Connect with us

Latest

Video

News

NATO stands behind Trump and his Afghanistan “new strategy” (Video)

NATO agrees with Trump’s ‘Conditions-Based’ Afghanistan strategy.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

547 Views

NATO welcomes POTUS Donald Trump’s “conditions-based” strategy in Afghanistan.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Tuesday, in a statement on the organization’s website…

“I welcome President Trump’s new, conditions-based approach to Afghanistan and the region.”

During an Afghanistan “new strategy” speech delivered yesterday, US President Trump said that the United States will cooperate with Afghanistan as long as Kabul seeks to progress, however, the US help will not be endless.

During his speech, Trump was crystal clear in expressing his confidence that NATO will do exactly what it is told to do, with regards to Afghanistan military support and funding…

We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will.

Since taking office, I have made clear that our allies and partners must contribute much more money to our collective defense, and they have done so.

Sputnik News reports

Trump’s strategic guidance for South Asia unveiled on Monday states that US support in Afghanistan is not unlimited and will not serve as a “blank check.” The guidance repudiates nation-building and instead expands the US troops’ authority to target terrorists in Afghanistan.

“Our aim remains to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who would attack our own countries,” Stoltenberg said.

Contrary to previous reports, Trump said the US would not reveal the number of troops or any future military action plans in Afghanistan.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

“NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg” … or Woof-Woof, the US’s Favorite Poodle.

JPH
Guest
JPH

More like a coyote. No insult intended to the honest coyotes in the wild, who have to kill for a living.

Mariaaburr
Guest
Mariaaburr

Clear98i

Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
On tuesday I got a Smart new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!ai38:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs328CashMediaClear/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ai38l..,..

Anniesdunbar
Guest
Anniesdunbar

Sky90a

Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
On tuesday I got a Smart new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!ai110d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs400CashTopSky/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ai110l..,….

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Exactly, NATO is nothing but Washington’s house pet.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

Europeans have no obligation to send their sons , brothers or husbands to fight and die in American endless war in Afghanistan. Maybe Trump will send one of his sons there. Hello?

seby
Guest
seby

his sons only know how to point guns at defenceless wildlife.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

It doesn’t matter. If Trump wants to prolong the war in Afghanistan, that’s the US business, not Europe’s. Europe has no beef there.

Shahna
Guest

Then it’s a pity “NATO” got suckered into going there 16 years ago when they went to kill a country because their Saudi Arabian Al Qaeda asset had gone rogue (or so they say).

Now to get out – is another kettle of fish.
But as long as European nations allow America-Only to call the shots – Europe’s sons and daughters will die for the American economy.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

It’s even direr than that, US is waging wars, and Europe collects the refugees.
Before the war in Bosnia, there were NO Bosniac refugees in Europe.
Before the war in Serbia, there were NO Kosovar refugees in Europe.
Before the war in Afghanistan, there were NO Afghani refugees in Europe.
Before the war in Iraq, there were NO Iraqi refugees in Europe.
Before the war in Syria, there were NO Syrian refugees in Europe.
Now they are counted in millions.

Shahna
Guest

Europe did it to themselves.
They implemented “Austerity” without a future projection of where it would lead. They supported “America’s Wars” with an eye on present profit but a complete lack of regard for what wars do to the country that’s the target. (An unforgivable omission for Europe and esp Germany – they LOST World War2.)

Now they weep because they deliberately made like ostriches and stuck their heads in the sand and all their profit-now, pay-later ‘policies’ have come due. It’s time to pay the bill.

The damn bill ALWAYS comes in.

Shahna
Guest

The tragedy isn’t that the US screwed the EU for it’s own interests – the tragedy is that EU eagerly helped the US do it – with a will.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

“The tragedy isn’t that the US screwed the EU for it’s own interests…”

You reminded me of the words of John Fowles, an Irish writer, in his book “The Magus”:
“The tragedy was not that one man (Hitler) chose to be evil, but that millions of German people chose to not be good”.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Not so much ‘tragedy’ as a high crime – treason. It was entirely avoidable, tragedy usually is not.

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

comment image comment image comment image comment image

seby
Guest
seby

Wow. What a surprise. Who would have guessed? Is it really necessary to even report that the board agrees with the ceo?

Shahna
Guest

Here’s what I don’t hear…….
UK, France, Germany saying “We stand behind the US/NATO in Afghanistan.”

Perhaps they should limit their obligatory NATO support to the logistics of supplying chocolate to the Taliban’s American targets? … They do so love their chocolate – for the kids you know.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

Here’s what I don’t hear…….
UK, France, Germany saying “We stand behind the US/NATO in Afghanistan.”

It’s Stoltenberg, the US home poodle, who said that, not UK, France or Germany. Encore un petit effort and US will find itself on its own, without any allies.

Shahna
Guest

“US will find itself on its own, without any allies”
—————
Then the chances would be good that the Americans could be forced home – she doesn’t like to go to war without the moral support of her “allies.” Might make the folks back home think they’re invaders instead of the good guys defending against the evil doers (simplicity is an educationed requirement)

…. LOOK! Britain, France, Germany, even Denmark and 70 other nations – the “rest of the world is in our coalition” – all agree : “We’re in the right!”

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

US doesn’t need allies, it only wants vassals, the “Beni oui-oui”, who answer Yes to all US diktats. As soon as one dares say “No”, he becomes a foe or worse, a “hitler”.

Shahna
Guest

“US doesn’t need allies, it only wants vassals”
——————-
Yes. But Europe is happy with the Liege/Serf relationship and as long as they prefer it – they will have it.

We aren’t going to get the US to behave like a decent nation by asking and we aren’t going to get the EU to acquire a spine by telling. We have an expression here for naughty children: “Wil nie hoor moet voel.”

It means – if you won’t listen, you will feel.
…And it’s the prelude to a walloping.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

I am not sure that Hitler ever said ‘no’ to his Anglo-Zionist masters. Are you?

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

US created AL queada

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

That was Brzezinski’s “doctrine” adopted by all the US administrations after Carter, to use Islamic terrorists for the US purpose. US supported Al-Qaeda not only in Afghanistan in the 1980ies, but also in Chechnya, Libya, Egypt and Syria.

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

nebraske university usa printing jhadi textbooks and installing them in national curriculum for little kids start of the eighties was one of the most disgusting things the US did

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Originally spelled: CIADA

Volker
Guest
Volker

NATO means Pentagon! The so called “NATO-Members” are just their servants and/or slaves.

Terry Ross
Guest
Terry Ross

Such an announcement by NATO is about as surprising as the statement that night follows day.

Kentus
Guest
Kentus

Former premier Minister of Denmark got his reward appointed secretary General of Nato.
Remember “Fog of War” Rasmussen?
Then former premier minister of Norway Jens Stoltenberg got his reward (after being scared shitless at the events at Utøya(Bering Breivik)).

The Fog:comment image

The Stoltenberg:comment image

Take Care
Kent

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

You know Kent, you really get the ‘worms beneath the skin.’ It makes mine crawl to see the secret Dorian Gray portraits of these monsters.

stevek9
Guest
stevek9

If NATO is behind it, then you know it’s bad.

Trump: “must seek an honorable and enduring outcome”

Sound anything like ‘Peace with honor’? For those too young to remember … that was Vietnam.

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

US Department of Defense’s estimates have put Afghanistan’s untapped wealth of gold, copper, uranium and other rare-earth minerals at well around $1 trillion to $3 trillion,plus the largest resource of lithium in the world,as well as heroin. That can probably explain Washington’s willingness to continue the war in Afghanistan, which has dragged on for 16 years and has cost the US economy more than $714 billion dollars for the Rothschilds,Goldman Sachs ……Judea Inc If there was any remaining doubt that the infamous Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is back in charge of “foreign policy” TM, Donald Chump dispelled it once… Read more »

Debbie Beane
Guest
Debbie Beane

Yes, and the first time I saw the estimate of Afghan mineral wealth was in the year 2010. What’ve they been doing 7 years hence, if not mining and otherwise stealing the stuff?

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

The TRILLION DOLLAR DRUG TRADE is big business…also we test THE NEW TOYS as also in IRAQ. Lasers that kill a HUMAN and leaves only DUST
NEW DRONES THAT USE A I …….. TO KILL Humans
Also Organs are needed in hospitals for surgery…NOTHING GOES TO WASTE…FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Listening to the Channel 5 News Headlines, what was interesting was the way that President Trump was demanding other nations join the US in their Afghanistan quest.

No sign UK will join US Afghan troop surge in wake of Donald Trump u-turn… http://news.sky.com/story/uk-unlikely-to-beef-up-afghanistan-presence-in-wake-of-trump-decision-11000418

I wonder how long it will take him to change his mind and send out the Forces to look after the Poppy Harvest?

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

Of course NATO would agree to anything remotely resembling possibility of war.

Debbie Beane
Guest
Debbie Beane

Yeah, I’ll bet NATO adores the extended arrangement. Speaking of US only, Sputnik reports “Over Half the $76 Billion Military Aid to Afghanistan Since 2002 Stolen.”
https://sputniknews.com/military/201708141056453160-military-aid-afghanistan-missing/

I must add that an estimated $40 Trillion has “disappeared” since the late 90s. People are working on this — citizens, not currently employed by govt. to my knowledge. US cannot be the only NATO member who enjoys extraordinary Treasury access, while performing NATO stuff.

A few years ago, I read that someone tried to audit NATO. Like US, the task was impossible to perform.

Latest

Rise of the Western Dissidents

The only reason Assange is being targeted is that he tangled with the highest levels of the western establishment. He is far from alone.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Allum Bokhari via Breitbart:


We’re used to Russian dissidents, Chinese dissidents, Iranian dissidents, and Saudi Arabian dissidents. But those who rightly believe the west is superior to authoritarian regimes must now contend with a troubling trend — the rise of the western dissident.

Chief among them is Julian Assange, who for a half-decade has been forced to live in the tiny Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has claimed political asylum since 2011. Assange claimed that he would be extradited to the U.S. to face charges over his work at WikiLeaks if he left the embassy, and was routinely mocked as paranoid for doing so.

This week, we learned that Assange was right and his critics were wrong. Thanks to a clerical error by the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria, Virginia, reporters were able to confirm the existence of sealed criminal charges against the WikiLeaks founder.

Because the charges are sealed and the evidence is unknown, it’s impossible to say if the case has merit. But it likely relates to WikiLeaks’ release of unredacted diplomatic cables in 2011, which forced the U.S. to relocate several of its foreign sources.

Some allegations are more serious. While he was alive, neoconservative Senator John McCain maintained that leaks provided to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, which included the diplomatic cables, caused U.S sources to be murdered.

Those who see Assange as a villain will end the story here. What is typically left out is that WikiLeaks originally released the diplomatic cables in piecemeal form, with names redacted to prevent loss of life and minimize harm.

It was only after a Guardian journalist’s error led to the full unredacted cables leaking to third parties on the web that WikiLeaks published them as well — and not before Assange attempted to warn the office of Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State.

In other words, WikiLeaks behaved precisely as any responsible publisher handling sensitive material should, redacting information that could cause harm. The redactions only stopped when they became pointless. Assange is unlikely to have won more than a dozen journalism awards if he were completely reckless in his publications.

The Pentagon later admitted under oath that they could not find any instances of individuals being killed as a result of being named in Manning’s leaks to WikiLeaks, contradicting Sen. McCain’s allegations.

At worst, Assange and WikiLeaks can be accused of negligence, not deliberate recklessness, in the way it handled sensitive material. But as Breitbart Tech reporter Lucas Nolan points out, a far stronger case can be made against Hillary Clinton for the way she handled State Department emails — yet we see no criminal charges against her.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the only reason Assange is being targeted is that he tangled with the highest levels of the western establishment. In that, he is far from alone.

In the late 2000s to early 2010s, western governments targeted all manner of individuals associated with Assange and the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, including Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda, and The Guardian newspaper.

This was the early growth period of the internet, when the web had become a truly popular medium but had yet to be censored by pliant social media corporations. It was a time of profound unease at the power of the internet to undermine authority, both through the dissemination of information as in the case of WikiLeaks and Snowden, and in the new mobilization of political forces, as in the case of Occupy Wall Street and the SOPA/PIPA protests. Heavy-handed crackdowns against individuals and groups that were seen, rightly or wrongly, as symbols of the web’s early anarchic tendencies, like Kim DotcomAaron SwartzAnonymous, and LulzSec, were not uncommon.

These days, however, a new class of western dissident has emerged — the populist dissident.

Populist Dissidents

Who would have thought that the highest court in Europe, home of the enlightenment, would uphold a case in which a woman was prosecuted for blasphemy against Islam?

Who would have thought that Britain, the birthplace of liberalism and the free press, would ban an independent journalist from its shores for satirizing the same religion?

Who would have thought that Germany, whose living memory of the totalitarian Stasi is just three decades old, would put its largest opposition party under surveillance?

Just a few years ago, all three would sound far-fetched. But cases like these have become common as elites in virtually every western country mount a panicked attempt to contain the rise of populism (the goal, in the words of a Google executive, is to render it a “hiccup”in history’s march towards progress).

Look at the case of Tommy Robinson, the British critic of Islam who was dragged through Britain’s courts on fuzzy contempt-of-court charges. Sentenced to an astonishing thirteen-month imprisonment, Robinson was eventually freed after a successful appeal and now awaits a final trial before Britain’s Attorney General. Shaky charges that have been successfully appealed were exploited to persecute a British citizen who was inconvenient to the establishment. And there’s still a further trial to come.

Then again, Britain is a country that routinely bans foreign politicians and media figures from the country for being too right-wing. Michael SavageGeert WildersLauren SouthernPamela Geller, and Robert Spencer all enjoy this dubious distinction. Theresa May, who was responsible for internal affairs and immigration when Spencer and Geller were banned, is now the Prime Minister.

But it’s not just Britain. Not only has Trump’s White House, supposedly an ally of populists, failed to publicly intervene on behalf of the American citizens banned from the U.K. for expressing populist viewpoints, but it hasn’t even investigated allegations that far-left Antifa activists were able to stop conservative Rebel Media personality Jack Buckbyfrom entering the country by spreading false criminal allegations.

Julian Assange, a left-libertarian may share little ideological ground with right-wing critics of Islam. But they all share at least one thing: persecution by western states coupled with anti-establishment political speech or activities. They are also targets of the security establishment — Assange because of leaks that have exposed their secrets, and the populists because they refuse to censor themselves to avoid angering Muslims. (The UK justified its attempted ban of Geert Wilders by arguing that his presence in the country could lead to “inter-faith violence.”)

We also see attacks on free speech, with governments and politicians across the west pressuring Silicon Valley to suppress its critics. An unaccountable, unelected elite can sweep away a person’s livelihood in minutes, and cut their political message off from millions of American citizens. As I wrote in my column two weeks ago, the overarching trend is the gradual destruction or delegitimization of every tool, digital or otherwise, that non-elites use to express their preferences. Does that sound like a free society, or a controlled one?

You don’t have to agree with any of the individuals or groups listed above to see that surveilling political parties, blocking journalists from entering countries, jailing critics of religion, upholding blasphemy laws and censoring the net is the behavior of authoritarian nations, not liberal democracies. Yet this is the disturbing pattern we now see in the west.

Worse, foreign authoritarian regimes now provide safe harbor for western dissidents, in the same way that the west does for foreign dissidents. Edward Snowden, accused of violating the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 for blowing the whistle on the NSA’s mass surveillance of Americans, has for years resided safely in Russia, a country that persecutes and even kills its own journalists. Before that, he sought refuge in Hong Kong, a “Special Administrative Region” of the People’s Republic of China, an even more terrifyingly totalitarian state.

Will there now be a quid pro quo, with Russia and other authoritarian regimes protecting our dissidents while the west protects theirs? Or will western countries remain true to their liberal traditions, and stop its alarming attempts to surveil, suppress, and persecute a growing number of its own citizens? On present trends, a dark and dystopian future seems to loom on the horizon.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on TwitterGab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to [email protected].

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Zuckerberg’s “War Face” Has Driven Key Executives Away, Stoked Tension With Sandberg

About a dozen senior or highly visible executives disclosed their resignations or left Facebook in 2018.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Earlier this year, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gathered around 50 of his key executives and told them that the company was at war – more specifically, under siege from lawmakers, investors and angry users over the Cambridge Analytica data harvesting scandal and Russian influence on the platform.

Zuckerberg, according to the Wall Street Journal, told his top lieutenants during that June meeting that while executives can move more slowly and methodically on key decisions during “peacetime,” he would be acting more decisively going forward, said people familiar with the remarks.

The result? Tension which has boiled over to the point where several key executives have left the country – as well as friction between Zuckerberg and longtime COO, Sheryl Sandberg.

The 34-year-old CEO believes Facebook didn’t move quickly enough at key moments this year and increasingly is pressing senior executives to “make progress faster” on resolving problems such as slowing user growth and securing the platform, said people familiar with the matter. Mr. Zuckerberg also at times has expressed frustration at how the company managed the waves of criticism it faced this year.

On Friday, that tension was on display when, during a question-and-answer session with employees at Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., he blasted a fresh round of critical news coverage as “bullshit,” according to the people familiar with the remarks. –WSJ

One Facebook employee at the Friday session asked if the company could mitigate leaks by publishing internal reports on how frequently offenders are found and fired. While Zuckerberg said that Facebook does fire leakers, the root cause is “bad morale” thanks to negative press coverage.

And while the WSJ notes Zuckerberg has taken on ambitious annual goals, such as learning Mandarin and reading 25 books, this year his biggest challenge is fixing Facebook through his tougher management style, according to a person familiar with his thinking (so says the WSJ). Perhaps the Facebook CEO hired a drill sergeant to coach him on bringing out his inner-Alpha?

According to the Journal, Zuckerberg and Sandberg have had confrontations over his new management style, after she had long been afforded considerable autonomy over the company’s teams which handle communications and policy.

This spring, Mr. Zuckerberg told Ms. Sandberg, 49, that he blamed her and her teams for the public fallout over Cambridge Analytica, the research firm that inappropriately accessed private data on Facebook users and used it for political research, according to people familiar with the exchange.

Ms. Sandberg later confided in friends that the exchange rattled her, and she wondered if she should be worried about her job.

Mr. Zuckerberg also has told Ms. Sandberg she should have been more aggressive in allocating resources to review troublesome content on the site, said one person familiar with the matter, a problem that the company still struggles to fix. –WSJ

Meanwhile, Zuckerberg seems to be pleased of late with internal improvements, telling reporters last week that Sandberg is a “very important partner to me, and continues to be, and will continue to be.”

Privately, Zuckerberg has told executives that some of the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica data harvesting scandal was just “hysteria,” to which Facebook simply didn’t mount an effective response.

Clash of the tech titans

Zuckerberg famously has butted heads with the co-founders of photo-sharing app Instagram, over his desire to share user location data on the main Facebook platform in order to help better target ads. The now-resigned Instagram founders strongly opposed the idea, and abruptly left the company in September.

The founders of WhatsApp similarly bailed on Facebook after disagreements over how to best extract revenue from the messaging service, according to people familiar with the matter.

And most recently, was the departure of Oculus VR co-founder Brendan Iribe, who was forced out by Zuckerberg in part due to a disagreement over the future of the virtual-reality handset, the people said. The decision to leave was reportedly “mutual.”

All told, about a dozen senior or highly visible executives disclosed their resignations or left Facebook in 2018. In May, Facebook announced a major reshuffling of top product executives in a way that helped free up Mr. Zuckerberg to oversee a broader portfolio within the company.

This turmoil at the top of Facebook has made it difficult for the company to execute on some product decisions and shore up employee morale, which has been sinking over the last year along with the stock price, which has fallen 36% since its peak. Many employees are frustrated by the bad press and constant reorganizations, including of the security team, which can disrupt their work, according to current and former employees. –WSJ

Doing whatever it takes

Facebook has come under fire recently – most notably after a New York Times report that the company used GOP operatives to smear the company’s detractors and promote negative news about competitors Google and Apple.

When the Cambridge Analytica data harvesting scandal broke – the resultant rebukes from Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google executives sent Zuckerberg ballistic. The Facebook CEO “later ordered his management team to use only Android phones —arguing that the operating system had far more users than Apple’s,” according to the Times.

Facebook then went on the offensive against the fellow tech giants.

On the advice of Joel Kaplan – a well-connected Republican friend, Bush administration official, and former Harvard classmate of Sandberg, Facebook began to go after Google and Apple.

Mr. Kaplan prevailed on Ms. Sandberg to promote Kevin Martin, a former Federal Communications Commission chairman and fellow Bush administration veteran, to lead the company’s American lobbying efforts. Facebook also expanded its work with Definers.

On a conservative news site called the NTK Network, dozens of articles blasted Google and Apple for unsavory business practices. One story called Mr. Cook hypocritical for chiding Facebook over privacy, noting that Apple also collects reams of data from users. Another played down the impact of the Russians’ use of Facebook.

The rash of news coverage was no accident: NTK is an affiliate of Definers, sharing offices and staff with the public relations firm in Arlington, Va. Many NTK Network stories are written by staff members at Definers or America Rising, the company’s political opposition-research arm, to attack their clients’ enemies. –NYT

Facebook has responded, initially saying they didn’t put out “fake news” against their competitors, and they had no idea what their marketing department was doing. On Friday, however, Sandberg said she took full responsibility for the actions of the communications team.

Facebook has tried to move forward following its various scandals; spearheading efforts to reign in data harvesting, and looking for someone to oversee its corporate, external and legal affairs.

Hopefully whoever is ultimately in charge of oversight won’t be scared away by Zuckerberg’s war face.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The “Resistance” Struggles To Justify Support For Trump’s Prosecution Of Assange

When you find yourself supporting conflicting principles, it’s a sure sign that you were never guided by principle to begin with.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com:


Ever since suspicions were confirmed that the Trump administration is indeed working to prosecute and imprison WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing authentic documents, the so-called “Resistance” has been struggling to explain exactly why it is so enthusiastically supportive of that agenda. And when I say struggling, I am being very, very generous.

When news broke that a court document copy-paste error had inadvertently exposed the fact that the Trump administration is pursuing an agenda which experts of diverse political persuasions agree would have devastating effects on the freedom of the press, #Resistance pundit and DC think tank operative Neera Tanden responded by tweeting, “Never mess with karma”. As of this writing if you do a Twitter search for the words “Assange” and “karma” together, you will come up with countless Democratic Party loyalists using that concept to justify their support for a Trump administration assault on the press that is infinitely more dangerous than the president being mean to Jim Acosta.

The trouble with that of course is that “karma”, as far as observable reality is concerned, is not an actual thing. It’s a Hindu religious concept that is supported by no more factual evidence than the Roman Catholic claim that a priest literally turns bread and wine into the body and blood of a Nazarene carpenter who died thousands of years ago. A Democratic pundit using the concept of “karma” to justify enthusiastic support for Trump’s fascistic attack on press freedoms is exactly the same as a Republican pundit using “God wills it” to justify the existence of poverty, and it is just as intellectually honest.

But it’s also the best argument these people have got.

I mean, think about it. There’s really no other way you can justify supporting a Trump administration agenda — an administration you claim to oppose — in a prosecution with legal implications that are severely detrimental to the free press, which you claim to support.

The only way to justify it is with some vague, abstract notion that Assange is just “getting what he deserves” since the 2016 WikiLeaks publications of Democratic Party likely contributed to Trump’s electoral victory over Hillary Clinton, and the only way to reify that vague, abstract notion is with an appeal to some imaginary metaphysical principle, i.e. karma.

But, again, that is not a thing. There is no invisible eight-armed deity floating around behind the scenes arbitrating and distributing the consequences of WikiLeaks drops, and there is no rational argument that the Trump administration prosecuting Assange is desirable because Assange “deserves” it. The fact of the matter is that these people are supporting Trump’s fascism in the most toxic ways possible, they are utterly incapable of defending that support with any intellectual honesty, and the self-proclaimed “Resistance” would be more aptly named “the Assistance”.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald described this phenomenon as follows:

But the grand irony is that many Democrats will side with the Trump DOJ over the Obama DOJ. Their emotional, personal contempt for Assange  – due to their belief that he helped defeat Hillary Clinton: the gravest crime  –  easily outweighs any concerns about the threats posed to press freedoms by the Trump administration’s attempts to criminalize the publication of documents.

This reflects the broader irony of the Trump era for Democrats. While they claim out of one side of their mouth to find the Trump administration’s authoritarianism and press freedom attacks so repellent, they use the other side of their mouth to parrot the authoritarian mentality of Jeff Sessions and Mike Pompeo that anyone who published documents harmful to Hillary or which have been deemed “classified” by the U.S. Government ought to go to prison.

…It is this utterly craven and authoritarian mentality that is about to put Democrats of all sorts in bed with the most extremist and dangerous of the Trump faction as they unite to create precedents under which the publication of information — long held sacrosanct by anyone caring about press freedoms — can now be legally punished.

And indeed this is exactly what has been happening. Check out the joyous celebrations in online comments sections from when the news broke that the Trump administration has brought sealed charges upon Assange (herehere, or here for example) for a taste of where the “blue wave” zeitgeist is at right now. Their hatred for Assange has overpowered not only their hatred for Trump, but the most important ways in which they are meant to be resisting him.

When you find yourself supporting conflicting principles, it’s a sure sign that you were never guided by principle to begin with.

And this is really the lesson we can take from all this. The noxious strain of American liberalism which promotes Russia conspiracy theories, supports the prosecution of government transparency advocates, and only attacks Trump as an idea rather than actually resisting his actual policies was never about any principle of any kind. There were preexisting agendas against Russia, alternative media, WikiLeaks, and government transparency long before Trump took office, and all of those agendas have been systematically advanced by the powerful using the “us vs them” herd mentality of the McResistance. These people aren’t supporting the prosecution of a leak publisher because of their ideological values, they are supporting it because that’s what powerful manipulators want them to do.

Trump’s despicable prosecution of Assange, and corporate liberalism’s full-throated support for it, has fully discredited all of mainstream US politics on both sides of the aisle. Nobody in that hot mess stands for anything. If you’re still looking to Trump or the Democrats to protect you from the rising tide of fascism, the time to make your exit is now.

*  *  *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out mypodcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal,buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending