Caitlin Johnstone
caitlinjohnstone.com
via Sott.net
Arizona Senator and murderous psychopath John McCain is rumored to be at death's door, and already the world is being admonished by high-profile empire loyalists not to voice any criticism of his blood-saturated, obnoxiously long career.
"Anti-McCain twitter seems to have reached new heights (or depths) of repulsiveness," tweeted Iraq-raping PNAC founder Bill Kristol to thunderous applause from #Resistance Twitter. "In the hope that a few of the haters see this, let me say: I'm proud to have voted for John McCain for president three times (2000 & 2008 primaries & 2008 general), and for Donald Trump...never."
"John McCain reminds us that American greatness is made by those who understand that character is the sum of one's hardest choices; that reality is not a TV show; that fame is mist but honor granite; that heroes don't need fixers on retainer," the Washington Post's David Von Drehle preemptively eulogized in a nauseating article titled "John McCain isn't the ideal messenger. He's the ideal message."
"STFU, Trumpites," scolded the somewhat less subtle Matt Lewis of the Daily Beast. "John McCain is 50 times the person you'll ever be."
Other commentators have had other ideas.
"These repressive decrees prohibiting criticisms of John McCain as he dies are like those who insist gun control not be spoken of after mass shootings," tweeted journalist Glenn Greenwald. "Discussions of his life are inherently political. If you're going heap praise on & sanctify him, you can't also silence critics."
"Insisting on the right to convert every US political leader into a heroic & noble saint upon death, while condemning critics as gauche & classless, is propaganda," Greenwald added. "It's easy to dismiss all the deaths McCain has caused because they're distant and invisible, but they still matter."
Read more
The neocon royalty Kagans are counting on Democrats and liberals to be the foot soldiers in the new neocon campaign to push Republicans and President Trump into more “regime change” wars, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The Kagan family, America’s neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency.
Former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders. (She is the wife of neocon theorist Robert Kagan.)
Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow’s alleged help in electing Donald Trump.
In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a key architect of the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as “Russia’s accomplices after the fact” by not investigating more aggressively.
Then, Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and his wife, Kimberly Kagan, president of her own think tank, Institute for the Study of War, touted the idea of a bigger U.S. invasion of Syria in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March 15.
Yet, as much standing as the Kagans retain in Official Washington’s world of think tanks and op-ed placements, they remain mostly outside the new Trump-era power centers looking in, although they seem to have detected a door being forced open.
Read more
"Post-9/11, the War on Terror had outlived its usefulness. The minds
behind the think tanks that drive America's interventionist foreign
policy decided that the U.S. needed a new enemy, so they chose an old
one -- Russia."
Thought they were gone and increasingly irrelevant after the disastrous
Iraq war? Think again. The neocons are back, and they're directing
American foreign policy with as much psychopathic zeal as ever. PNAC may
be gone, but it has simply been rebranded as the 'bipartisan' Foreign
Policy Initiative, and its agenda is one and the same: to ensure U.S.
hegemony and global domination, no matter how many people they have to
kill.
All this and more is covered extensively in filmmaker Robbie Martin's new documentary, A Very Heavy Agenda.
Read more and listen to the podcast.
This tragic event in Orlando is an opportunity to connect the dots in an ever simple global world; as explained in Splitting Pennies - key to understanding Forex markets and how our global financial system includes understanding international politics, and specifically US foreign policy, and how it is connected to the US Dollar as a world reserve currency. Forex is information brokerage, both as a facilitator and as primary emission of that information. It is by itself, information - as well, those who play 'the great game' use it to execute their strategem.
This event, is a domestic event with no implications on the markets (although maybe a short term boom for Smith & Wesson (SWHC). It's not going to affect Forex, directly. But it will affect foreign policy - not by itself, but as one woven yarn in a policy sweater. There will be in the days and months ahead, political aggressiveness to 'fight terrorism.' This event alone, would not be sufficient to go to war with Syria for example, but in the area of domestic support of foreign actions, such events are key to seizing the hearts and minds of the average American, and in this case also the LGBT community - embroiled in domestic disputes of their own.
The fact that the shooter was in contact with the FBI isn't necessarily suspicious. The FBI is in contact with millions of people all around the world, connected to cases, and their daily operations. The fact that shooter worked for this G4S, as reported first here on Zero Hedge - is highly suspicious. Omar Mateen effectively worked for DHS, although through a subcontracted private company. This is the "Department of Homeland Security" designed to protect us from such 'terrorists.'
Let's examine 3 motives:
False Flag
If you are one of these TV watchers that believe 'it doesn't happen in America' read the following report from PNAC (Project for a New American Century) in full here - note the DATE and note the SIGNERS of this 'research' that says, before 9/11:
Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.
What an interesting coincidence, that a Washington based think tank that worries about a declining budget (because of declining real military threats) and declining power, should within a short year after publishing their report have the justification they need to increase their budgets and power by 10. Or more recently, look at evidence of Sandy Hook false flag here and here.
So was this event a false flag - to escalate our involvement in Syria, Ukraine, or a number of other global hotspots? Possible, but not probable.
Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque
In September 2000, an advocacy group called "Project for New American
Century," led by Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz
and others -- published a "blueprint" for "transforming" America's
future. PNAC acknowledged that the "revolutionary" changes it envisaged
could take decades to bring about -- unless, they said, the United
States was struck by "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor." One year later, after the disputed election of George
W. Bush, came the "catalyzing" event of the 9/11 attacks -- which
indeed "transformed" America's future in many "revolutionary" ways.
Here are some of the changes PNAC called for in 2000, all of which
came about after the "new Pearl Harbor" they had hoped for: An attack on
Iraq. Vast increases in military spending. Planting new American bases
all over the world. Embracing the concept of "pre-emptive war" and
unilateral action as cornerstones of national strategy. Developing
sophisticated new technologies to "control the global commons of
cyberspace" by closely monitoring communications and transactions on the
Internet. Pursuing the development of "new methods of attack –
electronic, 'non-lethal, biological…in new dimensions, in space,
cyberspace and perhaps the world of microbes."
Oddly enough, although "regime change" in Iraq was clearly a priority
for PNAC, it had little to do with Saddam Hussein and his brutal rule.
Instead, removing Saddam was tied to the larger goal of establishing a
permanent U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf in order to "secure
energy supplies" and preclude any other power from dominating the vital
oil regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. The PNAC report puts
it quite plainly:
"The United States has for decades sought to play a
more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved
conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a
substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein."
This is why the Bush Administration offered a constantly shifting
menu of rationales for the impending attack on Iraq: because the
decision to remove Saddam was taken long ago, as part of a larger
strategic plan, and had little to do with any imminent threat from the
broken-backed Iraqi regime, which at that time was constantly bombed,
partially occupied (with U.S. forces already working in the autonomous
Kurdish territories) and swarming with UN inspectors. If the strategic
need for the attack "transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam
Hussein," then almost any rationale will do.
Read more
