Poroshenko, the Brown Oligarch-Dictator in Chief

Poroshenko, the Ukrainian oligarch now in chief, is doing his Sieg Heil when greeted by a soldier still in the old Soviet-style uniform. Thanks to Gorbi and others like him, the Soviet past and old Soviet ammunition is now being used by today's new Nazis in Kiev against ethnic Russians and ethnic Russians. The irony and the point seems to be entirely lost on the guy in the uniform saluting the junta's presiding butcher--as on the many other Ukrainians who betrayed the memory of the seven million Ukrainians killed in World War II by the Nazis and who sold out to the new followers of Stepan Bandera, an SS officer, a war criminal, and then a CIA hire.

Poroshenko has been otherwise busy on the phone with the leaders of the West. It is certain that none of the Western leaders dared to ask Poroshenko for denied recordings and evidence about the attempted false flag terror attack on the Malaysian airliner. The initial anti-Russian and anti-Putin deliberately orchestrated hysteria has turned into hermetic, deliberately orchestrated silence among the accomplices.

While Poroshenko is still (for now) producing chocolate in Russia, he is busy producing death, corpses, and suffering in the east of what used to be Ukraine. And as he is making it very clear in his pleas to the pseudo-democratic and pseudo-humanitarian West, he is desperate to get all the aid he can get.

The Story of the Overdue Russian Humanitarian Convoy for Novorossiya: Poverty and Brilliance of Moscow's "Ukrainian" Policy in a Nutshell

Update on the status of the Russian humanitarian convoy: nearly 300 trucks are now parked in heat (42 Celsius or over 90 Fahrenheit) for a second day some 35 km from the border crossing point in Izvarino, which from the former Ukrainian side is now actually controlled by the Lugansk People's Republic. The Russian government invited to the site and free inspection of the humanitarian shipment not only Western media, who could not care less about the humanitarian situation in Donbass, but also a regiment of the Ukrainian army, which, several platoons strong, is already on the site. It is also evident that, while the Russian government tried to be as much as accommodating and forthcoming towards the Nazi junta, the Ukrainian soldiers are part of Kiev's blocking action. The Kiev regime tries to delay the humanitarian convoy or better to prevent it from reaching the people in need in Donbass.

In this respect, the Russian government is continuing in a way its previous appeasement policy, which had almost strangled Novorossiya by the end of June. For by letting the Nazi regime be an arbiter of the timing, status, if not the fate, of the convoy, the Russian government is still basically declaring that it recognizes the Nazi junta's sovereignty over the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic.

And, worse still, the Nazi junta, which is in the midst of attempted ethnic cleansing campaign against ethnic Russians in Donbass and also in Ukraine, is also the one which approval Putin's government is seeking and waiting for.  So Moscow is asking Kiev to be nice (try that with the Nazis who are adamantly hostile) despite the fact that the Kiev regime is the one who tries all it can to turn Donbass into a humanitarian disaster zone and has largely succeeded in achieving this through deliberate discrimination of its artillery and missile fire against the civilians. In a word, Moscow is putting itself in a position of asking a war criminal for approval with a marginal improvement of the situation the exact opposite of which is the intent of the criminal regime in Kiev.

While the convoy is waiting, and the invited Ukrainian soldiers are killing their time on the site (and thus also killing the urgency and point of the emergency assistance), terrorist groups from the battalions of Avakov, the Kiev minister of interior, and oligarch Kolomeysky have been busy and also caught in mining the convoy's expected portions of the road.

In other words, if Novorossiya is now trying to establish a fully functional and effective government, similar measures (to get its acts together) are also overdue on the part of Putin's government and its Ukrainian policies.

And then quite a quiet bombshell exploded on August 16 at Izvarino--at the border crossing point where the Russian humanitarian convoy is stuck. The official representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross, whom Moscow has effectively put in charge of the Russian convoy, made a statement to the press in which he several times effectively identified Ukraine and Russia as the two parties to the conflict--the one and the same conflict in Donbass.

At the same time, the ICRC is also de facto excluding the authorities of Novorossiya from this classification. In fact, the ICRC representative did not mention the authorities of Novorossiya at all. (Listen especially to the first half of the press briefing)


So here you have it. Russia is trying to send humanitarian aid to Novorossiya, it asks the ICRC to help do it, and the ICRC dutifully in return defines Russia as one of the two parties to the conflict. 

The ICRC also explained that they made the fate of the convoy and this humanitarian aid dependent not only on the Nazi junta's general consent, which is not coming, but also on the Kiev junta's "security guarantees," which, with the US and EU support for the Nazis in Kiev, gives Poroshenko, the Nazi oligarch in chief now, a veto power over Russian humanitarian aid. 

Even if Kiev formally gives "security guarantees" (meaning that it will not try to attack the humanitarian convoy), which is now more than doubtful, a formal assurance from the Nazi junta has no credibility given its lies and attempted coverups of the Maidan snipers, the Odessa massacre, the downing of the Malaysian airliner by Ukrainian fighter jets, systematic killings of the civilians in Donbass, systematic violations of the rules of war, and its being already caught in trying to organize attacks on the very same convoy.

It Is Now Official: "Humanitarian Intervention" Is an Oxymoron. Samantha Power, One of Its Authors Says So

Samantha Power, one of the key US theoreticians of the oxymoron of "humanitarian intervention" (remember Iraq, Libya, and Syria, for example), continues her effort to redefine "humanitarianism" in the most Goebbels-like way at the UN Security Council on August 8, 2014:

"The humanitarian situation needs addressing, but not by those who have caused it. That’s why we welcome the fact that the Ukrainian government has created humanitarian corridors ..."

Thus, according to Samantha Power, the assault of the junta on Donbass and shelling of civilians with heavy weapons and Grad, Uragan, and Smersch missiles is NOT the cause of the dire humanitarian situation. On the contrary, according to Power's inverted "logic," the junta's ethnic cleansing campaign is "creating humanitarian corridors," a euphemism for fleeing civilians to Russia under the junta's artillery barrage.

Samantha Power continues: "Therefore, any further unilateral intervention by Russia into Ukrainian territory – including one under the guise of providing humanitarian aid – would be completely unacceptable and deeply alarming. And it would be viewed as an invasion of Ukraine."

If you can, please read the above one more times or few more times to appreciate Power's twisted mind and the argument of a "humanitarian" Nazi. According to Power, Russia's humanitarian aid to Donbass would be seen (by the Nazis in Kiev or in Washington) as a military "invasion." Not only Power has exposed and refuted her own concept of "humanitarian intervention" as a fig leave for invasions of other countries by the US, she is also using the refutation of her own hypocrisy for criminalizing and demonizing any assistance, even non-lethal and humanitarian, to the victims of Nazi aggression.

Samantha Power continues: "A 'Russian peacekeeper' in Ukraine is an oxymoron: at every step in this crisis, Russians have sabotaged peace, not built it. And it is particularly worrisome given Russia’s purported annexation of Crimea, which was predicated on calls by an illegitimate, puppet government, for Russia to send troops to restore “peace.” Peacekeepers are impartial – yet Russia fully supports Russian armed separatists in this conflict."

I would say that almost anything that Samantha Power has to say about war and peace is an oxymoron for her speak is the Newspeak of the Orwellian totalitarian dystopia where ignorance is security, freedom is slavery, and peace is war.

Samantha Power continues: "We have seen the “peace” that Russian occupation has brought to Crimea since that time. As the UN’s most recent report makes clear, freedom of speech and assembly have been violently repressed, ethnic minorities systematically persecuted, and civilians abducted with impunity, 350 of whom are still unaccounted for."

The fact is that what Power accuses Russia of doing in Crimea describes the situation in the former Ukraine under the current Nazi dictatorship, only many times more and worse.

Samantha Power continues: "But Russia has it backwards. In fact, it is Russia that is trying to disguise a political crisis – one manufactured and exported by Moscow – as a humanitarian one. The very humanitarian problems that Russia is decrying in eastern Ukraine, and turning a blind eye to in Crimea, are directly traceable to violence it has facilitated or supported."

This decisively explains Samantha Power's rhetoric and way of thinking: 1) all she needs to do and does is to tell the truth about her own side and Kiev's junta and then attribute it to Russia.

Yet another proof, Samantha Power blames the destruction of the infrastructure in Donbass by the military of the Kiev junta on Donbass' own defenders: "Why have thousands of people been displaced? Look no further than the – quote 'egregious human rights abuses' end quote – in separatist-controlled areas documented in the UN report.Why do civilians lack access to basic services? The UN report documents the – quote 'deliberate targeting by the armed groups of critical public utilities like water, electricity, and sewerage plants,' end quote."

Samantha Power's next pearl. As everyone who actually follows the events in Ukraine knows, the international investigators had to suspend their work at the MH17 crash site because of the aggressive actions of the Kiev military. But, according to Power, the investigators fell threatened by the absent Russian troops:
"On Wednesday, international investigators were once again forced to suspend their work at the MH-17 crash site, due to risks of being taken hostage by illegal armed groups and the threat felt by the increased concentration of Russian troops nearby."

Conclusion? Samantha Power is a piece of something. In Samantha Power, Obama and his policies have their true image and likeness. And very ugly and perverse.

Sucking up to the Rich and Making the World Do the Same: "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun Even after 70 Years"

Since World War II, when the US started to rule (much of) the world, Americans have   enjoyed a time of prosperity and exuberance because the war destroyed the competition, and the US was the only power that managed to turn war into a highly profitable business.

With this great showering of Fortune (God who came with the ancient Hebrews out of Egypt did evidently bless this nation more than any other), Americans also had more reasons to be sucking up to the rich, and the majority were taught that, if they were not (yet) rich, they were just "temporarily embarrassed rich." Sucking up to the rich also meant and required waging incessant wars around the world against the poor who dared to rise up against the rich. This simple fact has, however, been lost on most Americans. Killing the revolting poor was justified as helping to bring them prosperity, freedom, and their own beliefs in one's own exceptionalism (and sucking up to the rich). For much of the post-World War II period, this system and "social contract" seemed to work very well, and, if all the other nations had pay dearly for their errors, crimes, and sins, US exceptionalism underwritten and bankrolled by the God born out of the Middle East deserts seems to have exempted the US from most of the negative consequences of its own actions, which were distributed and displaced onto someone else or other peoples.

Now some 70 years afterwards, a certain era might be coming to an end.

On Sunday, August 10, conservative Newsmax reported:

1. Americans Face a 'Retirement Security Crisis'

More than half of new retirees will not be able to maintain their standard of living in their retirement years, according to a troubling new report.

The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College estimates that before the Great Recession, 43 percent of households would not be able to maintain their standards of living. That figure has now risen to 53 percent.

It stood at just 30 percent as recently as 1989.

The center also estimates that the nation faces a "retirement income deficit" of $6.6 trillion — the gap between what Americans have available through Social Security, employer pensions, 401(k)s, home equity, and other forms of saving, and what will be needed to maintain standards of living in retirement.

Social Security Works, a coalition of more than 300 state and national organizations, warns that America "is facing a formidable retirement security crisis," and the retirement income deficit can be traced to four major factors.

First, less than half — 48.8 percent — of all private sector employees worked for an employer sponsoring a retirement plan, leaving 55.5 million workers without the opportunity of enrolling in one.

Even among the minority of households that had a 401(k) plan in 2010, the median balance in households headed by a person aged 55 to 64 was just $120,000 — enough to buy an inflation-indexed lifetime annuity of less than $600 a month.

Second, with wages stagnating in recent years, many workers have been unable to save for retirement. From 1979 until the beginning of the recession in 2007, the top 1 percent of earners received nearly two-fifths of all gains in household income, while men in the bottom 60 percent saw their real wages decline.

Today, about half of all workers have personal savings of less than $10,000, according to Social Security Works.

Third, home equity is no longer a reliable source of savings for retirement, due to a reduction in home ownership to the lowest levels since 1965 and the drop in home values.

Finally, Social Security benefits will have declined 25 percent by 2030 as the full retirement age rises and Medicare premiums continue to increase.

Americans without substantial resources are already struggling to get by on Social Security alone. The average monthly payout this year is $1,294, and $2,111 for couples.

Social Security collected $752 billion in non-interest income last year, while spending $822.9 billion, according to the American Action Forum. Since 2010, the program has run a cumulative deficit of nearly $220 billion.

Social Security Works concludes that the retirement income crisis "can be addressed most effectively by expanding Social Security and addressing its projected shortfall, not by cutting benefits, which would only compound the crisis."

On Fascism, Nazism, and the Four Types of Modern Western Nationalism

On the issue of fascism and nazism: yes, names do matter, and accuracy, a daughter of understanding, is essential for clear political as well as ethical thinking. Without sweeping out too many corners of the maze, here is my brief take on the issue:

1. I don't think that using fascism and nazism interchangeably is historically or politically illegitimate. Historically, the two movements (and names) have been colored and affected by their prospective places of birth--Italy and Germany respectively. However, both fascism and nazism, as used later on, continued to evolve and they also contained characteristics that were general and not just national or a matter of the particular time and place. Still, I agree that, with respect to their goals, aspirations, and radicalism (going farther and deeper), nazism is a more radical form of this political species and hence also closer to its innermost genus. In this regard, it is, indeed, becoming very important to able to distinguish the lesser form (fascism) from its more virulent and more developed form--nazism.

2. Fascism may be then defined as a right-wing dictatorship that uses political, ideological, and thought terror to keep society in line. This dictatorship may be state as well corporate dictatorship, however, the two--state and corporate dictatorships tend to merge into one state corporatism.

3. Nazism is also a right-wing dictatorship, however, in contrast to fascism, its lesser or less developed form, it becomes fully committed to the principle of radical inequality among people (which is often manifested and perceived as racism). This radical inequality separates humanity into Overmen and subhumans--that is to say, into new masters (i.e., a master race) and new slaves or serfs. The people to be dehumanized and (re)enslaved can be singled out on the basis of various outward criteria, which could be ethnic, religious, political, ideological, linguistic, cultural, etc. In this regard, existing social and class divides are widened and sharpened to a point at which the relation between the masters and the rest becomes inhuman and reaches a point of "bestiality." To this effect, nazism needs in practice war, aggression, violence, and mass terror.

4. When the fascist oligarchy/dictatorship in Kiev (hailed by the West, the EU, the US, and NATO as a "democratic revolution") reached a point at which it carried out its Odessa massacre on May 2 followed by its repressive campaign in the east of Ukraine, it became a Nazi tyranny. For it designated ethnic Russians as subhumans and as "terrorists" by virtue of their mere existence.

5. Modern European nationalism exists in several basic main forms. The first is the modern nationalism forged by the rising modern centralized states, which were at first despotic, however "enlightened" they presented themselves to themselves or later to us. This nationalism was and is nationalism chiefly of so-called great powers, that is, (used-to-be) empires.

Jaroslav Čermák (1830-1878), A Czech patriot begging on Charles Bridge in Prague

The second form of nationalism emerging later and in revolt against the first was a movement of national "reawakening," which was inspired and inadvertently stirred by the French Revolution. This nationalism was the movement of "national self-determination" and "independence" from the empires through struggles for national and ethnic survival against assimilation and oppression.

In the 20th century, fascism and nazism also tried to claim for themselves not only a third way (an alternative to liberalism and communism), but also new nationalism. For some, fascism and nazism did become a new form of nationalism, this strategy on the part of fascism and nazism tried and tries to present their right-wing despotism and hate for others as a defense of one's nation threatened by foreign power and people. This fascist and nazi "nationalism" demands hatred for one nation or ethnic group (at a time) as a minimum.

Then, I would argue, there is also a fourth new form of nationalism, which may be confused with the third (national fascism) or can, indeed, at times come perilously close to it. It is a form of nationalism that, for cultural, religious or social reasons, cannot accept the communist ideology (which has, moreover, been more dead than alive). By its instinct and orientation, this new nationalism is conservative, it is against the New World Oder of the fascist-nazi corporate elites, and it is not xenophobic they way fascist and nazi "nationalism" is. In some way, this nationalism is an heir to the 19th century nationalism of self-determination, emancipation, and independence. In its essence, it is an enemy of fascism and nazism and their so-called nationalism.

6. There might be also a fifth form, which, in Plato (see Timaeus), would be the idea of the sick form (with fascism and nazism being not merely sick, but morbidly pathological). For the Czechs, this one would look like this (though it can also be and is often expressed much more vulgarly):

American Thinker (and "Ten Years of Its Thinking") on "How to Solve the Putin Problem"--After the Failed MH17 False Flag Attack

Herbert E. Meyer, a former Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council under Ronald Reagan, knows how to simplify things in the spirit of pragmatism, which is so pragmatic ("let's get down to the business") that it becomes indistinguishable from fascism of American oligarchs who happen to support another fascism of oligarchs in (the former) Ukraine.

In the spirit of such thought and its fascist simplification, which brushes aside any redundant subtlety, Meyer penned an article "How to Solve the Putin Problem" in the "conservative" American Thinker on August 4, 2014. The motto of this Thinker has "Ten Years of Thinking." In the attached picture, Uncle Sam (perhaps Meyer) himself is contemplating a birthday cake. This would be certainly a far cry from Rodin's Thinker whom the picture tries to imitate with all the seriousness of the proudly discarded subtlety:

And here is the original; that's how far the imitation has fallen (out of politeness I am passing the symbolism of the sand glass into which the bottom of the "thinker" seems to be adding more of the material, more time, more thoughts, more sand, more ... anti-subtlety):

For Meyer, the problem with Russia is really just the problem of one man--Putin. He is the problem: "The new Russia is more of a one-man show; although Putin likes to think of himself as another Joseph Stalin, he’s more like Argentina’s Juan Peron (well, Juan Peron with nuclear bombs) and it’s highly unlikely than any successor would pick up where Putin left off by continuing to go after Ukraine or otherwise threatening Europe’s political stability."

To solve the problem of Putin and thus Russia as a whole demands "a knockout punch."

What kind? Assassination. How? By means of Russian oligarchs and billionaires whom Meyer happens to despise--despite the comity of class interests--more than people used to despise fresh, forcible converts in Spain or slaves who happened to be just freed and tried to mingle with their masters at the same tables and parties.

Here Meyer explains his views and his plan himself:

"[Russian oligarchs] fight in boardrooms, not on battlefields; they would rather launch a hostile takeover bid for Kaiser Aluminum than for Kiev. Russia’s oligarchs are among the most pushy, self-indulgent, thoroughly unpleasant bunch of billionaires in history; the old phrase nouveau riche doesn’t come close to evoking their ostentatious behavior. All they care about are their yachts, their private jets, and the blonde-bombshell-shopoholic mistresses they stash at their multi-million-dollar condos in London, New York, and on the Riviera, and like to flash around at swishy restaurants. Are they really willing to give up all this for -- Donetsk? Or for Riga, or Tallinn? Are you kidding?"

But, according to Meyer, it would be easy to make them fight for Meyer or the US:

"That’s why the sanctions will work if the president and his European counterparts will keep tightening the screws; if they keep making commerce more difficult for Russia’s serious business executives, for instance by blocking their access to capital, and if they keep making life more miserable for Russia’s playboy oligarchs, for instance by canceling their credit cards and denying landing rights to their private jets. And if the president and European leaders keep telling these Russians -- bluntly and publicly -- that all this will end the moment Vladimir Putin leaves the Kremlin for good. ... Simply put [this phrase 'simply put' must have its great charm for Meyer], we should make clear to the Russian business executives and oligarchs who are the target of Western sanctions that Putin is their problem, not ours. These people may lack the spark of political genius or the high-minded patriotism that drove our country’s Founding Fathers -- but they aren’t stupid. It won’t be long before a bunch of them get together for a quiet conversation -- perhaps in a Moscow board room, more likely on a yacht anchored off the Cote d’Azur -- to, um, decide what might be best for Russia’s future."

In other words, "conspiracy theories" and their bad name notwithstanding, Meyer is openly advocating a conspiracy with the "blonde-bombshell-shopoholic-mistresses-stashing-flashing" despicable, subhuman Russian oligarchs to kill Putin. It is also perhaps relevant to say that Meyer's piece was published in what calls itself "American Thinker" (and "Ten Years of Thinking").

For Meyer and the American Thinker, "subtlety doesn't work": "If Putin is too too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head -- that would also be okay with us. Nor would we object to a bit of poetic justice.... For instance, if the next time Putin’s flying back to Moscow from yet another visit with his good friends in Cuba, or Venezuela, or Iran, his airplane gets blasted out of the sky by some murky para-military group that somehow, inexplicably, got its hands on a surface-to-air missile."

Since Meyer wrote this in the very aftermath of the MH17 false flag terror attack carried out on the day when Putin's plane was crossing the same air space and when the junta's active Buk missile deployments suddenly went from a few to nine batteries, one has to wonder and also marvel at Meyer's subtlety of thought, which comes very close to a possible confession of the conspiracy or, at any rare, of a motive and intention.

If a Russian high official or a former high ranking KGB officer wrote a similar article, I would bet that the Western media and governments would make sure to make it a global headline story and that the Obama administration would see it as a usable justification not only for more sanctions, but also as a usable equivalent of the declaration of war.

New Fascism Unleashed by the Empire on Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine: Attack on the Heart and the Soul of Humanity and Our Civilization

Under the oligarchic junta, Ukraine is being transformed under the supervision and approval of U.S. secret services into a  Nazi state as documented by the introduction of new official symbols of governmental departments.

The battalion "Azov" of the Ministry of Interior is sporting the neo-Nazi symbol "Wolfsangel," which, like many of the occult symbols of this kind, has always few layers of esoteric meanings. What this means that, as before, today's Nazis are comprised both of idiots and the higher elite echelons, who are much like a priesthood and a secret order of initiates.

The attached picture of a membership card in the battalion Azov shows the Wolfsangel not only as part of the battalion's insignia, but, as you can see, it is also part of the official stamp of a branch of Avakov's Ministry of Interior.

In other words, Nazification of the state of Ukraine is proceeding under the guidance of the Maidan leadership.

In the Ivano-Frankovsk region, Banderite/Nazi organizations, including US-sponsored Internet TV Hromadske, are organizing a fund-raising festival (late July-early August). The funds are to support the Right Sector's militants and battalions like Azov.

What is interesting is the name of the festival--Bandershtat. Evidently, for Ukrainian Nazis, even the name of Ukraine is no longer good enough. Perhaps it is too Russian or too Slavic. So, for them, the new Nazi Ukraine ought to be Bandershtat (Bandera-staat). Since they decided to improve on "staat" by making it into "shtat," they should perhaps continue with their self-improvement and use a bit of Americanization for their new designation as well.

Here is a little promo video. At 0:05 you can spot a little noose "for the communists." This also sums up the essence of the Nazi program--of course, with a flexible and elastic notion of who "communists" happen to be on the given day.

Another video leaves no doubt about the Nazi and radical program of the new Ukrainian state and its attempted Nazification.

Since NATO under Obama and the EU direct, advise, finance, shield, protect, and arm this Nazification program in Central/Eastern Europe, they are thereby also making themselves pro-Nazi organizations.

On October 11, 2001, George W. Bush declared: "The attack ... was an attack on the heart and soul of the civilized world. And the world has come together to fight a new and different war ... A war against all those who seek to export terror, and a war against those governments that support or shelter them."

Nazism, which the White House happens to bankroll, support, and direct, is the "attack on the heart and soul of the civilized world."

Now, 13 years later, the Empire, the Hegemon, is supporting Nazism in Ukraine. However, if the US and its allies have a vested interest in pretending that these new Nazis are "democrats, for more than three years, the Obama administration also tried to uphold the pretense that al Qaeda-led extremists and radicals are "moderates" and "democrats" as well. And this West-and-Arab-despots-supported "moderation" produced 170,000 dead in Syria and ISIS' extremist state or "caliphate." The difference between the fascists imported to Syria and the Nazis in Ukraine is that the former try to hide their de facto Nazism (hate for humanity and human life) behind religion, that kind of religion, which is fostered by their patron, Saudi Arabia, a key US ally in the Middle East and the Muslim world. For most part, al-Qaeda brigades that fight the Syrian government and the Syrian people are an expeditionary force assembled from more than 80 different nations, both non-Western and Western. Many of its key commanders are either Saudis or Chechens or Westerners in masks.

Ukrainian Nazism (Banderism) is a movement that was fostering under the foster care of Western secret services (and before under the care of Nazi Germany) for more than the last seventy years. Bandera, the main hero of this movement, was both an agent of the original Nazis (and the SS) and the CIA during the first years of the Cold War.

And today Western liberals are the best friends which this new fascism has gotten, which is somewhat ironic. Western liberals did often admire fascists before or they did also act as their financiers. But fascism always liked to talk about its contempt for fascism. Yet, if anyone listened carefully, the Nazis (and their somewhat less virile fascist brethren) never concealed the fact that, for them, liberalism was at most a little distraction, not more than a temporary inconvenience, but never their main enemy or most principled opponent. It was also this understanding, which Leo Strauss, the Teacher of American neo-conservatism took with him to the United States. On the last page of his friendly "polemic" with Carl Schmitt, the leading authority on Nazi "jurisprudence," Strauss said this: "[For fascism] the polemic against liberalism can therefore only signify a concomitant or preparatory action ... ultimately, two completely opposed answers to the question of what is right confront each other, and these answers allow of no mediation and no neutrality. Thus what ultimately matters [for Schmitt and any other Nazi] is not the battle against liberalism." (Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, Chicago: 1996, p. 106)

Historically, liberalism either bent backwards before fascism (viz the Munich Deal or rather Dictate of 1938 between Great Britain, France, Mussolini and Hitler) or it allows itself to be ridden by it (in occupied territories) or tries to ride it (as the US did after World War II in Latin America and elsewhere) or uses it as a proxy against the main enemy, and when the beast happens to be brought down, then claims and demands the rights of the victory (as in World War II).

MH17: The Most Honest Disclosure on the Part of "U.S. Intelligence"--as Far as It Goes

MH17: Two most honest (as far as it goes) testimonies or disclosures on the part of "U.S. intelligence":

1. U.S. major newspapers, including the Washington Post, reported: "The U.S. intelligence officials ... said they do not know the identities or even the nationalities ... possibly defectors from Ukraine’s military — of those who launched the missile from an SA-11 surface-to-air battery."

After some intensive thinking, if not a strenuous soul-searching, U.S. intelligence reconsidered and made thisleak, as reported by Robert Perry: 

That reference to a possible “defector” may have been an attempt to reconcile the U.S. government’s narrative with the still-unreleased satellite imagery of the missile battery controlled by soldiers appearing to wear Ukrainian uniforms. But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts have largely dismissed the “defector” possibility and are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity.

2. "U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms. The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said."

3. To the above, U.S. investigative reporter Robert Perry adds the following on the basis of U.S. intelligence report: "U.S. intelligence analysts were examining satellite imagery that showed the crew manning the suspected missile battery wearing what looked like Ukrainian army uniforms, but my source said the analysts were still struggling with whether that essentially destroyed the U.S. government’s case blaming the rebels."

The essential conclusion lies in the last sentence: "[The truth] essentially destroys the U.S. government’s case blaming the rebels."

So let's sum this up: the best what the U.S. intelligence has and knows is that the Buk battery, which tried to shoot down the Malaysian airliner (and most likely bungled it up or largely) missed was staffed by soldiers "in Ukrainian uniforms." The "initial assessment [before talking to big political bosses like Obama] was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers."

Now to soften the shattering impact of these words, quick rhetorical countermeasures have been added. If on August 1, Obama admitted after so many years passed that the US did torture people, he also quickly added that the torturers were, however, "hard-working" people and "true patriots" who should not be judged--"sanctimoniously."  One has to wonder this emphasis on the hard-work ethics and patriotism of people who torture make the rest of Americans who don't torture and who are not on government payroll to be. They are perhaps those who work less, are much less patriotic, don't have government health care or pensions and can be in-sanctimoniously judged.

In the case of Ukrainian troops in Ukrainian uniforms firing a Buk missile against the 298 civilians in the air on board of the Boeing, this is, according to U.S. intelligence and U.S. media what we have further learned: "Detailed satellite images" also allegedly revealed that, when firing the Buk missile, the Ukrainian troops were either just defecting or have defected or might have been on their way of defecting.

That's not all. The same detailed satellite images also allegedly showed that these Ukrainian troops were "undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site." So the Ukrainian troops were "probably" not only "defecting," they might have also been defecting, while drunk and undisciplined and, at the same time, they were also trying to shoot the MH17 plane out of the sky. If there were, indeed, bottles on the ground, then not only the Pentagon would be able to read the labels on these bottles (thus knowing whether it was water, beer or something else), but, very likely, the bottles are still there where the Ukrainian soldiers in Ukrainian uniforms left them.

All in all, the only thing which U.S. intelligence was thus brave enough to tell us was that the Buk missile battery that was tasked with the downing of MH17 and which might have, indeed, tried to do so was manned by Ukrainian soldiers in Ukrainian uniforms." The staff about "probable defection" and "drunkenness" sounds like the author's (White House's) creative license to sprinkle the precise satellite images with few added fables most likely used simply to test the intelligence of the public.

A bit later, U.S. intelligence had again yet another epiphany and, so perhaps to soften the coming landing of the truth of the false flag op, they have come up with a version of "coming out of closet"  and "meeting [the truth] half-way" (and let's not fuss about what "half" of the truth is at this point). Robert Perry again: "By then, I was already being told that the U.S. intelligence community lacked any satellite imagery supporting Kerry’s allegations and that the only Buk missile system in that part of Ukraine appeared to be under the control of the Ukrainian military."

Still the goal is to present not only Obama, the liar in chief, as innocent as possible, but also to preserve the innocence of their main thugs in Kiev. If blackening Putin and Russia as evil incarnate has run into stubborn facts and people's resilient ability to think for themselves after so many lies coming from Washington over so many wars abroad, then some scapegoat might do--if not drunken Ukrainian soldiers who might have missed the Boeing because they were too "undisciplined." A fall back position in this case for the US leaders and U.S. intelligence seems to be some fanatical, but conveniently anonymous "Ukrainian oligarch," unless it is Kolomeysky himself. And since the Kiev regime is stacked well with oligarchs, finding one who could be thrown overboard, even if anonymously, might be possible. Robert Perry thus writes: "The source added that the U.S. intelligence analysis does not implicate top Ukrainian officials, such as President Petro Poroshenko or Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, suggesting that the attack may have been the work of more extremist factions, possibly even one of the Ukrainian oligarchs who have taken an aggressive approach toward prosecuting the war against the ethnic Russian rebels in the east." Translation: to implicate oneself or even Poroshenko or even Yatsenyuk, the exterminate-the-Russian-subhumans prime minister would have been unintelligent--even politically very, very inconvenient. 

The bottom line that deserves to be repeated is then this:"[The truth] essentially destroys the U.S. government’s case blaming the rebels." The truth and intelligence destroys the U.S. official lies and the lies of the fascist minions in Kiev. What both the White House and the fascists in Kiev needed was a casus belli justifying their aggressive plans against the Russians in Ukraine and Russia itself.

Facing Capitalism's Big Reset and Fascism: What Is at Stake in Ukraine

A new article by Joshua Tartakovsky, "Israel and Ukraine: Ridding the Nation of the Undesirables," which draws parallels between Palestine and Donbass, on the one hand, and Israel and the Nazi regime in Kiev, on the other hand, made me neglect my duty to look at posts packed with clichés and to reflect on some of those bigger issues, which get lost in the haste of news and issues of the moment.

The category of the undesirables evokes another historical and political category--that of superfluous people. This category not only accompanies like a shadow the history and musings of modern political economy, but it was also part of theorizing about "totalitarianism" after World War II.

Producing much of superfluous money in the hands of the few (reportedly the value of derivatives is now about $2,000 trillion from $500 trillion in 2008), our late capitalism under its neo-liberal and neo-conservative form has also produced a critical mass of the so-called superfluous people, as seen from its one-eyed, narrowly focused greed.

This is not only means that one needs to be pay careful attention the mention of "superfluous people," one of the give-way terms dropped here and there by Hannah Ardent in her big and also admittedly strange book "The Origins of Totalitarianism."

The financialization of capitalism thus leads not only to financial bubbles. It also leads to the final forms of capitalism--as if back to its beastly form. After all, if Hobbes' Leviathan, the modern state, is anything, it is a beast. And so is Machiavelli's Prince.

And when the capital beast of the system feels that there are both simply too many people and too many people who might cause a trouble, it starts seeing all around itself or at least in a number of places too many of "superfluous people." The "natural balance" of the "market" needs to be restored. It needs to be "reset." Literally, that means "setting back." Or, as fascism also insisted, back from too much democracy and from too much of the Enlightenment.

That's when the system brings in a world war or fascism. Or something similar.

That's also why both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism have more or less the same origin and function. A big reset of the system. The "Neo" program of the Matrix. That's also why, interestingly enough, even Poroshenko likes to use the word "reset" (or perezagruzka)--to reset the state (as a Nazi one ... plus with a war on top of it).

If neo-liberalism focused mainly on producing more of no longer economically and financially needed people, though, with death squads already accompanying its "liberalization," neo-conservatism focuses more on the subsequent, that is, current phase by expanding death squads into armies, i.e. al Qaeda-like armies, and the scope of violent death in the guise of "nation-(re)building."

And, as Arsenyi Yatsenyuk, the great friend of both U.S. neo-liberals and neo-conservatives in Ukraine told us, transiting from "the excess of superfluous people" to designating them as "subhumans to be cleansed" does not take that much. Yatsenyuk and his handlers did not lose any sleep over this--unless the sleep was used for planning and organizing the terror campaign itself, while calling it "the anti-terrorist operation."

This then boils down to a simple beastly calculus: the beast fearing for itself wants to save itself; and to save itself, it feels compelled to bring a sacrificial victim. The "superfluous" people. Today, these "superfluous" people are identified with the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Russians in Ukraine ...

It is neither an exaggeration nor just a metaphor to say that superfluous money in the hands of the few ultimately feeds on human blood. They are after all "derivatives." Derivatives from human labor, blood, suffering, and death.

This also explains the close connection between capitalism in its final form and fascism. Whenever in danger of losing its grip on life, the system demands infusion--of fascism, war, and blood. To avoid rigor mortis. To re-establish its equity, fluids, and their circulations.

For nothing cheapens human life in the face of too much wealth for the few than massive destruction, massive wars, chaos, and massive re-enslavement, which too, besides war and death, is fascism's key task.

Victor Hugo's magnus opus is the novel, Les Miserables. Based on what I have learned and what I know, it appears to me that the title can be justifiably rendered as The Undesirables. And what makes the book great, what makes Victor Hugo great (above being a great writer) is that this work shows the revolt and rise of the undesirables against the powers that be.

In many ways, capitalism is a mechanism that runs on desires. It is an economy of desires where good desires are mixed up with the bad for, as Mandeville already argued, it is the bad, harmful desires that are most profitable for the system based on greed. From the perspective of life, harmful desires are deadly, pathological, and morbid. And fascism is the morbidity and pathology of the system at its critical peak--at its final stage, so to speak.

That's also why Victor Hugo sided with the "undesirables." And so should everyone who cares.