Fake News Against Putin and Russia is Being Used to Get Trump

Linda Milazzo unfriended me on Facebook. Linda is part of the problem. She doesn't care when fake news against Putin and Russia is being used by those out to get Trump. She made that perfectly clear. She said that ordinarily, she'd agree with me that using fake news, fake intel, and disinfo, etc., is wrong but that she hates Trump soooooo much that in this case, she's fine with it.

Tom1

Tom Usher

So, in taking down Trump (attempting to) via such means, she doesn't understand that she (and her cohorts) will be leaving the neocons standing in power, who will do anything to complete their global-revolution agenda to seize absolute control over the whole of humanity for the ultimate sake of their "Zionism" (and to Hell with anyone who won't bow down and worship the Chosen People: totally Old Testament, Talmudic distorted; New Testament fully ignored).

It's pure racism on the part of a large number of extremely wealthy and power-hungry Jews who consider themselves a race apart, not simply an ethnic group but a different race, even species (spiritually superior in every way).

If you call them out for it, they simply reflect back at you, calling you anti-Semitic, as if you have been referring to all Jews as opposed to only those Jews who are clearly racists and who see you as inherently inferior for not being a blood member (maternal line) of one of their Tribes.

Then people turn around and say that religion has nothing to do with anything that's going on but that it's all "political," as if the two are separate things because of the concept of secularism.

Most "liberals" are continually distancing themselves from Jesus because they think scientism is the path to knowledge and truth. When they do that, they increasingly throw out Jesus's message concerning exactly what I'm talking about right here to you. They end up hating Christianity in all forms. They use fake stories more and more against everything that stands in the way of the coming wrath without even knowing what they're doing.

Then there are the worst of the worst, the "Christian Zionists," who convince each other that hastening the wrath is something Jesus is glad they're doing.

This is what wormwood in the New Testament is about: huge bitterness unleashing the horrendous wrath of world war.

The Old Testament prophet Jesus points to the most is Isaiah. "For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion." (Isa 34:8)

The LORD's vengeance is human bitterness and wrath against fellow humans. Jesus warned them about it. They, however, read in isolation, ignoring that the "controversy of Zion" cuts both ways: that there is Zion (the fake) and then there is Zion (the real); that the Jews have fallen on both sides, lightness and darkness. It's as if Jeremiah never denounced the Jews (the tribes) and never correctly predicted the Jew's huge losses for having turned to the darkside.

Nowhere does Jesus teach that we are to resort to wrath or to encourage it. He warned against engaging in it but also that it will happen despite our best efforts to try to convince others not to go down that path. We are to see it for what it is and to understand who is doing it and why they think they are doing it and why they think they are right (but, nevertheless, ultimately wrong).

People with Linda's current mindset aren't patient enough to even listen let alone hear and understand.

"Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." (Isa 6:10)

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (Mat 13:15) That's Jesus harkening back to Isaiah.

What did Linda hate? She hated that I posted Daniel Lazare's article, "Democrats, Liberals Catch McCarthyistic Fever," which is on Consortiumnews.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Floating Lifting Sanctions in Exchange for Substantial Nuclear-Arms-Reduction Deal Extremely Savvy Global Politics

This floating of lifting sanctions in exchange for a substantial nuclear-arms-reduction deal is extremely savvy global politics. I'm not surprised by it in the least.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference in the lobby of Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., January 11, 2017. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

People have been running about like chickens with their heads cut off concerning Trump, but it is becoming quickly clear that my earlier assumptions were correct. Trump is lining up the negotiating cards.

However, Putin is no fool. He knows very well that the US needs Russia to reduce nuclear weapons more than the other way around. The US still has a conventional edge, even though Russia's tanks and like weaponry is more than a match for "ours" and a ground war would be fought in Eurasia, not the USA. The US Navy is the biggest difference. That's why the Russians "need" the nukes, as an insurance policy against total conventional war with the US: Heaven forbid. So, Putin will certainly be open to reductions, but he'll need an extremely strong deal on his side to make it work. For Trump's part, Trump needs gains from Russia (even if mutual) in order to lift the sanctions and make further deals, especially the type he wants (economic, business).

I disagree with Trump's characterization concerning Putin going into Syria. I think Putin was forced into Syria by Obama's moves (bad moves). I also disagree about Iran, though I think Trump has something up his sleeve concerning that and hasn't really drunk the Netanyahu/Likudnik Kool-Aid (at least not yet).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Interesting Food for Thought on Steve Bannon

Interesting food for thought:

Tom1

Tom Usher

Accusers also reference the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says Bannon promotes white supremacy, yet the SPLC’s credibility is in question. Indeed, just last month SPLC published a list of anti-Muslim extremists that fraudulently included Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. For those unfamiliar with this case, allow me to quickly explain.

Nawaz, a former recruiter for an Islamist group who spent nearly five years in an Egyptian prison, now dedicates his life to challenging the Islamist narrative. He co-founded the world's first counter-extremism think tank, the Quilliam Foundation.

Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch Member of Parliament and human rights activist, is a champion of women’s rights and spirited critic of several practices extant throughout the Muslim world such as honor killings and female genital mutilation (which she personally endured).

Hirsi Ali was even named as one of the world’s most influential people by Time magazine.

The decision to add these heroes who defend liberal values to an “extremist” list sparked widespread outrage and a petition that was created urging them to be removed has received thousands of signatures. Are the folks at SPLC unfamiliar with Aesop's fable, The Boy Who Cried Wolf?

Source: Steve Bannon — what do you actually know about him?

“Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States of America,” he said, pushing back on charges that the right-wing outlet had trafficked in anti-Semitism. “I have Breitbart Jerusalem, which I have Aaron Klein run with about 10 reporters there. We’ve been leaders in stopping this BDS movement” -- referring to boycott, divestment and sanctions -- “in the United States; we’re a leader in the reporting of young Jewish students being harassed on American campuses; we’ve been a leader on reporting on the terrible plight of the Jews in Europe.”

As for headlines like the one that labeled conservative pundit Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew,” Bannon said it was written by author David Horowitz.

Bannon also rejected the label of “white nationalist,” as some on the left have described him. “I’m an economic nationalist. I am an America first guy. And I have admired nationalist movements throughout the world, have said repeatedly strong nations make great neighbors. I’ve also said repeatedly that the ethno-nationalist movement, prominent in Europe, will change over time. I’ve never been a supporter of ethno-nationalism,” he told Strassel.

Source: Steve Bannon fires back at the media

... Steve Bannon, Trump's senior advisor—this new administration's own Karl Rove, who helped make Breitbart the home cesspool of the racist, sexist alt-right, and whose appointment to the White House has been celebrated by the KKK and the American Nazi Party.

Re-read the two sources above, and then ask yourself whether that last snippet is painting with a brush that's too broad.

“Like [Andrew] Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement,” he told Wolff. “It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”

(For my own sanity, I'd like to think that Bannon is thinking of the New Deal's public works when he references the 1930s, as opposed to the rise of European fascism. But I'm not 100 percent confident.)

Source: Steve Bannon Is Dreaming of a Permanent Trumpist Majority

The last paragraph in that last snippet shows poor reading skills or gross ignorance or both. First and foremost, the fascism of 1930's Europe was ethnocentric. Bannon is guilty of retaining neoclassical economic theories but is careful to say "economic nationalist."

The Left flings charges of anti-Semitism and racism at pretty much anyone they dislike. Bannon has been one of their targets, the evidence adduced being some of Breitbart's content and allegations made during a heated child custody battle. But the Anti-Defamation League acknowledges there is no definitive example of Bannon ever saying anything anti-Semitic, and his Jewish former employees at Breitbart have strenuously defended him from the charge.
...
Bannon said he wanted to make Breitbart News "the platform for the alt-right," and the alt-right is undeniably streaked with strands of racism and anti-Semitism. The name sounds like "alternative right," suggesting merely a conservative option to Bushism or the neoconservatism of the last decade. Many well-meaning people who reject globalism, free trade, liberalized immigration, or Bush-era foreign policy might be attracted to both the idea and the label.

But "alt-right" is a clever marketing term intended to rebrand white nationalism. Assuming Bannon means it when he describes himself as "an economic nationalist" and not a racist or white nationalist, what is the proper response to the fact that the movement includes enthusiastic subscribers to views that all decent people reject? Racism is not something to co-opt, sanitize or attempt to marry to conservative ideals, with which it is incompatible.
...
... some pundits absurdly suggest 61 million people were inspired by racism to choose Trump. The many small cities and counties that voted for President Obama once or even twice but then helped flip five key blue states to the Republican nominee did not do so out of racial animus.

But there are racist supporters of Trump, and now that he is to be president it's more important than ever that he prevent the idea that racism is a majority idea from growing and that racists have won. He must distance himself from their vile propaganda.

Let's look at the following:

... "alt-right" is a clever marketing term intended to rebrand white nationalism. Assuming Bannon means it when he describes himself as "an economic nationalist" and not a racist or white nationalist, what is the proper response to the fact that the movement includes enthusiastic subscribers to views that all decent people reject? Racism is not something to co-opt, sanitize or attempt to marry to conservative ideals, with which it is incompatible.

"... "alt-right" is a clever marketing term intended to rebrand white nationalism." Is it? "... alt-right is undeniably streaked with strands of racism ...." Look at what is done in the name of Christianity that flies in the face of Jesus's words and deeds. Plenty of people run around using the term Christian as a pejorative on account of it, as if Christians are simply people who say of themselves that they are Christians and contrary to Jesus's own teaching on what it means to be a Christian (what defines the very term) and regardless of whether they follow Jesus's words and deeds at all.

Alt-right does stand for alternative right, which in Bannon's case means alternative to neoclassical "free trade." Just because there are other "right-wing" alternatives to recently established right-wingism doesn't mean that it is proper to lump all "alt-right" together as being under the banner of racism or that all those who subscribe to right-wing alternatives to that recently established right-wingism are of, by, or for racism.

Look at the term "Zionism." There are Zionists in Israel who are in favor of BDS. Then there are Zionists there who want to literally exterminate all Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza so Israelis may move into those areas without any opposition. Is it proper to denounce anti-BDS Zionism because of those Zionists who are beyond supremacists to the point of being genocidal against an entire ethnic group for not being Jewish? No, it is not; and I say that as one who opposes Zionism because of its ethnocentric "democracy."

The extreme attacks on Bannon really are reaching/stretching. Here's one from Mother Jones: "Here's Evidence Steve Bannon Joined a Facebook Group That Posts Racist Rants and Obama Death Threats: Another clue about his politics?." Wow! Grow up. Being a member of a Facebook group where some people post stupid things would sink almost anyone who isn't walking on eggshells in fear of being painted due to supposed "associations." Guilt by association? Notice how Mother Jones leaves itself a tiny out: "Another clue about his politics?" That question mark is completely overwhelmed by the article. Anyone reading it who believes that the authors aren't engaging in false propaganda attempting to get all readers to believe the guilt by association is either stupid, ignorant, or both. I've joined FB groups just to see what people with whom I disagree are saying. Also, some of the statements posted by Mother Jones as evidence of awfulness really aren't that unreasonable. Some of them are downright sensible.

Here's the article that got this latest wave started on the Internet and in the mainstream media. It's worth the read: "Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect's Strategist Plots "An Entirely New Political Movement" (Exclusive)."

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment