Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

The Chilcot Inquiry Report is an Irrelevance

Chilcot cannot touch on the true reason why Britain invaded Iraq in 2003: the dominance of Atlanticist neocon thinking within Britain’s elite.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

1,337 Views

The Chilcot Report into the Tony Blair’s government’s decision to involve Britain in the Bush administration’s war against Iraq is being oversold.  An Inquiry report that needs 12 volumes and an executive summary reported to be 200 pages long to answer a question the answer to which is obvious cannot be other than an exercise in obfuscation.

The question of why Britain invaded Iraq in 2003 has been grossly over-analysed.  There is no mystery about it or about why Blair took Britain to war.  Nor is the fact Britain went to war against Iraq in 2003 important except in Britain.  It is not even important in Iraq itself.

Blair is a grossly overrated politician.  Far from being the political genius his followers claim, the truth about Blair is that he was a shallow and conceited politician with no great political insight or experience who as Prime Minister was completely out of his depth.  Lazy and vain, he took no interest in the details of government, which bored him, and had no vision of the sort of country he wanted Britain to be, and no plan of how to bring that vision into effect.  In this he was completely different from the three other great post-war British Prime Ministers – Attlee, Wilson and Thatcher – who had electoral mandates comparable to his, and who by combining vision with hard work changed Britain for better or for worse in fundamental ways that mark it still.

What Blair did have was an obsession with public relations, which he always confused with having a political and electoral strategy.  What that amounted to in practice was always doing what the most powerful voices in the British media wanted.  In Britain the dominant voices in the media have for a long time been neocon and Atlanticist, and that therefore was where Blair positioned himself. 

Beyond that were three characteristics of Blair’s personality which over the time he was Prime Minister became increasingly dominant: his overweening vanity, his complete indifference to fact or detail and his preference at all times for “narrative”, and his very pronounced gambler’s streak.

When the question of invading Iraq was first posed to him – whenever or however it was done – it was axiomatic for such a personality that he would seize on it.  The image of himself as the great democratic crusader acting alongside his US ally to overthrow the evil tyrant – in this case Saddam Hussein – would for Blair have been irresistible, and the knowledge that the British media would overwhelmingly support him doing it meant that there was never any chance he would not do it.  The fact many people in Britain and in his own party – the Labour party – opposed him doing it, thereby giving him the perfect opportunity to strike a heroic pose in a battle with his party he knew he would win, would have strengthened his determination even more. 

Since Blair could not of course justify going to war on such a basis he hit on the readily available subject of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and managed to persuade George W. Bush – who wanted to attack Iraq for quite different reasons – to base the case for war upon it.  That WMD was simply a rationalisation to justify a decision to go to war that had already been made for entirely different reasons is no longer really disputed by anyone, and Blair’s own convoluted justifications of his decision essentially admit as much.

As to the questions which ever since have vexed so many people – about what Blair really believed about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (“WMD”) and whether he consciously lied about them, and why he never insisted on a plan to reconstruct Iraq after it had been conquered (or “liberated”) – it is highly unlikely Blair ever gave any of these issues much thought. 

On WMD he almost certainly did think Saddam Hussein had such weapons without concerning himself about the evidence simply because in his mind having such weapons and lying about them is what evil tyrants like Saddam Hussein do.  Almost certainly he expected that once Iraq was conquered proof of the existence of these weapons would be quickly found, leaving him vindicated and his critics discredited. 

As for the absence of a plan to reconstruct Iraq, at no time whilst he was Prime Minister did Blair ever have a plan for anything.  Since the possibility the US might fail in Iraq almost certainly never crossed his mind the idea such a plan requiring his personal attention might be needed almost certainly never so much as occurred to him. 

As it happens there were plenty of reasons in 2002 and 2003 to question whether a war based on Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD made sense.  Not only was the evidence for the existence of Saddam Hussein’s WMD unconvincing to say the least but in light of the failure of these weapons to protect Saddam Hussein’s regime or deter the US and Western attack during the Gulf War of 1991 there was no remotely credible reason why Saddam Hussein would want to keep them.  On the contrary given that Saddam Hussein’s overriding priority after the Gulf War was to get the sanctions imposed on Iraq lifted, his interests were overwhelmingly to get rid of them as soon as possible.  As we now know that is precisely what he did. 

As for the claim Saddam Hussein pretended for some incomprehensible reason to possess weapons of mass destruction he did not have, that is simply a myth fabricated by the war’s advocates and Blair’s apologists once it became clear after the war that the WMD did not exist.  On the contrary Saddam Hussein always categorically denied having them whilst he was in power, and that was always the public position of the Iraqi government.

It is incidentally also a myth that every single intelligence agency operating in Iraq was reporting that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were still in possession of such weapons.  The intelligence agency that was far and away the best informed about the situation in Iraq – because it was able to operate in Iraq in the open on the ground – Russia’s SVR – is known to have reported that Saddam Hussein no longer had such weapons, and it is known this information was passed on by the Russians to Western governments.

A properly conducted intelligence assessment and analysis of the situation concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, bringing together not just intelligence officials but scholars, diplomats, military officials, scientists and other analysts, of the sort at which the British once excelled, would have quickly come to these obvious conclusions.  Such an intelligence assessment and analysis might also have questioned the prospects for a quick and easy military victory.  It would surely have reported the well-nigh insuperable problems of successfully administering a country like Iraq once it had been conquered.  It would also surely have reminded Blair that because of Britain’s colonial history in the region it was settled British policy never to send troops to the Middle East without a UN mandate.

Blair never sought such expert advice because it was not in his nature to.  Three years before he had gambled on a war against Yugoslavia.  Though that had almost ended in disaster in the end – because of the weakness of the Yugoslav political leadership – the gamble had come off.  As is always the case with a gambler, Blair’s narrow escape in Yugoslavia seems to have emboldened him more.  On WMD and the conduct of the war in Iraq he trusted to his luck, which up to that point had never let him down.

The real questions about Britain’s role in the invasion of Iraq are not about Blair.  They are about how an individual like Blair was able to land Britain in a such war whilst coming up against no institutional opposition to speak of.  In recent British history that is unprecedented.  The whole British constitutional structure – with its cabinet, politically independent civil service and parliament – is supposed to be designed to prevent a Prime Minister running amok in that way. Instead not only did Blair have the full support of almost his entire cabinet and of most of the members of the British parliament, but Britain’s “deep-state” – its diplomatic corps, its intelligence services, its civil service and its military – who might once have acted to restrain him, instead either actively cooperated with him or were swept along by him (the only officials in the British bureaucracy to speak out against the war were the Foreign Ministry’s lawyers who called it an act of aggression). 

How did it happen?  Most explanations in Britain rely on treating Blair as some sort of political wizard able through charm and guile to seduce the entire British political class and the British people to do his bidding against their own better judgement.

The truth is that Blair’s reputation was already in decline by the eve of the war in 2002 and early 2003.  It is true that it stood higher with the British political class than it did with the British people. However the extent of his influence and support at this time is overstated. 

Blair had briefly been popular after his landslide victory in 1997.  However by 2002 the British electorate in its usual tough-minded and cynical way had long since seen through him.   His popularity by 2002 was a thing of the past.  Between the general elections of 1997 and 2001 the Labour vote fell from 13.5 million votes to 10.7 million votes.  In 2005 – the last election in which Blair led Labour – the Labour vote fell further to 9.5 million votes, only slightly more than the 9.3 million votes Labour won in the supposedly disastrous general election of 2015. 

In 2003 Blair was still winning elections not because he was popular but because the Conservatives at that time were even more unpopular than he was. Far from being the commanding figure he is sometimes made out to be, the prevailing view of him in 2003 was one of cynicism.  Apart from a loyal claque of supporters inside the cabinet and the parliamentary Labour party it is doubtful that by 2003 Blair was persuading anybody.

The dismal truth – and one which the Chilcot report is not going to say – is that the reason the British political class and the British state rallied in 2003 to Blair’s call to go to war – in violation of all their traditional time-honoured procedures and principles – is because of the extent to which Atlanticist neocon thinking had by 2003 already become part of their essential DNA.  The idea of disobeying a US President’s call to arms had by then become unthinkable for huge numbers of British officials, politicians, journalists, intelligence officers and soldiers – just as it was of course for Blair himself.  Far from having to struggle to get these people to come onside and support the war, Blair on the contrary was simply going with the flow.

Since 2003, despite the debacle in Iraq, all the indications are that if anything the situation has got worse.  Whereas in 2003 a British Prime Minister who had opposed the war would have found some support within the British bureaucracy and political class, today – as the plight of Labour’s current leader Jeremy Corbyn shows – political leaders who set themselves against neocon thinking quickly become isolated and exposed to attack.  Former Labour leader Ed Miliband’s successful though opportunist opposition to the attack on Syria in 2013 undoubtedly consolidated hostility to him within the political class and was one of the reasons for the relentless media attacks on him which destroyed his reputation in the run up to the election of 2015.

Since Chilcot is not going to say anything about any of this – whether about Blair or about the rampant neocon Atlanticism within the British elite which is the true cause of Britain going to war – it is useless looking to his report for a genuine explanation of why Britain went to war.  At best gaps in some parts of the story might be filled though the extent to which even that will happen is doubtful.

Chilcot is anyway a distraction.  Blair’s and Britain’s role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq – which is the only subject Chilcot is going to report about – is a sideshow.  Even if Britain had held aloof from the war – something which would have required a different sort of Prime Minister than Blair – Iraq would still have been invaded and Saddam Hussein would still have been overthrown. The Bush administration would not have been swayed from the war simply because the British were not involved.  The Iraqi state would still have collapsed, there would still have been an anti American insurgency, the torture and mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib would still have happened, a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia would still have taken place in Baghdad and elsewhere, and Daesh/the Islamic State would still have emerged in Iraq’s western regions.  

The decision to go to war was ultimately made not in London but in Washington, and it was the US military not the British military which defeated Saddam Hussein’s army and conquered Baghdad, causing all the consequences which have followed.

Chilcot is not going to say anything about any of this because his Inquiry’s remit is to look purely at Britain.  He has no power or remit to hold US politicians and officials to account.  However it is to Washington not London – to people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their aides, not Blair  – that one must look for the true answers to why the war happened.  When those answers are eventually provided – which one day they will be – what is already apparent will become obvious: what Chilcot tells is of little value and his whole Inquiry is ultimately an irrelevance.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

The real reason Western media & CIA turned against Saudi MBS

The problem with MBS isn’t that he is a mass murdering war criminal, it is that he is too “independent” for the United States’ liking.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Forces are aligning against Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, lead by elements within the CIA and strong players in the mainstream media. But what is really behind this deterioration in relationship, and what are its implications?

Following the brutal murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, western media and various entities, including the CIA, appear to have turned their back on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS). In response to the scandal, the Guardian released a video which its celebutante, Owen Jones, captioned“Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest threats on Earth. Time to stop propping up its repulsive regime.”

The Guardian was not alone in its condemnation. “It’s high time to end Saudi impunity,” wrote Hana Al-Khamri in Al-Jazeera. “It’s time for Saudi Arabia to tell the truth on Jamal Khashoggi,” the Washington Post’s Editorial Board argued. Politico called it “the tragedy of Jamal Khashoggi.”

Even shadowy think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Atlantic Council released articles criticising Saudi Arabia in the wake of Khashoggi’s death.

A number of companies began backing away from Saudi money after the journalist’s death, including the world’s largest media companies such as the New York Times, the Economist’s editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes, Arianna Huffington, CNN, CNBC, the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Google Cloud CEO, just to name a few.

The CIA concluded that MBS personally ordered Khashoggi’s death, and was reportedly quite open in its provision of this assessment. Antonio Guterres, secretary-general of the UN, also took time out of his schedule to express concern over Saudi Arabia’s confirmation of the killing.

At the time of the scandal, former CIA director John Brennan went on MSNBC to state that the Khashoggi’s death would be the downfall of MBS. Furthermore, the US Senate just voted in favour of ending American involvement in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen (a somewhat symbolic victory, though this is a topic for another article), but nonetheless was a clear stab at MBS personally.

The only person who appeared to continue to uphold America’s unfaltering support for MBS, even after all the publicly made evidence against MBS, was the US president himself. So after years of bombarding Yemen, sponsoring terror groups across the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and beyond, why is it only now that there has been mounting opposition to Saudi Arabia’s leadership? Let’s just bear in mind that western media had spent years investing in a heavy PR campaign to paint MBS as a “reformer.”

Former national security adviser under Barack Obama’s second term, Susan Rice, wrote an article in the New York Times, in which she called MBS a “partner we can’t depend on.” Rice concludes that MBS is “not and can no longer be viewed as a reliable partner of the United States and our allies.” But why is this? Is it because MBS is responsible for some of the most egregious human rights abuses inside his own kingdom as well as in Yemen? Is it because of MBS’ support for groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda? No, according to Rice, we “should not rupture our important relationship with the kingdom, but we must make it clear it cannot be business as usual so long as Prince Mohammad continues to wield unlimited power.”

One will observe that the latter segment of Rice’s article almost mirrors former CIA director Brennan’s word on MSNBC word for word who stated that:

“I think ultimately this is going to come out. And it’s very important for us to maintain the relations with Saudi Arabia. And if it’s Mohammed bin Salman who’s the cancer here, well, we need to be able to find ways to eliminate the cancer and to move forward with this relationship that is critical to regional stability and our national interests.”

In reality, this is probably the issue that western media and government advisors have taken up with MBS. Aside from the fact he allegedly held a huge hand in the brutal murder of one of their own establishment journalists (Saudi Arabia reportedly tortured and killed another journalist not long after Khashoggi, but western media was eerily silent on this incident) MBS is not opposed for his reckless disregard for human rights. With insight into Rice’s mindset, we actually learn that if the US were to punish MBS, he would be likely to “behave more irresponsibly to demonstrate his independence and exact retribution against his erstwhile Western partners.”

You see, the problem with MBS isn’t that he is a mass murdering war criminal, it is that he is too “independent” for the United States’ liking.

Last week, Saudi Arabia and the other major oil producers met in Vienna at the year’s final big OPEC meeting of the year. As Foreign Policy notes, Saudi Arabia remains the largest oil producer inside OPEC but has to contend with the US and Russia who are “pumping oil at record levels.” Together, the three countries are the world’s biggest oil producers, meaning any coordinated decision made between these three nations can be somewhat monumental.

However, it appears that one of these three nations will end up drawing the short end of the stick as the other two begin forming a closer alliance. As Foreign Policy explains:

“But Saudi Arabia has bigger game in mind at Vienna than just stabilizing oil prices. Recognizing that it can’t shape the global oil market by itself anymore but rather needs the cooperation of Russia, Saudi Arabia is hoping to formalize an ad hoc agreement between OPEC and Moscow that began in 2016, a time when dirt-cheap oil also posed a threat to oil-dependent regimes. That informal agreement expires at the end of the year, but the Saudis would like to make Russia’s participation with the cartel more permanent.”

Russian officials have been signalling their intention to formalise this agreement for quite some time now. Given the hysteria in western media about any and all things Russian, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that this is the kind of news that is not sitting too well with the powers-that-be.

Earlier this year, Russia and Saudi Arabia announced that it would “institutionalize” the two-year-old bilateral agreement to coordinate oil production targets in order to maintain an edge on the global market.

While US president Trump has been supportive and incredibly defensive of MBS during this “crisis”, the truth is that the US only has itself to blame. It was not all too long ago that Trump announced that he had told Saudi King Salman that his kingdom would not last two weeks without US support.

Saudi Arabia is learning for themselves quite quickly that, ultimately, it may pay not to have all its eggs in one geopolitical superpower basket.

Saudi Arabia has been increasingly interested in Moscow since King Salman made a historic visit to Moscow in October 2017. While Trump has openly bragged about his record-breaking arms deals with the Saudis, the blunt truth is that the $110 billion arms agreements were reportedly only ever letters of interest or intent, but not actual contracts. As such, the US-Saudi arms deal is still yet to be locked in, all the while Saudi Arabia is negotiating with Russia for its S-400 air defence system. This is, as the Washington Post notes, despite repeated US requests to Saudi Arabia for it disavow its interest in Russia’s arms.

The economic threat that an “independent” Saudi Arabia under MBS’ leadership poses to Washington runs deeper than meets the eye and may indeed have a domino effect. According to CNN, Russia and Saudi Arabia “are engaged in an intense battle over who will be the top supplier to China, a major energy importer with an insatiable appetite for crude.”

The unveiling of China’s petro-yuan poses a major headache for Washington and its control over Saudi Arabia as well.According to Carl Weinberg, chief economist and managing director at High-Frequency Economics, China will “compel”Saudi Arabia to trade oil in Chinese yuan instead of US dollars. One must bear in mind that China has now surpassed the US as the “biggest oil importer on the planet,” these direct attacks on the US dollar will have huge implications for its current world reserve status.

If Saudi Arabia jumps on board China’s petro-yuan, the rest of OPEC will eventually follow, and the US might be left with no choice but to declare all of these countries in need of some vital freedom and democracy.

Therefore, ousting MBS and replacing him with a Crown Prince who doesn’t stray too far from the tree that is US imperialism may put a dent in pending relationships with Saudi Arabia and Washington’s adversaries, Russia and China.

Once we get over the certainty that the US media and the CIA are not against MBS for his long-list of human rights abuses, the question then becomes: why – why now, and in this manner, have they decided to put the spotlight on MBS and expose him exactly for what he is.

Clearly, the driving force behind this media outrage is a bit more complex than first meets the eye.

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

Latest

The Indiscreet Charm of the Gilets Jaunes

Nothing scares the Identity Politics Left quite like an actual working class uprising.

Published

on

By

Authored (satirically) by CJ Hopkins via The Unz Review:


So it appears the privatization of France isn’t going quite as smoothly as planned. As I assume you are aware, for over a month now, the gilets jaunes (or “yellow vests”), a multiplicitous, leaderless, extremely pissed off, confederation of working class persons, have been conducting a series of lively protests in cities and towns throughout the country to express their displeasure with Emmanuel Macron and his efforts to transform their society into an American-style neo-feudal dystopia. Highways have been blocked, toll booths commandeered, luxury automobiles set on fire, and shopping on the Champs-Élysées disrupted. What began as a suburban tax revolt has morphed into a bona fide working class uprising.

It took a while for “the Golden Boy of Europe” to fully appreciate what was happening. In the tradition of his predecessor, Louis XVI, Macron initially responded to the gilets jaunes by inviting a delegation of Le Monde reporters to laud his renovation of the Elysée Palace, making the occasional condescending comment, and otherwise completely ignoring them. That was back in late November. Last Saturday, he locked down central Paris, mobilized a literal army of riot cops, “preventatively arrested” hundreds of citizens, including suspected “extremist students,” and sent in the armored military vehicles.

The English-language corporate media, after doing their best not to cover these protests (and, instead, to keep the American and British publics focused on imaginary Russians), have been forced to now begin the delicate process of delegitimizing the gilets jaunes without infuriating the the entire population of France and inciting the British and American proletariats to go out and start setting cars on fire. They got off to a bit of an awkward start.

For example, this piece by Angelique Chrisafis, The Guardian‘s Paris Bureau Chief, and her Twitter feed from the protests last Saturday. Somehow (probably a cock-up at headquarters), The Guardian honchos allowed Chrisafis to do some actual propaganda-free reporting (and some interviews with actual protesters) before they caught themselves and replaced her with Kim Willsher, who resumed The Guardian‘s usual neoliberal establishment-friendly narrative, which, in this case, entailed dividing the protesters into “real” gilets jaunes and “fake” gilet jaunes, and referring to the latter fictional group as “thuggish, extremist political agitators.”

By Sunday, the corporate media were insinuating that diabolical Russian Facebook bots had brainwashed the French into running amok, because who else could possibly be responsible? Certainly not the French people themselves! The French, as every American knows, are by nature a cowardly, cheese-eating people, who have never overthrown their rightful rulers, or publicly beheaded the aristocracy. No, the French were just sitting there, smoking like chimneys, and otherwise enjoying their debt-enslavement and the privatization of their social democracy, until they unsuspectingly logged onto Facebook and … BLAMMO, the Russian hackers got them!

Bloomberg is reporting that French authorities have opened a probe into Russian interference (in the middle of which report, for no apparent reason, a gigantic photo of Le Pen is featured, presumably just to give it that “Nazi” flavor). According to “analysis seen by The Times,” Russia-linked social media accounts have been “amplifying” the “chaos” and “violence” by tweeting photos of gilets jaunes who the French police have savagely beaten or gratuitiously shot with “less-than-lethal projectiles.” “Are nationalists infiltrating the yellow vests?” the BBC Newsnight producers are wondering. According to Buzzfeed’s Ryan Broderick, “a beast born almost entirely from Facebook” is slouching toward … well, I’m not quite sure, the UK or even, God help us, America! And then there’s Max Boot, who is convinced he is being personally persecuted by Russian agents like Katie Hopkins, James Woods, Glenn Greenwald, and other high-ranking members of a worldwide conspiracy Boot refers to as the “Illiberal International” (but which regular readers of my column will recognize as the “Putin-Nazis“).

And, see, this is the problem the corporate media (and other staunch defenders of global neoliberalism) are facing with these gilets jaunes protests. They can’t get away with simply claiming that what is happening is not a working class uprising, so they have been forced to resort to these blatant absurdities. They know they need to delegitimize the gilets jaunes as soon as possible — the movement is already starting to spread — but the “Putin-Nazi” narrative they’ve been using on Trump, Corbyn, and other “populists” is just not working.

No one believes the Russians are behind this, not even the hacks who are paid to pretend they do. And the “fascism” hysteria is also bombing. Attempts to portray the gilets jaunes as Le Pen-sponsored fascists blew up in their faces. Obviously, the far-Right are part of these protests, as they would be in any broad working class uprising, but there are far too many socialists and anarchists (and just regular pissed-off working class people) involved for the media to paint them all as “Nazis.”

Which is not to say that the corporate media and prominent public intellectuals like Bernard-Henri Lévy will not continue to hammer away at the “fascism” hysteria, and demand that the “good” and “real” gilets jaunes suspend their protests against Macron until they have completely purged their movement of “fascists,” and “extremists,” and other dangerous elements, and have splintered it into a number of smaller, antagonistic ideological factions that can be more easily neutralized by the French authorities … because that’s what establishment intellectuals do.

We can expect to hear this line of reasoning, not just from establishment intellectuals like Lévy, but also from members of the Identity Politics Left, who are determined to prevent the working classes from rising up against global neoliberalism until they have cleansed their ranks of every last vestige of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, and so on. These leftist gatekeepers have been struggling a bit to come up with a response to the gilets jaunes … a response that doesn’t make them sound like hypocrites. See, as leftists, they kind of need to express their support for a bona fide working class uprising. At the same time, they need to delegitimize it, because their primary adversaries are fascism, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and assorted other isms and phobias, not the neoliberal ruling classes.

Nothing scares the Identity Politics Left quite like an actual working class uprising. Witnessing the furious unwashed masses operating out there on their own, with no decent human restraint whatsoever, Identity Politics Leftists feel a sudden overwhelming urge to analyze, categorize, organize, sanitize, and otherwise correct and control them.

They can’t accept the fact that the actual, living, breathing working classes are messy, multiplicitous, inconsistent, and irreducible to any one ideology. Some of them are racists. Some are fascists. Others are communists, socialists, and anarchists. Many have no idea what they are, and don’t particularly care for any of these labels.This is what the actual working classes are … a big, contradictory collection of people who, in spite of all their differences, share one thing in common, that they are being screwed over by the ruling classes. I don’t know about you, but I consider myself one of them.

Where we go from here is anyone’s guess. According to The Guardian, as I am sitting here writing this, the whole of Europe is holding its breath in anticipation of the gilets jaunes’ response to Macron’s most recent attempt to appease them, this time with an extra hundred Euros a month, some minor tax concessions, and a Christmas bonus.

Something tells me it’s not going to work, but even if it does, and the gilets jaunes uprising ends, this messy, Western “populist” insurgency against global neoliberalism has clearly entered a new phase. Count on the global capitalist ruling classes to intensify their ongoing War on Dissent and their demonization of anyone opposing them (or contradicting their official narrative) as an “extremist,” a “fascist,” a “Russian agent,” and so on. I’m certainly looking forward to that, personally.

Oh… yeah, and I almost forgot, if you were wondering what you could get me for Christmas, I did some checking, and there appears to be a wide selection of yellow safety vests online for just a couple Euros.

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

Latest

Washington Is Changing The World Order Against Its Own Interests

Any country sufficiently stupid to ally with the US is allied with a dead man walking.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts:


The hubris and arrogance of Washington have been at work since the Clinton regime to destroy the power and relevance of the United States.

This website has an international audience. The most asked question from this audience is the world order. There is a realization that Washington’s control might weaken, a development people abroad see as hopeful. They ask me for verification of their hope.

Here is my answer:

The world order has already changed.  China has a larger and more powerful industrial and manufacturing based economy than the US, and China’s potential domestic consumer market is four times larger than that of the US. As economies are consumer based, China’s potential is an economy four times larger than that of the US.

Russia has a far more capable military with weapon systems unmatched by the US. The US is drowning in debt, and the illegal and irresponsible sanctions that Washington tries to impose on others are driving the world’s largest countries away from the use of the US dollar as world reserve currency and away from Western clearance systems such as SWIFT.  The United States already has one foot in the grave.  Any country sufficiently stupid to ally with the US is allied with a dead man walking.

President Eisenhower, a five-star general, warned Americans 57 years ago to no effect that the military/security complex was already a threat to the American people’s ability to control their government. Today the military/security complex is the Government. As Udo Ulfkotte documented in his book, Journalists for Hire: How the CIA buys the News—no you can’t buy a copy unless you can find a used copy in German in a German book store, the CIA has seen to that—journalism independent of official explanations no longer exists in the Western world.

Much of the world does not understand this. Aside from the material interests of Russian and Chinese capitalists, a portion of the youth of both superpowers, and also even in Iran, have succumbed to brainwashing by American propaganda. Gullible beyond belief, they are more loyal to America than they are to their own countries.

The United States itself is extremely unsuccessful, but its propaganda still rules the world. The consequence is that, based on its propagandistic success, Washington thinks it still holds the balance of economic and military power. This is a delusion that is leading Washington to nuclear war.

Considering the hypersonic speed, trajectory changeability and massive power of Russian nuclear weapons, war with Russia will result in nothing whatsoever being left of the US and its vassals, who sold out European peoples for Washington’s money.

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