Are Americans Too Insouciant To Survive?
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.
How is it possible, if Democrats are
informed people, that half of them prefer Hillary Clinton? Between
February 2001 and May 2015 Bill and Hillary collected $153 million in
speaking fees. The fees averaged $210,795 per speech.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Paul Craig Roberts
has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service,
and business. He is chairman of The Institute for Political Economy.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Posts
