Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category


Part 2: The post WWII strategy of the neocons has been shaped by Russo phobia against the Soviet Union and now Russia

Wednesday, April 18th, 2018

The Turning on Russia Series

OpEdNews veteranstoday.com

By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould

In the months and years following the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973, the issue of Israel and its security would become so enmeshed in American policy as to become one and the same.  The lesson of October 1973 that détente had succeeded in securing American and Soviet interests, was anathema to the entire neoconservative agenda and revealed its true hand.  At the time a majority of American Jews were not necessarily against better U.S.-Soviet relations. But with the forceful hammering of influential right-wing neoconservative pundits like Ben Wattenberg and Irving Kristol and the explosive manifestation of the Evangelical Christian Zionist movement, many of Israel’s liberal American supporters were persuaded to turn against détente for the first time. According to the distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff’s Détente and Confrontation; “Analytically and objectively the American-Soviet cooperation in defusing both the Israeli-Arab conflict, and their own involvement in a crisis confrontation, may be judged a successful application of crisis management under détente.”  But as Garthoff acknowledges, this success threatened “Israel’s jealously guarded freedom of action to determine unilaterally its own security requirements,” and set off alarm bells in Tel Aviv and Washington.

With Richard Nixon on the ropes with Watergate and Vietnam dragging to a conclusion, American foreign policy was open to external pressure and within a year would fall permanently into the hands of a coalition of pro-Israel neoconservative and right-wing defense industry lobbying groups. These groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the American Security Council and Committee on the Present Danger would set about to make American interests and their own personal crusade to control the greater Middle East, interchangeable.

The issue of U.S. support for Israel, its neoconservative backers and its dedicated anti-Russian  bias has a long and complicated history dating back long before Theodor Herzl’s19th century Zionist Project. Zionism was not instilled in American thinking by Jews but by 16th and 17th century British Puritans whose sacred mission was to reestablish an ancient Kingdom of Israel and fulfill what they believed to be biblical prophecy based on the King James Version of the bible.

Britain’s Anglo/Israel movement found common cause with the British Empire’s 19th and early 20th century political goals of controlling the Middle East through Jewish resettlement of Palestine which culminated in the Balfour declaration of 1917. This long term plan of the British Empire continues on today through American policy and what has been dubbed the Zionist Project or the Yinon plan. Add the 700 million strong worldwide Evangelical movement and its 70 million Christian Zionists in the United States and American foreign policy towards the Middle East becomes an apocalyptic confluence of covert agendas, ethnic grudges and religious feuds locked in permanent crisis.

It has been argued that the neoconservative’s slavish adherence to Israel makes neoconservatism an exclusively Jewish creation. Numerous neoconservative writers like the New York Times’ David Brooks tar critics of Israel as anti-Semites by accusing them of substituting the term “neoconservative” for “Jew.” Others argue that “neoconservatism is indeed a Jewish intellectual and political movement” with “close ties to the most extreme nationalistic, aggressive, racialist and religiously fanatic elements within Israel.”

Although clearly acting as a political front for Israel’s interests and an engine for permanent war, neoconservatism would never have succeeded as a political movement without the support and cooperation of powerful non-Jewish elites. New America Foundation co-founder Michael Lind writes in The Nation in 2004, “Along with other traditions that have emerged from the anti-Stalinist left, neoconservatism has appealed to many Jewish intellectuals and activists but it is not, for that reason, a Jewish movement. Like other schools on the left, neoconservatism recruited from diverse “farm teams” including liberal Catholics… populists, socialists and New Deal liberals in the South and Southwest… With the exception of Middle East strategy… there is nothing particularly “Jewish” about neoconservative views on foreign policy. While the example of Israel has inspired American neocons… the global strategy of today’s neocons is shaped chiefly by the heritage of cold war anti-Communism.”

Add to that the  abiding influence of Britain’s Imperial policy-makers following World War II – the British creation of Pakistan in 1947 and Israel in 1948 – and the hidden hand of a global imperial strategy is revealed. Pakistan exists to keep the Russians out of Central Asia and Israel exists to keep the Russians out of the Middle East.

Whether American democracy could have survived the stresses put upon it by the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War and the ongoing frauds posed by neoconservatism now poses an answerable question. It couldn’t. Fletcher School international law professor Michael Glennon maintains the creation of the national security state in 1947 as a second, double government effectively renders the question mute. He writes “The public believes that the constitutionally-established institutions control national security policy, but that view is mistaken. Judicial review is negligible; congressional oversight is dysfunctional; and presidential control is nominal. Absent a more informed and engaged electorate, little possibility exists for restoring accountability in the formulation and execution of national security policy.”

The motion to kill détente and hobble Henry Kissinger’s balance of power or “realist” foreign policy quickly followed the 1973 war in the form of the anti-Soviet amendment to the Trade Act known as Jackson-Vanik. Sponsored by Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington and Representative Charles A. Vanik of Ohio but engineered by Albert Wohlstetter acolyte Richard Perle, trade concessions and virtually anything regarding Moscow would be forever linked to the Zionist Project through Jewish emigration to Israel from the Soviet Union.

Supported by organized labor, traditional conservatives, liberals and neoconservatives, Jackson-Vanik hobbled efforts by the Nixon/Ford administration to slow the arms race and move towards a permanent easing of tensions with the Soviet Union. It removed control of American foreign policy from the President and Secretary of State while delivering it permanently into the hands of the old anti-Stalinist/Trotskyist neoconservatives.

Jackson-Vanik overcame liberal support for détente because of an intellectual dishonesty within the non-communist left that had been roiling America’s intelligentsia since the 1930s. That dishonesty had transformed left wing Trotskyists into the CIA’s very own anti-Soviet cultural Cold Warriors and aligned them with the goals of the West’s right-wing. By the1950s their cause was not about left or right, or even liberal anti-Communism versus Stalinism. It was about exchanging a value system of laws and checks and balances for a system alien to America. As Frances Stoner Saunder’s describes in her book The Cultural Cold War, it was simply about grabbing power and keeping it. “‘It’s so corrupt, it doesn’t even know it,’ said [legendary Random House editor] Jason Epstein, in an uncompromising mood. ‘When these people talk about a “counter-intelligentsia”, what they do is to set up a false and corrupt value system to support whatever ideology they’re committed to at the time. The only thing they’re really committed to is power, and the introduction of Tzarist-Stalinist strategies in American politics. They’re so corrupt they probably don’t even know it. They’re little, lying apparatchiks. People who don’t believe in anything, who are only against something, shouldn’t go on crusades or start revolutions.”

But neoconservatives did go on crusades and start revolutions and continued to corrupt the American political process until it was unrecognizable.  In 1973 neoconservatives did not want the United States having better relations with Moscow and created Jackson-Vanik to obstruct it. But their ultimate goal as explained by Janine Wedel in her 2009 study the Shadow Elite, was a Trotskyist dream; the complete transfer of power from an elected government representing the American people to what she referred to as a “new nomenklatura,” or “guardians of the national interest,” free from the restraints imposed by the laws of the nation. Wedel writes, “Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late senator from New York and onetime neoconservative, suggested that this kind of suspension of the rules and processes was what motivated him to part ways with the movement in the 1980s: ‘They wished for a military posture approaching mobilization; they would create or invent whatever crises were required to bring this about.’”

The synthesis of James Burnham’s Cold War ethos (established formally by Paul Nitze in his 1950 NSC-68) together with Trotskyism (espoused by the core neoconservatives) combined with this aggressive new support for Israel empowered America’s neoconservatives with a cult-like political influence over American decision-making that would only grow stronger with time.

As envisaged by James Burnham, the Cold War was a struggle for the world and would be fought with the kind of political subversion he’d learned to master as a leading member of Trotsky’s Fourth International. But joined to Israel by Burnham’s fellow Trotskyists and the underlying influence of British Israelism – it would enter an apocalyptic mythos and resist any and all efforts to bring it to an end. John B. Judis, former editor of the New Republic relates in a 1995 Foreign Affairs book review of the Rise of Neoconservatism by John Ehrman: “In the framework of international communism, the Trotskyists were rabid internationalists rather than realists or nationalists… The neoconservatives who went through Trotskyist and socialist movements came to see foreign policy as a crusade, the goal of which was first global socialism, then social democracy, and finally democratic capitalism. They never saw foreign policy in terms of national interest or balance of power. Neoconservatism was a kind of inverted Trotskyism, which sought to ‘export democracy’ in [Joshua] Muravchik’s words, in the same way that Trotsky originally envisaged exporting socialism.”

Through the eyes of the State Department’s Raymond Garthoff, the moves against détente in 1973 are viewed from the narrow perspective of a professional American diplomat. But according to Judis in his article titled “Trotskyism to Anachronism: The Neoconservative Revolution” the legacy of NSC-68 and Trotskyism contributed to a form of apocalyptic thinking that would slowly exclude the professional policy-making process from the realm of empirical observation and replace it with a politicized mechanism for creating endless conflict. “The constant reiteration and exaggeration of the Soviet threat was meant to dramatize and win converts, but it also reflected the doomsday revolutionary mentality that characterized the old left.”

In the end, Judis argues that the neoconservative success at using self-fulfilling prophecies to kill détente actually made the Cold War far more dangerous by encouraging the Soviet Union to undertake a military buildup and expand its influence which the neoconservatives then used as proof that their theories were correct. In effect, “Neoconservatism was a self-fulfilling prophecy. It helped precipitate the crisis in U.S.-Soviet relations that it then claimed to uncover and respond to.”

Writing in the summer of 1995 with the Cold War finally ended and the storm passed, Judis considered neoconservatism as the subject of ridicule, describing key neoconservatives as merely political anachronisms and not the thriving political dynamo described by John Ehrman in his book. But in the end Ehrman turned out to be right, the neoconservative crusade had not come to a close with the end of the Cold War but had only entered a new and more dangerous phase.

Copyright © 2018 Fitzgerald & Gould All rights reserved


Part 1: It’s been done to Russia before but this time will be the last

Wednesday, April 18th, 2018

The Turning on Russia Series

OpEdNews veteranstoday.com

By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould

“Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is familiar with the decline of the world’s rich.  He spent his childhood and youth in the British protectorate of Rhodesia… before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies. There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire… Now an American citizen, Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage… the United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently… The U.S. political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction…”

A Shrinking Giant, Spiegel Online, 9/11/2017

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz Doctrine in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United States claimed the mantle of the world’s first and only Unipower as well as its intention to crush any nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The New World Order foreseen just a few short years ago becomes more disorderly by the day, made worse by varying degrees of incompetence and greed emanating from Berlin, London, Paris and Washington. As a further sign of the ongoing seismic shocks rocking America’s claim to leadership, by the time Stanley Fischer’s interview appeared in the online version of the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, he had already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal Reserve; eight months ahead of schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and fall of empires it is the “globalist” and former Bank of Israel president, Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of the British Empire as a young student in London, he actually assisted in the wholesale dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.

As an admitted product of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims, that makes Stanley Fischer not just empire’s Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.

Alongside a handful of Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei Shleifer, Anatoly Chubais and Jeffry Sachs, (the Harvard Project) Fischer helped to throw 100 million Russians into poverty overnight – privatizing, or as some would say piratizing – the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never got the real story because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the robbery from beginning to end. As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book Shadow Elite, “Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers trying to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde Luddites who opposed them, this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or goal of privatization was not controversial, even among communists… the Russian Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the groundwork for privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself but in the particular privatization program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it was put into place, and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament.”

Intentionally set up to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false narrative, she continues “The outcome rendered privatization ‘a de facto fraud,’ as one economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais scheme to ‘offer fertile ground for criminal activity’ was proven right.”

If Stanley Fischer, a man who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to post-empire Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for post-empire Americans to ask what role Stanley Fischer played in putting the U.S. on that dangerous course. Unknown to Americans is the blunt force trauma Stanley Fischer and the “prestigious” Harvard Project delivered to Russia under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative’s James Carden “As the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted back in 2011… ‘the IMF’s intervention in Russia during Fischer’s tenure led to one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.’ Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF’s intervention to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack.”

Neither do most Americans know that it was President Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian heartland that boomeranged back to terrorize Europe and America in the 21st century. Zbigniew Brzezinski spent much of his life undermining the Communist Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying about its resurgence as a Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that hating Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as the President’s top intelligence officer was that he couldn’t find Nicaragua on a map. If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a unipolar world following the Soviet Union’s collapse it was Zbigniew Brzezinski and if anyone could be said to represent the debt driven financial system that fueled America’s post-Vietnam Imperialism, it’s Stanley Fischer.  His departure should have sent a chill down every neoconservative’s spine. Their dream of a New World Order has once again ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.

Whenever the epitaph for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to feature the iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. After emerging from their Marxist/Leninist cocoon after World War II their movement helped to establish the Cold War. And from the chaos created by Vietnam they set to work restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy to their own purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists but directed by the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the neoconservatives’ goal was to deconstruct the nation-state through cultural cooptation and financial subversion and in that they have been overwhelmingly successful. From the end of World War II through the 1980s the focus of this pursuit was on the Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their focus has been on dismantling any and all opposition to their global dominion.

Shady finance, imperial misadventures and neoconservatism go hand in hand. The CIA’s founders saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed them with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987’s Hot Money and the Politics of Debt, described how “Pentagon Capitalism” had made the Vietnam War possible by selling the Pentagon’s debt to the rest of the world. “In effect, the US Marines had replaced Meyer Lansky’s couriers, and the European central banks arranged the ‘loan-back’” Naylor writes. “When the mechanism was explained to the late [neoconservative] Herman Kahn – lifeguard of the era’s chief ‘think tank’ and a man who popularized the notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration – he reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, ‘We’ve pulled off the biggest ripoff in history! We’ve run rings around the British Empire.’” In addition to their core of ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives could count among their ranks such establishment figures as James Burnham, father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Zbigniew Brzezinski himself.

From the beginning of their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was known that their emergence could spell the end of democracy in America and yet Washington’s more moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight. Peter Steinfels’ 1979 classic The Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America’s politics begins with these fateful words. “THE PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First,  that a distinct and powerful political outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook, preoccupied with certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent towards others, justifies a politics which, should it prevail, threatens to attenuate and diminish the promise of American democracy.”

But long before Steinfels’ 1979 account, the neoconservative’s agenda of inserting their own interests ahead of America’s was well underway attenuating American democracy, undermining détente and angering America’s NATO partners that supported it. According to the distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff, détente had been under attack by right-wing and military-industrial forces (led by Senator “Scoop” Jackson) from its inception. But America’s ownership of that policy underwent a shift following America’s intervention on behalf of Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in his detailed volume on American-Soviet relations Détente and Confrontation, “To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and without consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S. military alert of its forces in Europe was too much.”

In addition to the crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in U.S. decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, “The United States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into which the United States had plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation. Then it had used that tension as an excuse to demand that Europe subordinate its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble over which they had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of alliance unity.”

In the end the U.S. found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a cease-fire accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of détente. But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by Israel’s “politically significant supporters” in the U.S. to begin opposing any cooperation with the Soviet Union, at all. Garthoff  writes, “The United States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet Union (as well as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez… Thus they [Israel’s politically significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet interests and effective cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of greater future cooperation by the two superpowers in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem.”

Copyright © 2018 Fitzgerald & Gould All rights reserved


A great review of The Voice

Thursday, March 15th, 2018

The Voice
by Paul Fitzgerald & Elizabeth Gould

Review by Burl and Merry Hall

5.0 out of 5 stars Towards the Truth!

October 20, 2015

Powerful book, powerful story. At points, I erupted into spiritual ecstasy. If the reader is truly attentive to this book, she may become more attuned to becoming enlightened. She will be enlightened by the history taught in the book regarding the Grail Quest. My personal response to this book is that it is one of many that include the likes of mythologist Joseph Campbell and psychiatrist Carl Jung that can lead us into wholeness. Ok, I’ll also nudge my book, “Sophia’s Web: A Passionate Call to Heal our Wounded Nature.” My point regarding “The Voice” is: Can we let go of our conditioned minds and become virgin, i.e., de-conditioned (the actual meaning of the virgin birth, it wasn’t meant to be literal. Can we let go of our conditioned minds in finding the Grail, the Deep Knowledge of “All-That-Is”? This book is one that will point you towards that knowledge. Not a small profit from such a small inexpensive book. What’s money anyway? For more information on The Voice visit www.grailwerk.com


Our Neocon History Articles 2011-2017

Wednesday, January 31st, 2018

We are finishing up the finale to our Neocon history series. Here are the URLs to the already published articles:

The Neocon Takeover of America Series Published August, 2017

Part 1: Darkness at Noon

Part 2: The West is Disintegrating

Part 3: Engineering Public Perception to the Right for the Right

Part 4: Ceaseless Propaganda, Outright Lies and Distorted Facts

–The Universal Empire Series, Published April, 2017

Part 1: American Imperialism Leads the World Into Dante’s Vision of Hell

Part 2: How Neocons Push for War by Cooking the Books

Part 3: How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for ‘Unconventional Warfare’
Part 4: The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elites’ Takeover of America

America, an Empire in Twilight Series Published November, 2016

Part 1: When America Became the Dark Force

Part 2: How Guilt, Innocence & Facts Have Been Rendered Irrelevant

Part 3: Neoconizing the Just War Doctrine in the service of American Empire

Part 4: The End of Illusion

FINALE: The Trump Card is played! Never Underestimate THE FOOL

Psychological Warfare and the American Mind Series Published September, 2016

Part 1: A Campaign Where the Lie Became the Truth and the Truth Became the Enemy of the State

Part 2: Building the Afghan Narrative with Black Propaganda, the People, the Process & the Product

Part 3: A Clockwork Afghanistan

Part 4: Willie Wonka & the National Security State

Individual Articles

America’s Late Stage Imperial Dementia 11/3/2016

New York Times Strikes Out Again on Afghanistan Published 11/6/2017

What have they done to our fair sister? An Epitaph Published 10/6/2017  

Brzezinski Vision to Lure Soviets into ‘Afghan Trap’ Is Orlando’s Nightmare Published 6/16/2016

America Pivots to Brzezinski’s Delusion of Eurasian Conquest Essay 10/14/2015

America Pivots to Brzezinski’s Delusion of Eurasian Conquest Published 6/2/2015                                                         

America’s Financial Armageddon and Afghanistan Published 9/14/2011.


New York Times Strikes Out Again on Afghanistan

Tuesday, November 7th, 2017
by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould
The New York Times building. (Dan DeLuca / Wikimedia)

In the final days of the Soviet Union, an old witticism about truth (pravda) went something like this: In the United States, they tell you everything, but you know nothing. In the USSR, they tell you nothing, but you know everything.

Who would ever be nostalgic for the old Soviet Union, where truth was what the official government mouthpiece told you it was and everything else was a lie meant to undermine the state? Whoever that might be, he or she would feel at home in the now totally neocon-ized U.S., where the old mainstream media marches in lockstep with a dysfunctional federal bureaucracy to aggressively limit freedom of speech and label anything that contradicts its ideological view of reality as enemy propaganda.

From 1918 until its demise in 1991, Pravda was the official newspaper of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party. But most Americans would be surprised to learn that The New York Times has been operating for decades as the U.S. government’s Pravda without anyone being the wiser.

Now the truth-war rages between such old mainstream media outlets as The New York Times and any news operation or website that challenges its version of the truth.

We were drawn into this battle by a recent New York Times obituary for our dearest Afghan friend, Sima Wali, who fled the violent Marxist coup in 1978 that kicked off the U.S.-backed rise of Islamic extremism and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.Considering that the Times maintains that the alternative media is filled with false news and Russian propaganda, we were shocked to find many claims in Sima’s obituary that contained American Cold War propaganda about Afghanistan that has long since been debunked. One particularly outrageous example was the claim that in 1978, “gender apartheid” was “imposed by the Communists and then by the Taliban.”

Apparently, The New York Times believes it can turn day to night by blaming communists for introducing gender apartheid, a term adapted (from the South African apartheid regime) in 1996 to draw the public’s attention to the cruelty and human rights abuses imposed by the Taliban on the women of Afghanistan. The communists did not impose it after their takeover in 1978. In fact, the opposite was true. As Sima stated in the introduction to our book, “Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story,” “The draconian Taliban rule stripped women of their basic human rights. Their edicts against women in Afghanistan led to an introduction of a new form of violence termed ‘gender apartheid.’ ” In reality, a major cause for the growth of the resistance to the communists in the more tradition-bound countryside was the forced education of women and girls and the forced removal of the veil. Nor is it understood in the West that many Afghan rulers in the past attempted these reforms with some level of success.

Related Articles Sima Wali obituary | theguardian.com What Have They Done to Our Fair Sister? by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould| truthdig.com

As David B. Edwards writes in his book, “Before Taliban,” there is a direct line between these and other reforms to the reforms mandated by King Amanullah after 1919. He writes, “The transformations that he [Amanullah] sought to bring about before his overthrow in 1929 were in many respects forerunners of those of the Marxists and were particularly revealing of the problems they later encountered.”

An accurate picture of what was done by the communists during their rule in the early 1980s can be read in Jonathan Steele’s 2003 Guardian article, titled “Red Kabul revisited,” in which he compares the U.S. occupation of Kabul in 2003 with Soviet-occupied Kabul of the 1980s:

“In 1981, Kabul’s two campuses thronged with women students, as well as men. Most went around without even a headscarf. Hundreds went off to Soviet universities to study engineering, agronomy and medicine. The banqueting hall of the Kabul hotel pulsated most nights to the excitement of wedding parties. The markets thrived. Caravans of painted lorries rolled up from Pakistan, bringing Japanese TV sets, video recorders, cameras and music centres. The Russians did nothing to stop this vibrant private enterprise.”

Prior to 9/11, Laili Helms, a spokeswoman for and defender of the Taliban and niece to former CIA Director Richard Helms, went so far as to suggest that educating women was a communist plot, claiming that any Afghan woman who could read had to be a communist, because only the communists had educated women. After the American invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, Wali was outraged by this Taliban mentality, which she saw creeping into the American-installed Afghan leadership with the blessing of the American government. In an address to the Global Citizens Circle in Boston in 2003, she stated her objections: “[A]s an Afghan and an American, I will testify to you that the argument against women’s rights is neither Afghan nor Islamic!”

Thirty-four years ago in May, I stood before the irate Afghan press officer for the communist government in Kabul as he threw a copy of The New York Times onto his desk. “Have you read this?” he demanded, pointing to an article by Leslie Gelb, titled “U.S. Said to Increase Arms Aid For Afghan Rebels.” What Gelb, the former Jimmy Carter administration’s assistant secretary of state, had disclosed had angered the Foreign Ministry’s press secretary, Roshan Rowan, and he was holding me, an American, responsible. “Why are you doing this to us?” he shouted. “What is it we have done to you, to deserve this invasion?”

I didn’t need to rely on The New York Times to tell me what was going on in Afghanistan. As the first American journalist to risk the wrath of the Ronald Reagan administration, with its newly installed neoconservative foreign policy, by bringing a news crew to Kabul in 1981, I was one of only a handful of Americans who knew the score. The United States was backing Muslim guerrillas who were burning down schools specifically for girls and killing local officials, whether they were communist or not. The Gelb article made clear that in collaboration with the Saudis, Egyptians, Chinese, Iranians and Pakistanis, the “bleeders” inside the Reagan administration were upping the ante in order to “draw more and more Soviet troops into Afghanistan,” while at the same time claiming to pursue “a negotiated settlement to the war.” It was not obvious from the Gelb article how the United States could be escalating a conflict while negotiating a settlement at the same time in Afghanistan in 1983. Also missing from the article was any indication that the administration’s policy was a fundamental contradiction.

In the spring of 1983, we had invited Roger Fisher, director of the Harvard Negotiation Project, to return with us to Kabul to unwrap the riddle of why the United Nations negotiations were getting nowhere. Contracted to ABC’s “Nightline,” Fisher met with the Kremlin’s chief Afghan specialist, who had flown down from Moscow and told him point blank, “We want to get out. Give us six months to save face, and we’ll leave the Afghans to solve their own problems.” Upon his return, Fisher expected his discovery would be greeted with relief. Instead he found that “negotiated settlement” was only a fig leaf for escalating the war. The mainstream media were just beginning to ramp up a propaganda campaign, which would become known as Charlie Wilson’s War, to drive support for keeping the Soviets pinned down in their own Vietnam while bleeding Sima Wali’s Afghanistan to death.

The American people expect the full story from their “free press,” and the Constitution demands that the press serve the people and not the bureaucracy. The New York Times needs to get its mission straight, lest it sacrifice its credibility to the very thing it claims to stand against. Left-wing Afghan communists cannot be magically transformed into right-wing Pakistani Taliban. The United States is not the Soviet Union, and The New York Times should stop behaving as if it is Pravda.

Copyright © 2017   Fitzgerald & Gould   All rights reserved


What have they done to our fair sister? An Epitaph

Friday, October 6th, 2017
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who’d sacrificed Sima Wali’s Afghanistan to give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam, passed on four months earlier in the same city where Sima lived until her death. If they should meet in the afterlife, one can easily imagine how delightfully uncomfortable that encounter would be for Zbig!

By Paul Fitzgerald Elizabeth Gould  OpEdNews October 6, 2017 Truthdig VeteransToday


Afghan human rights expert Sima Wali delivers her acceptance speech for Amnesty International’s Ginetta Sagan Fund Award in 1999.
(
Image by Wikisi117)
Permission Details DMCA

Sima Wali, the first Afghan refugee to come to this country in 1978 has died at her home in Falls Church, Virginia. To the many Afghans and Americans who knew her, Sima Wali was the soul of Afghanistan, a woman who dedicated her life to helping not just her country of birth, but refugee women and the men who support them, from around an increasingly desperate and dangerous world. You probably never heard of Sima Wali because she was not the kind of Afghan woman the mainstream media and their establishment backers wanted you to know about. As a member of Afghanistan’s ruling family, Sima represented many generations of Afghan leadership dedicated to bringing their country into the modern world after centuries of crushing colonialism from both the east and the west.

Sima was uniquely adept at that task, a cultured woman whose intelligence, grace and beauty charmed all who met her including the world’s leaders. From the time she arrived in the United States until illness consumed her, she worked tirelessly for human rights and the rights of women through her organization Refugee Women in Development (RefWid). Her work impacted the U.S. Congress, the State Department, and the United Nations. It led to numerous awards and to her selection as one of only three women to be chosen as delegates to the U.N.-organized Bonn Agreement, which created a new Afghan government after the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Because of Sima, that government mandated the creation of a Ministry of Women’s Affairs.

Sima’s death constitutes an immense tragedy not just for her friends and family but for Afghanistan and especially for her adopted country, the United States. The fate of America and Afghanistan has been intimately linked since the 1970s when the Carter administration’s Zbigniew Brzezinski began a covert mission to undermine Afghanistan’s government long before the Soviet invasion. Sima was one of the earliest victims of that destabilization when Marxists claimed power in a bloody April 1978 coup and she was forced to flee. As a refugee woman and naturalized American, no one embodied the commitment, the dedication and the determination to overcome the catastrophic consequences of that relationship more than her.

In 1998 when we first met in New York City she was nearly despondent. Despite her over two decades of work, the Clinton administration saw little problem with the draconian military advances made by the Taliban from their bases in Pakistan. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in fact, was said to believe that the Taliban represented a cleansing antidote to the corrupted and feuding warlords empowered by the U.S. in their 1980s war against the Soviets.

That same year, 1998, Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski boasted to an interviewer from the French Nouvel Observateur that the consequences of the CIA’s secret operation that destroyed Sima’s country were far from bad. In fact the destruction of Afghanistan was never a concern at all. “That secret operation was an excellent idea.” He said. “It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.”

Brzezinski dismissed concern about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, or having armed future terrorists by saying: “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” And Brzezinski even went so far as to admit that the U.S. had not only lied about its support for the rebels before the Soviet invasion but that he’d told Carter the action would probably guarantee that the Soviets would invade.

We were fortunate enough to return with Sima to Afghanistan in 2002 in a remarkable journey where we witnessed first-hand her commitment to the Afghan people. Filming Sima’s workwith the women and men who had risked their lives to secretly educate and train women during the Taliban era – with no budget other than their meager earnings – was beyond humbling. That October trip held a moment of promise and hope even amidst the ruins. One of the Cold War’s ugliest chapters had finally come to an end. The Taliban had been sent back to Pakistan where they came from and a ravaged Afghanistan could be set back on a course to peace and prosperity.

But the future of Afghanistan was clouded by the expansion of American empire into Central Asia and the not so secret agendas of America’s supposed allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. From her many years on the public stage, Sima knew that she represented an obstacle to powerful forces that wanted to rewrite Afghanistan’s history and deny its long progress toward democracy. Her very existence threatened the warlords, drug dealers and human traffickers that thrived in an economy destroyed by 25 years of constant war. But most of all she threatened those who wanted the past forgotten; those that believed Afghanistan should never resume its drive for independence as a secular state, and that equal rights for women and the country’s ethnic minorities were a dangerous dream. And for that she will be remembered by us, the most.

Since America’s most recent war in Afghanistan began in 2001, Americans have been fed a steady diet of misinformation and outright falsehoods. These falsehoods range from claims that the Afghan nation was never really a nation at all; to proclamations that Afghanistan was always ruled by warlords and that it is dangerously naïve to think otherwise. Those who knew Afghanistan prior to America’s longest war, understand that these assumptions are wrong and are at best self-serving delusions. It was the United States who backed Afghanistan’s corrupt warlords against the country’s ruling dynasty as early as 1973 and it was the United States that put them back into power following its invasion in 2001. Yet these falsehoods form the basis of a Hollywood fiction that continues to hobble America’s failing effort there.

Over the years there have been glimmers of hope that a new awareness of Afghanistan’s true history was finally emerging from the darkness. An October 2009 article in the New York Times by Elisabeth Bumiller, titled REMBERING AFGHANISTAN’S GOLDEN AGE, stated: “American and Afghan scholars and diplomats say it is worth recalling four decades in the country’s recent history, from the 1930s to the 1970s, when there was a semblance of a national government and Kabul was known as “the Paris of Central Asia.” Bumiller goes on to write that “Afghans and Americans alike describe the country in those days as a poor nation, but one that built national roads, stood up an army and defended its borders.”

In a separate 2009 article in Foreign Policy Magazine titled A CASE FOR HUMILITY IN AFGHANISTAN, author Steve Coll writes: “In my view, most current American commentary underestimates the potential for transformational change in South Asia over the next decade or two, spurred by economic progress and integration” Between the late 18thcentury and World War I, Afghanistan was a troubled but coherent and often independent state. Although very poor, after the 1920s it enjoyed a long period of continuous peace with its neighbors, secured by a multi-ethnic Afghan National Army and unified by a national culture.”

In addition, prior to 1978, when Sima first became a refugee, Afghanistan was self-sufficient in food production and had no refugee problem. An even closer look reveals the origins of the modern Afghan state dating back to the 16th century and the rise of the Roshaniya movement. Led by Sufi poet Bayazid Ansarithe movement is indicative of the broadly progressive nature of Afghan Islam. Ansari’s goal was said to be the achievement of equality between men and women. In his landmark 1969 book The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan – the Carnegie Corporation’s Vartan Gregorian states: “Ansari’s aim, among other things was to establish a national religion, the movement encouraged the Afghans in the tribal belt to struggle against Moghul rule. The Roshaniya movement thus promoted the first political formulation of the concept of Afghan nationality.”

Prior to British military invasions of the mid-19th century, Afghans were not even hostile to European Imperialists. East India Company political officer Alexander Burnes wrote home in May of 1832, “The people of this country are kind hearted and hospitable. They have no prejudice against a Christian and none against our nation.” Concerned over Russian competition, Burnes argued that a strong Afghan leader could hold the country together and resist foreign encroachment, but a country split into feudal principalities and tribes would invite intrigue and cause chaos. Yet the good will of the Afghan people was lost in 1839 when the British government willfully acquiesced to sending an army into Kabul and suffered what was at the time, the greatest military defeat in British history.

Afghanistan’s late 19th century Amir Abdur Rahman Khan began his rule determined to establish a modern nation-state. By 1901 he had created a national army and a government bureaucracy that paved the way for a small but well educated middle-class. In 1919, Abdur Rahman’s grandson Amanullah brought on a period of rapid modernization and democratic change that would be the envy of any nation-builder today. Amanullah declared Afghanistan’s independence from Britain, drew up its first constitution in 1923, guaranteed universal suffrage and civil rights to all of Afghanistan’s minorities, prohibited revenge killings and abolished subsidies for tribal chieftains as well as the royal family.

Overthrown in 1929 with the help of the British, Amanullah’s embrace of modernism, equality and democracy is often viewed as the cause of his political downfall. Yet, as Vartan Gregorian and others have observed, Amanullah’s political undoing stemmed mostly from his inability to support his social reforms with solid economic measures, not from any underlying rejection of his educational and political programs. The same could be said of King Zahir Shah’s “experiment in democracy,” from 1963 to 1973, where failure stemmed from a weak economy and the emerging storm of external Cold War political forces that were already tearing at the fabric of Afghanistan’s political structure.

Sima Wali believed that of any force on earth the United States would understand and help to restore the hard fought victories over feudalism and backwardness that had been won for Afghanistan following British colonial rule. But as time went on she came to learn that those beliefs would never be fulfilled. She would laugh off the dangers of working in Afghanistan’s distant provinces. She would say she was the canary in the Afghan mineshaft and that as long as she was still breathing the voiceless Afghan people would have a voice in the struggle to restore what had been lost. But without the support she had been promised she stood alone. During her last trip to Afghanistan in 2005, she was targeted by the Taliban and narrowly escaped a violent militant attack. She returned home with unusual symptoms and a new enemy slowly gained ground.

The parallel struggles that Sima waged to restore her homeland for her people and her personal struggle to regain her heath are now over. Her open rejection of “misplaced charity”; and anguished cries for “sensible long-term strategies to rebuild the Afghan nation” have gone unheard. As far back as 2003 she stated clearly at a Global Citizens Circle presentation in Boston that she had deep concerns for events that were developing in Afghanistan. “Although some gains have been achieved in removing a repressive regime, women remain at risk and I remain highly concerned about the Taliban mentality in ruling circles. And as an Afghan and an American I will testify to you that the argument against women’s rights is neither Afghan nor Islamic!”

In a stroke of irony, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who’d sacrificed Sima’s Afghanistan to give the hated Soviet Union its own Vietnam had also passed on just four months earlier and in Falls Church, Virginia, the same city where Sima had lived until her death.

A year before, the architect of America’s use of Imperial power to attain global dominance had made a startling about face in an article titled “Towards a Global Realignment” warning that “the United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power.”

As Sima Wali discovered many years before, had Zbigniew Brzezinski used his powerful influence on American policy makers to aid Afghanistan in its struggles for democracy back in the 1970s instead of using it as the bait to lure the Soviets into invading, the world would be in a very different place.

For over a decade Sima fought with all her strength, but though her voice has now been silenced, her deeds and her words will live on to inspire new generations of Afghans and Americans to create the genuine democracy they have been denied for so long.

Copyright – 2017 Fitzgerald & Gould All rights reserved

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story , Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire and The Voice . Visit their websites at invisiblehistory and grailwerk


The Doors: John Densmore, Robby Krieger, Ray Manzarek, Jim Morrison
(
Image by Elektra Records)
Permission Details DMCA


What have they done to our fair sister? From “When The Music’s Over” by The Doors


Neoconservative Imperialism: The Descent into Dante’s Hell

Friday, August 25th, 2017

By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould. The US and the UK have a lengthy history of using propaganda to hide their true agendas. Now, the Machiavellian elites are consolidating their takeover of America and are transforming the world into Dante’s vision of Hell.


Part 4: Ceaseless Propaganda, Outright Lies and Distorted Facts

Friday, August 25th, 2017
This article is Part 4 of a four-part series, “The Neocon Takeover of America.” Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 are linked here and at the end of the article.

OpEdNews August 24, 2017           Veterans Today September 4, 2017

By Paul Fitzgerald Elizabeth Gould

Democracy and freedom of expression are under attack. There is blood in the streets. How did it get that way? Where did it come from, what are its sources and what continues to drive it? This four part series will look at the origin of those sources and unlock connections that when understood should open doors of perception that have been locked shut for far too long.


Tricksters (the mythological origin of all clowns) have embraced life’s paradoxes by creating coherence through confusion and disorder to get to the truth. Neocons use Trickster tactics that never lead to coherence.
(
Image by Procrustes4u)
Permission Details DMCA

In keeping with the goal of providing intelligence, propaganda and operational support for what London believed was sure to be a coming war against Moscow, in 1946 the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office revived its anti-Nazi “Black Propaganda organization” the Political Warfare Executive (PWE). Renamed the Information Research Department (IRD) and funded by the CIA, the IRD would operate from 1946 until 1977 as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit producing, distributing and circulating unattributable propaganda. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of Britain’s Secret Propaganda War, “the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left”.

IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right-wing of the international intelligence elite and together with the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) set out to establish a new brand of Western ideology that would delegitimize not just Communism but the very idea of the “Left” itself. The jumping off spot was the 1950 Berlin conference. The Congress for Cultural Freedom’s fourteen-point “Freedom Manifesto” was to identify the West with freedom but the right-wing rhetoric emanating from the podium chilled even MI6’s own A.J. ‘Freddie’ Ayer, Professor of Philosophy at University College, London, and Oxford historian Hugh Trevor Roper. Stephen Dorril writes “What irritated Ayer and Trevor-Roper was the ‘hysterical atmosphere in which the Congress was held, orchestrated as it was by revengeful ex-Communists’… Supporting the idea of ‘tolerance’, they were repelled by the delirious applause that greeted speeches calling for war against the Soviet Union.”

According to Frances Stoner Saunders, author of The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World of Arts and Letters “Hugh Trevor-Roper was appalled by the provocative tone… ‘There was a speech by Franz Borkenauwhich was very violent and indeed almost hysterical. He spoke in German and I regret to say that as I listened and I heard the baying voices of approval from the huge audiences, I felt, well, these are the same people who seven years ago were probably baying in the same way to similar German denunciations of Communism coming from Dr. Goebbels in the Sports Palast. And I felt, well, what sort of people are we identifying with? That was the greatest shock to me. There was a moment during the Congress when I felt that we were being invited to summon up Beelzebub in order to defeat Stalin.’”

Warnings by both Trevor-Roper and Ayer would go unheeded and the CCF would go on to co-opt generations of Europeans and Americans with a covert totalitarian cultural narrative that most would be deceived into believing was a product of the West’s genuine free expression.

Working alongside Beelzebub in the late 1940s and early 1950s were a number of old familiar faces from the far right wing of European politics bent on reviving a form of Austro-Hungarian Empire including its heir apparent Archduke Otto von Habsburg and the (PEU) Pan European Union’s President for life, Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. In 1949 Habsburg founded the hard right wing Centre for European Documentation and Information (CEDI) with the intention of breaking the political isolation of Franco’s fascist Spain. In 1948 a rival group to PEU known as the European Movement, the EM was established with CIA assistance to work toward the creation and integration of a United Europe along strictly anti-communist lines.

With the help and guidance of the CIA on September 25th1952, a high level undercover organization of powerbrokers known as the Bilderberg Group which included Netherlands Prince Bernhard, French Prime Minister Antoine Pinay, Italian Prime Minister Alcide de Gaspari, American banker and globalist George Ball and CIA Director General Walter Bedell Smith, quietly came into existence. Numerous questions have arisen about the true purpose of the Bilderberg Group, its role as the world’s most influential forum, its aristocratic bent and its supposed One World Government agenda. Antoine Pinay had been part of Vichy France’s collaborationist government; banker George Ball believed the nation state itself had already become obsolete and the world better off run by as an East India Company-style corporation; Prince Bernhard profited from his various Nazi affiliations, before during and after the war. But none of this controversy was enough to halt its ongoing meetings and it continues to be the place where the elite’s elite gather once each year to manage their ongoing takeover of the planet. But while media attention focuses on Bilderberg, little to no attention has ever been focused on an even more select group organized within it that may have played the deciding role in connecting Europe’s pre-World War II fascist movements to today’s drumbeat for war with Russia.

The Pinay Cercle and its Fascist Roots

That a small elite circle of European aristocrats, bankers, politicians and top military/intelligence officials should have secretly met after World War II to plot the future of the world should come as no surprise at this late date. The United States has no less than 17 intelligence agencies that operate in secret and those are just the ones we know about. The American public has no awareness of what these agencies do and the unseen power they represent as an unelected second government. That an elite Bilderberger like David Rockefeller should claim he did not learn about this elite circle’s existence until 1967 and then express shock by its “ultra-right wing” makeup should be a wakeup call to all Americans that things are not what they appear to be. Rockefeller writes in his memoirs:

“Bilderberg overlapped for a time with my membership in a relatively obscure but potentially even more controversial body known as the Presenti group. I had first learned about it in October 1967 when Carlo Presenti , the owner of a number of important Italian corporations, took me aside at a Chase investment forum in Paris and invited me to join… It was a select group, he told me, mostly Europeans… Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, and Konrad Adenauer were founding members” Antoine Pinay, a former French President; Giulio Andreotti, several times prime minister of Italy”Otto von Habsburg claimant to all lands of the Austro-Hungarian empire” and Jean-Paul Leon Violet, a conservative French intellectuel.”

Rockefeller goes on to recount how Presenti’s small group, actually known as the Pinay Circle or just Le Cercle, met three times a year and was occasionally joined by Henry Kissinger when meeting in Washington. “Maître Violet, who had close connections with Deuxième Bureau of the Service des Renseignements (the French CIA), provided lengthy background briefings. Using an overhead projector, Violet displayed transparency after transparency filled with data [supposedly] documenting Soviet infiltration of governments and supporting his belief that the threat of global Communist victory was quite real.”

Rockefeller found the discussion group fascinating but also found their overtly Fascist politics and paranoid talk of a growing “Red Menace” to be highly unbelievable. After being alerted by his fellow associates at Chase that his membership in this high level group “could be construed as ‘consorting with reactionaries,’” he withdrew. But with the war in Vietnam showing no sign of progress and with the January 1968 Tet offensive about to demonstrate the Pentagon’s hopeless incompetence, the old Fascist network of pre-World War II anti-Soviet alliances was about to make a very big comeback.

Key to that comeback was one time Le Cercle chairman and British agent-provocateur Brian Rossiter Crozierand his prote’ge’ Robert Moss. At the request of the CIA and MI6, Crozier had taken over the CIA’s propaganda outfit Forum World Features (FWF) in 1965 and by 1966 had privatized it to maintain its cover as a one of the CIA’s most prolific and successful propaganda outlets. Despite being exposed in Ramparts Magazine in March 1967, FWF would continue on for 8 years during which Crozier would spawn a second CIA/MI6 venture known as the Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) in 1970. With the power of an officially sanctioned Institute behind him, Crozier would now do more than just fabricate and distort news; he would now be able to create unsubstantiated “proof” of the Cercle’s right-wing claims of Soviet penetration and infiltration. And when approached by the Cercle’s Carlo Presenti to “study” the problem of de’tente, Crozier would begin a decade of preparation for realizing a long sought goal of Europe’s pre-World War II Fascist elite; the rollback of Soviet power and the delegitimization of socialist, nationalist and even moderate Western democratic regimes, including the United States.

The Institute for the Study of Conflict would not just issue reports to the West’s elites supporting the Cercle’s “Red Menace” fantasies. ISC and its Washington based sister organization WISC, would create the necessary false perceptions to justify action. Throughout the 1970s and 80s Crozier’s right-wing Red Menace propaganda would completely win over the West’s politicized intelligence services. Totally convinced by their own propaganda that the Soviets were a growing menace, they would completely miss the ongoing dissolution of the Soviet Union and in the end be taken by complete surprise upon its collapse in 1991.

Please join us again in September for the conclusion to our multipart series when we resume with the final installments detailing how events created by national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter administration, opened the door for a globalist/syndicalist takeover under the cover of American Empire — a takeover in the works since the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in 1918.

Copyright – 2017 Fitzgerald & Gould All rights reserved

“The Neocon Takeover of America Series”

Part 3: Engineering Public Perception to the Right for the Right

Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017

This article is Part 3 of a four-part series, “The Neocon Takeover of America.” Parts 1,2, 3, and 4 are linked at the end of the article.

OpEdNews August 23, 2017    VeteransToday August 31, 2017

By Paul Fitzgerald Elizabeth Gould

Democracy and freedom of expression are under attack. There is blood in the streets. How did it get that way? Where did it come from, what are its sources and what continues to drive it? This four part series will look at the origin of those sources and unlock connections that when understood should open doors of perception that have been locked shut for far too long.

Speaking at The Intervention in Afghanistan and the Fall of De’tente Conference at Lysebu Norway, 1995, former Carter National Security staff council member Dr. Gary Sick, (1976-1981) described the criteria for driving American war planners into action.

“It seems to me there is a difference here between facts and perceptions, and this seems to be where the problem ultimately lies. Of course, perception is reality, as far as policy makers are concerned, so what you believe, in fact, drives what you do regardless of what the facts are.”

It’s vital to remember Dr. Gary Sick’s observation at this moment in our latest deep-state-anti-Russia identity crisis. After 16 years of war accompanied by political and financial crises America finds itself in a war of perception with the world and with itself. If America’s policy-makers continue to think they can create reality regardless of facts, then whatever today’s policy makers choose to see as real they will try to make real. It’s a simple formula for delusional thinking with a history of terrible consequences.

In the 1950s some of America’s more creative defense intellectuals perceived Vietnam to be the linchpin of what they called the Domino Theory of a global communist expansion all the while ignoring the nationalist motivations of the North Vietnamese. That misperception, intentional or not led to one of the greatest military blunders in history as well as devastating consequences for the community of defense intellectuals that had thought it up.

As described by author Fred Kaplan, “Vietnam brought out the dark side of nearly everyone inside America’s national security machine. And it exposed something seamy and disturbing about the very enterprise of the defense intellectuals. It revealed that the concept of force underlying all their formulations and scenarios was an abstraction, practically useless as a guide to action.”

Vietnam revealed a conceptual failure in an esoteric system of analysis created by an inbred group of defense intellectuals that was supposed to determine what was real and what was imagined. By1968 its failure had broken the eastern establishment’s hold over foreign policy and created the need to open de’tente with the Soviet Union. But for those on the right who had fought to roll back the very existence of the Soviet Union since its inception in 1917, de’tente was not an option and would be fought by a sophisticated Cold War propaganda machine that would outdo Nazi Germany.

Origins of a Plot

The popular perception that the United States and the Soviet Union were allies against Fascism during World War II disguises the fact that Wall Street’s financial elites were not so secretly supporting the rearmament of Germany after World War I and were especially active in backing Adolph Hitler and the growth of the Nazi Wehrmacht prior to and throughout the war years.

According to Anthony C. Sutton in his 1976 book, Wall Street and the Rise Of Hitler , “The build-up for European war both before and after 1933 was in great part due to Wall Street financial assistance in the 1920s to create a German cartel system, and to technical assistance from well-known American firms— to build the German Wehrmacht… In brief, American companies associated with the Morgan-Rockefeller international investment bankers— were intimately related to the growth of Nazi industry— those firms controlled through the handful of financial houses, the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Bank for International Settlements, and their continuing international cooperative arrangements and cartels which attempt to control the course of world politics and economics.”

A World War II study on Nazi occupied France published in 1947 by Harvard University’s William L. Langer, Chief of the Research and Analysis branch of the Office of Strategic Services, OSS, from 1942 to 1945 revealed the origins of a prewar Fascist-plot that may have paved the way for France’s early capitulation in the war. Langer’s report detailed in his book Our Vichy Gamble makes clear that the prewar ideological and nationalist lines between fascist Germany and France were never at issue when it came to Europe’s big business interests. On the contrary; if successful, the plot’s French backers stood to benefit immensely from a German-ruled Europe. Langer writes:

“Germany could count on more than enough eager supporters among French industrial and banking interests–in short, among those who even before the war had turned to Nazi Germany and had looked to Hitler as the savior of Europe from Communism— These people were as good fascists as any in Europe” Many of them had long had extensive and intimate business relations with German interests and were still dreaming of a new system of ’synarchy,’ which meant government of Europe on fascist principles by an international brotherhood of financiers and industrialists.”

The brotherhood of synarchists was not the only hard right wing European group dreaming of a pan-European Union along fascist lines. In London in the mid-1930s, an alliance of militant e’migre’ groups from 16 Central European countries formed a secret international Catholic organization headed by a former Tsarist general. Known at the time as Intermarium (and again today) for that part of Europe bordered by the Adriatic, the Baltic, Black, Aegean and Ionian seas its secret mission was to form an anti-Communist cordon sanitaire against Russia. Stephen Dorril, author of MI6: Fifty Years of Operations writes “The dream of a postwar [World War I] Pan-Danubian [Con]Federation from the Baltic to the Aegean under Habsburg rule — a sort of recreation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire — was kept alive under the direction of the pretender to the throne Archduke Otto von Habsburg. The Monarchists had had the enthusiastic support of Winston Churchill, who, like many of its adherents, had been a member of the Brussels-based right-wing Pan European Union (PEU), founded in 1922 by Hapsburg and Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi as ‘the only way of guarding against an eventual world hegemony by Russia’.”

Another, even more militant group was the Promethean League of the Nations subjugated by Moscow (soon to be shortened to the Promethean League) which focused mainly on liberating the non-Russian ethnicities in Ukraine and Georgia. The end of World War I and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire had left Poland in charge of Western Ukraine which, according to author Dorril’s sources, sparked Polish ambitions to launch an anti-communist counter revolution inside Russia and capture its own empire. “The League ‘played a large part in Polish aspirations for the development of a bloc of states in Eastern Europe, stretching from Finland to the Caucasus, in which Poland could become a true great power by exercising her ‘natural’ position of leadership.’”

Despite Poland’s “‘natural’ position of leadership,” her occupation of Western Ukraine came up against the fiercely racist Galician separatists of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). OUN viewed their own racial beliefs as more in league with Germany’s National Socialists (Nazis) than anything Poland had to offer or even Europe’s more doctrinaire Fascists and Nazi money soon came pouring in. The OUN rejected the Promethean League outright and struck out at Poland’s leadership role. In 1934 OUN’s leaders, Stefan Bandera, Yarolsav Stetsko and Mykola Lebed were arrested by Polish authorities for the murder of the Polish Interior minister and sentenced to death only to later have their sentences reduced to life in prison. But while the League of Nations branded the OUN a “terrorist syndicate” British Intelligence’s head of station in Finland, MI6’s Harry Carr, recruited Bandera’s followers. From the mid-1930s onward MI6 joined in funding the Galician OEN’s anti-Soviet terror operations together with Germany’s military intelligence unit, the Abwehr. The OUN-B (B for Bandera) would go on to establish their reputation for cruelty as Waffen SS extermination squads during operation Barbarossa.

Whether Carr was aware of the Nazi support for OUN or perhaps even coordinated with them is still an open question, but as of 1934 British and German sympathies for Eastern Europe’s terrorists were clearly on the same page when it came to Russia and it didn’t end with a random and isolated MI6 station chief.

As with their French associates, influential right wing networks within Britain’s intelligence services found common cause with Eastern Europe’s fascist anti-communist resistance movements even after the Soviets became Britain’s ally in 1941. One group within the rightwing of the Conservative Party, the Imperial Policy Group (IPG) which maintained strong ties to the head of the Polish government-in-exile, General Wladyslaw Sikorski, was even known to favor a Nazi victory to that of the Soviet Union. Authoritarian but not outwardly Fascist prior to the war, Intermarium immediately joined up with Nazi intelligence following German occupation and remained so throughout the war. By the end of 1944, MI6 was actively recruiting known collaborators and fascists amongst all the exile organizations and as Soviet troops moved from the east, they would be activated to provide intelligence, propaganda and operational support for what London was certain was a coming war against Moscow.

Join us for Part 4 as we explore the post-World War II merger of anti-Soviet covert forces and the emergence of an elite intelligence operation known as the Cercle, which would secretly begin the process of shifting the West’s political dialogue away from the center and toward their extreme Fascist right-wing views.

Copyright – 2017 Fitzgerald & Gould All rights reserved

“The Neocon Takeover of America Series”

Part 1: Darkness at Noon

Part 2: The West is Disintegrating

Part 3: Engineering Public Perception to the Right for the Right

Part 4:  Ceaseless Propaganda, Outright Lies and Distorted Facts

Please join us in September for the conclusion to our series when we resume with the final installments detailing how events created by national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter administration, opened the door for a globalist/syndicalist takeover under the cover of American Empire – a takeover in the works since the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in 1918.


Part 2: The West is Disintegrating “The Neocon Takeover of America Series”

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017

OpEdNews August 22, 2017            veteranstoday.com

By Paul Fitzgerald Elizabeth Gould

Democracy and freedom of expression are under attack. There is blood in the streets. How did it get that way? Where did it come from, what are its sources and what continues to drive it? This four-part series will look at the origin of those sources and unlock connections that when understood should open doors of perception that have been locked shut for far too long.

.


Cover of Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West first published in 1918. Many denied that Spengler’s prediction was true.
(Image by Cover of vol II. Published by C.H. Beck, Munich, 1922.)
Permission Details DMCA

“Tensions between Russia and the U.S. are again on the rise and the risk of a trans-Atlantic trade war is greater than ever, which would have devastating consequences for the global economy. The West as an entity, it would seem, is disintegrating.

Der Spiegel Magazine — June 30, 2017

On the eve of the 2017 G-20 summit in Hamburg the view of the United States from Germany is grim. Europe is overrun with refugees from NATO’s wars in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Africa while President Trump makes impossible demands and offers nothing in return. In a scene reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s, angry masses riot in the streets of Hamburg protesting austerity and economic inequality. Like 18th-century French Royals, the European Union’s detached and disaffected ruling elites struggle to deal with events beyond their control. The lessons of the past go unlearned, the classic mistakes of the ages repeated. The EU, a post-World War II project of the CIA, is broken. America’s role as a unipower has ended in bitterness and without ceremony. The post-war world order held together for better or worse by the perception of American omnipotence and the ideology of casino capitalism is disintegrating fast and with it “The West as an entity.”

Decline of the West

The end did not come suddenly. As disappointing as it may be to the fulminating anti-Trump political sphere, the “culture” of Western civilization has been in a state of confusion over its decline for some time. It is only befitting a cosmic joke that an American hotel/casino owner should bring down the curtain on it.

One hundred years ago in the run-up to World War I, the visionary historian/philosopher Oswald Spengler produced a radical analysis of civilization and culture entitled The Decline of the West, Form and Actuality. Written before the war, but published in 1918 in the aftermath of German defeat, the book became an immediate success and has for nearly one hundred years been challenging successive generations of geopoliticians to come to terms with it.

In Decline of the West, Spengler defines “cultures” as an organic whole that evolves through a life cycle of spring, summer, autumn and winter and then fades away. The final and death phase of this cultural evolution Spengler defines as “civilization” itself or the rule of the rational where only “the brain rules because the soul has abdicated.” As demonstrated throughout history, civilizations come and go and by World War I, Europe had achieved the high point in this cyclical experience and had no place to go but down.

As an inspiration to the young James Burnham, Spengler divided the existence of all things into a duality of the formal and the real, between the thinkers and the doers, the “sword side” and the “spindle side” which at the end of its endless cycle returns to formlessness. To Spengler and to Burnham the final phase of civilization comes as democracy gives way to what Burnham called the Oligarchy but Spengler referred to as Caesarism. It is a place in which the once-vibrant institutions of civilization have become spiritually dead, money has become valueless, and all the wars are cruel private wars waged by tyrants for the private possession of the world.

Between the Hamburg crowd’s protest under the banner of Welcome to Hell, and Donald Trump’s challenge to the Europeans whether the West had the “will to survive” the time has come for Americans to ask themselves some important questions; what then is this entity called the West that is disintegrating? Could this miserable ending have been avoided? And who and what exactly are responsible for bringing us to these gates of hell?

To Spengler, Western civilization was always a Faustian bargain. “In the poetry of the West, Faustian Man figures, first as Parzeval or Tristan, then (modified always into harmony with the epoch) as Hamlet, Don Quixote, Don Juan and eventually Faust or Werther.” Having already sold his soul to the devil, Western Man has been freed to decide his own fate. From Spengler to James Burnham to Patrick Buchanan the school of 20th-century conservative and neoconservative/fascist thought has blamed the West’s decline on the betrayal of this contract by “soft” liberal values. The Third Reich promised to turn the clock back by crushing the communist heresy and returning Germany to its martial glories of the past. Hitler’s invasion of Russia was named Operation Barbarossa after Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa’s 12th-century crusade. But instead of a German renewal, Hitler’s scheme to thwart the end only brought it nearer.

The post-Vietnam rise of Ronald Reagan and the new right promised an ideological revival as well, a return to core conservative values and a new morning in America. In practice Reagan’s anti-government policies, his massive and unnecessary defense buildup and reckless trickle-down economics hastened its decline by decades and in the end destroyed the fabric of American society.

As it was in the past and remains now, the right’s use of Machiavellian tactics to turn the tide in its favor almost always works and in the end invariably winds up bringing down the house. The bitter philosophical conflict between idealism (form) and reality and what constitutes a just society goes back to the origin of Western thought and has produced profound political contradictions throughout the centuries. The arch-neoconservative Jeanne Kirkpatrick argued back in 1979 in an essay regarding the emerging new class in American politics, “The goal of the new-class reformer–whether of Left or Right–is to bring the real into conformity with the ideal (that is, with an idea of reality), [which] manifests a broader belief that social institutions can and should conform to and serve abstract principles. The most serious problems with this rationalist approach were recognized by Aristotle, who criticized Plato’s blueprint for the ideal state… Aristotle also argued that experience and law were better guides than reason alone to the good society and that Plato’s proposal would sacrifice real goods to illusory ideals.”

Kirkpatrick’s essay on the dangers of idealism should stand as a textbook study for James Burnham’s Machiavellians. Kirkpatrick would soon become the Reagan administration’s spokeswoman at the UN for the new neoconservative class with its emphasis on “illusory ideals” of a worldwide democratic revolution and service to abstract principles over experience and the law. But, as laid out by James Burnham in his Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, the new Machiavellians must delude the masses with lies and outright fraud if necessary to maintain control.

Kirkpatrick’s “idea of reality” was shaped by a hybrid neoconservative/fascist ideology whose roots lay in the social chaos of the early 20th century; World War I, the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Trotskyist schism within Marxist/Leninism. Supported by the Pentagon’s top brass from World War II forward and then brewed together by the CIA with Europe’s leftover fascist elites, Lenin’s followers metastasized from Trotskyist intellectuals into Defense Intellectuals. From the 1970s onward they would become a self-perpetuating force for war inside both Democratic and Republican parties and a fifth column for undermining any thought of normal diplomatic relations with Russia. The Reagan administration provided a platform for this new class of former Trotskyists who were willing to sacrifice anything real or imagined for their illusory ideals. But the ultimate success of their rise to power relied on more than just a Marxist dialectic of infiltration and subversion.

The neoconservative political takeover of the 1970s was made possible by a network of old right-wing European and American interests dedicated to overthrowing Western democracies and replacing them with a new class of fascist transnational elites. These elites, currently referred to as globalists but prior to World War II as Synarchists, have long plotted the overthrow of the nation state and rule by a one-world government. But none of it could have happened without the covert assistance of rogue right-wing factions of the West’s intelligence services and a brutal but sophisticated propaganda campaign backed by the CIA, to control the West’s perceptions of what that world would look like.

Join us for Part 3 as we look at the synarchy of fascist organizations vying for power and influence prior to World War II and their revival and consolidation under an exclusive Cold War circle of corporate power aimed at eliminating the nation state and democracy.

Copyright – 2017 Fitzgerald & Gould All rights reserved


Categories