any protein in the urine?’ Those can be two separate problems. Protein in the urine, in and of itself, is bad for kidney function …
This was discovered many years ago by Dr. Barry Brenner. He did five/sixth nephrectomies in rats (so only a small part of one kidney remained) and showed that the remaining kidney, the so-called nephron remnant, had to hyperfilter to be able to clear all the blood. That hyperfiltration through the glomerular membrane was bad for the membrane, so the membrane started to leak protein, and the kidneys failed faster.
So, we now know that there are a number of kidney problems where the membrane is leaking protein. That causes the kidney to be more damaged.
If you had to do just two things just to see how healthy you are, the first would be to get a blood test to see where your kidney function is. The second is to get a urinalysis. Pretty much any time you go in for a primary care visit, those are the two tests that they usually do.”
Acidotic Stress
While most people are familiar with oxidative stress, acidotic stress is another type of stress that can take a significant toll on your health. Frassetto believes both are equally important, especially where kidney disease is concerned. Acidotic stress also plays a role in aging.
“A friend of mine named Dr. Elissa Epel has looked at the relationship between telomere length, telomerase activity and oxidative stress. [She] has shown people who are under a lot of psychological stress have shorter telomeres and abnormal telomerase function.
They have higher levels of oxidative stress. I happen to have done more research on [acidotic stress], but really, I think it’s a combination of both,” Frassetto says. “So, the whole idea would be to lower the amount of oxidative stress and lower the amount of acidotic stress, and therefore limit the damage to the body.”
More Information
Fat for Fuel: A Revolu... Dr. Joseph Mercola Best Price: $7.40 Buy New $11.89 (as of 10:20 UTC - Details) To summarize, a low-acid diet is basically a diet high in fruits and vegetables, with a moderate amount of protein. Again, the more protein you eat, the more fruits and vegetables you need to maintain a healthy balance. A low-acid diet is also low in or devoid of dairy products.
Keep in mind that by the time most people are sent to a nephrologist, they’ve already lost three-quarters of their kidney function. So, to make a difference, you really want to start thinking about your kidney function early on. Get regular blood tests of your BUN and creatinine, and a urinalysis, and if they start revealing a problem, address it as soon as possible.
While the kidney transplant process has improved a great deal in recent years, the number of available donors is limited, so the number of patients on dialysis has steadily risen.
As noted by Frassetto, dialysis is extremely expensive, and just barely keeps you alive. Moreover, while end-stage renal disease is covered by Medicare in the U.S., it only really covers dialysis. It does not cover all needed medications, for example.
The take-home message is that you cannot count on sophisticated end-stage therapies. The answer is preventing the problem in the first place. The role of dietary acid is a fairly recent discovery that is not widely known, but that can make a big difference in your renal health.
Avoiding high-phosphate foods could go a long way toward improving and maintaining your kidney function as you get older. Cronometer, a free online nutrition tracker, is an easy way to track the amount of phosphorous is in your diet. The National Kidney Foundation’s website1 is another helpful resource.
Sources and References
1 National Kidney Foundation
The Best of Dr. Joseph Mercola


lewrockwell--2020-02-11--A Most Convenient Virus

A Most Convenient Virus

I prefer to write on things I know about , but once in a while an opportunity presents itself for me to comment on some aspect of widespread mistrust and confusion while resting on a solid foundation of my professional curiosity .
This is the case of the 2019-nCoV novel coronavirus .
A lot of the elements of the coronavirus story just don ’ t add up , and that ’ s what I want to explore .
At the outset , I want to make it clear that I am no expert on these matters .
Is 2019-nCoV a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a naturally evolved strain of a virus that is endemic in China ’ s bat population ?
This we don ’ t know , but it is interesting to look at the plausibility of each of these scenarios and also to consider whether what we are observing could be a combination of a little of each .
As a biological weapon of mass destruction , 2019-nCoV isn ’ t particularly good .
On the plus side , it is highly contagious and can be spread by infected individuals who are not showing any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shortness of breath .
On the minus side , the mortality rate is a mere 2.1 % and is likely to trend down because this rate does not account for a potentially huge number of young , healthy people who contracted the virus but never developed any symptoms , were never tested for it , and will never know that they had survived it .
For a virus to be potent as a bioweapon , its kill ratio needs to be optimized for killing the largest possible number of its victims , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the victims don ’ t die before they have a chance to spread the infection .
Another minus : the average age of those who succumb to it is around 65 , making it rather ineffective in impairing the productive capacities of a nation , be they industrial or military , since many of those who die are past their peak productive years or retired .
In fact , taking a rather cynical view , this virus could be rather helpful in reducing the burden of economically unproductive sick an elderly people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and given the respect Chinese society traditionally gives to its elders , consume a growing share of the country ’ s resources .
Reinventing Collapse : ... Dmitry Orlov Best Price : $ 3.92 Buy New $ 1.99 On the plus side , those who succumb to it are predominantly Chinese , male and elderly , and this may be taken as an indication of some very clever targeting .
In fact , the selectivity of this virus may be indicative of an effort to selectively take out members of the Chinese Communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically , to effect regime change there and to impose US-style Freedom & Democracy® upon the hapless Chinese population .
Given that the US no longer has the military might to take on China ( and can ’ t even respond to Iranian rocket attacks on its military bases ) , and given that the US has pretty much lost the trade war against China , a biological weapon may be the only arrow left in its quiver .
Let ’ s keep in mind that the Pentagon has built quite a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various pathogens .
Given that this is the Pentagon , whose basic task involves killing people , not the World Health Organization , it seems likely that they also do something along the lines of developing effective biological weapons .
A couple of years ago US operatives were caught collecting DNA samples from the Russian population and were promptly escorted out of the country .
The obvious supposition is that these samples were to be used to develop biological weapons to specifically target the Russian population .
I suspect that the specialists charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discover that the vast majority of the Russian population consists of just your regular white people , pretty much the same the world over , and to target them is to target themselves .
But that is not the case with the Chinese , whose genetic makeup is more distinctive .
This is all clearly inconclusive , and it may very well be the case that the Pentagon ’ s biological weapons program is just another part of its giant money-burning machine , or the case may be that it actually does produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that 2019-nCoV is the meager result it has so far managed to produce .
But then again , the way the epidemic started is not what you ’ d expect if an artificial strain were released at some place and time .
In that case , you ’ d expect an instantaneous spike in infections , with symptoms showing up in a tight cluster right at the end of the incubation period .
But instead what we saw was sporadic incidents of infection connected with a certain fish market in Wuhan gradually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests that the source of the virus is a natural one , such as the bats which were sold at this market .
However , the Chinese have been eating bats for thousands of years ( bat soup is a delicacy ) , so why would this virus only emerge now ?
The reason for the timing may simply be increased contact .
The virus emerged right around the Chinese new year .
According to the Chinese calendar , this is the year of the rat , and while the Chinese also eat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , around two-thirds of all the pigs in China have recently been lost to swine flu , driving up prices of pork and also , incidentally , forcing China to start importing pigs from the US , which were previously subject to an embargo .
This made the naturally abundant bats an attractive alternative to other sources of animal protein .
Equally serendipitously , China ’ s chicken population is now being ravaged by avian flu , and this , as you might expect , will force China to start importing chickens from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is all highly inconclusive , but a view may be taken that all is fair in love and war—and trade war with the US especially .
But what has set off a few alarms in my head was the reaction to the coronavirus epidemic , both in China and in the West , the US especially .
First , the Chinese government has treated the epidemic as an act of war , deploying all the means at its disposal , including the military , in order to contain its spread , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire huge cities under quarantine and extending the national holidays .
The response as been far beyond what this virus seems to warrant , with its low mortality rate .
Without saying so , the Chinese government has treated this epidemic as an act of biological warfare—perhaps as a dry run for a more lethal epidemic that may come in the future .
At any rate , the Chinese government is seeing to it that nobody can blame it for not taking the problem sufficiently seriously , or not doing enough about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been an exemplary effort to produce a panic and to smear China , making what is happening there into a horror story .
Not only did the mass media outlets do their best to stoke mass hysteria about all things Chinese , but various bloggers and independent “ experts ” pitched in to produce a panic .
There seems to have been a policy-driven reorientation from Russophibia ( where it has been high time for the US to silently admit defeat and move on ) to Sinophobia ( where the US is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it on a plate ) .
Those notionally independent commentators who are exploiting this opportunity to attack China are acting as useful idiots in this centrally choreographed media campaign .
The Five Stages of Col ... Dmitry Orlov Best Price : $ 4.53 Buy New $ 1.99 Third , the White House has recently requested that experts look into the possibility that 2019-nCoV has been genetically engineered .
It is often the case that the person who shouts “ Catch the thief !
” the loudest happens to be the thief himself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to declare that this virus is indeed an engineered biological weapon developed by… why , Russia , of course , and Mr. Putin personally .
Taking all of this into account , the scenario that seems most plausible to me was that this virus was genetically engineered in one of the Pentagon ’ s biological weapons laboratories and introduced into China via infected wild bats , having picked the technology and manufacturing mecca of Wuhan as a target .
The ultimate goal , one might surmise , is to induce US corporations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to “ make America great again.
” But my suspicion is that this isn ’ t going to work .
The Chinese government will succeed in stopping the epidemic , in the process demonstrating that it cares about its people and is effective in protecting them .
Already the infection rate , plotted on a log scale , is starting to slope down from a straight line , meaning that the epidemic is losing steam .
And then , working alongside many other countries , China will move on with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the United States , a country that get something for nothing simply by printing dollars .
The Best of Dmitry Orlov

I prefer to write on things I know about, but once in a while an opportunity presents itself for me to comment on some aspect of widespread mistrust and confusion while resting on a solid foundation of my professional curiosity. This is the case of the 2019-nCoV novel coronavirus. A lot of the elements of the coronavirus story just don’t add up, and that’s what I want to explore. At the outset, I want to make it clear that I am no expert on these matters. Is 2019-nCoV a genetically engineered biological weapon or is it a naturally evolved strain of a virus that is endemic in China’s bat population? This we don’t know, but it is interesting to look at the plausibility of each of these scenarios and also to consider whether what we are observing could be a combination of a little of each.
As a biological weapon of mass destruction, 2019-nCoV isn’t particularly good. On the plus side, it is highly contagious and can be spread by infected individuals who are not showing any of the symptoms, such as fever and shortness of breath. On the minus side, the mortality rate is a mere 2.1% and is likely to trend down because this rate does not account for a potentially huge number of young, healthy people who contracted the virus but never developed any symptoms, were never tested for it, and will never know that they had survived it. For a virus to be potent as a bioweapon, its kill ratio needs to be optimized for killing the largest possible number of its victims, but doing so slowly enough so that the victims don’t die before they have a chance to spread the infection.
Another minus: the average age of those who succumb to it is around 65, making it rather ineffective in impairing the productive capacities of a nation, be they industrial or military, since many of those who die are past their peak productive years or retired. In fact, taking a rather cynical view, this virus could be rather helpful in reducing the burden of economically unproductive sick an elderly people who, in an aging Chinese population, and given the respect Chinese society traditionally gives to its elders, consume a growing share of the country’s resources. Reinventing Collapse: ... Dmitry Orlov Best Price: $3.92 Buy New $1.99 (as of 10:45 UTC - Details)
On the plus side, those who succumb to it are predominantly Chinese, male and elderly, and this may be taken as an indication of some very clever targeting. In fact, the selectivity of this virus may be indicative of an effort to selectively take out members of the Chinese Communist party, in order to destabilize China politically, to effect regime change there and to impose US-style Freedom&Democracy® upon the hapless Chinese population. Given that the US no longer has the military might to take on China (and can’t even respond to Iranian rocket attacks on its military bases), and given that the US has pretty much lost the trade war against China, a biological weapon may be the only arrow left in its quiver.
Let’s keep in mind that the Pentagon has built quite a number of facilities around the world that research various pathogens. Given that this is the Pentagon, whose basic task involves killing people, not the World Health Organization, it seems likely that they also do something along the lines of developing effective biological weapons. A couple of years ago US operatives were caught collecting DNA samples from the Russian population and were promptly escorted out of the country.
The obvious supposition is that these samples were to be used to develop biological weapons to specifically target the Russian population. I suspect that the specialists charged with this task were most disappointed to discover that the vast majority of the Russian population consists of just your regular white people, pretty much the same the world over, and to target them is to target themselves. But that is not the case with the Chinese, whose genetic makeup is more distinctive. This is all clearly inconclusive, and it may very well be the case that the Pentagon’s biological weapons program is just another part of its giant money-burning machine, or the case may be that it actually does produce a biological weapon now and again, and that 2019-nCoV is the meager result it has so far managed to produce.
But then again, the way the epidemic started is not what you’d expect if an artificial strain were released at some place and time. In that case, you’d expect an instantaneous spike in infections, with symptoms showing up in a tight cluster right at the end of the incubation period. But instead what we saw was sporadic incidents of infection connected with a certain fish market in Wuhan gradually giving rise to an epidemic. This suggests that the source of the virus is a natural one, such as the bats which were sold at this market. However, the Chinese have been eating bats for thousands of years (bat soup is a delicacy), so why would this virus only emerge now?
The reason for the timing may simply be increased contact. The virus emerged right around the Chinese new year. According to the Chinese calendar, this is the year of the rat, and while the Chinese also eat rats, bats are preferred. Also, around two-thirds of all the pigs in China have recently been lost to swine flu, driving up prices of pork and also, incidentally, forcing China to start importing pigs from the US, which were previously subject to an embargo. This made the naturally abundant bats an attractive alternative to other sources of animal protein. Equally serendipitously, China’s chicken population is now being ravaged by avian flu, and this, as you might expect, will force China to start importing chickens from the US as well.
Of course, this is all highly inconclusive, but a view may be taken that all is fair in love and war—and trade war with the US especially. But what has set off a few alarms in my head was the reaction to the coronavirus epidemic, both in China and in the West, the US especially.
First, the Chinese government has treated the epidemic as an act of war, deploying all the means at its disposal, including the military, in order to contain its spread, building several large new hospitals, putting entire huge cities under quarantine and extending the national holidays. The response as been far beyond what this virus seems to warrant, with its low mortality rate. Without saying so, the Chinese government has treated this epidemic as an act of biological warfare—perhaps as a dry run for a more lethal epidemic that may come in the future. At any rate, the Chinese government is seeing to it that nobody can blame it for not taking the problem sufficiently seriously, or not doing enough about it.
Second, the Western media response has been an exemplary effort to produce a panic and to smear China, making what is happening there into a horror story. Not only did the mass media outlets do their best to stoke mass hysteria about all things Chinese, but various bloggers and independent “experts” pitched in to produce a panic. There seems to have been a policy-driven reorientation from Russophibia (where it has been high time for the US to silently admit defeat and move on) to Sinophobia (where the US is yet to have its ass handed to it on a plate). Those notionally independent commentators who are exploiting this opportunity to attack China are acting as useful idiots in this centrally choreographed media campaign. The Five Stages of Col... Orlov, Dmitry Best Price: $4.27 Buy New $1.99 (as of 03:30 UTC - Details)
Third, the White House has recently requested that experts look into the possibility that 2019-nCoV has been genetically engineered. It is often the case that the person who shouts “Catch the thief!” the loudest happens to be the thief himself. I suspect that the next move will be to declare that this virus is indeed an engineered biological weapon developed by… why, Russia, of course, and Mr. Putin personally.
Taking all of this into account, the scenario that seems most plausible to me was that this virus was genetically engineered in one of the Pentagon’s biological weapons laboratories and introduced into China via infected wild bats, having picked the technology and manufacturing mecca of Wuhan as a target. The ultimate goal, one might surmise, is to induce US corporations to repatriate production to the US mainland in order to “make America great again.”
But my suspicion is that this isn’t going to work. The Chinese government will succeed in stopping the epidemic, in the process demonstrating that it cares about its people and is effective in protecting them. Already the infection rate, plotted on a log scale, is starting to slope down from a straight line, meaning that the epidemic is losing steam. And then, working alongside many other countries, China will move on with the main task of eradicating the other parasite—which is the United States, a country that get something for nothing simply by printing dollars.
Reprinted with permission from Dmitry Orlov.
The Best of Dmitry Orlov


lewrockwell--2020-02-11--Democrats Ignore Trump’s Real Violations

This week the latest Democratic Party attempt to remove President Trump from office – impeachment over Trump allegedly holding up an arms deal to Ukraine – flopped .
Just like “ Russiagate ” and the Mueller investigation , and a number of other attempts to overturn the 2016 election .
We ’ ve had three years of accusations and investigations with untold millions of dollars spent in a never-ending Democratic Party effort to remove President Trump from office .
Why do the Democrats keep swinging and missing at Trump ?
They can ’ t make a good case for abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really oppose Trump ’ s most egregious abuses of power .
Congress , with a few exceptions , strongly supports the President flouting the Constitution when it comes to overseas aggression and shoveling more money into the military-industrial complex .
In April , 2018 , President Trump fired 100 Tomahawk missiles into Syria allegedly as punishment for a Syrian government chemical attack in Douma .
Though the US was not under imminent threat of attack from Syria , Trump didn ’ t wait for a Congressional declaration of war on Syria or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , he didn ’ t even wait for an investigation of the event to find out what actually happened !
He just decided to send a hundred missiles – at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars – into Syria .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 We are now finding out from whistleblowers on the UN team that investigated the alleged attack that the report blaming the Syrian government was falsified and that the whole “ attack ” was nothing but a false flag operation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with which we are not at war not worth investigating as a potential “ high crime ” or “ misdemeanor ” ?
Last month , President Trump authorized the assassination of a top Iranian General , Qassim Soleimani , and a top Iraqi military officer inside Iraqi territory while Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission .
Trump and his Administration tried to claim that the attack was essential because of an “ imminent threat ” of a Soleimani attack on US troops in the region .
We found out shortly afterward that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The assassination was not “ urgent ” – it was planned back in June .
Trump then claimed it didn ’ t matter whether there was an imminent threat : Soleimani was a bad guy so he deserved to be assassinated .
But the attack was an act of war on Iran without Congressional declaration or authorization for war .
Is that not perhaps a “ high crime ” or “ misdemeanor ” ?
We are finding out that , contrary to Trump claims , Soleimani was not even behind the December attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence suggests it was actually an ISIS operation attempting to goad the US into moving against Iraq ’ s Shia militias .
Fantasies about Trump being an agent of Putin or trying to get Ukraine to help him win the election are presented as urgent reasons Trump must be removed from office .
Real-life violations of the Constitution and reckless militarism that may get us embroiled in another Middle East war are shrugged off as “ business as usual ” by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington .
Democrats won ’ t move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ high crimes ” and “ misdemeanors ” because they support his overseas aggression .
They just wish they were the ones pulling the trigger .
The Best of Ron Paul

This week the latest Democratic Party attempt to remove President Trump from office – impeachment over Trump allegedly holding up an arms deal to Ukraine – flopped. Just like “Russiagate” and the Mueller investigation, and a number of other attempts to overturn the 2016 election.
We’ve had three years of accusations and investigations with untold millions of dollars spent in a never-ending Democratic Party effort to remove President Trump from office.
Why do the Democrats keep swinging and missing at Trump? They can’t make a good case for abuse of power because they don’t really oppose Trump’s most egregious abuses of power. Congress, with a few exceptions, strongly supports the President flouting the Constitution when it comes to overseas aggression and shoveling more money into the military-industrial complex.
In April, 2018, President Trump fired 100 Tomahawk missiles into Syria allegedly as punishment for a Syrian government chemical attack in Douma. Though the US was not under imminent threat of attack from Syria, Trump didn’t wait for a Congressional declaration of war on Syria or even an authorization for a missile strike. In fact, he didn’t even wait for an investigation of the event to find out what actually happened! He just decided to send a hundred missiles – at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars – into Syria. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
We are now finding out from whistleblowers on the UN team that investigated the alleged attack that the report blaming the Syrian government was falsified and that the whole “attack” was nothing but a false flag operation.
Is such unauthorized aggression against a country with which we are not at war not worth investigating as a potential “high crime” or “misdemeanor”?
Last month, President Trump authorized the assassination of a top Iranian General, Qassim Soleimani, and a top Iraqi military officer inside Iraqi territory while Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission. Trump and his Administration tried to claim that the attack was essential because of an “imminent threat” of a Soleimani attack on US troops in the region.
We found out shortly afterward that they lied about the “imminent threat.” The assassination was not “urgent” – it was planned back in June. Trump then claimed it didn’t matter whether there was an imminent threat: Soleimani was a bad guy so he deserved to be assassinated.
But the attack was an act of war on Iran without Congressional declaration or authorization for war. Is that not perhaps a “high crime” or “misdemeanor”?
We are finding out that, contrary to Trump claims, Soleimani was not even behind the December attack on US troops in Iraq. New evidence suggests it was actually an ISIS operation attempting to goad the US into moving against Iraq’s Shia militias.
Fantasies about Trump being an agent of Putin or trying to get Ukraine to help him win the election are presented as urgent reasons Trump must be removed from office. Real-life violations of the Constitution and reckless militarism that may get us embroiled in another Middle East war are shrugged off as “business as usual” by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington.
Democrats won’t move against Trump for what may be real “high crimes” and “misdemeanors” because they support his overseas aggression. They just wish they were the ones pulling the trigger.
The Best of Ron Paul, MD


Citizens United Revisited

It has been ten years since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision .
This being a presidential election year , it might be a good idea to revisit this case .
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ( BCRA ) of 2002—the McCain-Feingold Act—prevented corporations or labor unions funding “ electioneering communications ” that refer to a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election .
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , which was decided by the Supreme Court on January 21 , 2010 , by a 5-4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that upheld the provisions of BCRA prohibiting unions and corporations from broadcasting the abovementioned “ electioneering communications.
” Unions and corporations no longer have to create political action committees ( PACs ) to spend money on “ electioneering communications.
” President Obama famously condemned the Citizens United decision during his 2010 State of the Union Address : Gun Control and the Se ... Laurence M. Vance Buy New $ 5.95 Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections .
Well I don ’ t think American elections should be bankrolled by America ’ s most powerful interests , and worse , by foreign entities .
They should be decided by the American people , and that ’ s why I ’ m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong .
To this day , Democrats and progressives have never gotten over it .
On the tenth anniversary of the decision , Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
” Hillary Clinton opined : “ Ten years ago today , the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Citizens United unleashed hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate and special-interest money into U.S. elections .
The next president should propose a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.
” And then there is Bernie Sanders : “ Today marks 10 years since the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision , which allows corporations to spend unlimited money on elections .
We are going to overturn that decision and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although the BCRA was presumably about campaign financing , it was clearly designed to permit the government to limit who could speak and when they could speak .
Clearly , then , Citizens United was a victory for free speech .
The First Amendment reads : The Free Society Laurence M. Vance Best Price : $ 13.95 Buy New $ 18.00 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press ; or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.And as the majority opinion of the Supreme Court states : “ If the First Amendment has any force , it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens , or associations of citizens , for simply engaging in political speech.
” The problem with Citizens United is that it didn ’ t go far enough .
Unions , charitable organizations , religious organizations , and corporations still can not use funds from their treasuries to make contributions directly to political candidates or for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeat of a candidate in federal elections .
There are still limits on campaign contributions .
In a free society , individuals , groups , organizations , corporations , and unions would be free say or publish anything at any time about any political candidate .
They would also be free to spend any amount of money in whatever way they choose for or against any candidate they choose .
There would be no speech restrictions , public financing of elections , spending limits , donation limits , disclosure requirements , distinctions between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions .
The Best of Laurence M. Vance

It has been ten years since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. This being a presidential election year, it might be a good idea to revisit this case.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002—the McCain-Feingold Act—prevented corporations or labor unions funding “electioneering communications” that refer to a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which was decided by the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010, by a 5-4 vote, the Court reversed the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that upheld the provisions of BCRA prohibiting unions and corporations from broadcasting the abovementioned “electioneering communications.” Unions and corporations no longer have to create political action committees (PACs) to spend money on “electioneering communications.”
President Obama famously condemned the Citizens United decision during his 2010 State of the Union Address: Gun Control and the Se... Laurence M. Vance Buy New $5.95 (as of 11:36 UTC - Details)
Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
To this day, Democrats and progressives have never gotten over it. On the tenth anniversary of the decision, Elizabeth Warren maintained: “We need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.” Hillary Clinton opined: “Ten years ago today, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United unleashed hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate and special-interest money into U.S. elections. The next president should propose a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.” And then there is Bernie Sanders: “Today marks 10 years since the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allows corporations to spend unlimited money on elections. We are going to overturn that decision and get corporate money out of politics.”
Although the BCRA was presumably about campaign financing, it was clearly designed to permit the government to limit who could speak and when they could speak. Clearly, then, Citizens United was a victory for free speech.
The First Amendment reads: The Free Society Laurence M. Vance Best Price: $13.55 Buy New $17.54 (as of 04:55 UTC - Details)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.And as the majority opinion of the Supreme Court states: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The problem with Citizens United is that it didn’t go far enough. Unions, charitable organizations, religious organizations, and corporations still cannot use funds from their treasuries to make contributions directly to political candidates or for independent expenditures that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate in federal elections. There are still limits on campaign contributions.
In a free society, individuals, groups, organizations, corporations, and unions would be free say or publish anything at any time about any political candidate. They would also be free to spend any amount of money in whatever way they choose for or against any candidate they choose. There would be no speech restrictions, public financing of elections, spending limits, donation limits, disclosure requirements, distinctions between hard and soft money, or campaign-finance restrictions.
The Best of Laurence M. Vance


lewrockwell--2020-02-11--Trump Is Right About Architecture

Trump Is Right About Architecture

In this pause between past and future Deep State seditions , and the full-blown advent of Corona Virus in every region of the world , we pause to consider Mr. Trump ’ s executive order requiring new federal buildings to be designed in the classical style .
The directive has caused heads to explode in the cultural wing of Progressive Wokesterdom , since the worship of government power has replaced religion for them and federal buildings are their churches — the places from which encyclicals are hurled at the masses on such matters as who gets to think and say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bathroom , and especially whose life and livelihood can be destroyed for being branded a heretic .
The religion of Progressivism ( under various names ) has been growing for over a century , based on the idea that the material abundance of techno-industrial societies should be centrally managed by national bureaucracies , finally leading to a nirvana of perfect fairness .
The part that ’ s always left out is that this is accomplished by coercion , by pushing people around , telling them what to do and how to think , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their privileges if they seem to have too much of either .
You can observe the operations of this doctrine in the current crop of Democratic Party aspirants to the White House .
Living in the Long Eme ... James Howard Kunstler Check Amazon for Pricing .
The architecture that expressed all that is loosely called “ Modernism ” mostly because it was supposed to represent the distilled essence of everything that is up-to-date , and the idea of coercing an unfair world toward universal fairness has ruled the elite managerial class ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social grievance on the printed page .
The First World War really sealed the deal for Modernism .
The industrial-scale slaughter — well-depicted in the recent movie , 1917 — so horrified the elites that the architecture branch of elite-dom decided to shit-can all the offensive claptrap of history as expressed in buildings and replace them with bare boxes of one kind or another .
A whole metaphysical theology was constructed to justify this attempt at a totalistic do-over for the human race .
“ Less is more… ” et cetera .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persisted in the dirty business of neoclassical architecture , and they screwed the pooch on that theme for all time , while the Second World War reaffirmed the urge to cleanse the world of all that filthy symbolism .
By the 1950s , Modernism ruled the scene as the architecture of Decency and Democracy .
It very quickly became the architecture that glorified corporate America , viz.
, the rows of glass box skyscrapers hoisted up along the grand avenues of midtown Manhattan , and then every other city center in America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ buildings of yore grew obsolete , they too were replaced with confections of Modernism , and then the university libraries , and finally… everything .
The trouble with being up-to-date in architecture is that buildings last a long time and dates fade into history , and if you hate history you have created a problem .
The world is a restless place .
The main feature of this particular moment is that techno-industrial society has entered an epochal contraction presaging collapse due to over-investments in hyper-complexity .
That hyper-complexity has come to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ torqued and tortured surfaces of gigantic buildings designed by computers , with very poor prospects for being maintained , or even being useful , as we reel into a new age of material scarcity and diminished expectations — especially the expectation for reaching that technocratically engineered nirvana of fairness .
Of course , the mandarin uber-class among the elite , especially the poohbahs in the architecture schools , can ’ t bear the thought that things are tending this way .
Their theology of up-to-date-ness , of “ the cutting edge , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go out of fashion has given them the opportunity to create and cash-in on ever more new fashions , to keep up the pretense of perpetually surfing that cutting edge , from which they derive their status .
And this incessant reach for status , and the power it confers , belies and betrays the whole business of representing the ultimate nirvana of fairness , revealing them to be the mendacious frauds they are .
The Trumpian reach backward toward classicism is certainly a quixotic move , even though one can make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least in the early years of the USA when that mode of building was supposed to represent the democracy of ancient Greece and the dignity of the Roman republic — hence , Greco-Roman architecture .
Some things to consider : We ’ re going to have to reduce the scale of the things we build .
The cutting edge grandiosity of today is about to go out of style .
National bureaucracies will shrink , if they don ’ t vanish altogether , and so will the buildings that house their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Howard Kunstler Check Amazon for Pricing .
We ’ re going to need buildings that don ’ t go out of style , so you can forget about the cutting edge , and classicism does have the virtue of timelessness — or at least it did , for a long time .
These new buildings ought to have the capacity for adaptive re-use over generations , even centuries .
They will probably have to be made out of non-exotic materials , namely , masonry and wood , since the scarcities we face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ materials ranging from plate glass to aluminum trusswork to steel I-beams , to sheetrock — all things requiring elaborate , complex mining and manufacturing chains .
A virtue of classicism is that it employs structural devices that allow buildings to stand up : arches , columns , colonnades .
These are replicable in modules or bays along scales from small to large .
These devices honestly express the tectonic sturdiness of a building within the realities of gravity .
A hidden virtue of classicism is that it is based on the three-part representation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and all the parts within it exist in nested hierarchies of base-shaft-and-head .
This is true of columns with capitols set on a base , of windows with their sills , sashes , and lintels , and the whole building from base to roof .
Classical architecture follows proportioning systems universally found in nature , such as the Fibonacci series of ratios , which are seen in everything from the self-assembly of seashells to the growth of tree branches .
Thus , classicism links us to nature and to our own humanity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , entablatures , cartouches , corbels , festoons , and what-have-you — are not mandatory , but , of course , they also provide a way of expressing our place in nature , which is a pathway to expressing truth and beauty .
Modernism doesn ’ t care about truth and beauty ; it cares about power , especially the power to coerce .
Many people detect that dynamic , and that is one reason they loathe Modernist buildings .
The main imperative of Modernism was to separate us from nature , since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the horrors of the 20th century and so revolted the intellectual elites .
The result of that was a denatured architecture of the machine and an animus against what it means to be human located in nature .
We ’ re probably not going back to anything like formal classicism because the contraction ahead will leave us in a world of salvage , of cobbling together whatever we can from the detritus left over .
But sooner or later — surely well after Mr. Trump has decomposed into his constituent molecules — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is based on our place in nature , so don ’ t set your hair on fire over this new executive order , no matter how much The New York Times wants you to .
The Best of James Howard Kunstler

In this pause between past and future Deep State seditions, and the full-blown advent of Corona Virus in every region of the world, we pause to consider Mr. Trump’s executive order requiring new federal buildings to be designed in the classical style. The directive has caused heads to explode in the cultural wing of Progressive Wokesterdom, since the worship of government power has replaced religion for them and federal buildings are their churches — the places from which encyclicals are hurled at the masses on such matters as who gets to think and say what, who gets to use which bathroom, and especially whose life and livelihood can be destroyed for being branded a heretic.
Federal Building San Francisco by Thom Mayne
The religion of Progressivism (under various names) has been growing for over a century, based on the idea that the material abundance of techno-industrial societies should be centrally managed by national bureaucracies, finally leading to a nirvana of perfect fairness. The part that’s always left out is that this is accomplished by coercion, by pushing people around, telling them what to do and how to think, and by confiscating their property or docking their privileges if they seem to have too much of either. You can observe the operations of this doctrine in the current crop of Democratic Party aspirants to the White House.
The architecture that expressed all that is loosely called “Modernism” mostly because it was supposed to represent the distilled essence of everything that is up-to-date, and the idea of coercing an unfair world toward universal fairness has ruled the elite managerial class ever since Karl Marx lanced his boils of social grievance on the printed page. The First World War really sealed the deal for Modernism. The industrial-scale slaughter — well-depicted in the recent movie, 1917 — so horrified the elites that the architecture branch of elite-dom decided to shit-can all the offensive claptrap of history as expressed in buildings and replace them with bare boxes of one kind or another. A whole metaphysical theology was constructed to justify this attempt at a totalistic do-over for the human race. “Less is more…” et cetera.
Meanwhile, along came Stalin and Hitler who persisted in the dirty business of neoclassical architecture, and they screwed the pooch on that theme for all time, while the Second World War reaffirmed the urge to cleanse the world of all that filthy symbolism. By the 1950s, Modernism ruled the scene as the architecture of Decency and Democracy. It very quickly became the architecture that glorified corporate America, viz., the rows of glass box skyscrapers hoisted up along the grand avenues of midtown Manhattan, and then every other city center in America. Before long, as the old government buildings of yore grew obsolete, they too were replaced with confections of Modernism, and then the university libraries, and finally… everything.
The trouble with being up-to-date in architecture is that buildings last a long time and dates fade into history, and if you hate history you have created a problem. The world is a restless place. The main feature of this particular moment is that techno-industrial society has entered an epochal contraction presaging collapse due to over-investments in hyper-complexity. That hyper-complexity has come to be perfectly expressed in architecture lately in the torqued and tortured surfaces of gigantic buildings designed by computers, with very poor prospects for being maintained, or even being useful, as we reel into a new age of material scarcity and diminished expectations — especially the expectation for reaching that technocratically engineered nirvana of fairness.
Of course, the mandarin uber-class among the elite, especially the poohbahs in the architecture schools, can’t bear the thought that things are tending this way. Their theology of up-to-date-ness, of “the cutting edge,” is all about fashion. That things go out of fashion has given them the opportunity to create and cash-in on ever more new fashions, to keep up the pretense of perpetually surfing that cutting edge, from which they derive their status. And this incessant reach for status, and the power it confers, belies and betrays the whole business of representing the ultimate nirvana of fairness, revealing them to be the mendacious frauds they are.
The Trumpian reach backward toward classicism is certainly a quixotic move, even though one can make a case for it being a national style, at least in the early years of the USA when that mode of building was supposed to represent the democracy of ancient Greece and the dignity of the Roman republic — hence, Greco-Roman architecture. Some things to consider: We’re going to have to reduce the scale of the things we build. The cutting edge grandiosity of today is about to go out of style. National bureaucracies will shrink, if they don’t vanish altogether, and so will the buildings that house their operations. The Geography of Nowhe... Kunstler, James Howard Buy New $4.99 (as of 07:20 UTC - Details)
We’re going to need buildings that don’t go out of style, so you can forget about the cutting edge, and classicism does have the virtue of timelessness — or at least it did, for a long time. These new buildings ought to have the capacity for adaptive re-use over generations, even centuries. They will probably have to be made out of non-exotic materials, namely, masonry and wood, since the scarcities we face will include a lot of modular fabricated materials ranging from plate glass to aluminum trusswork to steel I-beams, to sheetrock — all things requiring elaborate, complex mining and manufacturing chains.
A virtue of classicism is that it employs structural devices that allow buildings to stand up: arches, columns, colonnades. These are replicable in modules or bays along scales from small to large. These devices honestly express the tectonic sturdiness of a building within the realities of gravity. A hidden virtue of classicism is that it is based on the three-part representation of the human figure: the whole and all the parts within it exist in nested hierarchies of base-shaft-and-head. This is true of columns with capitols set on a base, of windows with their sills, sashes, and lintels, and the whole building from base to roof. Classical architecture follows proportioning systems universally found in nature, such as the Fibonacci series of ratios, which are seen in everything from the self-assembly of seashells to the growth of tree branches. Thus, classicism links us to nature and to our own humanity.
University of Virginia by Thomas Jefferson
Classical ornaments — the swags, moldings, entablatures, cartouches, corbels, festoons, and what-have-you — are not mandatory, but, of course, they also provide a way of expressing our place in nature, which is a pathway to expressing truth and beauty.
Modernism doesn’t care about truth and beauty; it cares about power, especially the power to coerce. Many people detect that dynamic, and that is one reason they loathe Modernist buildings. The main imperative of Modernism was to separate us from nature, since it was human nature that brought about all the horrors of the 20th century and so revolted the intellectual elites. The result of that was a denatured architecture of the machine and an animus against what it means to be human located in nature.
We’re probably not going back to anything like formal classicism because the contraction ahead will leave us in a world of salvage, of cobbling together whatever we can from the detritus left over. But sooner or later — surely well after Mr. Trump has decomposed into his constituent molecules — we will get back to an architecture that is based on our place in nature, so don’t set your hair on fire over this new executive order, no matter how much The New York Times wants you to.
Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.
The Best of James Howard Kunstler


lewrockwell--2020-02-11--Blatantly Incorrect Iowa Caucus Math Is Now Official

At long last we have a winner , or two winners , take your pick .
Bernie Sanders won the popular vote but Peter Buttigieg will get a plurality of delegates .
Nonetheless , the AP will not call a winner because but Caucus Officials Won ’ t Correct All Errors , not even blatant ones .
The state party ’ s review indicated that Pete Buttigieg was the delegate winner , but caucus tally sheets could not be changed even if they contained mistakes , according to a lawyer for the party .
Against the Left : A Ro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 The Associated Press , which historically verifies election results and makes calls on the outcome of races , has not allotted the final delegate to Mr. Buttigieg because of the errors in the caucus results-counting , nor has The A.P .
declared a winner in the Iowa race .
The Times , which has followed The A.P.
’ s calls in the past , has not assigned the final delegate to Mr. Buttigieg .
And the new results are not necessarily final : Campaigns have until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statewide vote count be re-examined , after the party moved the deadline from Friday .
The party could not change even blatant miscalculations on the worksheets , according to a lawyer for the party , because they were a legal record and altering them would be a crime .
“ The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process , ” wrote the party lawyer , Shayla McCormally , according to an email sent by Troy Price , the chairman of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The lawyer said correcting the math would introduce “ personal opinion ” into the official record of results .
By the way , this includes the fact that some precincts awarded more delegates to candidates than they were allotted .
Apparently , that is a matter of opinion .
Once certified , correcting math and spreadsheet errors becomes a matter of “ personal opinion ” .
This even includes precincts awarding more delegates than they are entitled to .
It seems to me that certifying piss poor math is personal opinion and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a degree in civil engineering and several courses in calculus plus differential equations , I stand corrected .
Apologies offered .
Clearly , this new math is tricky , which is why we need an app .
The Best of Michael Shedlock

At long last we have a winner, or two winners, take your pick.
Bernie Sanders won the popular vote but Peter Buttigieg will get a plurality of delegates.
Nonetheless, the AP will not call a winner because but Caucus Officials Won’t Correct All Errors, not even blatant ones.
The state party’s review indicated that Pete Buttigieg was the delegate winner, but caucus tally sheets could not be changed even if they contained mistakes, according to a lawyer for the party. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details) The Associated Press, which historically verifies election results and makes calls on the outcome of races, has not allotted the final delegate to Mr. Buttigieg because of the errors in the caucus results-counting, nor has The A.P. declared a winner in the Iowa race. The Times, which has followed The A.P.’s calls in the past, has not assigned the final delegate to Mr. Buttigieg. And the new results are not necessarily final: Campaigns have until noon on Monday to request that the statewide vote count be re-examined, after the party moved the deadline from Friday. The party could not change even blatant miscalculations on the worksheets, according to a lawyer for the party, because they were a legal record and altering them would be a crime. “The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process,” wrote the party lawyer, Shayla McCormally, according to an email sent by Troy Price, the chairman of the party, to its central committee members. The lawyer said correcting the math would introduce “personal opinion” into the official record of results.
Correcting Math Errors Introduces Personal Opinion
Correcting the math would introduce “personal opinion”.
By the way, this includes the fact that some precincts awarded more delegates to candidates than they were allotted.
Apparently, that is a matter of opinion.
Wow.
Math is Hard
The most blatant were errors in adding up votes for candidates, which take place in two rounds, and miscalculations when using a formula that translates raw votes to “state delegate equivalents.”
Once certified, correcting math and spreadsheet errors becomes a matter of “personal opinion”. This even includes precincts awarding more delegates than they are entitled to.
It seems to me that certifying piss poor math is personal opinion and the math is fact.
But even with a degree in civil engineering and several courses in calculus plus differential equations, I stand corrected. Apologies offered.
Clearly, this new math is tricky, which is why we need an app.
Reprinted with permission from Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis.
The Best of Michael Shedlock


lewrockwell--2020-02-11--Hollywood More Censored Than When I Did Platoon

The American film industry has changed beyond recognition , director Oliver Stone told RT , with producers using financial restraints to censor movies challenging the US military or the CIA .
“ Maybe in the 1980s , when I did ‘ Platoon ’ , ‘ Born on the Fourth of July ’ and ‘ Heaven & Earth ’ , I could do that , because it was a slightly more relaxed system , ” said the award-winning filmmaker , mentioning his famed movies while making his case during former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa ’ s show on RT Spanish .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cold War ended , things didn ’ t change for the better , Stone believes .
“ My film career has suffered , because sometimes I ’ ve said things that American producers hate to hear , ” he revealed , adding that those sponsoring film productions sometimes resort to “ economic censorship.
” “ You can take the budgets down… let ’ s say you want to make a film criticizing the American military , taking an Iraq war story or a horror story that recently happened in Iraq… You do those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going to happen , ” he explained .
Against the State : An ... Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Best Price : $ 2.11 Buy New $ 8.56 Stone , who scored a number of Academy , BAFTA and Golden Globe awards , has been widely criticized for his anti-war dramas and , most recently , for a series of films questioning the widespread Western narrative on the Ukrainian turmoil , as well as exclusive interviews with Vladimir Putin .
“ Now , censorship isn ’ t something that exclusively affects the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I can read the American media but they all say the same things … And you don ’ t hear from Iran and China , you don ’ t hear from [ North ] Korea , you don ’ t hear from Venezuela , you don ’ t get their point of view.
” The famed film director sounded pessimistic when asked if there is hope for change – or , at least , if the system allows for that change .
He said that both parties – be it Democrats or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when dealing with issues of war and peace .
“ There is no party in the United States , no democratic voice except third parties that are small , that would say ‘ Why are we fighting wars ?
’ ” Stone exclaimed , adding , “ it ’ s all right-wings fighting with right-wings.
” Democrats are no better than Republicans , he says : “ Hillary Clinton and her group , and Joe Biden , are just as pro-war as any Republican Dick Cheney.
” Stone thinks Donald Trump who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the Paris climate accords and the hard-earned 2015 Iran nuclear deal .
But , argued Stone , at least Trump was asking why the US needs to fight Stone lamented that politics is transiting from the art of the possible to the art of raising money .
“ So much money is spent in politics , it ’ s impossible for my vote to make any difference… Candidates in America now have to raise billions of dollars to be considered serious , ” Stone said .

The American film industry has changed beyond recognition, director Oliver Stone told RT, with producers using financial restraints to censor movies challenging the US military or the CIA.
“Maybe in the 1980s, when I did ‘Platoon’, ‘Born on the Fourth of July’ and ‘Heaven & Earth’, I could do that, because it was a slightly more relaxed system,” said the award-winning filmmaker, mentioning his famed movies while making his case during former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa’s show on RT Spanish.
When the Iron Curtain fell and the Cold War ended, things didn’t change for the better, Stone believes. “My film career has suffered, because sometimes I’ve said things that American producers hate to hear,” he revealed, adding that those sponsoring film productions sometimes resort to “economic censorship.”
Hollywood has changed since 2001. It has become more censored. The military, the CIA, the depictions of these organizations has been very favorable.
“You can take the budgets down… let’s say you want to make a film criticizing the American military, taking an Iraq war story or a horror story that recently happened in Iraq… You do those kinds of stories, it’s not going to happen,” he explained. Against the State: An ... Rockwell Jr., Llewelly... Best Price: $5.02 Buy New $5.52 (as of 11:35 UTC - Details)
Stone, who scored a number of Academy, BAFTA and Golden Globe awards, has been widely criticized for his anti-war dramas and, most recently, for a series of films questioning the widespread Western narrative on the Ukrainian turmoil, as well as exclusive interviews with Vladimir Putin.
“Now, censorship isn’t something that exclusively affects the American film industry,” Stone lamented, “I can read the American media but they all say the same things … And you don’t hear from Iran and China, you don’t hear from [North] Korea, you don’t hear from Venezuela, you don’t get their point of view.”
The CIA realized – after World War II, basically – they [went into] the business, the news business, they put their people, their agents at newspapers, at magazines and television.
‘It’s all right-wings fighting with right-wings’
The famed film director sounded pessimistic when asked if there is hope for change – or, at least, if the system allows for that change. He said that both parties – be it Democrats or Republicans – act by the same playbook when dealing with issues of war and peace.
“There is no party in the United States, no democratic voice except third parties that are small, that would say ‘Why are we fighting wars?’” Stone exclaimed, adding, “it’s all right-wings fighting with right-wings.” Democrats are no better than Republicans, he says: “Hillary Clinton and her group, and Joe Biden, are just as pro-war as any Republican Dick Cheney.”
Stone thinks Donald Trump who has done “horrible things” by pulling out of the Paris climate accords and the hard-earned 2015 Iran nuclear deal. But, argued Stone, at least Trump was asking why the US needs to fight
Stone lamented that politics is transiting from the art of the possible to the art of raising money.
“So much money is spent in politics, it’s impossible for my vote to make any difference… Candidates in America now have to raise billions of dollars to be considered serious,” Stone said.
Empires fall. Let’s pray that this empire, these evil things… because we are the evil empire. What Reagan said about Russia is true about us.
Reprinted from RT News.


lewrockwell--2020-02-11--Adam Schiff’s Russia-Bashing Is Unhinged and Dangerous

US Congress heavyweights like Adam Schiff deeply misunderstand Russia but keep on bashing Moscow because it has become “politically advantageous” in Washington, Russia researcher Stephen Cohen said.
“Being highly-critical of Russia is good politics in the United States,” Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton University, told the Grayzone’s Aaron Mate in an interview, uploaded online on Monday.
Nobody ever gets any points for saying anything good about Russia – and only rarely for advocating any kind of partnership with Russia.
Cohen said that “politically it’s advantageous to a lot of people to bash Russia,” and even some of the “progressive” Democratic Party candidates in the 2020 presidential race employ rhetoric, which is hostile toward Moscow.
It has become an American way of life to blame Russia when things go wrong. Of course, sometimes Russia is to blame, but not all the time. And yet that’s become part of our discourse.
The US Democratic Party’s lead impeachment manager, Representative Adam Schiff, has invoked Russia a lot during the trial in the Senate. Democrats want to oust President Donald Trump because they believe he briefly suspended military aid to Ukraine while trying to pressure Kiev into investigating the dealings of his chief 2020 rival, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Sending weapons to Ukraine serves America’s “abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism,” Schiff argued.
Cohen, however, said that shipping weapons to Kiev would effectively amount to the US turning its back on Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky’s efforts to resolve the conflict with Russia through peaceful means. Instead, he thinks Washington should focus on encouraging the neighbors to negotiate.
“If Zelensky had full American backing for his peace talks with Putin – that would help him a lot.”
Speaking on the Senate floor, Schiff accused Moscow of trying to undermine the faith in democracy and government institutions around the globe.
Cohen argued that the congressman misunderstands what Russian President Vladimir Putin actually “sees as his own historical mission,” and it is almost the opposite of what Schiff attributes to him.
According to the researcher, Putin’s chief ambition is “to rebuild Russia from the disaster into which it fell in the 1990s” after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The last thing Putin wants is instability. He’s trying to build economy at home and economic relations with countries abroad because he sees that as a way to modernize Russia.
The Russia researcher said that Moscow is currently focused on ties with China, but Putin would like to have good trade relations with Europe and the US as well.
“The notion that he wants to foster discord in the very countries, with which he wants what he calls ‘modernizing trade relations’ is just ignorance on the part of Adam Schiff. Because Schiff runs his mouth a lot about Russia, we get to hear the kind of ignorance… that dominates a large segment of policy-makers in Washington.”

Comments open on YouTube
War with Russia?: From... Cohen, Stephen F. Best Price: $8.99 Buy New $8.50 (as of 02:15 UTC - Details) Losing Military Suprem... Andrei Martyanov Best Price: $22.43 Buy New $18.27 (as of 10:20 UTC - Details) Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $15.00 (as of 12:45 UTC - Details)


lewrockwell--2020-02-11--Did Washington Use a False Pretext for Its Bloody Escalation in Iraq?

In a key piece of actual extensive , on-the-ground reporting , the New York Times ’ s Alissa Rubin has raised serious questions about the official US account of who it was that attacked the K-1 base near Kirkuk , in eastern Iraq , on December 27 .
The United States almost immediately accused the Iran-backed Ketaib Hizbullah ( KH ) militia of responsibility .
But Rubin quotes by name Brig .
General Ahmed Adnan , the chief of intelligence for the Iraqi federal police at the same base , as saying , “ All the indications are that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ISIS .
She also presents considerable further detailed reporting on the matter .
And she notes that though U.S. investigators claim to have evidence about KH ’ s responsibility for the attack , they have presented none of it publicly .
Nor have they shared it with the Iraqi government .
KH is a paramilitary organization that operates under the command of the Iraqi military and has been deeply involved in the anti-ISIS campaigns throughout the country .
The December 27 attack killed one Iraqi-American contractor and was cited by the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on five KH bases some 400 miles to the west which killed around 50 KH fighters .
Outraged KH fighters then mobbed the US embassy in Baghdad , breaking through an outside perimeter on its large campus , but causing no casualties .
On January 2 , Pres .
Trump decided to escalate again , ordering the assassination of Iran ’ s Gen. Qasem Soleimani and bringing the region and the world close to a massive shooting war .
Official Lies : How Was ... James T. Bennett , Thom ... Best Price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The new evidence presented by Rubin makes it look as if Trump and his advisors had previously decided on a broad-scale plan to attack Iran ’ s very influential allies in Iraq and were waiting for a triggering event– any triggering event !
– to use as a pretext to launch it .
The attack against the K-1 base presented them with that trigger , even though they have not been able to present any evidence that it was KH that undertook it .
This playbook looks very similar to the one that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Defense Minister in summer 1982 , used to launch his wide attack against the PLO ’ s presence in Lebanon in June that year .
The “ trigger ” Sharon used to launch his long-prepared attack was the serious ( but not fatal ) wounding of Israel ’ s ambassador in London , Shlomo Argov , which the Israeli government immediately blamed on the PLO .
Regarding London in 1982 , as regarding K-1 last December , the actual identity of the assailant ( s ) was misreported by the government that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In London , the police fairly speedily established that it was not the PLO but operatives of an anti-PLO group headed by a man called Abu Nidal who had attacked Argov .
But by the time they had discovered and publicized that fact , Israeli tanks were already deep inside Lebanon .
The parallels and connections between the two cases go further .
If , as now seems likely , the authors of the K-1 attack were indeed Da ’ esh , then they succeeded brilliantly in triggering a bitter fight between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been fighting against them in Iraq .
Regarding the 1982 London attack , its authors also succeeded brilliantly in triggering a lethal conflict between two forces ( one substantial , one far less so ) that were both engaged in bitter combat against Abu Nidal ’ s networks .
Worth noting : Abu Nidal ’ s main backer , throughout his whole campaign against the PLO , was Saddam Hussein ’ s brutal government in Iraq .
( The London assailants deposited their weapons in the Iraqi embassy after completing the attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ISIS in Iraq were diehard remnants of Saddam ’ s formerly intimidating security forces .
Also worth noting : Three months in to Sharon ’ s massive 1982 invasion of Lebanon , it seemed to have successfully reached its goals of expelling the PLO ’ s fighting forces from Lebanon and installing a strongly pro-Israeli government there .
But over the longer haul , the invasion looked much less successful .
The lengthy Israeli occupation of south Lebanon that followed 1982 served to incubate the birth and growth of the ( pro-Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a strong political movement inside Lebanon that commands a very capable fighting force that expelled Israel ’ s last presence from Lebanon in 2000 , rebuffed a subsequent Israeli invasion of the country six years later , and still exerts considerable deterrent power against Israel today… Very few people in Israel today judge the 1982 invasion of Lebanon to have been a wise move .
How will the historians of the future view Trump ’ s decision to launch his big escalation against Iran ’ s allies in Iraq , presumably as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign against Tehran ?

In a key piece of actual extensive, on-the-ground reporting, the New York Times’s Alissa Rubin has raised serious questions about the official US account of who it was that attacked the K-1 base near Kirkuk, in eastern Iraq, on December 27. The United States almost immediately accused the Iran-backed Ketaib Hizbullah (KH) militia of responsibility. But Rubin quotes by name Brig. General Ahmed Adnan, the chief of intelligence for the Iraqi federal police at the same base, as saying, “All the indications are that it was Daesh” — that is, ISIS.
She also presents considerable further detailed reporting on the matter. And she notes that though U.S. investigators claim to have evidence about KH’s responsibility for the attack, they have presented none of it publicly. Nor have they shared it with the Iraqi government.
KH is a paramilitary organization that operates under the command of the Iraqi military and has been deeply involved in the anti-ISIS campaigns throughout the country.
The December 27 attack killed one Iraqi-American contractor and was cited by the Trump administration as reason to launch a large-scale attack on five KH bases some 400 miles to the west which killed around 50 KH fighters. Outraged KH fighters then mobbed the US embassy in Baghdad, breaking through an outside perimeter on its large campus, but causing no casualties. On January 2, Pres. Trump decided to escalate again, ordering the assassination of Iran’s Gen. Qasem Soleimani and bringing the region and the world close to a massive shooting war. Official Lies: How Was... James T. Bennett, Thom... Best Price: $1.90 Buy New $38.50 (as of 08:05 UTC - Details)
The new evidence presented by Rubin makes it look as if Trump and his advisors had previously decided on a broad-scale plan to attack Iran’s very influential allies in Iraq and were waiting for a triggering event– any triggering event!– to use as a pretext to launch it. The attack against the K-1 base presented them with that trigger, even though they have not been able to present any evidence that it was KH that undertook it.
This playbook looks very similar to the one that Ariel Sharon, who was Israel’s Defense Minister in summer 1982, used to launch his wide attack against the PLO’s presence in Lebanon in June that year. The “trigger” Sharon used to launch his long-prepared attack was the serious (but not fatal) wounding of Israel’s ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov, which the Israeli government immediately blamed on the PLO.
Regarding London in 1982, as regarding K-1 last December, the actual identity of the assailant(s) was misreported by the government that used it as a trigger for escalation. In London, the police fairly speedily established that it was not the PLO but operatives of an anti-PLO group headed by a man called Abu Nidal who had attacked Argov. But by the time they had discovered and publicized that fact, Israeli tanks were already deep inside Lebanon.
The parallels and connections between the two cases go further. If, as now seems likely, the authors of the K-1 attack were indeed Da’esh, then they succeeded brilliantly in triggering a bitter fight between two substantial forces in the coalition that had been fighting against them in Iraq. Regarding the 1982 London attack, its authors also succeeded brilliantly in triggering a lethal conflict between two forces (one substantial, one far less so) that were both engaged in bitter combat against Abu Nidal’s networks.
Worth noting: Abu Nidal’s main backer, throughout his whole campaign against the PLO, was Saddam Hussein’s brutal government in Iraq. (The London assailants deposited their weapons in the Iraqi embassy after completing the attack.) Many senior strategists and planners for ISIS in Iraq were diehard remnants of Saddam’s formerly intimidating security forces.
Also worth noting: Three months in to Sharon’s massive 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it seemed to have successfully reached its goals of expelling the PLO’s fighting forces from Lebanon and installing a strongly pro-Israeli government there. But over the longer haul, the invasion looked much less successful. The lengthy Israeli occupation of south Lebanon that followed 1982 served to incubate the birth and growth of the (pro-Iranian) Hizbullah there. Today, Hizbullah is a strong political movement inside Lebanon that commands a very capable fighting force that expelled Israel’s last presence from Lebanon in 2000, rebuffed a subsequent Israeli invasion of the country six years later, and still exerts considerable deterrent power against Israel today…
Very few people in Israel today judge the 1982 invasion of Lebanon to have been a wise move. How will the historians of the future view Trump’s decision to launch his big escalation against Iran’s allies in Iraq, presumably as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran?