Chrystia Freeland Blows It On Russia And The Ukraine

Communist party member in Kiev beaten by fascists to within an inch of his life. Jews are being thrashed as well because they're linked to "communists"

First, let me say Chrystia Freeland has been one of my favorite authors as well as commentators. Her book from 2012, ‘Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else. ‘  ought to be required reading for every self -professed liberal or progressive concerned about inequality. Her valid point was that Über Plutocrats  no longer feel any civic allegiance or social obligation to the average citizen. While in decades past, the massively wealthy acknowledged on some level the need to contribute to the welfare of the whole society via just taxation, they no longer believe so.  This fact, coupled with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision – that allows corporate entities to give as much as they want to specious election fronts to undermine votes, is part of why the Neoliberal state has tightened its grip on the rest of us. It can do so by the venal pay to play rubric that allows the wealthy to buy congress critters- and “laws” – wholesale.

 Which makes one wonder why this doesn’t extend to Freeland’s grasp of what’s happening in the Ukraine, wherein a Neoliberal fascist state is making a bid (with the help of the Neoliberal West)  to justify its egregious existence predicated on some nominal “democracy”.  In reality, it's bare-faced fascism backed unwisely by U.S. Neocons (in the National Endowment for Democracy) and their hangers on and fellow travelers.

 In her Sunday New York Times piece, ‘Russia Has Already Lost the War’, Freeland indeed exhibits and displays all the misplaced tropes and disinformation one can hear and see on FOX News every day. Including that Putin is the “big bad guy” who started it all, never mind – as Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.) pointed out a week ago on Chris Hayes' MSNBC show, the West and the U.S. brought this disaster on themselves by recklessly expanding NATO to the east, and also staging a coup – compliments of the neocons like Victoria Nuland- in Kiev.

 

Now, with ever more information coming out on the fascist connections to this “new Ukraine” – see e.g.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/us-backing-neo-nazis-Ukraine

 
 

It is inexcusable for someone with the gravitas and keen intellect of Freeland to fall pell mell into the same memetic tripe. But she has!    To catalog all her errors would take a dozen blog posts so let me concentrate on the primary ones, starting with:

“No matter what happens over the next few months, or even years, Mr. Putin and his vision of an authoritarian, Russian-dominated former Soviet space have already lost. Democratic, independent Ukraine and the messy, querulous (but also free and law –abiding) European idea have won.”

 

Which makes one wonder what the hell she’s smoking. It’s got to be more powerful than anything offered here in Colo.  In that one paragraph are embodied nearly all the misbegotten  canards we’ve heard the past two weeks from the Western, Neoliberal, corporate-owned and operated press. Including an abysmal lack of the knowledge of Russia’s history and the claim that the “law abiding European idea has won.” No it has not. It's been disguised in gutter fight tactics fomented by shameless neoncons seeking only power, and disruption of the Obama-Putin cooperative  alliance. An alliance that had worked well to stave off conflicts in Syria and Iran.

Even Col. Wilkerson at least understood enough Russian history to know that Putin would not tolerate a NATO client state set up on his very border via a coup. Indeed, Wilkerson even said flat out on Chris Hayes’ program that if he were Putin, he’d have done the same thing!  This after Gorbachev and Russia were PROMISED by Bush Sr. that NATO “would not move one more inch to the east”.

And then to foment a coup on Russia’s doorstep? I am afraid that Ms. Freeland has it all wrong, every last bit!  Putin’s vision is not of a “Russian-dominated former Soviet space” but of protecting his nation’s security at its borders – in this case from a growing fascist state- the same damned way the U.S. would if Russians launched a massive Naval Base in Cuba and attempted to annex Guantanamo Bay!  So  WHO is she trying to fool anyway?

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson himself made plain what the deal is, in his own words:

“Anyone who knows Russian history .....could have guessed that  President Putin would move into the Ukraine once we had formed a group there, led by the NED and its affiliates - which effectively pulled off a coup".
 

This take was fully reinforced by Dimitri K. Simes, President of the Center for the National Interest quoted in the Sunday NY Times (p. 10):

 

“The new pro-Western government in Kiev lacks legitimacy because it came to power by toppling a democratically –elected President. “

In other words, while Ms. Freeland portrays Putin’s moves as predicated on offense, they are in fact defense, and of the same kind the U.S. would employ if its own border security was threatened – say by a still existing Warsaw Pact or Russia – building extensions in this hemisphere.. What gives the U.S. the right to dictate the extent of its national security and not the Russians? And btw, this isn’t any case of “choosing sides” here – as some liberal websites have gotten themselves into a twist over via dozens of specious, sterile  ‘debates’, but of adjudging fairness for any given nation to exert self-interest in matters of security. Also, to accept and define that the same security standards must apply to all nation states, no exceptions!

The claim about being “law abiding” is also foolishness. Says who? Did Ms. Freeland receive a signed and sealed affidavit from her uncle,  who apparently lives there? Did he attest -  like the other Neoliberal blowhards at the WaPo  and FOX- that ‘there ain’t no sign of any disruptions'?

If Ms. Freeland were to avail herself of The Nation, she’d learn the Svoboda Party wants to "ban abortion, gun control, foreigners’ adoption of Ukrainian children", and “the Communist ideology.” (Hell, these rapscallions have already banned Russian!) Svoboda has also organized violent attacks on gay pride events, as well as on those they outed as belonging to any communist group. To get inside the brains of some of these fascist derelicts, check out this BBC video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY

Party leader Oleh Tyanhybok, a member of Parliament, routinely trashes “the Kikes” and calls for the liberation of Ukraine from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.” He idolizes the OUN. (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,  founded in 1929 by a man named Stepan Bandera, who latter threw his lot in with the Nazis.)  Bandera solicited and received Nazi money and support for two battalions to be deployed against the Soviet Red Army. One of these was the Nachtigall Battalian, which according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, rounded up around 4000 Ukrainian Jews for the Nazis in Lviv in July 1941

 

 “They did not fear,” he declared in 2004, “but took up their automatic rifles, going into the woods to fight Muscovites, Germans, Jewry and other filth which wanted to take away our Ukrainian nationhood. It’s time to give Ukraine to the Ukrainians.”

Now these renegades are going around beating the crap out of anyone that even looks Jewish (or communist- see graphic above) , intimidating others and defacing property. Much of this behavior can likely be traced to days before the putsch, when Victoria Nuland was observed handing out cookies to the rebels and encouraging them to ‘go for it’.  What, do she and her neocon ilk think the Russians are stupid?

While Svoboda has only received about 10% of the vote in recent parliamentary elections, it was deeply involved in the street violence that toppled Yanukovich, executing a coup. One (anarchist) protestor in Maidan Square told Salon that 30% of the demonstrators were “fascists.” There has been a credible report, based on a leaked phone conversation between EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton and Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, that the sniper fire that occurred in Maidan Square, attributed by the opposition to Yanukovich’s security forces in order justify the coup, was actually arranged by neo-fascists. See e.g.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/walter-c-uhler/54626/did-right-wing-protesters-hire-snipers-to-kill-protesters-and-police-at-maidan
 

Nuland herself - incredibly -  is a neocon Cheneyite holdover in the Obama administration, a consistent liar who has campaigned for endless war on Iraq, Iran, Libya, etc. Her husband, pundit Robert Kagan and top NED honcho,  is also well-known for his support for wars based on lies.  Nuland was famously recorded discussing with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine plans for regime change in Kiev. In the days leading up to the coup, she dismissed the EU’s advocacy of a role for Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s rival Viktor Klitschko (whose party has in fact been excluded from the present cabinet). “Fuck the EU!” snapped Nuland. More interestingly, also declaring that the newly installed Yatsenyuk needed “Tyahnybok on the outside” and needs to talk to him “four times a week.” See, e.g.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/54558/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis

Freeland then goes on to claim:

“The reality is that everyone in the country speaks and understands Russian and everyone at least understands Ukrainian”

The subtext being that they can at least all get along and find common cause based on language, since of course, “bilingual discussions are commonplace.”  Her disinfo then is that Ukraine could as well be regarded as a single, unified democratic state – when in fact it is a savagely divided failed state. This is what likely causes her to misconstrue Putin’s vision as “believing Ukraine was Yugoslavia” etc. Nonsense! If she’d have taken the time and trouble to even check former Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock’s website, she’d have read that:

 

“In the 22 –plus years of its independence, it has not yet found a leader who can unite citizens in a shared concept of Ukrainian identity”.

 

Sadly, it was this lack of national identity that the West’s Neo-conservatives chose to exploit in order to try to set up a NATO puppet state on Russia’s doorstep. As the ‘bear’ she is, protective of her security, Russia bit back and now the West, its Neoliberals- Neocons and others act all surprised at the move, while remaining unctuous to the neo-Nazi street gangs in Kiev and projecting a  self-righteous demeanor to the world.  They  are all hysterical they finally met a nation they can’t bully,  and  increasingly frustrated, they want to push Obama into a stupid, forceful move – which might be the end of it for us all.

Let’s hope those like Freeland see through the charade before it’s too late. And let’s hope Obama takes no precipitous action we may all live to regret! (It's bad enough Russia is likely to halt all nuclear inspections from the START Treaty, thanks to the latest "sanctions" imposed.)

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/walter-c-uhler/54786/the-hypocritical-united-states-of-amnesia-and-russia

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/12/propaganda_lies_and_the_new_york_times_everything_you_really_need_to_know_about_ukraine/

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/54693/crimeas-case-for-leaving-Ukraine

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/ernest-partridge/54716/thinking-like-a-russian

 

Does Hillary's Dumb Hitler Comment Disqualify Her As A Dem Presidential Candidate?

Hitler and Vladimir Putin: There's no analogy other than in the minds of the historically -challenged or hysterically rabid neocons. Is Hillary part of the first set or the latter?

Hillary Clinton in the midst of all the Neocon-Neoliberal bombast in the U.S. on the Ukraine crisis, might be forgiven for making dumb ass remarks comparing Putin to Hitler in a private fund raiser. However, as a likely Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party this is not something that can be blithely swept under the rug or ignored.

For those who may not know,  she was caught out making egregious comparisons of Adolf Hitler's 'tactics' in the 1930s to Vladimir Putin's justifiable responses to Neocon -instigated thuggery in the Ukraine. She went on to say:

"Now if this sounds familiar this is what the early  Hitler did in the 30s.' I have to go and protect my people'."

Actually, anyone who's studied German history or actually visited the country and spoken to Germans that lived in that era knows this is all BS. Hitler in his early years, especially in his Munich meetings- speeches,  was focused on the unfair treatment meted out to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles, following World War I.  Konrad Heiden, a journalist of the era, in his book, The Fuehrer, pp. 80-81, explains:

"The idea of self-determination originated in old Austria, where Germans, Hungarians, Italians and Slavs, of different language and nationality, lived under one crown and fought one another bitterly. After the war it became a world slogan. Woodrow Wilson had taken it up, it served as a yardstick for the Peace Of Versailles.  To all European nations the same right to self-determination had been granted - except to defeated Germany. Regions inhabited by Germans had been given to other countries by plebiscite, consequently without self-determination - German South Tyrol to Italy, the so-called Sudeten Germans to Czechoslovakia  .....and even German-speaking parts of Austria...had been coldly rebuffed.

From the democratic right of self-determination, Hitler forged one of his sharpest and most effective weapons in a struggle for power, whose ultimate aims went for beyond any self-determination. "

Thus did Hitler demand  rights of self-determination for the broad "German nation". That is, all those nations stripped of self-determination by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler also magnified this theme by appeal to the Volkisch movement that had persisted in Germany since the Middle Ages. It extolled a kind of phony Aryanism and invested much of it in myths traced back to ancient Nordic origins. It also incorporated Christian rituals, such as the Passion Play at Oberammagau, in which the Jews were featured as "Christ killers". In other words, the Volkisch movement embodied a cultural anti-Semitism that had gone on for centuries, Hitler merely exploited it, partly out of pure laziness (he didn't have to create whole new themes and legends) and partly because German anti-Semitism had existed for centuries as a societal undercurrent.

But none of this is remotely comparable to Putin's response to the U.S. coup in Ukraine, which as I already noted, even Col. Lawrence Wilkerson asserted he was justified in doing - three nights ago on Chris Hayes 'All In'.  In other words, Putin was indeed protecting Russian interests in Ukraine from U.S. Neocon-sponsored ultra-nationalists. Hitler, meanwhile, was out to reclaim all former nations originally part of the "German nation" - by which he meant the German-speaking nation and those deprived of self-determination under the Treaty of Versailles.

This is what makes Hillary's next comment  - after her remarks were made public- so egregious:

"I was just trying to provide historical context that we can learn from  this tactic that has been seen  before. "

What 'historical context'? There is no such genuine context! There is no such 'tactic'! Putin was spurred to action by exercising his right to protect Russian ethnics-speakers  in the Ukraine, after they'd been denied to even exercise their own language and were being beaten by Svoboda party ultra-nationalists sponsored by U.S. Neocons embedded in the NED (National Endowment for Democracy). The legitimate government had been overthrown by these same Neocons - pushing eastward to try to put NATO right at Russia's doorstep. This is absolute insanity! 

By contrast, Hitler's occupations were based on the themes noted earlier, as well as the concept of "Lebensraum" or living space. I.e. the need to increase Germany's resource base if it was to return to any kind of practical self-determination.

The irony of Versailles, is that it left in its wake the palsied, pre-Reich Weimar Republic constituting a weak democracy which had little or no control over the most radical Rightists, especially Hitler’s (actually, originally Ernst Röhm's) NSDAP party. The latter is more comparable to the Svoboda Party in the Ukraine, which is a fascist party supported by U.S. Neocons with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians. Why wouldn't Putin be rightly concerned with Nazis literally at his doorstep, supported by whackos of the far right in the U.S.? Again, if the situation were reversed the U.S. would do the same. And as for all the Neoliberal media applause when all the "pro- democracy" protests erupted in Kiev, let's not forget how the U.S. police state banged the heads of Occupy protestors when they launched massive protests in New York, LA etc. Oh, and also put them in rifle sights in Houston, e.g.

See. http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1494


Lastly, one of the most powerful forces leveraging Hitler into total power was German Big Business.  As noted by Ian Kershaw  (‘Hitler Nemesis’, p. xxxiii):

“Leaders of big business, though often harboring private concerns about current difficulties and looming future problems for the economy, for their part were grateful to Hitler for the destruction of the left-wing parties and trade unions. They were again ‘masters in the house’ in their dealings with their work force”


Note carefully: It wasn't Hitler destroying right wing parties but LEFT WING PARTIES and TRADE UNIONS! THIS is why the German capitalists, such as Krupp, Volkswagen, I.G. Farben (infamous for later manufacturing the Zyklon B gas used in the gas chambers) etc. threw their lot behind him and provided the political ballast, without which he could never have become 'Der Fuehrer'.  All this is validated in Heiden's book as well.

In effect, the correct analogy to what is happening in the Ukraine now, is U.S.  Neoliberal Business fueling the drive to push NATO to Russia's doorstep, via weapons sales, as pointed out by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson on Chris Hayes' show three nights ago.   This drive, and the mandate to get Ukraine under the U.S. Neoliberal banner is what prompted the Neocon coup instigated by Victoria Nuland, John McCain and others.  

The odd thing about all this is I thought Hillary had a better grasp of history than she's shown. Indeed, in 2008 I was a strong Clinton supporter, believing she was the right person to lead the nation and I didn't trust Obama's lofty rhetoric and high promises. In the wake of the Bush debacle I felt: 1) people would actually believe them and push him into office based on Bush hatred, and 2) Obama once in - and out of campaign mode- would never live up to the hype.  Both turned out to be true.

My worry with Hillary now - after her remarks- is that she is a Neocon, or at least Neocon-lite. Why else keep Victoria Nuland around, a dedicated Neocon and NED'er,  following the lead of her hubby, Robert Kagan?  It also bothers me that Hillary was one of the Dems that voted for the Iraq invasion in 2003 -  though I did believe in 2008 she could be a changeling.

Right now, I am on the fence, but will be watching closely. Meanwhile, my hope is  that the Ukraine crisis will be resolved without bloodshed or war, but that depends on the U.S. and how strident a response it musters. Right now, the main talk (by the Neolib media) is using the 'gas weapon". That is, since the U.S. is now the de facto biggest producer of natural gas (via fracking) in the world, we can supply the Ukraine instead of it having to depend on Russia.

If this plan goes through it may avoid ultimate catastrophe (WWIII) but at the expense of millions more fracking wells, many likely right in your neighborhood.....coming soon!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/06/propaganda_and_nonsense_even_more_new_york_times_hypocrisy/

And:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/norman-solomon/54642/hillary-clinton-on-putin-playing-a-dog-eared-hitler-card


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/walter-c-uhler/54626/did-right-wing-protesters-hire-snipers-to-kill-protesters-and-police-at-maidan

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/54630/putin-or-kerry-whos-delusional

NO! The U.S. Does NOT Want a War With Russia!

A Russian Destroyer, the Moskva, leaves its base for the waters off Syria in July. Below: Obama clueless as to who the real "freedom fighters" are in Ukraine.

Q. What do you get when you cross a neocon with a Neoliberal?

A. The Shock Doctrine, 100, 000 dead ....then Wall Street stock or bond shares on the new oil or debt.

It was laughable last night seeing Bill Maher expose the Neocon asshole William Kristol for the braggart know-nothing he is, just like the rest of his ilk. In turn, Bill trotted out three of Kristol's predictions made before the invasion of Iraq including: 1) The U.S. will be vindicated when the weapons of mass destruction are discovered, 2) Very few wars in American history were better prepared for, and 3) It's 'pop psychology' to believe the Shi'ia can't get along with the Sunni.

All of which, along with the other trope - i.e. that the oil we find will pay for the war, were shown to be total nonsense and lies.

So WHY in the hell should anyone with half a grain of sense or half a brain believe these idiots when they yap for confronting the Russians over Ukraine? And yet last night, what did we behold? Obama getting up on his lectern and "warning" the Russians about "interfering in Ukraine". Are you kidding me? The U.S. interfered long before the Russians via their Neocon NED as I described in the previous blog. Is ANYONE paying attention? Is the President?

And what is he going to do when the Russians laugh at these hollow warnings? Make no mistake that going up against the Russians will not be anything like the mock "wars" of the past 14 years, based mainly on invading and occupying two nations laden with impoverished, ragtag, robed radicals who can barely muster enough supplies to make home made bombs.  The Russians, by contrast, have actual fighter jets, battle ships and tanks, as well as a well equipped army that will give the U.S. everything it can handle and more. It won't be any 'shock and awe' cakewalk like in Iraq. So why is Obama falling for this bullshit, and why hasn't he cleaned house and gotten rid of the Neocons?

And why hasn't Obama sacked the Neocon advisors putting him up to this rubbish? Why does he have ANY Neocons still in his administration? As blogger Robert Parry put it two days ago:

"the U.S. government appears nearly as divided as the Ukrainian people. While neocon holdovers in the State Department, particularly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, helped instigate the crisis, President Obama has seen his collaboration with Putin to tamp down crises in Syria and Iran put at risk"

This  sounds to me like Obama needs to do a major clean up at State. Get rid of these buggers once and for all! Send them packing! No Neocons!  Obama needs to grasp he is backing the WRONG side! And also, these "freedom fighting citizens" are mainly Neo-Nazi thugs!  See also:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/27/the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/

Excerpt:

"The Washington-paid schemers are now reaping their just reward as they sit in craven silence while neo-nazi Muzychko wielding an Ak-47 challenges government officials to their face: “I dare you take my gun!” Only Obama, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, Washington’s European puppets, and the Western prostitute media can describe the brutal reality of post-coup Ukraine as “the forward march of democracy.

If a democratically elected president and ruling party are so easily driven from power by armed neo-nazis, what chance do Washington’s paid stooges among the so-called “moderates” have of forming a government?"

Indeed, it is yet another display of supporting Neoliberal FASCISM! Neo -Nazis! Are you shitting me? WTF are we doing supporting Nazis? Has this country gone mad, or is the leadership now bamboozled again by the Neocons who clearly have them by the balls too?

 As I cited Mike Whitney's piece at the end of the post yesterday:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mike-whitney/54509/the-coup-in-ukraine-obamas-dumbest-plan-yet

In order to topple Yanukovych, the US had to tacitly support fanatical groups of neo-Nazi thugs and anti-Semites. And, even though “Interim Ukrainian President Oleksander Tuchynov has pledged to do everything in his power to protect the country’s Jewish community”; reports on the ground are not so encouraging. Here’s an excerpt from a statement by Natalia Vitrenko, of The Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine that suggests the situation is much worse than what is being reported in the news:

“Across the country… People are being beaten and stoned, while undesirable members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are subject to mass intimidation and local officials see their families and children targeted by death threats if they do not support the installation of this new political power. The new Ukrainian authorities are massively burning the offices of political parties they do not like, and have publicly announced the threat of criminal prosecution and prohibition of political parties and public organizations that do not share the ideology and goals of the new regime.” (“USA and EU Are Erecting a Nazi Regime on Ukrainian Territory”, Natalia Vitrenko)

Ukraine is gradually succumbing to the loving embrace of the New World Order where it will serve as another profit-generating cog in Wall Street’s wheel. That’s the theory, at least. It hasn’t occurred to the boneheads at the New York Times or Washington Post that Ukraine is rapidly descending into Mad Max-type anarchy which could spill over its borders into neighboring countries triggering violent conflagrations, social upheaval, regional instability or–god-help-us– WW3"

It is high time to call a halt to this insanity now!

Mr. Obama, tell the Neocons burrowed within your administration to get the hell out! Tell any Neocon advisors to shut the fuck up! We do not need or want World War III - which believe me, these assholes are leading us into one fell step after another. Do not let them make you believe Russia does not have as much right to defend her doorstep as we do ours!  (And WHO can forget how Reagan dispatched several Marine regiments  and ships to the small island of Grenada in 1983 to wipe out a small (400-650) band of Cuban commie engineers - on the island to repair roads. Don't hand me any shit that WE also don't fight to protect what's near our doorstep - even if 2,000 miles away!)

Enough of this crap!

Be like JFK and act as a leader for once, and tell the warmongers and warmakers to take a long hike on a short pier.

And please, no more empty, provocative threats - unless you're also prepared to threaten the Nazis wreaking mayhem in Ukraine!  See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/daniel-patrick-welch/54546/worst-man-for-the-job-what-the-hell-is-obama-thinking

See the nationalist filth that the West, the neocons and Obama are backing here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY

Why I Don't Buy 99 Percent of What the U.S. Media Says About the Ukraine

As the tensions ramp up in the Ukraine, and Kerry makes hollow threats warning the Russians "hands off" (as if the U.S. of A. wouldn't marshal  all its might if a rabble of Communist Cubans took over downtown Miami and its venerable courthouse) one has to wonder how much of the backstory we're really being told. How much do we REALLY know of the instigators in the Ukraine ? How much do we really know about the so -called "freedom fighters"? Do we know any more about them than the "liberators" we were going to back in Syria back in July - who turned out to be terrorists?

Let's observe that there's always  been a measure of hypocrisy but Official Washington used to at least pretend to stand for “democracy,” rather than taking such obvious pleasure in destabilizing elected governments, encouraging riots, overturning constitutional systems and then praising violent putsches. As blogger Robert Parry has astutely observed:

"But events in Ukraine and Venezuela suggest that the idea of respecting the results of elections and working within legal, albeit flawed, political systems is no longer in vogue, unless the “U.S. side” happens to win, of course. If the “U.S. side” loses, then it’s time for some “shock doctrine.” And, of course, the usual demonizing of the “enemy” leader."

Maybe it's because we've ignored - or the U.S. media has - how neocons are still buried in our national policy like worms in the core of an apple. Don't believed me? Then where is the mainstream press on the "NED"? The National Endowment for Democracy, which was a central part of Ronald Reagan’s propaganda war against the Soviet Union three decades ago. It has  since evolved into a $100 million U.S. government-financed slush fund that generally supports a neocon agenda often at cross-purposes with the Obama administration’s foreign policy.  As Robert Parry notes:

"NED is one reason why there is so much confusion about the administration’s policies toward attempted ousters of democratically elected leaders in Ukraine and Venezuela. Some of the non-government organizations (or NGOs) supporting these rebellions trace back to NED and its U.S. government money, even as Secretary of State John Kerry and other senior officials insist the U.S. is not behind these insurrections."


Maybe things are even more sinister than they appear, given NED emerged at around the same time as the Nazi-backed Republican Heritage Groups. All this is well documented  by Russ Bellant, in his book 'Old Nazis, The New Right and the Republican Party' ( South End Press, Boston, 1991, p. 77). Bellant painstakingly documents how Nazis, and former S.S. infiltrated the Republican Heritage Groups and Council from the time of Reagan's ascension in 1980. He provides actual letters written and received as well as how their agenda is spelled out. He also notes a key figure who had established connections many decades earlier, i.e.

"Philip Guarino helped establish the ethnic division of the GOP in 1952. He was vice-chair of the Republican Heritage Groups Council from 1971-75."

By April 8, 1980, Guarino "was a senior member of the Republican Party National Committee, which at the time was concentrating all its efforts on getting Ronald Reagan elected President." (Recall Reagan also gave a nod to these vermin when he visited the grave site of a Waffen S.S. in Bitburg, W. Germany. The PR at the time was that it was "an accident", but don't buy it for a second!) The "ethnic division of the GOP" refers to Ukrainian and Latvian assistants and associates, or members of the extension group affiliated with the German Waffen S.S. which had helped carry out pogroms during WWII- usually butchering Jews and communists in their own nations. (Recall, Hitler often conflated the Jews with Marxists, communists based on the fact Karl Marx was a Jew.)

It then may also be no coincidence that neo-Nazis have been observed amongst these proper "democracy" protestors in the Ukraine, overturning statues, harassing those who disagree with them and in general carrying on like rogues and thugs. But how much do you hear of that in the Western Press?  To make a long story short, part of the GOP agenda dating from this Nazi infiltration, evolved to overturning elected governments that didn't meet the Reagan- Far Right "smell tests". Two recent examples are Venezuela and the Ukraine.

Let's also note Bellant's claims re: associations, groups - apart from establishing direct ties of former S.S. affiliates to the GOP, were also well substantiated in the Newsweek article ('The Right Wing Web', February 22, 1999, p.34).  The reason for reinforcing Bellant's book is that the putative basis for widespread former Nazi use and recruitment (including in our intelligence agencies, e.g. CIA) would have been laid bare....but it seemed evident to me even then that the GOP congress wished to cover its party tracks and all possible links to Nazi interests

According to a Baltimore Sun article ('Government May Soon Open Files on Nazi War Criminals', Aug. 2, 1998, p. 20A):

"Under pressure from Congress, the Justice Department and other agencies may be forced to declassify tens of thousands of top-secret documents describing the U.S. intelligence community's dealings with Nazi war criminals in the Cold War years. Legislation to open most of those files has already passed the Senate and could come up for a vote in the House this week. Some historians suspect that the opened files could cause 'tremendous embarrassments' for the United States."

Less than one year later the GOP congress voted against passage, and that was it. No one has heard much about it since. Perhaps the GOP Neocons knew then, as they do now, they didn't want to let the "cat out of the bag" regarding the NED. Robert Parry again:

 "NED was founded in 1983 at the initiative of Cold War hardliners in the Reagan administration, including then-CIA Director William J. Casey. Essentially, NED took over what had been the domain of the CIA, i.e. funneling money to support foreign political movements that would take the U.S. side against the Soviet Union.


Though the Reagan administration’s defenders insist that this “democracy” project didn’t “report” to Casey, documents that have been declassified from the Reagan years show Casey as a principal instigator of this operation, which also sought to harness funding from right-wing billionaires and foundations to augment these activities."


Let's get something else clear:  Ukraine’s ousted President Viktor Yanukovych was surely no paragon of altruistic benevolence or a flawless leader, though it looks like there are few of those in Ukraine, a country essentially controlled by a collection of billionaire oligarchs who jockey for power and shift their allegiances among corrupt politicians. But Yanukovych was elected in what was generally regarded as a reasonably fair election in 2010. Indeed, some international observers called the election an important step toward establishing an orderly political process in Ukraine.

But Yanukovych sought to maintain cordial relations with neighboring Russia, which apparently rubbed American neocons the wrong way. O(fficial Washington’s still-influential neocons have been livid with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin because he cooperated with U.S. President Barack Obama in averting U.S. wars against Iran and Syria.)

In both cases, like they did with Bush and Iraq in 2003, the neocons thought they had maneuvered Obama into confrontations that could have advanced their long-term strategy of “regime change” across the Middle East, a process that started in 2003 with the U.S. invasion of Iraq but stalled with that disastrous war.

But the filth didn't succeed.

Many in the Ukraine and a dullard, incompetent U.S. media are still wondering why Viktor Yanukovych  turned to Russia instead of the EU. They were not alert to the fact the IMF and EU demanded substantial economic “reforms,” including an austerity plan that would have turned 90 percent of the Ukraine's people into street beggars.. Yanukovych  rightfully balked at the harsh terms and turned to Ukraine’s neighbor Russia, which was offering a $15 billion loan and was keeping Ukraine’s economy afloat with discounted natural gas.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the EU was driving too hard a bargain or whether Ukraine should undertake such painful economic “reforms” – or how Yanukovych should have balanced the interests of his divided country, with the east dominated by ethnic Russians and the west leaning toward Europe. But protesters from the western Ukraine, including far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis sought to turn this policy dispute into a means for overthrowing the elected government. Police efforts to quell the disturbances turned violent, with the police not the only culprits. Police faced armed neo-Nazi storm troopers who attacked with firebombs and other weapons.

Though the U.S. news media did show scenes of these violent melees, the U.S. press almost universally blamed Yanukovych – and took almost gleeful pleasure as his elected government collapsed and was replaced by thuggish right-wing militias “guarding” government buildings.

With Yanukovych and many of his supporters fleeing for their lives, the opposition parties seized control of parliament and began passing draconian new laws often unanimously, as neo-Nazi thugs patrolled the scene. Amazingly, the U.S. news media treated all this as uplifting, a popular uprising against a tyrant, not a case of a coup government operating in collusion with violent extremists.

Is there a Nazi connection to the NED's objectives too? In all likelihood. Governments  that permitted NED to function have  often found themselves facing internal political pressures from NED-funded NGOs to shift those countries’ policies to the right by eliminating social programs deemed “socialistic” and hewing to “reform” demands from international bankers, which usually meant ceding some sovereignty to the IMF or other global institutions.

Ukraine and Venezuela are no exceptions. Sadly,  the momentum that this three-decade-old extreme Right “public diplomacy” campaign has achieved – both from NED and various neocons holding down key positions in Official Washington – pits this shadow foreign policy establishment against the President of the United States. Barack Obama may see cooperation with Vladimir Putin as crucial to resolving crises in Iran and Syria, but elements of Obama’s own administration and U.S.-financed outfits like NED are doing all they can to create crises for Putin. 

How or when will Obama flush the  god-damned Nazi-Neocons from his midst? We don't know because we don't even know if he's aware they're embedded.  We do know that this NED shadow structure, when working in concert with domestic opposition forces, had the capability to challenge the decisions of Yanukovych’s elected government, including the recent coup – spearheaded by violent neo-Nazis – that overthrew him. Presumably, NED wanted the “regime change” without the neo-Nazi element. But that armed force was necessary for the coup to oust Yanukovych and open the path for those IMF-demanded economic “reforms.”

And  while Yanukovych and his top aides were forced to flee for their lives, the opposition-controlled parliament then passed a series of draconian laws often unanimously, while U.S. neocons cheered and virtually no one in the U.S. press corps noted the undemocratic nature of what had just happened.

The Neoliberal U.S Press corps had shown themselves to be beyond pathetic, and even now are trying to hype up all sorts of alarms and fear  as Russia rightfully gathers its forces to protect its interests the same damned way the mighty U.S. would if Cuban Communists had taken over Miami.  None of these jerkoffs deserves a hearing, especially when they give so much space and credence to the NED mouthpieces.

Oh, and remember Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, the imp that was caught out saying: "FUCK the EU!"?  (Since she's part of the Neocon-NED orbit and wanted its influence to prevail, not the EU's)

She is none other than the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, and  reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve “its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion.” She said the U.S. goal was to take “Ukraine into the future that it deserves,” meaning out of the Russian orbit and into a Western one.

Thankfully, the Russians will not allow that to occur! Neocons or no!  They will not tolerate a fascist neo-Nazi empire on their doorstep any more than the U.S. would a further communist incursion.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mike-whitney/54509/the-coup-in-ukraine-obamas-dumbest-plan-yet

Excerpt:
In order to topple Yanukovych, the US had to tacitly support fanatical groups of neo-Nazi thugs and anti-Semites. And, even though “Interim Ukrainian President Oleksander Tuchynov has pledged to do everything in his power to protect the country’s Jewish community”; reports on the ground are not so encouraging. Here’s an excerpt from a statement by Natalia Vitrenko, of The Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine that suggests the situation is much worse than what is being reported in the news:

“Across the country… People are being beaten and stoned, while undesirable members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are subject to mass intimidation and local officials see their families and children targeted by death threats if they do not support the installation of this new political power. The new Ukrainian authorities are massively burning the offices of political parties they do not like, and have publicly announced the threat of criminal prosecution and prohibition of political parties and public organizations that do not share the ideology and goals of the new regime.” (“USA and EU Are Erecting a Nazi Regime on Ukrainian Territory”, Natalia Vitrenko)

Ukraine is gradually succumbing to the loving embrace of the New World Order where it will serve as another profit-generating cog in Wall Street’s wheel. That’s the theory, at least. It hasn’t occurred to the boneheads at the New York Times or Washington Post that Ukraine is rapidly descending into Mad Max-type anarchy which could spill over its borders into neighboring countries triggering violent conflagrations, social upheaval, regional instability or–god-help-us– WW3"
 --------------------------

Check your facts and do your homework, people, before you back the U.S. Neocon Fascists!
 

Resolving the ‘Natural Afterlife’ issue: It Seems There’s No Real 'Natural Afterlife' After All

 

Natural Afterlife proponent Bryon Ehlmann insists I have no clue about how the NA works, and that “there is no violation of the 2^nd law of thermodynamics”.  He writes:

“Because the natural afterlife involves absolutely nothing that is physically any different from what science assumes occurs at or after death, it cannot possibly violate any physical laws, including the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If it does violate these laws, then such laws are being violated every time someone dies.”

 

Let’s drop the semantics and just cut to the chase: whether we are talking about the dead person locked into an “ideation” or a “perception” it still requires ENERGY to sustain it.  This is irrespective of whether the person is actually DEAD and in a natural AFTER-life, or is "near" - dead, in which case remaining living processes ensure further energy inputs!

Meanwhile, you cannot have a perception for an already dead man, unless you are arguing for a non-physical existent, in which case your afterlife is little different from supernaturalism.

 Now, since energy at death has reached the ultimate disordered state, as I showed in my blog post of Feb. 10, it means there is no further capability to support any kind of an ordered state, i.e. bearing content or information. This includes a “perception” which, irrespective of being for dead man or living, must embody an energy content per bit. This informational energy per bit has been quantified as 0.693 kT where k is Boltzmann’s constant and T is the ambient temperature.

 As for “laws being violated every time someone dies” – yes – they seemingly are, by the natural afterlife brigade! Specifically the 2^nd law of thermodynamics is being violated. We are expected to believe that an entity in a state of maximal entropy, including its brain, can be expected to give rise to any kind of “perception”.

 
But wait! Hold strain! Evidently I got it all wrong and my presumption that the natural afterlife is really an AFTERLIFE, is totally mistaken! Evidently, according to a further comment from Mr. Ehlmann,  I have conflated a pre-death perception with a post –death “never ending dream” or dream state (never mind proponents refer to it as an NED, or “never ending dream”).   It’s time to really clean up the language here, especially the  murky semantics.

Fortunately, Mr. Ehlmann’s next comments help immensely:

“My bottom line: the natural afterlife DOES NOT “persist indefinitely” in any physical way following death and thus needs no energy to support it!”

 But again, the problem is in the semantics! If it “does not persist indefinitely in any physical way following death”, then what NON-physical way is left?   It is clear that we are being led into metaphysical territory here. The only alternative is the supernatural.  

Let’s lay this out in clear terms: There are only two defined possibilities for bracketing conditions of life and afterlife: the physical and non-physical. If then the conditions don’t meet the first, then the second are all that’s left, and the only non-physical realm which has been adequately elaborated (by theologians) is the supernatural.

 

Bryon could help us out here by providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for the natural “afterlife” to occur, but he has not yet done so. This shows me the NA concept isn’t clear in his own mind. It’s more a matter of words or rhetoric, with overtones of philosophy.

Fortunately, an additional, clarifying  comment by Mr. Ehlmann seems to clear the way for final resolution, making it feasible for us to not even have to ‘agree to disagree’:

Your blog posts of Feb. 9-10 clearly indicate that you mistakenly think that the natural afterlife requires a dream state that survives death. IT DOES NOT! A timeless, everlasting natural afterlife exists only as a perception in the mind of the dying person BEFORE death. The combination of matter and energy required to produce this perception does not survive death.

 

Okay, I guess I can be forgiven for taking too literally the natural afterlifers’ NED – or “Never ending dream”….or AFTER-life concept. So, okay it’s not a never-ending dream after all, it exists only as a “perception” in the mind of the dying person before death. So, in other words, the natural after life doesn’t exist at all!  There is NO  “after”  in any real, objective sense.

 What we have here then is a phenomenon of subjective time – experienced by the dying person before he shuffles his mortal coil.

 If this is so, then Ehlman is correct that the 2^nd law doesn’t apply. (However, if he objects to the subjective time format, he essentially contradicts himself).

 The downside is that then there is no genuine afterlife, only a semantics ploy based on a perception that erupted in the dying person’s mind before death. Nothing is carried on.

 Let’s now examine subjective time as represented in the graphic shown at top. Here I plot the subjective time t on the abscissa vs. the proper time (actual clock time) T, in the objective physical world.  We assume an inertial reference frame to measure T, and no relativistic motion.  In addition, we adopt the (Henry Stapp) version of the Copenhagen Interpretation and assume that the angle f is linked to the presence of an evolving wave function y so long as there is an objective passage of time.  (In which case the time -dependent Schrodinger equation applies).

 As shown, the peculiar nature of subjective time is that a psychological, internal state is able to “stretch” the experience of objective or proper time. In the case shown, 1 minute is stretched to roughly 4 mins. of subjective time, though it could also be 1 hour vs.4  hours, or 1 yr. vs, 4  years. The point is that given an appropriate psychological state to induce it, yes, the personal experience of time can be subjectively extended at the level of t, but despite that the actual clock time hasn’t changed.  (I.e. minutes are still minutes, hours are still hours, etc. Perception doesn't change the units of proper time, only internal or subjective time!)

 Now,  what if the extreme case occurs such that f = 0?    This logically means there is no further evolution of  y   in time.  (Hence, by the CI model, consciousness is no longer applicable since it requires y,  according to Stapp's CI variant).  If we are reluctant to identify definite states, i.e. death – then we might use an analog of the limit concept such that:

 lim  _{t ® ¥}    (T /t)  =   tan f = 0 

In other words, as the subjective time t tends toward infinity, the tangent of f  tends to 0, and of course so does the proper (clock) time T. (When T = 0 entropy ceases to enter into  further considerations. Bear in mind in our context here,  T is paired to the person's biological processes. Thus, at T= 0 there is full biological death)

 Bear in mind given the use of a limit here, we aren’t technically talking of a post death state, we are only approaching death as the time T  ® 0 (i.e. t ®  ¥).   But for all intents, to the person, it is a "timeless" state. In effect, we have finally come to agreement in what Ehlmann refers to as:

“A timeless, everlasting natural afterlife exists only as a perception in the mind of the dying person BEFORE death”

Indeed, in the subjective temporal context  the person would be in a timeless state, since for him the clock time T = 0 (i.e. “timeless”) but in his experience his perception is “ever lasting” given the subjective time t ®  ¥. (Again, bear in mind the limit concept!)

 My problem again, is the use of the term “after life” for this pre-death subjective, temporal anomaly  – experienced by the dying person. Indeed, given Ehlmann admits the NED isn’t a true post-death state then it bears some analogy to the NDE, which also isn’t a genuine post death state  - only “near” death. (I won’t get into all the technicalities of how NDEs differ from NEDs).

I am not sure what term (or acronym)  is better suited, but perhaps we might finally be able to agree on:

Ersatz afterlife, or NEAR Afterlife, e.g. NAL

Of course, this means that  the de Broglie wave option is the only true natural afterlife left – justified by the name!   That is, it is applicable to the post-death state, unlike the NED, which Ehlmann admits is only applicable to the pre-death state (irrespective of whatever “perceptions” the person has)

 

One more caveat. The Heisenberg energy- time uncertainty principle, e.g.

D E D t  ³  ħ  

Can certainly be applied to the case of a dying person’s synapses up to the point the proper clock time T = 0 (i.e. all biological 'clocks' cease). Hence, Ehlmann’s complaints that it’s “not applicable” are irrelevant. So long as any (biological) clock time is recorded, one can estimate energy in the dying person’s synapses using it.

In conclusion, it occurs to me – after seeing all these semantic contortions (in order to proffer an “afterlife” that’s not really an afterlife) - that the NAL proponents are more lost in their own rhetoric than they realize. It also brings to mind the old adage of Lord Kelvin: "Unless a man can quantify what he's talking about, he isn't saying anything."

But at least it appears we can finally end this debate if the NALs will at last acknowledge that what they have is no real afterlife but a facsimile of one- based on their insistence of a perception in the mind of the dying person BEFORE death.