Sunday, August 7, 2022

US became a terrorist nation when Strongman Truman dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians in Aug. 1945. US rule today remains Truman’s, “one of thoughtless cruelty, mechanized violence, of lawless, arbitrary power exercised by an officialdom responsible to no one”-David S. D’Amato, 3/20/2019


Strongman Truman in August 1945 established US as #1 global terrorist by dropping not one but two nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians in 1945, 3 days apart: August 6 on Hiroshima and August 9 on Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. The war in Europe had ended in May 1945, Japan was ‘tottering,” and Stalin, a US ally and key in defeating Hitler, was also about to attack Japan via Manchuria. But neocon Truman didn’t want peace, he wanted a century of US taxpayer funded global hatred and terror. He wanted “to put the world-and in particular, the [then US ally] Soviets–on notice” that a sadistic terrorist government now stalked the world.










[Image: 1945, Stalin and Truman, Potsdam, near Berlin, AP]

3/20/2019, Was Harry Truman one of the worst terrorists of all time? If words mean anything anymore–then absolutely, yes.David S. D’Amato,

“The United States government of today is arguably more Truman’s than it is any other president’s,

one of thoughtless cruelty and mechanized violence,

of lawless, arbitrary power exercised by an officialdom responsible to no one.

Fires burned for days following the bombings, making unrecognizable wastelands

of what had been lively cities.

If words and facts yet have meaning, then

these are among the worst terrorist acts in humankind’s history (perhaps the worst)

and Truman is among history’s most abominable terrorists.”…

March 20, 2019, “Everything Wrong with the Truman Administration,” David S. D’Amato,


Added: Full article: Though US ally the Soviet Union had been crucial in defeating Hitler, unelected strongman Truman was a president determined to put the world–and in particular, the Soviets–on notice.”









[Image: Nov. 1943, “President Franklin D. Roosevelt joined British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Josef Stalin at a conference in Tehran. AP Photo,” via Politico]

3/20/2019, Was Harry Truman one of the worst terrorists of all time? If words mean anything anymore–then absolutely, yes.” David S. D’Amato,

“Franklin D. Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945–and so began the damnable presidency of

Harry S. Truman, who had only just become Vice President

in January of that year.

Truman was, as we shall see, instinctively and reflexively authoritarian; the principles of

bureaucratic centralization at home and

arrogant imperialism abroad

run through his time in office. The Truman years stand for

the further distancing of government power

from democratically elected officials,

for the arbitrary power of an unelected elite.

Nothing defines the alarming excesses of the Truman years quite like the fell acts of August 1945, when the world discovered a new meaning of horror and entered a new age of ever‐​looming dread. It was








[Image: April 12, 1945, FDR dies, VP Truman sworn in]

a weapon of terrible power, one whose development

had cost billions (the equivalent of tens of billions in today’s dollars)

and taken years, a weapon whose destructive power exceeded that of all previous mechanisms of death.

Still new to his office, Truman faced a moment of decision the repercussions of which would alter the course of history. His judgment and his character failed him in that moment, the cost of his failure being hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Truman said that the Japanese “began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor,” but this statement was

not, strictly speaking, true, contradicted by

the calculated actions of the United States

in the lead up to the attacks at Pearl Harbor.

Japan’s strike was a response to a series of hostile embargoes, imposed during the Roosevelt administration,

[Sound familiar?]

that had effectively destroyed peaceful economic relations between Japan and the United States

and isolated Japan from the rest of the world.

In a now‐​infamous diary entry, Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War from 1940 to 1945, under both Roosevelt and Truman, mused that the question before the War Council

*****“was how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”*******

The reasoning advanced to justify using nuclear weapons were likewise dishonest.

Truman’s own diaries show that “contrary to his public justification of the bombings as the only way to end the war without a costly invasion of Japan,

Truman had already concluded that Japan

was about to capitulate.” 1

Germany had, of course, surrendered months earlier, in May 1945,

and the Soviet Union was soon to declare war on Japan, marching on Manchuria

with a force more than a million strong. Japanese surrender was, at this juncture, inevitable. The claim that such unspeakable atrocities were necessary to save American lives was thus patently unfounded, though convenient for

a president determined to put the world–

and in particular, the Soviets–

on notice.

It is nonetheless important to state explicitly that even assuming that this claim were true, American lives are not, and were not in 1945, more valuable than Japanese lives, and

it is difficult to imagine

what could justify the intentional murder of civilians on such a scale.

Upon hearing that testing of the atomic bomb had confirmed its readiness for use, British General Hastings Ismay, Winston Churchill’s foremost military advisor, was overcome with revulsion. 2 “For some time past,” writes Ismay, “it had been firmly fixed in my mind that the Japanese were tottering.” Ismay had harbored “a sneaking hope that the scientists would be unable to find a key to this particular chamber of horrors.”

No one can be absolutely sure how many lives were lost as a result of the horrific atomic devastations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The unimaginable heat that emanated from the blast was so extreme that

many of its victims were completely and instantly annihilated, their bodies vaporized, lost forever.

The death toll, updated in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of America’s nuclear terrorism of 1945, brought the number killed by the bombing

of Hiroshima alone to over 190,000.

Sergeant Bob Caron, the Enola Gay’s tail gunner, likened the horror he saw that day to “a peep into Hell.” Fires burned for days following the bombings, making unrecognizable

wastelands of what had been lively cities.

If words and facts yet have meaning, then these are

among the worst terrorist acts in humankind’s history (perhaps the worst) and

Truman is among history’s most abominable terrorists.

One of the most distinctive and remarkable features of political power, particularly as it is exercised during war, is its alchemic ability to transform, at least to most all observers, the moral character of atrocities,

to render mass murder an honorable pursuit.

In American politics,

nothing clothes one with the air of respectability quite like

full‐​throated advocacy of war and military buildup,

and so it was with Truman:

the Truman Committee and his calls for increased military spending and mobilization

“reconstructed his image from that of a machine politician to

a statesman of democracy.3

Similarly, use of the atomic bombs

has positioned him among the great presidents, so‐​called.

Rightly afraid of what they’ll see if they do, Americans have been reluctant to look directly at these horrors, unable to accept the possibility

that their government could have committed

such an unthinkable atrocity.

The whole of the war has been

draped cynically in the language of patriotic propaganda,

insulated from serious moral questioning.

But as Bruce M. Russett observed in No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the United States Entry into World War II, “it is precisely moral considerations that demand

a re‐​examination of

our World War II myths.”

In the years that followed the war,

Truman played a decisive role in shaping U.S. foreign policy, in

ensuring that interventionism and empire would define that policy.

Truman’s hyper‐​interventionist credo,

which would become known as the Truman Doctrine, was set forth in front of

a joint session of Congress in 1947

and represented the notion that the United States [taxpayers]

has a duty to aid, both economically and militarily,

nations facing the communist threat. British power abroad was

in decline and with it, foreign aid dollars from London to countries like Greece,

regarded as strategically important in the world‐​spanning battle against communism.

The Truman Doctrine’s unabashed imperialism,

erected upon the foundation of

the postwar United States’ new stature on the world stage,

represents in many ways

the culmination of the Wilsonian dream.

Wilson had envisioned a world in which

American military intervention

would “make the world safe for democracy.”

Really, as a practical matter, the Truman Doctrine gave the United States

a blank check to intervene militarily around the world,

planting its military bases in every corner of the globe.

One such intervention,

undertaken in 1950

without a congressional declaration of war,

was Truman’s Korean War,

which established the precedent

of the executive branch committing troops unilaterally.

As Gene Healy wrote in The Cult of the Presidency,

Congress has effectively been reduced “to the status of advisory board at best on matters of war and peace,”

neutered as the branch of government empowered to declare war.

A new paradigm begins to emerge:

war was conveniently and cynically

euphemized as “police action,”

removed from processes specifically designed to check the power of the executive.

The executive branch was aggrandized in general during the Truman presidency. In National Security and Double Government, international law scholar Michael J. Glennon argues that

Truman, “more than any other President, is responsible for creating the nation’s

‘efficient’ national security apparatus.”

Glennon’s thesis presents a system of double government, contrasting America’s “efficient” institution

(the small core actually governing from “atop the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement” agencies)

and America’s “dignified” institutions. These latter institutions (the three constitutional branches of government),

though they may “exercise an emotional hold on the public mind,”

are no longer the true “locus of government power.”

The country, Glennon argues, has “moved

beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system.

In the place of a civilian government of citizens, the United States is

now governed by

a permanent class of professional bureaucrats and

military and intelligence officers,

to whom no real restraints apply.

Glennon notes that during Truman’s presidency,

the National Security Act of 1947 became law,

establishing the CIA (on which more below) and

unifying the military under the Secretary of Defense.

The National Security Council and the National Security Agency, too,

began during his administration.

By all accounts, not least his own 4 , Truman played an instrumental role in the creation of the CIA from the several existing intelligence programs at the time. Indeed, if we are to believe the account of his daughter Margaret,

the creation of the CIA was “[o]ne of his proudest accomplishments as President.”

Established in 1942, the short‐​lived Office of Strategic Services was a creature of the war, modeled on the British Secret Intelligence Service and assigned to, among other activities, “foreign investigation,” “interception and inspection … of mail and cables,” “the use of propaganda to penetrate behind enemy lines,” and “the direction of active subversion operations in enemy countries.” 5

In his executive order of September 20, 1945 [only 6 weeks after dropping 2 atom bombs], Truman directed the Office’s  [of Strategic Services] various functions to be divided between the departments of War (predecessor of the Department of Defense) and State officially shuttering the Office [of Strategic Services]. But the Office did pass on the DNA of the Central Intelligence Agency. 

The many misdeeds and misadventures of the CIA will hardly bear repeating.

It will suffice, for our purposes, to observe that the CIA has, since its birth, occupied itself in

a long series of lawless activities around the world,

beyond the reach of democratic control [or US taxpayers who pay all its bills].

So central is Truman’s legacy to this bifurcated system—these misbegotten institutions that govern as a practical matter,

completely outside of accountability and the constitutional system—

that Glennon exchanges “efficient” in favor of “Trumanite.” The Trumanite efficient institution of the U.S. national security apparatus is situated within

a broader framework for which Truman is also largely responsible:

the administrative state.

In The Federalist, Madison warned of “a

tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands,”

which is precisely what the modern administrative state accomplishes.

Ostensibly a part of the executive branch,

America’s vast administrative bureaucracy

is in fact functioning as a rogue fourth branch of government,

constitutionally illegitimate,

positioned outside of the traditional three‐​branch paradigm.

Today, the administrative state assumptively performs the functions of all three branches,

effectively making substantive law,

enforcing the law and investigating violations,

and adjudicating disputes. 6

Never mind the people’s elected representatives;

we had better leave the dirty business of governing the country day to day

to qualified experts, unbeholden to political considerations.

Truman seems to have had utter contempt for the constitutional separation of powers,

ever inclined to executive overreach. This inclination led to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer , the 1952 Supreme Court case that considered whether the Truman administration had the authority to seize steel mills during the Korean War.

The case arose out of a dispute before the Wage Stabilization Board, an arm of the Economic Stabilization Agency, created in 1950 and charged with calibrating the economy during the Korean War. Almost two years into that war, the steel industry, faced with absorbing increased labor costs, entreated the government for higher steel prices,

subject at the time to the government’s wartime price control regime.

The unions, the industry, and the government reached an impasse. Negotiations broken down and the

United Steelworkers of America announced their intention to strike on April 4, 1952,

with the strike set to begin on April 9. Maintaining domestic steel production levels without interruption was of central importance to the war effort, and a United Steelworkers of America strike could grind most of the industry to a halt. 7

Just hours before the strike would have begun, Truman announced his decision to seize control of the steel mills,

his television address spinning the takeover 

as necessary

to resist the thoughtless and unpatriotic greed of the steel industry.

Truman did not deign to ask for the permission of the people’s representatives in Congress,

instead simply circumventing them, his apparent lack of legal authority notwithstanding. The government argued that strong historical precedent permitted the government’s takeover of the industry, pointing to past wartime seizures of private property.

The administration argued not that express constitutional language granted this power to Truman,

but that the power was “implied from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution,” 8

particularly those powers subsumed under

“the President’s military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.”

The Court found the theory unpersuasive, holding that the administration’s act had

violated the constitutional system’s separation of powers.

The Court’s decision shocked Truman. 9

For the entire first half of the century at least, the Court’s deference to the political branches had been extremely reliable. But Truman’s imperious action in seizing the steel industry was a bridge too far,

even for a Court bewitched by the idea that the Constitution gives the government near‐​limitless power.

In an opinion authored by Justice Hugo Black, the Court held that such a presidential power is not “implied from the aggregate of [the President’s] powers under the Constitution,” specifically his power as Commander in Chief, as the government urged.

The Constitution, the Court said, does not allow “presidential or military supervision or control”

of Congress’s unique power to make the law.

The Truman administration’s seizure order had crossed impermissibly into the realm of lawmaking….

Truman regularly ranks in the top ten of lists of the country’s greatest presidents, even earning a place in the top five of C‑SPAN’s 2009 survey.

Historians have tended overwhelmingly to reserve

their most effusive approbation for those of the presidents

who were most arrogant in their assumptions of power,

most unscrupulous in its abuses.

History’s Great Men need abide none of the ordinary rules of virtuous behavior,

none of the apparent limits on their exercises of coercive power;

these they transcend,

assured that their ends justify their means.

great President is not one who serves humbly, regarding himself as a mere custodian of the rule of law and steward of the citizens’ resources.

No, we are told that great presidents

flout constitutional precepts and expand the reaches of the state

into new territory.

Enraptured by power, even (perhaps especially) in its excesses,

historians will readily forgive the most heinous crimes i

f only a president acts like one of these Great Men.

If presiding over the unconscionable mass murders of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

and the creation of the CIA

is not enough to position Truman amongst the century’s greatest evildoers, it’s hard to imagine what would be. It may even be that monster is too forgiving a word for such depravity.

Truman’s legacy is disturbing for freedom‐​loving people.

Among the many problems with creating an

opaque, permanent, unelected bureaucracy,

armed with broad discretion,

is that such an institution is difficult to hold accountable or to prevent from abusing its myriad powers.

Americans today live under a government that wages wars, both open and clandestine, the world over; that imprisons and murders its own citizens without due process;

that spies on citizens, elected officials, and foreign leaders with utter impunity;

and that still engages in torture. The United States government of today is arguably more Truman’s than it is any other president’s,

one of thoughtless cruelty and mechanized violence,

of lawless, arbitrary power

exercised by an officialdom

responsible to no one.”



Saturday, August 6, 2022

US Oligarchs view US military, US weapons, and US taxpayers as de facto servants of the global community. Who doesn’t enjoy volunteering people and property?-Mark Steyn, 3/28/2011


1944, UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill inspects American soldiers on UK soil before they embark to France. On May 7, 1945 Germany surrendered to the Allies in France. Five days earlier on May 2, 1945, 70,000 Germans laid down their weapons to the Russians in Berlin. Two million Americans fought in Europe during WWII.









It’s not merely that “our [US] military is being volunteered by others,

but that Washington has been happy to volunteer it as

the de facto expeditionary force for the “international community.”...[Such as The Arab League, NATO, the UN] That’s great news.

Who doesn’t enjoy volunteering other people?”

3/28/2011, The Art of Inconclusive War," Mark Steyn

“Why is it that the United States no longer wins wars? It is tempting and certainly very easy to point out that Obama’s war (or Obama’s “kinetic military action,”…or whatever the latest ever more preposterous evasion is) is at odds with everything candidate Obama said about U.S. military action before his election. And certainly every attempt the president makes to explain his Libyan adventure is either cringe-makingly stupid (“I’m accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also somebody who aspires to peace”) or alarmingly revealing of a very peculiar worldview:

“That’s why building this international coalition has been so important,” he said the other day.

“It is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out  

missions that are

important not only to us,

but are important internationally.”

That’s great news. Who doesn’t enjoy volunteering other people?

The Arab League, for reasons best known to itself, decided that Colonel Qaddafi had outlived his sell-by date….

How difficult could it be even for Arab armies to knock off a psychotic transvestite guarded by Austin Powers fembots?

But no: Instead, the Arab League

decided to volunteer the U.S. military. Likewise, the French and the British….

American forces have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan for a decade [as of 2011]: Doesn’t that seem like a long time

for a non-colonial power to be spending hacking its way through the worthless terrain of a Third World dump?

If the object is to kill terrorists, might there not be some slicker way of doing it?

And, if the object is something else entirely, mightn’t it be nice to know what it is?…

Libya, in that sense, is a classic post-nationalist, post-modern military intervention:

As in Kosovo, we’re do-gooders in a land with no good guys….Not only is there no strategic national interest in what we’re doing, the intended result is likely to be explicitly at odds with U.S. interests….

Now suddenly he’s [Qaddafi] got to go—

in favor of

“freedom-loving” “democrats” from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya —

which…has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq…

If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan,

the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less attractive pathologies,

we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them….

The United States is responsible for 43 percent of the planet’s military spending [as of 2011]….

[Image: James Cagney sings “Over There,” WWI "patriotic" US recruitment song in 1942 movie Yankee Doodle Dandy]

It’s not merely that “our military is being volunteered by others,

but that Washington has been happy to volunteer it

as the de facto expeditionary force for the “international community.” Sometimes

U.S. troops sail under

U.N. colors, sometimes

NATO’s, and now in Libya even

the Arab League’s.

Either way, it makes little difference: America provides most of the money, men, and materiel. All that changes is the transnational figleaf.

But lost along the way is hard-headed, strategic calculation of the national interest.

“They won’t come back till it’s over/Over there!” sang George M. Cohan as the doughboys

marched off in 1917 [to WWI]….

[Image: US soldier trains with gas mask to go “Over There,” to WWI on orders of US Pres. Wilson: “Historic footage shows American troops preparing for First World War chemical warfare with mock battles and gas attacks in New York camp,” Daily Mail, 7/26/2017: Ahead of WWI deployment, US soldiers practice donning masks against poison gas attacks in Europe, here training at Camp Upton in New York.  More than 116,000 American troops died during WWI, 200,000 wounded.…"The most common effects of gas exposure were blistered skin, blindness and scarring of the lungs. Many of those affected by gas during the war did not die until many years later, often from tuberculosis, because of this scarring.”]

  • (continuing): “Now it’s never over over there —

not in Korea, not in Kuwait, not in Kosovo, not in Kandahar. Next stop Kufra?”.

Mark Steyn is author of America Alone. © 2011 Mark Steyn


Added: More on being "volunteered:" “‘One nation in history has laid down hundreds and thousands of the lives of its sons and daughters and [speaking of WWI and WWII] taken no land, no land from Germany, no land from Japan….This is a great nation. A nation of people who will sacrifice for things bigger than themselves.” (Shimon Peres, 1923-2016). [Of course the late Mr. Peres kindly wasn’t referring to land and resources taken by 800 US military bases or US illegal annexation of one third of Syria]…

“That’s great news. Who doesn’t enjoy volunteering other people [to die in foreign wars]?” (Mark Steyn)

[Image: James Cagney, singing “patriotic” “Over There,” in 1942 movie...Yankee Doodle Dandy.“Over There” lyrics by George M. Cohan, written in 1917 to persuade Americans to cross a vast ocean to fight and die in World War I  because they were “the Yanks,” unique of all people on earth who proved their “patriotism” by leaving their families and dying “over there” on foreign soil. A century later US “wars” are still sold to US rubes by elaborate propaganda campaigns for the benefit of bankers.

“The war should be a tremendous opportunity for America.”--J.P. Morgan, personal letter to President Woodrow Wilson, September 4, 1914.”

“Over there,” lyrics:

Get your gun, get your gun,
Take it on the run,
On the run, on the run.
Hear them calling, you and me,
Every son of liberty.
Hurry right away,
No delay, go today,
Make your daddy glad
To have had such a lad.
Tell your sweetheart not to pine,
To be proud her boy’s in line.

Over there, over there,
Send the word, send the word over there –
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum-tumming
So prepare, say a prayer,
Send the word, send the word to beware.
We’ll be over, we’re coming over,
And we won’t come back till it’s over
Over there

Johnnie, get your gun,
Get your gun, get your gun,
Johnnie show the Hun
Who’s a son of a gun.
Hoist the flag and let her fly,
Yankee Doodle do or die.
Pack your little kit,
Show your grit, do your bit.
Yankee to the ranks,
From the towns and the tanks.
Make your mother proud of you,
And the old Red, White and Blue.

Over there, over there,
Send the word, send the word over there –
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum-tumming
So prepare, say a prayer,
Send the word, send the word to beware.
We’ll be over, we’re coming over,
And we won’t come back till it’s over
Over there.”

“Songwriters: Cohan, George M.
Publisher: Lyrics © EMI Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group”


Added: Truman established US as #1 global terrorist by dropping not one but two atom bombs on Japan in 1945, 3 days apart: August 6 on Hiroshima and August 9 on Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. The war in Europe was over, Germany had surrendered in May 1945, US had only Japan to worry about. Stalin had offered to help the US but Truman didn’t want to be beholden to Stalin, so he opted for two atom bombs:

“The United States government of today is arguably more Truman’s than it is any other president’s,

one of thoughtless cruelty and mechanized violence,

of lawless, arbitrary power exercised by an officialdom responsible to no one....

Fires burned for days following the bombings, making unrecognizable wastelands

of what had been lively cities.

If words and facts yet have meaning, then

these are among the worst terrorist acts in humankind’s history (perhaps the worst)

and Truman is among history’s most abominable terrorists."

March 20, 2019, “Everything Wrong with the Truman Administration,” David S. D’Amato,


Extra: As noted at top, Germany surrendered to the Allies in France on May 7, 1945. I hadn’t known about the Berlin surrender to Russia five days earlier:On May 2, [1945] the Soviets conquered Berlin. The Associated Press wrote, Berlin, greatest city of the European Continent, fell yesterday afternoon to the Russians as 70,000 German troops laid down their arms in the surrender that Adolf Hitler had said never would come.””





Wednesday, August 3, 2022

They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire. (Tacitus, AD 56-120)…"Rules based order” is what US makes up for others to follow-Commenter to Luongo article at Zero Hedge


They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire,”...Tacitus ...(“Tacitus (circa AD 56-120) was a Roman historian, orator, and politician.”)...”Is it any real wonder why the vast majority of the world, with the vast majority of the remaining resources, is…rooting for Russia, and designing “end runs” around the dollar?”

8/2/22, Luongo: The Great Game Of Geopolitics Is Not What You Think," Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog, via Zero Hedge

Any real discussion of the ‘rules based order’ is wholly dependent on who has the biggest stick at the moment the rules are articulated….This is the essential problem with modeling anything based on what’s been commonly thought of as the ‘rules of the game,’ i.e. international law and/or treaty obligations. When things get desperate,

when the internal stresses become greater than the forces holding societies together,

no one gives a crap about what the rules were.”…


Among comments


Commenter QABubba:

commonly thought of as the ‘rules of the game, i.e. international law and/or treaty obligations.”

They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal:

this they falsely name Empire,

and where they make a wasteland,

they call it peace. 

To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire:

they make a desolation and they call it peace.” Tacitus [circa AD 56-120]

When the US talks of freedom and democracy what they really mean

is plunder your economy and resources through neoliberalism….

The “rules based order of civilized nations” is simply

rules we made up and everyone else is supposed to follow. 

Has nothing to do with International Law or the UN.

Is it any real wonder why the vast majority of the world, with the vast majority of the remaining resources,

is rejecting this world view,

rooting for Russia, and designing “end runs” around the dollar?”




Monday, August 1, 2022

21st Century World Order based on interests instead of old fashioned coercion and ideology leaves US “lonely and isolated,” hanging on for dear life to its illegally annexed one third of Syria-Patrick Lawrence


Whatever the sympathy we may have for the people of the United States, their country is still the main predator of humanity. We can in no circumstance claim to share their “values."” July 2019, Manlio Dinucci

July 25, 2022, “PATRICK LAWRENCE: 21st Century Order, By Patrick Lawrence, Special to Consortium News

“As a piece of the new world order that is under construction, Putin’s trip to Tehran last week was of singular importance.

At last we were able to read, last week, a New York Times story that concerned the Russians but not

the brutal Russians.

However, if we are not reading about the brutal Russians and their brutal military and their brutal attacks on civilians in Ukraine, we are obliged to read about

the lonesome Russians,

the pariah Russians,

the Russians the world has forsaken.

We are never going to read about ordinary, just plain Russians in the Times or in the rest of “the mainstream press as it apes the Times. This we must accept.

Vladimir Putin traveled to Tehran last Tuesday for a summit with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader. This was an unusual occasion: The Russian president has not been much for foreign travel since the Covid–19 pandemic erupted; it was his second state visit outside the Russian Federation since Russia intervened in Ukraine last February.

And it is a big deal, deserving of our attention. It marks another step, a considerable one, in the

construction of the diplomatic, political, and economic infrastructure

that will –I don’t consider this a daring prediction–define the 21st century. We witness the new world order many of us anticipate as it is being built.

The new world order many of us anticipate, if you have not noticed, ranks high among the great unsayables in American discourse and among American media.

No, we’re still stuck on our “rules-based international order,”

which is clunky code for

the hegemony America defends.

It is hopelessly passé at this point but

remains lethally destructive.

Apart from significant signals that Moscow and Tehran are committed to deepening ties, the centerpiece of the occasion was a simultaneous memorandum of understanding signed by the National Iranian Oil Company and Gazprom. In an agreement worth $40 billion, the Russian energy supplier is to assist on the technology side as Iran develops two gas fields and six oil fields. Further out, this is part of a long-in-the-making project that will connect Russia, Iran, and India by sea, road, rail, and, eventually, a very significant Iran–to–India gas pipeline.

One giant step for Russia and Iran, let’s say, and one even more giant step for the non–West as it advances toward parity with the West.

But never mind all that. When Putin traveled to Tehran

it was to find solace in “a fellow outcast,” The New York Times misinformed us in its July 19 report.

Iran and Russia are “two isolated, sanctions-stricken countries whose main connection is their active opposition to

the United States, its allies and its domination of the [US taxpayer funded “rules based“] multilateral world order,” we read in the paper’s second-day story.

You simply cannot beat the Times for reductionist rubbish when

a major development does not match America’s fictions.

The task is

to keep its readers’ heads buried so far into the sand they have no hope of pulling them out. I can’t, anyway.

A Second Summit

Apart from the Putin–Khamenei talks and the Gazprom–NIOC surprise,

Putin attended a second summit,

this one with Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian president,

and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Tehran and Moscow share a common interest in bringing order to Syria now that Damascus, with Russian and Iranian help, has reasserted sovereignty except in areas of the north [including US terrorist “asset” HTS that controls Idlib in NW, on map center left, small brown patch] where the Islamist militias of ISIS and its offshoots remain active

and where the U.S. continues to steal Syrian oil as part of an illegal occupation [of one third of Syrian land, light green portion on map].

As reported, the intent of the three-way was to dissuade the perfidious Turkish leader from launching another offensive against the Kurdish population in areas near the Syrian frontier with Turkey. There’s no indication at this time as to how successful Putin and Raisi were in their talks with Erdogan, a tinpot main-chancer whose word and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee, as we used to say.

I love some of the problems the Times’ Steven Erlanger identified when analyzing the Russian–Iranian demarche, and there must be problems if an event of this magnitude is to be properly misunderstood.

“Russia does not share Iran’s enmity toward Israel and does not want Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon,”

Mr. Erlanger tells us.

Last time I checked, Tehran wants a settlement with Tel Aviv that guarantees its security; the enmity runs in the other direction. Tehran, as a matter of its religious principles, does not want to build a nuclear weapon — as it has made clear too many times to count.

Here is a good one:

“Russia and Iran are also competing

to sell their sanctioned and discounted oil

to China and other countries. Though the quality of the crude is different in both countries,

it is difficult to imagine them forming

some sort of cartel to sell sanctioned oil,

Mr. Shapiro [a former State Department bureaucrat] said.”

Who said anything about some sort of cartel, other than Mr. Shapiro? But it must be said, who can imagine two oil-producing nations getting along when they both market internationally — especially when they are not selling the same product? I think I understand.

The best in this crop of silly assertions is Erlanger’s analysis of the main fault line in the Tehran–Moscow relationship.

does not rest on “shared values and democracy.” Uh-oh. It is “transactional”

and rests on converging interests.

“But transactional relations do not make for lasting alliances or disguise the strains within them,”

writes our Steve [as if the U.S. is not transactional in its international dealings].

Translation: The Biden regime is hell bent on replacing politics and history in international relations

with ideology and an authoritarians-vs.-democrats binary that is supposed to define all of humanity.

I have to set aside my usual decorum here. Horseshit.

History, politics and interests are the proper determinants

in state-to-state relations.

Ideology, even when referred to as “values,” has no place in them.

[“Whatever the sympathy we may have for the people of the United States, their country is still the main predator of humanity. We can in no circumstance claim to share their “values.“” July 2019, Manlio Dinucci]

Stevie, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

Coherence of the Non–West

In the increasing coherence of the non–West, there were a few days last year that I have never got out of my head. They occurred after the Biden regime’s first significant encounter with the Chinese. You remember: the disastrous talks in Anchorage, Alaska, March 2021.

The Chinese side was looking expectantly for a new start with the Americans, the beginning of a serious relationship based on mutual respect, parity, and none other than common interests. Antony Blinken, our secretary of guitar strumming and state,

instead gave them canned ideological lectures about democracy, human rights

and the rules-based international order. It was a disaster.

As soon as Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister, returned to Beijing, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian FM, flew to the Chinese capital for talks. As soon as those talks finished, Wang flew to Tehran and concluded a 25–year, $400 billion agreement with the Islamic Republic — tech transfer, infrastructure development, oil sales, and so on — that had been years in gestation.

There you have it, the dynamic of the non–West’s coalescence.

It is not anti–American or anti–anybody,

as the Western press insists it is. The powers involved have, imagine this, too many

common interests

to bother with adversarial enmity and, indeed, would rather the Americans and their allies cut out the ideological antagonism and join in the effort

to build a world order worthy of the term. Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping made this explicitly clear in that remarkable joint declaration they made public on the eve of the Beijing Olympics last winter.

What happened in Anchorage, what made it so key a moment,

is that the Chinese

simply gave up trying to work with the Americans:

You can’t get any sense out of them, Beijing concluded. This, parenthetically, is exactly what the Russians concluded 11 months later when they intervened in Ukraine.

The construction of infrastructure to serve a 21st century world order has been under way for some time. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a big part of it.

Then you have bilateral relations improving here and there:

China’s recent economic agreements with Cuba, China’s with Iran, Iran’s with Venezuela, China’s with Venezuela, India’s with Russia, and so on.

These multiply as we speak.

All these desperate outcasts. They seem to be everywhere, lolling around

feeling forlorn.

The Russia–Iran development is another piece of this but seems to me singularly important. 

it signals that sanctions, which do not work in any case [except to cause harm to civilians],

will eventually fail completely

and that Iran is more than gradually coming in from the cold.

On the diplomatic side, the Islamic Republic has just become

part of a three-sided bloc with Russia and China.

This follows by a year its admission as a member of the

Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a Eurasian partnership China started in 2001.

Tehran’s application to join the BRICS–Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa–

is pending, as is Argentina’s.

When Hossein Amir–Abdollahian, Iran’s foreign minister, visited New Delhi earlier this summer it signaled what The Diplomat is calling

a reset in relations. His Indian counterpart, along with Prime Minister Nahendra Modi,

were effusive in their celebrations of the relationship afterward.

In the nuts-and-bolts line, Iran recently agreed with Azerbaijan, its northern neighbor — this is another memo of understanding — to build an elaborate corridor establishing rail, road, communications and energy links. Now this gets interesting. Coming atop the Gazprom deal, the project with Azerbaijan brings Iran closer to a direct transport link with Russia.

Now dolly out. This deal comes just as

a new rail link between Russia and India opens, via Iran. This is part of something called

the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC),

which Moscow, Tehran and New Delhi set in motion at the turn of the century. No, in all likelihood you have read nothing of this.

Here is the part that most interests me. As the INSTC develops, it may follow naturally that India and Iran can revisit a project that was iced many years ago. In the early years of this century, the two sides proposed a gas pipeline linking Iranian fields to Indian ports.

The U.S., eager to make the Islamic Republic the outcast Steve Erlanger wants us to think it is,

vigorously opposed the project and it was dropped.

Reports now suggest the pipeline project, which makes eminent economic sense, is under study once again. Nothing definite is yet agreed, but it tells us that

in time Western markets,

long key to the West’s coercive power,

will no longer be the only markets. And I like the poetic justice: You can slow us down but you cannot stop us.

This same can be said of the non–West’s ever more evident

gathering of forces, interests, and cooperative arrangements.

Who, I have to ask, is leading the world forward in a sensible, constructive direction?

And who is retarding this process with all its might,

the only thing it has left?”


“Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. His Twitter account, @thefloutist, has been permanently censored. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site.  His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.”