Are Americans Too Insouciant To Survive? — Paul Craig Roberts
Are Americans
Too Insouciant To Survive?
Paul Craig
Roberts
When one looks
at the deplorable state of the world, one cannot help but wonder at the
insouciance of the American people. Where are they? Do they exist or are they a
myth? Have they been put to sleep by an evil demon? Are they so lost in The
Matrix that they cannot get out?
Ever since
Clinton’s second term the US has been consistently acting internationally and
domestically as a criminal, disregarding its own laws, international laws, the
sovereignty of other countries, and the US Constitution. A worse criminal
government has never existed. Yet, Americans remain subservient to the
criminals that they have placed in power over themselves.
According to
polls, Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders are splitting the Democratic
vote 50-50 as preferred Democratic presidential candidate. This is
extraordinary.
Hillary
Clinton represents the interests of Wall Street and the mega-banks, the Israel
Lobby, and the interests of the military/security complex. These interests are
totally opposed to the interests of the American people.
In his book,
What’s the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank raised the question of why
Americans vote against their own interests? Why do Americans go to the voting
both and do themselves in?
Whether you
agree with Thomas Frank’s answer or not, Americans do, on a regular basis, harm
themselves by voting for people who are agents of vested interests
diametrically opposed to the interests of American citizens.
I can remember
when Bill and Hillary were in public office when their speeches were free. No
one wanted to listen to them when the speeches were free. Clearly, Bill is
being paid off for his past services to the powerful interest groups that
control the United States, and Hillary is being paid off for her future service
to the same groups.
How then is it
possible that half of Democrats would prefer Hillary? Is it because she is a
woman and women want a woman president more than they want their civil
liberties, peace, and employment for themselves, their spouses and their
children?
Or is it
because, given the presstitute character of the American media, the people
haven’t a clue?
If you vote
for Hillary, you are voting for someone who has been paid off to the tune of
$153 million by powerful vested interests who have no concern whatsoever for
your interests. In addition, Hillary has the necessary campaign funds from the
powerful interest groups for her presidential nomination campaign. As if this
isn’t damning enough, Hugh Wharton writes that the National Democratic
Committee is in league with Hillary to steal, if necessary, the nomination from
Sanders and the voters. http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-superdelegates-just-screwed-over-bernie-sanders-and-spit-in-the-faces-of-voters/
In contrast,
the interest groups who rule America are not contributing to Sanders.
Therefore, the
choice of Sanders is obvious, but 50% of Democrats are too braindead to see it.
Although
Hillary is a substantial threat to America, the threat of nuclear war is much
greater, and the Democratic Obama regime in the hands of neoconservatives has
just greatly amplified the threat of nuclear war.
The United
States government, or perhaps we should say the exploiter and deceiver of the
American people, has announced a three-fold increase in its military presence
on Russia’s borders. The excuse for this great boost in the profits and power
of the US military-security complex is “Russian aggression.”
But there is
no sign of this aggression. So Washington and its servile presstitutes in the
Western media make it up. They proclaim a lie.
“Russia
invaded Ukraine” proclaims the propaganda. No mention is made of Washington’s
coup in Ukraine that overthrew a democratically elected government and began a
war against the Russian populations of eastern and southern Ukraine, former
provinces of Russia added to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet leaders.
In the presstitute media, no mention is made of Washington’s intention of
seizing Russia’s only warm water port in Crimea on the Black Sea. http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/02/us-control-over-crimea-aim-of-coup-in.html
Having created
a nonexistant Russian invasion in place of the real US coup in Ukraine in the
minds of the indoctrinated Americans, Washington now claims that Russia is
going to invade the Baltics and Poland. Nothing could be further from the
truth, but this lie from the Obama regime now determines that the US military
presence on Russia’s borders will increase three-fold.
The escalation
of the US/NATO threat on Russia’s borders forces a Russian response.
Considering that the Russophobic governments in Poland and the Baltic States
have unstable judgement, military buildups bring risks of miscalculations.
There is a
limit to the level of threat that the Russian government can tolerate. The
impotent Obama is in the firm grip of the neoconservatives and the
military-security complex. The neoconservatives are motivated by their ideology
of American world hegemony. The military-security complex is motivated by power
and profit. These motives bring the United States and its vassals into conflict
with Russia’s (and China’s) sovereign existence.
Within the
councils of American foreign policy there is not sufficient weight to counter
the neoconservative drive to war with Russia and China. In conventional war,
the US is not a military match for the Russian/Chinese strategic alliance.
Therefore, the war would be nuclear. The power of hydrogen bombs is immensely
more powerful that the atomic bombs that the US dropped on Japan. Nuclear war
means the end of life on earth.
Americans can
know that democracy has failed them, because there is no check on the
neoconservatives’ ability to foment war with Russia and China.
The neocons
control the press, and the press portrays Russia as “an existential threat to
the United States.” Once this fiction is drilled into the brains of Americans,
it is child’s play for propagandists to create endless fears that deplete
taxpayers of income in order to create profits for the military-security
complex by relaunching the Cold War and an armaments race.
That is what
is currently going on. The inability of Americans to realize that they are
being taken into a conflict that benefits only the profits and power of the
military-security complex and the ideology of a small group of crazies
demonstrates the impotence of American democracy.
Universities
and think tanks are replete with ambitious people who, chasing grants and
influence, fuel the Russophobic hysteria. For example, on February 9 the
Washington Post published an article by Michael Ignatieff, the Edward R. Murrow
professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, and Leon Wieseltier, the
Isaiah Berlin Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. The
article is a complete misrepresentation of the facts in Syria and called for US
measures that would result in military conflict with Russia. It was
irresponsible for the Washington Post to publish the article, but the decision
is consistent with the Post’s presstitute nature.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-era-of-us-abdication-on-syria-must-end/2016/02/09/55226716-ce96-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
The propaganda
line maintained by the US government, the neoconservatives, the
military/security complex, the presstitutes, and fiction-writers such as
Ignatieff and Wieseltier is that Russia is not bombing the Islamic State
jihadists who are attempting to overthrow the Syrian government in order to
establish a jihadish state that would threaten the Middle East, Iran, and
Russia herself. The official line is that the Russians are bombing the
democratic “rebels” who are trying to overthrow an alleged “brutal Syrian dictator.” The conflict that the US government
started by sending ISIS to Syria to overthrow the Syrian government is blamed
on the Russian and Syrian governments.
Ignatieff and
Wieseltier say that the US has put its “moral standing” at risk by permitting
the Russians to bomb and to starve innocent women and children, as if the US
had any moral standing after destroying seven countries so far in the 21st
century, producing millions of dead and displaced persons, many of whom are now
overrunning Europe as refugees from Washington’s wars.
The recently
retired head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Michael Flynn, has said that
the Obama regime made a “willful decision” to support ISIS and use ISIS against
the Assad government in Syria. That the violence in Syria originated in a
US/ISIS conspiracy against Syria is ignored by Ignatieff and Wieseltier.
Instead, they blame Russia despite the fact that it is Russia’s air support for
the Syrian Army that has rolled back ISIS.
Where were
Ignatieff and Wieseltier when Washington and its vassals destroyed Iraq, Libya,
Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, much of Pakistan, overthrew the first
democratically elected government in Egypt, overthrew the government in Ukraine
and started a war against the Russian population, and supplied Israel with the
weapons and money to steal Palestine from the Palestinians? Where were they
when Clinton destroyed Yugoslavia and Serbia? Where are they when ISIS murders
Syrians and eats the livers of its executed victims?
It would be
interesting to know who financed the professorship in Edward R. Murrow’s name
and the fellowship in Isiah Berlin’s name and how these positions came to be
staffed with their current occupants.
Reagan and
Gorbachev brought the Cold War to an end. The George H.W. Bush administration
supported the end of the Cold War and gave further guarantees to Russia. But
Clinton attacked Serbia, a Russian ally and broke the agreement that NATO would
not expand into Eastern Europe to Russia’s border. When the neoconservatives’ plans
to invade Syria and to attack Iran were frustrated by Russian diplomacy, the
neocons turned on Russia with fury.
In 1961
President Eisenhower warned the American people of the threat posed by the
military-security complex. That was 55 years ago. This complex is so strong
today that it is able to divert massive taxpayer resources to its coffers while
the living standard and economic prospects of the American people decline.
The
military/security complex requires an enemy. When the Cold War ended, the “Muslim
Threat” was created. This “threat” has now been superceded by the “Russian
Threat,” which is much more useful in keeping Europe in line and in scaring
people with prospective invasions and nuclear attacks that are far beyond the
power and reach of jihadists.
Superpower
America required a more dangerous enemy than a few lightly armed jihadists, so
the “Russian threat” was created. To drive home the threat, Russia and her
president are constantly demonized. The conclusion is unavoidable that the
insouciant American people are being prepared for war.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.