Russia Furious As U.S. Navy Destroyer Approaches Syria Without Notification

This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

Late on Monday we reported that US Navy Destroyer, USS Donald Cook (DDG-75), equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles, as well as the Aegis missile defence system, was approaching the port of Tartus in Syria, which doubles as the location for the Syrian logistics base of the Russian Navy. According to CNN Turk, the US destroyer was at at a distance of 100 km from the port, as of Monday.

The destroyer, which left the Cypriot port of Larnaka and was headed for the Syrian shore, was reportedly buzzed by Russian warplanes which circled above the US warship four times.

#USSDonaldCook departed #Larnaca, #Cyprus April 9, 2018, after completing a scheduled port visit April, 7, 2018. #SteadyPresence @USEmbassyCyprus https://t.co/BnCxx21OHt

— Naval Forces Europe (@USNavyEurope) April 9, 2018

To be sure, Russia is concerned, and seemingly angry, that another showdown may be imminent. According to Pravda, the Chairman of the State Duma Defence Committee Vladimir Shamanov said that the United States did not notify Russia of the approach of the group of US warships to the Russian naval base in Tartus.

“A group of ships of the US Navy has appeared at a distance of 150 miles from the Tartus region. It is common in international practice potential participants of events in the area should be notified accordingly in advance. We have not been notified, although we had legally ratified the agreement on two bases in Tartus and Khmeymim,” the official said.

“Moreover, US President Donald Trump said that he would think about the missile attack on Syria despite any resolutions at the UN Security Council. All this smells of something are outside the framework of universally recognised international norms,” Shamanov added, suggesting that Russia is preparing for a Syria attack.

More troubling is that also on Monday, Russia’s Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzia said that the Americans would have to deal with “serious consequences” should they attack Syria.

“We have repeatedly warned the American side about highly negative consequences that may follow if they apply weapons against the legitimate Syrian government, and especially if the use of these weapons – God forbid, affects our military men, who legally stay in Syria,” the Russian Ambassador to the UN said at a meeting of the UN Security Council.

However, after yesterday news that the office of Trump’s personal lawyer was raided by the FBI and that attorney-client privilege between Trump and Cohen may be compromised, it now appears that in a desperate diversion attempt from his domestic troubles, a military response against Syria by Trump is now inevitable, especially following today’s news that the president is canceling his trip to Peru’s Summit of the Americas in order to “oversee” the Syria Military Response.

Another Western Coup to Install a “Compliant” Government in Iran

Politicians, oligarchs, and a plethora of multinational firms and NGO’s (some of the latter part and parcel to the MIC, or Military Industrial Complex) are “crafting” a “revolution” within Iran. A coup d’état is labeled as a “revolution from within” to disguise its true nature. At the heart of the latest “revolution” are the millennial generation: the twenty-somethings who are most easily manipulated by the older, craftier, and more experienced in their own country and the puppet masters outside of it.

The Mainstream Media (MSM) right this moment is “documenting” (or fabricating, whichever you prefer, though both are synonymous in the MSM) news on the Iranian situation. Crafting the narrative. The carefully-scripted “news” buildup has begun: the growing unrest/human rights abuses/government crackdowns on helpless protestors/the call by the U.S. President to “stay the course and we’re with you” …ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

There is a “watchdog” organization, replete with lawyers and globalists at its helm, called Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. Among two of its NGO’s (Nongovernmental Organizations) “championing” the rights of beleaguered Iran? Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. Yes, these are two of the hundreds owned and controlled (lock, stock, and barrel) by none other than George Soros. You can find out more about Soros and his NGO’s at the site www.discoverthenetworks.org.

Equally interesting is the following information that can be found at www.ngo-monitor.org, and here is an excerpt of that site talking about disclosure and reporting on earnings by these NGO’s:

“This report also examines contributions from Soros to international NGOs such as Human Rights Watch ($100 million) and Amnesty International, both of which focus disproportionate and biased attention on Israel. The Soros gift to Human Rights Watch came after a series of scandals, including fundraising in Saudi Arabia to promote its anti-Israel campaigns and support for the Ghaddafi family as “human rights reformers.” Concurrently, founder Robert Bernstein publicly renounced Human Rights Watch, and a number of core donors also withdrew their support.

In the second category are organizations that aim to shift U.S. public opinion regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The report examines the role of the Soros family in supporting U.S.-based organizations such as J Street, Media Matters, the Center for American Progress, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), and the Institute for Middle East Understanding. These groups share the goal of influencing American public opinion and leaders on Middle East policy issues, and reducing domestic support for Israel. NIAC seeks to enhance the public standing of the Iranian regime and shield it from efforts to prevent the illicit acquisition of nuclear weapons.”

As you can see, each of the two NGO’s mentioned received $100 million. In addition to this, the second paragraph of the excerpt shows that Soros has supported an American-based organization to influence Iran (the NIAC), and how American public opinion and U.S. Middle East policies are heavily influenced (if not controlled outright) by Soros and his minions.

An article surfaced from Reuters entitled “Iran’s leader blames enemies for unrest as death toll rises,” with a subheading of “Iran protests grow, death toll mounts.”  The Western Consumer-Marketing subjects read this skewed headline and subheading, and the “door” to their mind has been opened, ready for brainwashing. The headline makes it appear as if death and unrest are being blamed on foreign enemies when really, it’s Iran’s leadership. The second subheading: harmless people are protesting, and death is their reward.

Public opinion is being sculpted, as history is repeating itself. In 1909, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was formed as a subsidiary to Burmah Oil. The subsidiary would eventually become BP (British Petroleum). In 1914, Winston Churchill was then First Lord of the Admiralty of the Royal Navy of Britain. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (in Persia, the former name of the country known as “Iran” today) was funded by the British Government at Churchill’s prodding, in exchange for controlling interest (51%) by the British. In addition, prices for England’s oil were fixed for three decades.

In 1935, Persia renamed itself as Iran, and Reza Khan (Pahlavi), the man who had seized power and become the Shah 10 years earlier was now ready to bring in even more money from Britain. He also brought in Standard Oil of New Jersey and Standard Oil of California. These two became the oil giants Exxon and Chevron respectively years later. This shah was (unfortunately for him) friendly to the Germans during WWII, and in 1941, he was arrested by Britain and the USSR, and exiled to South Africa.

His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was “emplaced” upon the throne as the new Shah a month after his father was deposed. After he became Shah, he formed a government: naturally, one that was “friendly” to British and U.S. interests. He modernized much of the country and was malleable by his two “benefactors” of the U.S. and Britain. After the war ended, his leadership was challenged by a man named Mohammed Mosaddegh, a highly educated man from a family of great wealth and status.

Mossadegh despised the British and soon became a national political figure very popular with the Iranians, who viewed in him an opportunity to throw off British and American domination and oppression. He was chosen to be Prime Minister in 1951. His next step would be his last: to nationalize the oil industry in Iran. Britain and the United States then orchestrated a coup in 1953 and Mossadegh was ousted, and placed under house arrest for almost 15 years, until he died.

One of the key figures in this coup was a former OSS (Office of Strategic Services) operative who became a CIA agent by the name of Kermit Roosevelt. If the name sounds familiar, it should: he was none other than the grandson of former President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt. The coup was “Operation Ajax” to oust Mossadegh, and Roosevelt was none other than the Ground Operational Planner…and the coup required two attempts, the second of which was successful.

In 1954, President Eisenhower, the very one who decried the Military Industrial Complex and the nefarious plotting of secret organizations…awarded to Roosevelt…secretly…the National Security Medal in 1954. Roosevelt’s actions were declassified in 2014 and released by the U.S. National Security Archive.

There is also the religious factor: most Muslims (roughly 85%) are Sunni-Muslims. The Iranians are Shi’a, and Iran’s greatest Sunni enemy is none other than Saudi Arabia. Fast-forward to the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the overthrow of the Shah, the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini, and the storming of the U.S. embassy. Ever since the hostages were released, the U.S. has had almost no relations with Iran, that turned into an Islamic republic and ousted the British and Americans almost overnight.

American Exceptionalism, if closely scrutinized would be more aptly termed “American Imperialism” when viewed in the historical context of Iran.  Some other “key issues” can be found with other “Duck speak” news reports, such as “Iran Deadly Oil Protests Could Send Oil Prices To $100,” written by Panos Mourdoukoutas of Forbes, who follows this with the statement that the protests are what could push Iran into a war with Saudi Arabia. That to follow up scaring everybody into thinking that oil (a fully-manipulated, controlled, and taxed commodity) might end up bringing on Ragnarok if it reaches $100 per barrel. Such fears could spark another Middle Eastern oil crusade and a call to arms.

There are unanswered questions that if they were answered and made public? Certainly the “foreign enemies” would be exposed for who and what they are: British and American agents emplaced to foment dissent, with support from NGO’s and oligarchs, to create these protests. Such “crises” would spill over into other areas: human rights “violations,” alliances with other governments viewed as a “nuisance” by the U.S. (such as Syria), and, of course, the “necessity to protect the free flow of oil.” Any of these “crises” to be trumpeted Wag the Dog style by the MSM to the tune of Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA” tune.

The reality is that Iran is being prepped for a coup d’état, and human rights violations are the furthest reason from the truth that can be found for such a coup. The United States and its hegemony of European and American Rothschild-backed bankers, oligarchs, and politicos have been committing human rights violations against the American people for decades. It is all about oil, natural gas, money, strategic military deployment, and power. The lie is that it is all about “helping a friendly government to take root in Iran for the democracy and freedom of the people.”

In truth: it is all about installing a puppet-government and making Iran a client-state under IMF and U.S. control.

It remains to be seen who will rise to power if the U.S. coup succeeds. Whether a Shah or a President, the leader will be a puppet whose people will be subjected to U.S. and British rule once again.

Chris Hedges On The End Of Empire: "The Death Spiral Appears Unstoppable"

The American empire is coming to an end. The U.S. economy is being drained by wars in the Middle East and vast military expansion around the globe. It is burdened by growing deficits, along with the devastating effects of deindustrialization and global trade agreements. Our democracy has been captured and destroyed by corporations that steadily demand more tax cuts, more deregulation and impunity from prosecution for massive acts of financial fraud, all the while looting trillions from the U.S. treasury in the form of bailouts. The nation has lost the power and respect needed to induce allies in Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa to do its bidding. Add to this the mounting destruction caused by climate change and you have a recipe for an emerging dystopia. Overseeing this descent at the highest levels of the federal and state governments is a motley collection of imbeciles, con artists, thieves, opportunists and warmongering generals. And to be clear, I am speaking about Democrats, too.

Source: Mr.Fish

The empire will limp along, steadily losing influence until the dollar is dropped as the world’s reserve currency, plunging the United States into a crippling depression and instantly forcing a massive contraction of its military machine.

Short of a sudden and widespread popular revolt, which does not seem likely, the death spiral appears unstoppable, meaning the United States as we know it will no longer exist within a decade or, at most, two. The global vacuum we leave behind will be filled by China, already establishing itself as an economic and military juggernaut, or perhaps there will be a multipolar world carved up among Russia, China, India, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa and a few other states. Or maybe the void will be filled, as the historian Alfred W. McCoy writes in his book “In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power,” by “a coalition of transnational corporations, multilateral military forces like NATO, and an international financial leadership self-selected at Davos and Bilderberg” that will “forge a supranational nexus to supersede any nation or empire.”

Under every measurement, from financial growth and infrastructure investment to advanced technology, including supercomputers, space weaponry and cyberwarfare, we are being rapidly overtaken by the Chinese. “In April 2015 the U.S. Department of Agriculture suggested that the American economy would grow by nearly 50 percent over the next 15 years, while China’s would triple and come close to surpassing America’s in 2030,” McCoy noted. China became the world’s second largest economy in 2010, the same year it became the world’s leading manufacturing nation, pushing aside a United States that had dominated the world’s manufacturing for a century. The Department of Defense issued a sober report titled “At Our Own Peril: DoD Risk Assessment in a Post-Primacy World.” It found that the U.S. military “no longer enjoys an unassailable position versus state competitors,” and “it no longer can … automatically generate consistent and sustained local military superiority at range.” McCoy predicts the collapse will come by 2030.

Empires in decay embrace an almost willful suicide. Blinded by their hubris and unable to face the reality of their diminishing power, they retreat into a fantasy world where hard and unpleasant facts no longer intrude. They replace diplomacy, multilateralism and politics with unilateral threats and the blunt instrument of war.

This collective self-delusion saw the United States make the greatest strategic blunder in its history, one that sounded the death knell of the empire - the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The architects of the war in the George W. Bush White House, and the array of useful idiots in the press and academia who were cheerleaders for it, knew very little about the countries being invaded, were stunningly naive about the effects of industrial warfare and were blindsided by the ferocious blowback. They stated, and probably believed, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, although they had no valid evidence to support this claim. They insisted that democracy would be implanted in Baghdad and spread across the Middle East. They assured the public that U.S. troops would be greeted by grateful Iraqis and Afghans as liberators. They promised that oil revenues would cover the cost of reconstruction. They insisted that the bold and quick military strike—“shock and awe”—would restore American hegemony in the region and dominance in the world. It did the opposite. As Zbigniew Brzezinski noted, this “unilateral war of choice against Iraq precipitated a widespread delegitimation of U.S. foreign policy.”

Historians of empire call these military fiascos, a feature of all late empires, examples of “micro-militarism.” The Athenians engaged in micro-militarism when during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) they invaded Sicily, suffering the loss of 200 ships and thousands of soldiers and triggering revolts throughout the empire. Britain did so in 1956 when it attacked Egypt in a dispute over the nationalization of the Suez Canal and then quickly had to withdraw in humiliation, empowering a string of Arab nationalist leaders such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and dooming British rule over the nation’s few remaining colonies. Neither of these empires recovered.

“While rising empires are often judicious, even rational in their application of armed force for conquest and control of overseas dominions, fading empires are inclined to ill-considered displays of power, dreaming of bold military masterstrokes that would somehow recoup lost prestige and power,” McCoy writes.

“Often irrational even from an imperial point of view, these micromilitary operations can yield hemorrhaging expenditures or humiliating defeats that only accelerate the process already under way.”

Empires need more than force to dominate other nations. They need a mystique. This mystique—a mask for imperial plunder, repression and exploitation—seduces some native elites, who become willing to do the bidding of the imperial power or at least remain passive. And it provides a patina of civility and even nobility to justify to those at home the costs in blood and money needed to maintain empire. The parliamentary system of government that Britain replicated in appearance in the colonies, and the introduction of British sports such as polo, cricket and horse racing, along with elaborately uniformed viceroys and the pageantry of royalty, were buttressed by what the colonialists said was the invincibility of their navy and army. England was able to hold its empire together from 1815 to 1914 before being forced into a steady retreat. America’s high-blown rhetoric about democracy, liberty and equality, along with basketball, baseball and Hollywood, as well as our own deification of the military, entranced and cowed much of the globe in the wake of World War II. Behind the scenes, of course, the CIA used its bag of dirty tricks to orchestrate coups, fix elections and carry out assassinations, black propaganda campaigns, bribery, blackmail, intimidation and torture. But none of this works anymore.

The loss of the mystique is crippling. It makes it hard to find pliant surrogates to administer the empire, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. The photographs of physical abuse and sexual humiliation imposed on Arab prisoners at Abu Ghraib inflamed the Muslim world and fed al-Qaida and later Islamic State with new recruits. The assassination of Osama bin Laden and a host of other jihadist leaders, including the U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, openly mocked the concept of the rule of law. The hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees fleeing our debacles in the Middle East, along with the near-constant threat from militarized aerial drones, exposed us as state terrorists. We have exercised in the Middle East the U.S. military’s penchant for widespread atrocities, indiscriminate violence, lies and blundering miscalculations, actions that led to our defeat in Vietnam.

The brutality abroad is matched by a growing brutality at home. Militarized police gun down mostly unarmed, poor people of color and fill a system of penitentiaries and jails that hold a staggering 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although Americans represent only 5 percent of global population. Many of our cities are in ruins. Our public transportation system is a shambles. Our educational system is in steep decline and being privatized. Opioid addiction, suicide, mass shootings, depression and morbid obesity plague a population that has fallen into profound despair. The deep disillusionment and anger that led to Donald Trump’s election - a reaction to the corporate coup d’état and the poverty afflicting at least half of the country - have destroyed the myth of a functioning democracy. Presidential tweets and rhetoric celebrate hate, racism and bigotry and taunt the weak and the vulnerable. The president in an address before the United Nations threatened to obliterate another nation in an act of genocide. We are worldwide objects of ridicule and hatred. The foreboding for the future is expressed in the rash of dystopian films, motion pictures that no longer perpetuate American virtue and exceptionalism or the myth of human progress.

“The demise of the United States as the preeminent global power could come far more quickly than anyone imagines,” McCoy writes. “Despite the aura of omnipotence empires often project, most are surprisingly fragile, lacking the inherent strength of even a modest nation-state. Indeed, a glance at their history should remind us that the greatest of them are susceptible to collapse from diverse causes, with fiscal pressures usually a prime factor. For the better part of two centuries, the security and prosperity of the homeland has been the main objective for most stable states, making foreign or imperial adventures an expendable option, usually allocated no more than 5 percent of the domestic budget. Without the financing that arises almost organically inside a sovereign nation, empires are famously predatory in their relentless hunt for plunder or profit—witness the Atlantic slave trade, Belgium’s rubber lust in the Congo, British India’s opium commerce, the Third Reich’s rape of Europe, or the Soviet exploitation of Eastern Europe.”

When revenues shrink or collapse, McCoy points out, “empires become brittle.”

“So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly wrong, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, eleven years for the Ottomans, seventeen for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, just twenty-seven years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003 [when the U.S. invaded Iraq],” he writes.

Many of the estimated 69 empires that have existed throughout history lacked competent leadership in their decline, having ceded power to monstrosities such as the Roman emperors Caligula and Nero. In the United States, the reins of authority may be in the grasp of the first in a line of depraved demagogues.

“For the majority of Americans, the 2020s will likely be remembered as a demoralizing decade of rising prices, stagnant wages, and fading international competitiveness,” McCoy writes. The loss of the dollar as the global reserve currency will see the U.S. unable to pay for its huge deficits by selling Treasury bonds, which will be drastically devalued at that point. There will be a massive rise in the cost of imports. Unemployment will explode. Domestic clashes over what McCoy calls “insubstantial issues” will fuel a dangerous hypernationalism that could morph into an American fascism.

A discredited elite, suspicious and even paranoid in an age of decline, will see enemies everywhere. The array of instruments created for global dominance—wholesale surveillance, the evisceration of civil liberties, sophisticated torture techniques, militarized police, the massive prison system, the thousands of militarized drones and satellites—will be employed in the homeland. The empire will collapse and the nation will consume itself within our lifetimes if we do not wrest power from those who rule the corporate state.

Ron Paul: Here's The Truth About The War Between The Alt Right And Cultural Marxists

Despite recently being demonetized by YouTube, possibly for his anti-establishment views and slamming President Trump’s decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul is back with a video addressing the widening left-right political divide in the US – and the role that the “immoral use” of government force has played in fomenting the US’s present political crisis.

Claiming that the US is "witnessing a battle between authoritarian groups in America", the prominent libertarian and former politician says that the "Alt-Right" and Cultural Marxists are fighting to control a government that is bankrupt, doesn"t follow the Constitution, and controls a foreign empire that is running on fumes.  Ron Paul describes our dilemma.

“Most Americans agree the violent confrontation between the alt-right and the cultural Marxist is serious, dangerous and getting worse. Understanding economics, cultural differences and the acceptance of authoritarianism is required to find the answer to the crisis.

Rejecting a society based on personal liberty led to the conflict we are now witnessing: replacing authoritarianism with volunteerism must be our goal. The immoral use of government force caused this crisis and expanding it will only increase the hatred between the two sides.

Though there are leaders on both sides promoting violence, large numbers are attracted to the raging culture war for emotional reasons in response to the lies and the incitement by those whose ulterior motive is seeking power, wealth and promoting a dangerous new world order.”

The biggest problem that Paul sees is that neither the left or the right have made liberty – both economic and political – a priority. In fact, just the opposite is happening. Both the left and the right are moving in a more authoritarian direction.

Meanwhile, the left’s penchant for labeling all of their ideological opponents as Nazis and racists is helping to sow chaos and division, Paul says.

“One side has been labeled the alt-right, the other cultural Marxism. The right would like to reduce the debate to the differences between Communism and a populist government that emphasizes caring for Americans over foreigners. The Left would have us believe it"s merely a conflict with supporters of racism and injustice and cultural Marxism. Neither side speaks of Liberty. The alt-right is made up of conservatives, populists, and pro white enthusiasts, but all are labeled Nazis and fascists by the left.”

“Some are just fed up with the false charges and the penalties toward whites by leftist racists and the extremism of political correctness. The vicious labeling of all those who are frustrated and who join with those who are angry as Nazis and racist is only for the purpose of creating chaos. The left demands that all Trump supporters fit into this category. This is the strategy for fomenting race riots and civil war. No doubt Trump makes himself vulnerable to these inaccurate and wild charges by his enemies. The left promotes cultural Marxism and class warfare yet there are fellow travelers who represent typical liberal activists progressives and white haters. Many on the Left generally despise any minority who chooses to be a conservative or libertarian.”

Leftists, Paul says, are far more cynical than their idealistic proclamations would suggest. White leftists only see minorities as important within the context of their votes, and are quick to treat minorities who identify as conservative or libertarian as traitors to the cause. Meanwhile, neither side understands how liberty leads to economic prosperity for the largest number of citizens.

“Too many on the left see minorities as only important when their votes can be corralled. From their viewpoint as minorities, well-being success must come only from benefiting from doctrines promoted by forced wealth redistribution by the liberal left it"s all about control it"s cynical racism.”

“The philosophic issues that divide us are what matters. Both sides accept the principle of government aggression as a proper tool of government. Neither side understands how true freedom leads to the prosperity that both sides pay lip service to. Neither side understands the shortcomings of deceptive, short-lived prosperity that comes with government deficits and monetary inflation which always ends badly, especially for the people who are supposed to be benefiting by government welfare spending. The ending of such a period of artificial wealth is now apparent and since it"s not understood by either side of the current raging conflict, both are proposing different government solutions with sharp disagreements in the blame game.”

Both the left and the right claim to be the torchbearers of the American experiment. But neither side cares about what the Constitution says, Paul said. Furthermore, both sides banded together to support the Bush doctrine, a willingness to countenance foreign interventionism that persists across the modern political spectrum. Leftists and conservatives take advantage of superficial differences to divide people – the left via identity politics and the right via their racist views.  

“Both sides claim patriotic loyalty and ownership of the American tradition. Neither group cares about what the Constitution says both sides support America"s world Empire its militarism the military industrial complex and horribly dangerous Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. Neither side condemns our aggression or foreign interventionism. There is extensive support by both for economic planning by government though in different degrees and for different purposes.”

“This means no complaints about protectionism, Federal Reserve power or subsidies to the special interest groups. For our bipartisan leaders, it is only who gets to distribute the loot that matters. Identity politics has taken over in forming alliances. This encourages lying, race preferences demagoguery and inciting hatred since the concept of Liberty is something that applies to individuals rather than special interest groups it is therefore rejected.”

“Liberty is not something that can be distributed according to the various groups that claim victimization and a right to other people"s earnings. The tool used especially by the far left is extreme political correctness that regulates speech by claiming hateful motivation by anyone with whom they disagree. These charges are inevitably spread with a broad brush by a complicit media advocating both types of authoritarianism. Left and right purposely divide people by natural and acceptable differences. Pursuing the cause of Liberty unites all those who honestly seek peace and prosperity in distinction from those who resort to authoritarianism. Divisiveness will cause both sides to fail with their half-hearted efforts to force an escalation of violence and the destruction of the middle class.”

Unfortunately, neither the left or the right has expressed concern with the “deeply flawed” US monetary system, Paul said. The Federal Reserve has been allowed to debase the US dollar through the complicity of both left- and right-leaning politicians. And now, as Paul notes, the bills are all coming due.

“Neither side will face up to the economic reality of a deeply flawed economic system and the pending collapse of the American Empire. Sadly neither side complains about the danger of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes and decisions being made to go to war without congressional approval, the dependency on deficit spending, and the monetary mischief of the Fed. The bills are now coming due and the political chatter associated with the current social strife serves to distract from the philosophical impurities from which we have been infected for many decades. The number of enemies that we have generated by our foreign policy is ignored and the problem made worse by our economic and military meddling around the world our inability to pay our bills and meet our unfunded liabilities will be the limiting factor.”

In short, the US’s economic and military meddling around the world have led to a reliance on unsustainable deficit spending. This, Paul contends, is the greatest threat facing American society - and neither side is talking about a solution.

His full video is below.

On the Commemoration Of World War I: From Woodrow Wilson To Donald Trump

Authored by Antonius Aquinas,

It is altogether fitting that the US attack on a Syrian airport, the dropping of a MOAB on defenseless Afghanistan, and the potential outbreak of nuclear war with North Korea have all come in the very month one hundred years earlier that an American president led the nation on its road to empire.  President Trump’s aggressive actions and all of America’s previous imperialistic endeavors can ultimately be traced to Woodrow Wilson’s disastrous decision to bring the country into the First World War on April 6, 1917.

This month, therefore, should be one of national mourning for the decision to enter that horrific conflict changed America and, for that matter, the world for the worse.

Had the US remained neutral, the war would most likely have come to a far quicker and more politically palatable conclusion, however, the entry of America on the Entente side prolonged the conflict and extended its economic and political destruction to such a degree that the Old Order could not be put back together again.  The great dynasties (Germany, Russia, and especially Austria) were ruthlessly dismantled at the conclusion of WWI by the explicit designs of Wilson which left a power vacuum across Central Europe.  The vacuum, of course, was filled by the various collectivist “isms” which produced the landscape for another global conflagration even greater than WWI.

For America, after a brief revival of isolationism and non-interventionist sentiment throughout the land, the country, led by another ruthless and power-mad chief executive, provoked and schemed its way into the second general European war within a generation, this time via “the backdoor” with Japan.  A second US intervention, making the war global, could not have come about had there been no WWI, or if that war had ended on better terms.

After the Second World War, the US emerged as the world’s dominant power with bases across the globe and entered into a string of never ending hot and cold wars, regime changes, destabilizations, assassinations, bombings, blockades, and economic sanctions that have continued to this very day and hour.  Quickly after the war’s conclusion, the American media, academia, and the security and military industrial complex had to invent the myth that the Soviet Union and the US were of equal military might which turned out to be a blatant lie.  After being decimated in WWII and its adherence to unworkable and economic destructive socialistic planning, the Soviet Union could never produce the wealth necessary to maintain a global empire as the US did, and still does.  The “Soviet threat” was always a ruse to get gullible Americans to vote for and support greater and greater “defense” spending.

Besides Ron Paul and to a far lesser extent his son, Donald Trump was the only viable candidate who spoke of taking a new, less interventionist foreign policy which is why he was able to garner so much support from millions of empire-weary Americans during the presidential campaign.  He rightly called the Iraqi War a “disaster,” spoke of getting along with Russia, and the US’s commitment to NATO should be rethought, among other refreshing comments on foreign affairs.

In one of the most memorable and hopeful passages of his Inaugural Address, the new president championed non-intervention abroad:

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow.

Unlike Ron Paul, however, Trump had no grounding in a true America First foreign policy.  While critical of his predecessors’ foreign policy decisions, Trump was not opposed philosophically to the US Empire or saw it as the greatest threat to world peace which currently exists.

Without an ideological basis against American globalism, Trump was easy pickings against the threats and machinations of the Deep State.  Without a refutation of the ideology which drove Wilson and all of his successors to promote military adventurism abroad, Trump will be little different than his imperial predecessors and with a personality that is thin-skinned, impulsive and unpredictable, Trump could, God forbid, become another Woodrow Wilson.