I thought this conflict between Russia and the U.S. was immensely dangerous a year ago. Now, it’s terrifyingly dangerous. We are much closer to nuclear annihilation than most people would like to believe...
A Ukrainian spokesperson has just said something along the lines of "hey, Kherson was "supposed" to be a red line for Putin to use tactical nukes, and he did not - so as far as Ukraine is concerned, Putin will not use tactical nukes, and so can be pushed and pushed and then pushed out of Crimea". I had said elsewhere that the West is counting on Putin being more decent - actually more decent than zero decent - and letting the West eventually just roll over Russia. And after installing Ukrainian troops in deserted civilian structures in Bakhmut - now that I think about it, Ukraine hides troops and weapons and ammunition in civilian OCCUPIED housing all over the country - Ukraine is whinging about Russia's possible use of phosphorus-type ammunition in the civilian areas of Bakhmut - that do not have any civilians left, just Ukrainian soldiers. Unless the Ukrainians have kept civilians in Bakhmut as hostages, of course. This from the folks who cheerfully bombed homes and markets and such since 2014. And who intend to use depleted uranium ammunition on the Russians. IMO, this is going to reek of, perhaps, false flag. The go-to Western way of warfare. Civilians and the land be damned. As usual.
When a previous White House press secretary said " human rights are in our(US)DNA", the irony made us laugh. Now when the US has perfected the 'false flag' narrative, they want us to believe that Russia is using it - the latest is that Russia is planning to bomb the nuclear power plant which their troops have secured and are guarding.
> A Ukrainian spokesperson has just said something along the lines of "hey, Kherson was "supposed" to be a red line for Putin to use tactical nukes, and he did not - so as far as Ukraine is concerned, Putin will not use tactical nukes, and so can be pushed and pushed and then pushed out of Crimea". I had said elsewhere that the West is counting on Putin being more decent
So now not using nukes in retaliation for the Ukrainians taking back parts of their own countries is considered "more decent"? Seriously, listen to yourself.
What, exactly, was supposed to happen here? Just watch Ukraine continue to merrily shell and kill civilians? As it has been doing since 2014? Expect Russia and China to be fine with being surrounded by US nukes? All of this has been eye-opening - I had not known that the Cuban missile crisis started with the US training nukes on Russia from within Turkey; I thought the nukes in Cuba initiated the crisis. The US/NATO/EU planned all of this. And "their own countries"? Countries and borders have been changing since men figured out how to kill each other over territorial disputes. The earth was not created with preexisting map lines painted on it.
Also - the West is publicly intent on breaking up Russia into handy little profitable chunks. How was that going to be okay? I am not "pro-Russia" - I am against the wars and sanctions killing people. For nothing more than power and profit.
So when one side is losing a war, after 100,000+ dead - say Russia starts losing the war, they'll just then announce, ok, you win and we won't use nukes?
Or, let's say the Ukrainians start losing the war, which according to some in the West, with their next great Spring offensive (despite not having any air superiority to speak of) - they will push the Russians back to Crimea, after they have already lost 100,000+ dead - if the Ukrainians instead start losing the war - even if the Polish decide to send their armies in as well - will they and NATO then just give up and not find a way to use a tactical nuke, either given to them by the West illicitly, or from the black market?
And if a tactical nuke does hit the Russians lines and wipes out a key defensive position, will the Russians then just say, well that's ok, we still won't use nukes?
I just don't know. The whole war, ignoring the massive human death on both sides, the massive destruction of the Ukrainian infrastucture, the massive disruption to the world's economy (more especially the West) - ignoring all that, will one side just allow the other side to continue slaughtering 100s of thousands, and not use a nuke if they can?
My reasoning is as follows: At the end of World War 2, a lot of Anglo-American bigdeals wanted to start World War 3 right away, or pretty soon, while the US had the advantage, being the last man standing more or less. But it was already risky even then -- you never know how a war is going to turn out. _Never_. So they didn't do it then. Since then, things have grown slowly worse for the US -- not catastrophically, slowly, as for that legendary frog in the heating water. It is clear that, from the bigdeal point of view, the odds have deteriorated -- not the odds of just losing something, the odds of being incinerated. And even if they have their bunkers (1) they don't want to rule over bunkers; (2) a lot of people, some of whom are not at all nice, know where those bunkers are. Let's mention also (3): the bigdeals are watching one another very carefully, because most of them don't want to rule over bunkers, they want to continue the good life with their fans and servants kissing their nether parts just as today. (This was revealed when Nixon was on his way out: many bigdeals started taking care that he could not try to salvage his situation by starting a major / catastrophic war. There were some completely believable stories about it after the crisis when the schmucks didn't care any more, assuming they knew anything in the first place.)
It is true accidents do happen, and black swans sometimes arrive, but as the man said about "the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong", that's not the way to bet. I'm betting that the bigdeals are not going to blow the world up, because unlike World Wars 1 and 2, the bigdeals know they, too, will go.
In any case, if I'm wrong, none of us are likely to be worrying about it for very long.
> So when one side is losing a war, after 100,000+ dead - say Russia starts losing the war, they'll just then announce, ok, you win and we won't use nukes?
By that logic you'd find your self having to concede anything to someone willing to use nuclear blackmail.
I don't think the ruling class have figured out how to have a nuclear war and still keep their lives and their crap. So for the time being we're probably OK and can go on deriding them.
All those monarchs now long gone, probably felt the same at the dawn of the First World War which ended their empires and monarchies. The impending disaster gained a momentum of its own.
I think Germany's plan to expand an oil dependent navy (instead of coal) was considered an immediate threat to British interests (naval supremacy and its middle eastern oil fields) Churchill, as first Lord of the Admiralty, much taken with the first spy novel by Erskine Childers 'The Riddle of the Sands' and its story of a German planned invasion of our noble shores and responded by strengthening the navy (escalation).
I am not so sure that kaiser Wilhelm's intentions were ever peaceful despite his words (these European monarchs loved a bit of vainglorious empire building).
Also, I am not sure all in the British Empire establishment wanted another long and expensive war, Joseph Chamberlain's words: 'The weary Titan staggers under the too vast orb of his fate', indicates, that at least some recognised the tenuous nature of an overstretched empire and would have had serious reservations about committing to another full scale war especially not long having emerged from the difficult Boer war.
"In 1960, the USSR accused the U.S. of running an aerial spying program over its territory. Our government denied it to the American people, only admitting it when confronted with the captured U-2 pilot Gary Powers. Americans were genuinely shocked that their government would lie… "
Haven't things changed. Lies? Where do you start....as far back as the Korea War culminating in the biggest of them all. WMD in Iraq, JFK's death, 9/11, such lies hardly raising a question any more and getting bigger and better every year.
That's been Ukraine's line all these years gaining intensity in 2014 when they started the Donbass assault. Their population had been convinced Donbass/Russia did everything there to themselves to blame poor Ukraine.
In all seriousness, all this talk by US officials about Russian false flag attacks significantly increases the likelihood that the US is about to use a false flag attack of hitherto unimaginable scale.
With the Ukrainian/NATO military on its last legs, and with Russia winning over the hearts and minds of every country in the world that has been serially raped by the US over the last 70 years (and more), and with the banking system tanking and the dollar losing its reserve currency status, the US national security state is desperate and on the verge of collapse, and so will do literally anything to preserve their Empire. My guess is that a tactical nuclear explosion will occur in Ukraine, probably on or near the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station, and the US and the western media will of course blame it on the Russians, even though the the most obviously devastating effects will be downwind in Russia. At this point, the capacity of the US to do evil in the world knows no bounds.
Compromise has a positive connotation, but most public commentators are forced to make the less admirable kind: RFK Jr just made a plea on unHerd for understanding Russia and Putin's position in the Ukraine/US proxy war, and was forced to refer to Putin as a "gangster' as a sop to the mindless haters who must have some blood, whether literal or metaphorical. Biden almost surely has dementia, but he was always a scoundrel, and that fact is supported not only by his position on and support for the Iraq attack of 2003, but by the Senate hearing with Scott Ritter: scoundrel is written all over him. We speak of the sanctity of "truth" and "free speech" but there are lies so sacrosanct that they can never be unpacked. We must make detours around them, but we should never deny their existence.
RFK Jr lost me the minute he decided to run as a Democrat candidate and not an Independent. I already went down the Democratic party road with Bernie Sanders promising me water from the moon, and then selling us all out when the time was right for him to do so - for his seriously corrupt party. Never again!
I'd like to be a purist, but it doesn't work in this world. Sanders at least introduced the idea of universal health care, so softened the ground for it. RFK Jr cannot change the world on his own, but he is preferable to a lot of the dreck on board the political ship. A lone wolf's howl is often lost in the wind. We need a quiet, peaceful revolution, and perhaps these softer voices will inspire one.
I wish I could believe that. But after Sanders - I have no trust in any politician running inside either of these corrupt parties. I don't feel like a purist, after what Sanders did to his followers and to his movement - I feel more like a trauma victim, who has been disillusioned of any politician who says all the right things - and then still runs as a Democrat.
I have to agree with you I think it is far more insidious than most have the will to see.
When Sanders met with Obama at the Whitehouse and came out to the media and got that pat on the back "there there burny now you step down like a good little mensch,
It reminded me of Bush patting McCain on the back...yeah you go run for president and make it look good while we vetted Obama for the job already. Here's Palin to make you look the fool. That will sinch it in the bag.
Its all orchestrated ten steps ahead of the ignorant public at any given time.
And the public has been systematically trained to be trainable to never see the slight of hand.
RFK Jr recently leveled serious critiques at the U.S. empire and for that he caught my attention. But Michael Tracey has been digger deeper into his recent past and the contradictions are as alarming as they are striking. He appears to be little better than another political opportunist. Before anyone throws their lot in with RFK Jr it's worth taking a much closer look.
I was a loyal Dem voter for nearly 40 years always buying into the lesser evil argument. Now I don't vote and I consider that a reasoned, pragmatic, realist approach to politics in the U.S. Accusing people of being "purists" (which I've done in the past) is just another way of making sure the existing power structure remains in place. Incrementalism has not worked and is not what is needed. Any promise of incremental change is a lie used to secure votes. Democrats (and Republicans) are war-mongering servants of empire.
The main problem I have now with the "lesser evil" argument is that the "lesser" is now so miniscule, and the evil of both corrupt parties so great - that the argument no longer makes a lick of sense to me. It's just fascism medium or fascism heavy - but it's still fascism. Neither party does the country any good - and to perpetuate the scam is a fool's errand.
Regardless of the degree it's the "evil" in there that should disqualify any consideration. Politicians are expected to make compromises and concessions as long as they are open and honest about it. But not any amount of evil.
Maybe RFK Jr. is giving the Dems the rope to hang themselves with.Maybve he's just setting the trap.
Obviously he knows they sabotaged Bernie (twice) and will do the same to him. But by giving them the chance and then documenting their sabotage, he puts himself in a much better position.
Why can't folks see this as his possible strategy, instead of running him down and smearing him?
RFK Jr giving the Dems a rope to hang themselves with would be great. Maybe he is setting a trap. The major problem for me is thinking any dem politician is truly doing something detrimental to the party. I thought Bernie was going to lead a revolution. He taught me what the phrase “sheep-dogging for the Democratic Party” means. I will never believe or support a democrat again and I’m not alone.
Yeah, intentional or not, that's all he'll end up doing - sheep dogging more into the Democratic party. We'll see what he does when he has to swear the party loyalty oath.
Interesting theory, although I'm not quite buying it.
MLK never joined the democratic party or the republican party. But he was the catalyst for much needed social change. RFK would do us all a favor by not running in the democratic party and would engender more trust among the many who have already been betrayed.
MLK had and led a huge social movement. He was a preacher by training and calling. His role was prophetic leadership, not assumption of political power or engagement in day to day politics.
RFK Jr. is not and never aspired to any such roles.
Why do you hold him to false standards and make false analogies?
Why do you think someone running under the umbrella of a corrupt democratic party, run by a criminal who deliberately had the primaries rigged so he could win - who is a bumbling jack ass every time he is on camera - why do you think I or anyone else with half a fucking working cell in his brain should trust him?
You know what - RFK declaring himself as a candidate in the democratic party automatically disqualifies him for any further support by anyone with a scintilla of integrity. I've heard all this justifying bullshit before. The problem is, he's still running as a democrat. He can promise us all the moon, they all do. There is no reason in Hades one should actually believe the guy.
He's running as a Dem. probably because he's a realist and knows that it's a 2 party system. He's been highly critical of the Dem. establishment, but not the party's New Deal tradition, which he wants to restore. He likely has an ideological and personal loyalty to that and he's probably just as disgusted as I am that that tradition has been totally betrayed.
The fact that you miss or ignore or refuse to acknowledge all that is quire revealing.
Comparisons with Bernie have no current factual basis.
This is the only way he will get any kind of platform to possible at least speak to more Americans. If running as an Independent, he would likely not be allowed in debates. As a Democrat, they either have to let him debate, or else just say - and I think they did already - that Biden will not debate. That's better than the nothing that Independents get on the "news". Hey, the DNC has no intention of having him on the ticket. The DNC is on record as saying the primaries are a sham and that they have the legal right to name anyone they want to name, because the DNC is a private corporation. The primaries are just money-laundering pep rallies, IMO. And yeah, if he somehow was elected, at least it would be four years of total stalemate, which is better than the full steam ahead on war we have now.
I have lost any faith in the current US political process and for good reason. It has been fully corrupted. Those who participate in it, including JFK, are detractors and become part of the problem. As I mentioned before, one can operate outside the corrupt political system and depending on one's abilities and skills, make social change as did MLK. It does however, take the courage of one's convictions.
You are absolutely right about the US political process being fully corrupted - IMO, at least it is another platform. And I wonder how many here have the courage of conviction it would take to run as a Democrat - knowing what already happened to RFK and JFK. I will not participate in the process, but I give kudoes to someone who knows full well what the penalty may be, and participating anyway. He is at least getting his message out there. Posting angry messages is easy. Standing on a platform in front of what may be very angry and determined people out to stop you with any means possible - that's a hard choice.
Being JFK he could have gotten his message out easily running in a 3rd party. By the way, currently there is no plan to have debates - that is, the DNC has already cancelled any debates in the primaries this year. So the corruption is just getting worse: it does not even matter if JFK runs 3rd party or not, there will be no debates.
I don't see courage with JFK running as a democrat. I view it as cowardice and likely he will justify himself (as probably Bernie Sanders did) that selling out is the compromise that must be made - and that anyone who disagrees is just being a purist.
It's the same old argument we've had for the last 2 decades. Anyone who criticizes the 2-party system is just being a "purist". I'm done with that lame brained argument - really done with it. But thanks for your own input djean111 - people can't agree on everything.
I am absolutely NOT defending the damned two party system. NO ONE HERE IS - that is a straw man, methinks. I stopped participating after Bernie. But, IMO, it is a tool that RFK can use to reach a wider audience. For how many years has he been dismissed and labeled a crazy anti-vaxxer? Which is of course what the Dems will do to him, but if he even reaches a few more people, that is something. Considering that he knows what happens to upstart Kennedys.
"Okay so we need to tear down the entire system then."
This. We can't fix this corrupt system. Let's tear it down so we can start afresh.
"Overthrow our rulers."
Yes! Why are we putting up with a "corrupt warmonger with dementia" or a "fascist"? F'em! Let's get rid of them and start afresh... I'm seeing a pattern here, don't you? Let's make a fresh start!
Wow. Just wow. I'm not even sure how I feel about this video. But I wish everyone would watch it. OTOH, by just clicking on that link, I now wonder if I am on an FBI watch list.
I had a discussion about the "Crown" just the other day. The supporter of the crown stated that we needed to maintain tradition.
Of course the next question was "why?".
They said "tradition." I said "Tradition for whom?"
The true answer is the tradition is for them. Not for us. Chucky or Lizzy were/are no heroes of mine.
How much gold can be found in England? How about diamonds, opals, rubies, emeralds? Silver?
Barely any and most likely none at all.
It is called pirating. It is called slave trading. It is called drug running.
That is how you get rich. And when you are the head of the monarchy, you get paid by pirates and criminals. In return you grant them a title and land and a millennium of servitude.
Your vault gets bigger as king. The poor remain your slaves.
Chucky doesn't even wipe his own arse. Jeeves, Jeeves, I think I've gone poopy. Please come wipe.
And some dumbass goes and does it. A butler is a slave. 24/7 listening to some whiney rich prick, wiping the lint off of his suit.
Hey, tax me for this bullshit.
The governor general of Canada gets paid huge sums of money. As our representative to the monarchy. Just a figurehead with no power. Yet Canadians fall for this horseshit in the name of tradition.
The monarch's tradition is made up wars, murder, rape, theft and slavery.
When Winston Churchill was planning D-Day an admiral protested that such and such a maneuver was against the traditions of the British Navy. "I'll tell you the traditions of the British Navy," Winston rejoined, "rum, buggery, and the lash!"
As I was reading this I was struck by the idea that Joe Biden is the perfect metaphor for the U.S. and it's empire ... decrepit, decaying and stumbling about emitting angry bursts whenever something is not as he/it thinks it should be. It's all rather sad and increasingly dangerous for everyone.
Your comment led me to the following terrifying and plausible scenario:*
1. The Ukrainians go ahead with this rumored spring offensive.
2. Presently, some say such an offensive will be a suicide mission; others say they'll chase the Ruskies all the way back to Moscow.
3. But before resolution of 2 actually becomes clear, a false-flag nuke goes off on Ukrainian forces. Regardless of how the Russians were actually doing vis-a-vis #2 (and even if they were actually repelling the offensive), the Empire propaganda machine spins it that the Russians were getting their rear-ends handed to them by those plucky, freedom-loving Ukrainians and "resorted to using a nuke".
*I say plausible, and won't go so far as probable, but when nukes are involved, a plausible scenario is urgent enough.
---
I wrote this comment in a flippant style, reflecting my disdain for the US position on this war. But something I find particularly troubling is that this theory does provide an explanation for why the US seems so dead set on pushing a Ukrainian offensive. Yes, maybe the Russians really are on the ropes, the Ukrainians are reinforced, and now is the time to finish the Russians off. But there is also evidence suggesting the opposite, and even if the third position, stalemate, is true, an offensive would be ill-advised. But regardless of the situation on the ground, the push for the offensive WOULD fit a plausible scenario of setting the stage for a false-flag nuclear explosion.
My understanding per Unlimited Hangout is that nations across the world are supporting WEF Reset Agenda, esp. digitalized banking and controlling and tracking people at their every move. Seems like our government is a one party government but also the entire world is on track with controlling their populations that extremely limit freedoms.
Yeah and lying about China and Russia has captured your existential fears and threat mentality Hollywood has spoon fed you sins birth to believe all the western clandestine Hollywood (CIA) created drama depictions of comi sleeper cells hiding under your beds poised to steal the patriotic lint.
I doubt Assange will be released as long as Hillary is alive. If he were to be released, IMO, he would be in constant danger. Just a feeling, of course. That's why the case law (whataboutism for lawyers) does not matter in the least. I cannot speak for other countries, but laws in the US are applied totally unequally and at the discretion of the rich and/or powerful. Or the just plain spiteful. The law has been, like pretty much everything else, weaponized.
Oh, I don't think that. I just think she carries a lethal grudge for a long long time. I kind of don't think she even cares about the war crimes stuff, really, ALL the Dems (and GOP) are just fine with war crimes. Depending on who committed them of course. But I do believe she still blames Assange for losing the election. THAT is something, IMO, she will not forgive. Even though it is not true in the slightest way. Assange was supposed to support her and hang onto documents until after she won the election, I think. Of course, Assange deemed the documents more important than the election, So - off with his head. Just a theory.
Margarita Simonyan - the head of RT - recently called for exchange of all the westerners "wrongly" held in Russia for Assange.
If the USA cared for all those "wrongs" they'd do it for the precious Americans' freedoms, especially since Assange is not an American. Of course it does not, the empire of lies that it is.
The painting for the Archibald, Caitlin. A good effort. Thanks.
I just cannot believe that that feeble Biden and his bunch of Neocons can still hold out on releasing Julian from that ghastly prison after all the comments worldwide and the total hypocrisy of it all.
Thanks for your effort and the encouragement you have given to others by way of motivation for action by your readers
Great painting of the Assange father and son. A good hero is hard to find.
I thought this conflict between Russia and the U.S. was immensely dangerous a year ago. Now, it’s terrifyingly dangerous. We are much closer to nuclear annihilation than most people would like to believe...
You ain't seen nothing yet.
So far, pushing towards nuclear war, HAS NOT COST THEM ANYTHING.
And it gets them what they want.
Also, nuclear war has not happened. Therefore it never will.
This is how they think.
A Ukrainian spokesperson has just said something along the lines of "hey, Kherson was "supposed" to be a red line for Putin to use tactical nukes, and he did not - so as far as Ukraine is concerned, Putin will not use tactical nukes, and so can be pushed and pushed and then pushed out of Crimea". I had said elsewhere that the West is counting on Putin being more decent - actually more decent than zero decent - and letting the West eventually just roll over Russia. And after installing Ukrainian troops in deserted civilian structures in Bakhmut - now that I think about it, Ukraine hides troops and weapons and ammunition in civilian OCCUPIED housing all over the country - Ukraine is whinging about Russia's possible use of phosphorus-type ammunition in the civilian areas of Bakhmut - that do not have any civilians left, just Ukrainian soldiers. Unless the Ukrainians have kept civilians in Bakhmut as hostages, of course. This from the folks who cheerfully bombed homes and markets and such since 2014. And who intend to use depleted uranium ammunition on the Russians. IMO, this is going to reek of, perhaps, false flag. The go-to Western way of warfare. Civilians and the land be damned. As usual.
When a previous White House press secretary said " human rights are in our(US)DNA", the irony made us laugh. Now when the US has perfected the 'false flag' narrative, they want us to believe that Russia is using it - the latest is that Russia is planning to bomb the nuclear power plant which their troops have secured and are guarding.
> A Ukrainian spokesperson has just said something along the lines of "hey, Kherson was "supposed" to be a red line for Putin to use tactical nukes, and he did not - so as far as Ukraine is concerned, Putin will not use tactical nukes, and so can be pushed and pushed and then pushed out of Crimea". I had said elsewhere that the West is counting on Putin being more decent
So now not using nukes in retaliation for the Ukrainians taking back parts of their own countries is considered "more decent"? Seriously, listen to yourself.
What, exactly, was supposed to happen here? Just watch Ukraine continue to merrily shell and kill civilians? As it has been doing since 2014? Expect Russia and China to be fine with being surrounded by US nukes? All of this has been eye-opening - I had not known that the Cuban missile crisis started with the US training nukes on Russia from within Turkey; I thought the nukes in Cuba initiated the crisis. The US/NATO/EU planned all of this. And "their own countries"? Countries and borders have been changing since men figured out how to kill each other over territorial disputes. The earth was not created with preexisting map lines painted on it.
Also - the West is publicly intent on breaking up Russia into handy little profitable chunks. How was that going to be okay? I am not "pro-Russia" - I am against the wars and sanctions killing people. For nothing more than power and profit.
> Just watch Ukraine continue to merrily shell and kill civilians? As it has been doing since 2014?
Let me guess, you also believe "White supremacist cops" are also out there hunting Blacks.
> Expect Russia and China to be fine with being surrounded by US nukes?
How about not pissing their neighbors off so much that they decide to join outside influence blocks.
Yes - gradual escalation until eventually the losing side uses a tactical nuke. And then what?
Well, if it comes to that, here's my suggestion for the final anti-war sign at the final anti-war demonstration (all 150 of us):
-- WHEN WE GO, YOU GO --
Just a little reminder.
So when one side is losing a war, after 100,000+ dead - say Russia starts losing the war, they'll just then announce, ok, you win and we won't use nukes?
Or, let's say the Ukrainians start losing the war, which according to some in the West, with their next great Spring offensive (despite not having any air superiority to speak of) - they will push the Russians back to Crimea, after they have already lost 100,000+ dead - if the Ukrainians instead start losing the war - even if the Polish decide to send their armies in as well - will they and NATO then just give up and not find a way to use a tactical nuke, either given to them by the West illicitly, or from the black market?
And if a tactical nuke does hit the Russians lines and wipes out a key defensive position, will the Russians then just say, well that's ok, we still won't use nukes?
I just don't know. The whole war, ignoring the massive human death on both sides, the massive destruction of the Ukrainian infrastucture, the massive disruption to the world's economy (more especially the West) - ignoring all that, will one side just allow the other side to continue slaughtering 100s of thousands, and not use a nuke if they can?
My reasoning is as follows: At the end of World War 2, a lot of Anglo-American bigdeals wanted to start World War 3 right away, or pretty soon, while the US had the advantage, being the last man standing more or less. But it was already risky even then -- you never know how a war is going to turn out. _Never_. So they didn't do it then. Since then, things have grown slowly worse for the US -- not catastrophically, slowly, as for that legendary frog in the heating water. It is clear that, from the bigdeal point of view, the odds have deteriorated -- not the odds of just losing something, the odds of being incinerated. And even if they have their bunkers (1) they don't want to rule over bunkers; (2) a lot of people, some of whom are not at all nice, know where those bunkers are. Let's mention also (3): the bigdeals are watching one another very carefully, because most of them don't want to rule over bunkers, they want to continue the good life with their fans and servants kissing their nether parts just as today. (This was revealed when Nixon was on his way out: many bigdeals started taking care that he could not try to salvage his situation by starting a major / catastrophic war. There were some completely believable stories about it after the crisis when the schmucks didn't care any more, assuming they knew anything in the first place.)
It is true accidents do happen, and black swans sometimes arrive, but as the man said about "the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong", that's not the way to bet. I'm betting that the bigdeals are not going to blow the world up, because unlike World Wars 1 and 2, the bigdeals know they, too, will go.
In any case, if I'm wrong, none of us are likely to be worrying about it for very long.
> So when one side is losing a war, after 100,000+ dead - say Russia starts losing the war, they'll just then announce, ok, you win and we won't use nukes?
By that logic you'd find your self having to concede anything to someone willing to use nuclear blackmail.
Your choices are : whatever bad thing they blackmail you into, or death for the entire world, including you.
Which is worse?
And that kind of attitude is a good way to get exhorted.
I don't think the ruling class have figured out how to have a nuclear war and still keep their lives and their crap. So for the time being we're probably OK and can go on deriding them.
All those monarchs now long gone, probably felt the same at the dawn of the First World War which ended their empires and monarchies. The impending disaster gained a momentum of its own.
I think Germany's plan to expand an oil dependent navy (instead of coal) was considered an immediate threat to British interests (naval supremacy and its middle eastern oil fields) Churchill, as first Lord of the Admiralty, much taken with the first spy novel by Erskine Childers 'The Riddle of the Sands' and its story of a German planned invasion of our noble shores and responded by strengthening the navy (escalation).
I am not so sure that kaiser Wilhelm's intentions were ever peaceful despite his words (these European monarchs loved a bit of vainglorious empire building).
Also, I am not sure all in the British Empire establishment wanted another long and expensive war, Joseph Chamberlain's words: 'The weary Titan staggers under the too vast orb of his fate', indicates, that at least some recognised the tenuous nature of an overstretched empire and would have had serious reservations about committing to another full scale war especially not long having emerged from the difficult Boer war.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
They have bunkers and they don’t care about you.
But Jerome Powell already told you half of that.
Ever seen "Don't Look Up!"?
I hope you're right. But currently it appears risky as shit.
Truth as a concept has already been annhilated.
Terror is what they want you to feel. It's their thing, their shtick, their specialty.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. copied from Twitter
@RobertKennedyJr
12h
"In 1960, the USSR accused the U.S. of running an aerial spying program over its territory. Our government denied it to the American people, only admitting it when confronted with the captured U-2 pilot Gary Powers. Americans were genuinely shocked that their government would lie… "
Haven't things changed. Lies? Where do you start....as far back as the Korea War culminating in the biggest of them all. WMD in Iraq, JFK's death, 9/11, such lies hardly raising a question any more and getting bigger and better every year.
Now part of the 2023 American diet.
I was around in 1963 and can tell you that the lies were of much higher quality then. What we've got now a child could see through.
The then child maybe. Nowadays the smartphones made folks so dumb the adults are worse than children used to be.
It's part of their open contempt for us.
Interesting that "false flags" are conspiracy theories to the MSM unless it's a different government in question.
So Russia blew up its own pipeline then attacked their own capitol. Next they will nuke Moscow to show their toughness and resolve.
That's been Ukraine's line all these years gaining intensity in 2014 when they started the Donbass assault. Their population had been convinced Donbass/Russia did everything there to themselves to blame poor Ukraine.
Everything that comes out of Ukraine says they have a severe case of more balls than brains.
The woman have more balls? lol : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfSG-vjZ-r0&list=PLlie1TMB7LH2bpq9OhczQ9wPNfhqfYbCM&index=2
You bet. https://youtu.be/f2p0xrY4CMs?t=65
They're from Kyiv.
Women I mean : https://kevinbarrett.substack.com/
In all seriousness, all this talk by US officials about Russian false flag attacks significantly increases the likelihood that the US is about to use a false flag attack of hitherto unimaginable scale.
With the Ukrainian/NATO military on its last legs, and with Russia winning over the hearts and minds of every country in the world that has been serially raped by the US over the last 70 years (and more), and with the banking system tanking and the dollar losing its reserve currency status, the US national security state is desperate and on the verge of collapse, and so will do literally anything to preserve their Empire. My guess is that a tactical nuclear explosion will occur in Ukraine, probably on or near the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station, and the US and the western media will of course blame it on the Russians, even though the the most obviously devastating effects will be downwind in Russia. At this point, the capacity of the US to do evil in the world knows no bounds.
that's a plausible scenario for the end of the world, and exactly why this insane war must end. NOW.
Compromise has a positive connotation, but most public commentators are forced to make the less admirable kind: RFK Jr just made a plea on unHerd for understanding Russia and Putin's position in the Ukraine/US proxy war, and was forced to refer to Putin as a "gangster' as a sop to the mindless haters who must have some blood, whether literal or metaphorical. Biden almost surely has dementia, but he was always a scoundrel, and that fact is supported not only by his position on and support for the Iraq attack of 2003, but by the Senate hearing with Scott Ritter: scoundrel is written all over him. We speak of the sanctity of "truth" and "free speech" but there are lies so sacrosanct that they can never be unpacked. We must make detours around them, but we should never deny their existence.
RFK Jr lost me the minute he decided to run as a Democrat candidate and not an Independent. I already went down the Democratic party road with Bernie Sanders promising me water from the moon, and then selling us all out when the time was right for him to do so - for his seriously corrupt party. Never again!
I'd like to be a purist, but it doesn't work in this world. Sanders at least introduced the idea of universal health care, so softened the ground for it. RFK Jr cannot change the world on his own, but he is preferable to a lot of the dreck on board the political ship. A lone wolf's howl is often lost in the wind. We need a quiet, peaceful revolution, and perhaps these softer voices will inspire one.
I wish I could believe that. But after Sanders - I have no trust in any politician running inside either of these corrupt parties. I don't feel like a purist, after what Sanders did to his followers and to his movement - I feel more like a trauma victim, who has been disillusioned of any politician who says all the right things - and then still runs as a Democrat.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I doubt it.
I have to agree with you I think it is far more insidious than most have the will to see.
When Sanders met with Obama at the Whitehouse and came out to the media and got that pat on the back "there there burny now you step down like a good little mensch,
It reminded me of Bush patting McCain on the back...yeah you go run for president and make it look good while we vetted Obama for the job already. Here's Palin to make you look the fool. That will sinch it in the bag.
Its all orchestrated ten steps ahead of the ignorant public at any given time.
And the public has been systematically trained to be trainable to never see the slight of hand.
RFK Jr recently leveled serious critiques at the U.S. empire and for that he caught my attention. But Michael Tracey has been digger deeper into his recent past and the contradictions are as alarming as they are striking. He appears to be little better than another political opportunist. Before anyone throws their lot in with RFK Jr it's worth taking a much closer look.
I was a loyal Dem voter for nearly 40 years always buying into the lesser evil argument. Now I don't vote and I consider that a reasoned, pragmatic, realist approach to politics in the U.S. Accusing people of being "purists" (which I've done in the past) is just another way of making sure the existing power structure remains in place. Incrementalism has not worked and is not what is needed. Any promise of incremental change is a lie used to secure votes. Democrats (and Republicans) are war-mongering servants of empire.
The main problem I have now with the "lesser evil" argument is that the "lesser" is now so miniscule, and the evil of both corrupt parties so great - that the argument no longer makes a lick of sense to me. It's just fascism medium or fascism heavy - but it's still fascism. Neither party does the country any good - and to perpetuate the scam is a fool's errand.
Regardless of the degree it's the "evil" in there that should disqualify any consideration. Politicians are expected to make compromises and concessions as long as they are open and honest about it. But not any amount of evil.
Precisely right!!
Great point.
Maybe RFK Jr. is giving the Dems the rope to hang themselves with.Maybve he's just setting the trap.
Obviously he knows they sabotaged Bernie (twice) and will do the same to him. But by giving them the chance and then documenting their sabotage, he puts himself in a much better position.
Why can't folks see this as his possible strategy, instead of running him down and smearing him?
RFK Jr giving the Dems a rope to hang themselves with would be great. Maybe he is setting a trap. The major problem for me is thinking any dem politician is truly doing something detrimental to the party. I thought Bernie was going to lead a revolution. He taught me what the phrase “sheep-dogging for the Democratic Party” means. I will never believe or support a democrat again and I’m not alone.
Yeah, intentional or not, that's all he'll end up doing - sheep dogging more into the Democratic party. We'll see what he does when he has to swear the party loyalty oath.
Interesting theory, although I'm not quite buying it.
MLK never joined the democratic party or the republican party. But he was the catalyst for much needed social change. RFK would do us all a favor by not running in the democratic party and would engender more trust among the many who have already been betrayed.
MLK had and led a huge social movement. He was a preacher by training and calling. His role was prophetic leadership, not assumption of political power or engagement in day to day politics.
RFK Jr. is not and never aspired to any such roles.
Why do you hold him to false standards and make false analogies?
Why do you think someone running under the umbrella of a corrupt democratic party, run by a criminal who deliberately had the primaries rigged so he could win - who is a bumbling jack ass every time he is on camera - why do you think I or anyone else with half a fucking working cell in his brain should trust him?
You know what - RFK declaring himself as a candidate in the democratic party automatically disqualifies him for any further support by anyone with a scintilla of integrity. I've heard all this justifying bullshit before. The problem is, he's still running as a democrat. He can promise us all the moon, they all do. There is no reason in Hades one should actually believe the guy.
He's running as a Dem. probably because he's a realist and knows that it's a 2 party system. He's been highly critical of the Dem. establishment, but not the party's New Deal tradition, which he wants to restore. He likely has an ideological and personal loyalty to that and he's probably just as disgusted as I am that that tradition has been totally betrayed.
The fact that you miss or ignore or refuse to acknowledge all that is quire revealing.
Comparisons with Bernie have no current factual basis.
> I already went down the Democratic party road with Bernie Sanders promising me water from the moon
Doesn't say good things about your judgement now does it?
What troll bridge did you crawl out of? You need to get back under your bridge dude.
As if a Bernie supporter deserves any respect.
From a troll like you? Not losing any sleep over it.
This is the only way he will get any kind of platform to possible at least speak to more Americans. If running as an Independent, he would likely not be allowed in debates. As a Democrat, they either have to let him debate, or else just say - and I think they did already - that Biden will not debate. That's better than the nothing that Independents get on the "news". Hey, the DNC has no intention of having him on the ticket. The DNC is on record as saying the primaries are a sham and that they have the legal right to name anyone they want to name, because the DNC is a private corporation. The primaries are just money-laundering pep rallies, IMO. And yeah, if he somehow was elected, at least it would be four years of total stalemate, which is better than the full steam ahead on war we have now.
I have lost any faith in the current US political process and for good reason. It has been fully corrupted. Those who participate in it, including JFK, are detractors and become part of the problem. As I mentioned before, one can operate outside the corrupt political system and depending on one's abilities and skills, make social change as did MLK. It does however, take the courage of one's convictions.
You are absolutely right about the US political process being fully corrupted - IMO, at least it is another platform. And I wonder how many here have the courage of conviction it would take to run as a Democrat - knowing what already happened to RFK and JFK. I will not participate in the process, but I give kudoes to someone who knows full well what the penalty may be, and participating anyway. He is at least getting his message out there. Posting angry messages is easy. Standing on a platform in front of what may be very angry and determined people out to stop you with any means possible - that's a hard choice.
Being JFK he could have gotten his message out easily running in a 3rd party. By the way, currently there is no plan to have debates - that is, the DNC has already cancelled any debates in the primaries this year. So the corruption is just getting worse: it does not even matter if JFK runs 3rd party or not, there will be no debates.
I don't see courage with JFK running as a democrat. I view it as cowardice and likely he will justify himself (as probably Bernie Sanders did) that selling out is the compromise that must be made - and that anyone who disagrees is just being a purist.
It's the same old argument we've had for the last 2 decades. Anyone who criticizes the 2-party system is just being a "purist". I'm done with that lame brained argument - really done with it. But thanks for your own input djean111 - people can't agree on everything.
I am absolutely NOT defending the damned two party system. NO ONE HERE IS - that is a straw man, methinks. I stopped participating after Bernie. But, IMO, it is a tool that RFK can use to reach a wider audience. For how many years has he been dismissed and labeled a crazy anti-vaxxer? Which is of course what the Dems will do to him, but if he even reaches a few more people, that is something. Considering that he knows what happens to upstart Kennedys.
"Okay so we need to tear down the entire system then."
This. We can't fix this corrupt system. Let's tear it down so we can start afresh.
"Overthrow our rulers."
Yes! Why are we putting up with a "corrupt warmonger with dementia" or a "fascist"? F'em! Let's get rid of them and start afresh... I'm seeing a pattern here, don't you? Let's make a fresh start!
Check the weather forecast first though... https://twitter.com/FalconryFinance/status/1642179951381340160?s=20
Wow. Just wow. I'm not even sure how I feel about this video. But I wish everyone would watch it. OTOH, by just clicking on that link, I now wonder if I am on an FBI watch list.
I reckon that there's little doubt that here at Caitlin's hangout, we're all already on that list! Lol!
I had a discussion about the "Crown" just the other day. The supporter of the crown stated that we needed to maintain tradition.
Of course the next question was "why?".
They said "tradition." I said "Tradition for whom?"
The true answer is the tradition is for them. Not for us. Chucky or Lizzy were/are no heroes of mine.
How much gold can be found in England? How about diamonds, opals, rubies, emeralds? Silver?
Barely any and most likely none at all.
It is called pirating. It is called slave trading. It is called drug running.
That is how you get rich. And when you are the head of the monarchy, you get paid by pirates and criminals. In return you grant them a title and land and a millennium of servitude.
Your vault gets bigger as king. The poor remain your slaves.
Chucky doesn't even wipe his own arse. Jeeves, Jeeves, I think I've gone poopy. Please come wipe.
And some dumbass goes and does it. A butler is a slave. 24/7 listening to some whiney rich prick, wiping the lint off of his suit.
Hey, tax me for this bullshit.
The governor general of Canada gets paid huge sums of money. As our representative to the monarchy. Just a figurehead with no power. Yet Canadians fall for this horseshit in the name of tradition.
The monarch's tradition is made up wars, murder, rape, theft and slavery.
People are stupid.
When Winston Churchill was planning D-Day an admiral protested that such and such a maneuver was against the traditions of the British Navy. "I'll tell you the traditions of the British Navy," Winston rejoined, "rum, buggery, and the lash!"
As I was reading this I was struck by the idea that Joe Biden is the perfect metaphor for the U.S. and it's empire ... decrepit, decaying and stumbling about emitting angry bursts whenever something is not as he/it thinks it should be. It's all rather sad and increasingly dangerous for everyone.
Yeah a wet brained near permanently drunk psycopath with his finger on the red button.
What worries me is a nuke going off in Ukraine that was blamed on Russia.
Don't give the CIA any new ideas..those psycopaths might use it
Your comment led me to the following terrifying and plausible scenario:*
1. The Ukrainians go ahead with this rumored spring offensive.
2. Presently, some say such an offensive will be a suicide mission; others say they'll chase the Ruskies all the way back to Moscow.
3. But before resolution of 2 actually becomes clear, a false-flag nuke goes off on Ukrainian forces. Regardless of how the Russians were actually doing vis-a-vis #2 (and even if they were actually repelling the offensive), the Empire propaganda machine spins it that the Russians were getting their rear-ends handed to them by those plucky, freedom-loving Ukrainians and "resorted to using a nuke".
*I say plausible, and won't go so far as probable, but when nukes are involved, a plausible scenario is urgent enough.
---
I wrote this comment in a flippant style, reflecting my disdain for the US position on this war. But something I find particularly troubling is that this theory does provide an explanation for why the US seems so dead set on pushing a Ukrainian offensive. Yes, maybe the Russians really are on the ropes, the Ukrainians are reinforced, and now is the time to finish the Russians off. But there is also evidence suggesting the opposite, and even if the third position, stalemate, is true, an offensive would be ill-advised. But regardless of the situation on the ground, the push for the offensive WOULD fit a plausible scenario of setting the stage for a false-flag nuclear explosion.
My understanding per Unlimited Hangout is that nations across the world are supporting WEF Reset Agenda, esp. digitalized banking and controlling and tracking people at their every move. Seems like our government is a one party government but also the entire world is on track with controlling their populations that extremely limit freedoms.
Agreed. The CCP style of governance is the model.
Yeah and lying about China and Russia has captured your existential fears and threat mentality Hollywood has spoon fed you sins birth to believe all the western clandestine Hollywood (CIA) created drama depictions of comi sleeper cells hiding under your beds poised to steal the patriotic lint.
The Kremlin attack false flag theory comes from the same idiots who promoted Russia blewing up the Nord Stream piplelines.
Our rulers just schmucks like us. Insightful! But also frightening and sad.
I don't like to associate myself to scum bags con artists war mongers sycophants and opulent psycopaths..
Leave me out of that crowd.
Its the hangers on that really earn my disdain. Sell their souls for a handful of shekels. Im not part of that tribe.
"Schmucks like Us"
Great on a T-Shirt.
It follows that Schmucks'R'Us. The real reason and deservedly so.
I doubt Assange will be released as long as Hillary is alive. If he were to be released, IMO, he would be in constant danger. Just a feeling, of course. That's why the case law (whataboutism for lawyers) does not matter in the least. I cannot speak for other countries, but laws in the US are applied totally unequally and at the discretion of the rich and/or powerful. Or the just plain spiteful. The law has been, like pretty much everything else, weaponized.
Don't think it's only $Hillary that's guilty of all those war crimes..
Oh, I don't think that. I just think she carries a lethal grudge for a long long time. I kind of don't think she even cares about the war crimes stuff, really, ALL the Dems (and GOP) are just fine with war crimes. Depending on who committed them of course. But I do believe she still blames Assange for losing the election. THAT is something, IMO, she will not forgive. Even though it is not true in the slightest way. Assange was supposed to support her and hang onto documents until after she won the election, I think. Of course, Assange deemed the documents more important than the election, So - off with his head. Just a theory.
Margarita Simonyan - the head of RT - recently called for exchange of all the westerners "wrongly" held in Russia for Assange.
If the USA cared for all those "wrongs" they'd do it for the precious Americans' freedoms, especially since Assange is not an American. Of course it does not, the empire of lies that it is.
The painting for the Archibald, Caitlin. A good effort. Thanks.
I just cannot believe that that feeble Biden and his bunch of Neocons can still hold out on releasing Julian from that ghastly prison after all the comments worldwide and the total hypocrisy of it all.
Thanks for your effort and the encouragement you have given to others by way of motivation for action by your readers
I know we are going to get there, and soon.
Rex
Opulent psycopaths can never admit wrong..they will go to your death first.