Podcast appearances and mentions of Paul Wolfowitz

Nach über 30 Jahren Kriegsvorbereitung katapultartig zum Frieden?Die Unfähigkeit, Lehren aus dem Westfälischen Frieden (1648) zu ziehen.Ein Standpunkt von Wolfgang Effenberger.Nach der Auflösung der Warschauer Vertragsstaaten ("Warschauer Pakt") und dem Untergang der Sowjetunion am 31. Dezember 1991 formulierte der neokonservative US-Verteidigungsstaatssekretär Paul Wolfowitz 1992 eine Strategie zur Aufrechterhaltung der unipolaren US-Vorherrschaft. (1) Diese wenige Monate nach dem Ende der bipolaren Welt (USA vs. Sowjetunion) entwickelte Doktrin bildet einen zentralen ideologischen Bezugspunkt für die Eskalation des Ukraine-Konflikts bis hin zum aktuellen Krieg. Die Verbindungslinien lassen sich wie folgt darstellen:Geopolitische Grundlagen der "Wolfowitz-Doktrin"Im Kern geht es besonders auf dem Gebiet der ehemaligen UdSSR um die Verhinderung neuer globaler Rivalen. Dafür galt es, die militärische Dominanz durch NATO-Erweiterung und Kontrolle der Rüstungsindustrie (2) sowie den Ausschluss multilateraler Institutionen wie der UNO bei Interessenkonflikten durchzusetzten. (3)Entgegen mündlicher Zusagen an Gorbatschow 1990 ("keinen Zentimeter Ostausdehnung") (4) trieb die Doktrin die Integration osteuropäischer Staaten in die NATO voran. Dies wurde vom Kreml als existentielle Bedrohung wahrgenommen:Stationierung von Raketenabwehrsystemen in Rumänien/PolenNATO-Manöver nahe russischer GrenzenÜbernahme der Ukraine in die westliche Einflusssphäre durch die "Maidan-Revolution" 2014 (5)Während der erste "amerikazugewandte" Präsident der Russischen Föderation, Boris Jelzin (1991 bis 1999), "amerikanische Interessenwahrnehmung" in Russland wohlwollend duldete, beobachtete die russische Führung seit 2000 die geopolitischen Aktivitäten der USA mit ihren hunderten von Militärbasen in und um Eurasien sehr kritisch und sieht im aktuellen Krieg eine Abwehrhandlung gegen die "Wolfowitz-Strategie":Gegen den vom Westen im Februar 2014 orchestrierten völkerrechtswidrigen Staatsstreich lehnte sich die Bevölkerung im Donbass auf, was ab Mai 2014 zu einem bürgerkriegsähnlichen Konflikt führte, der schwerwiegende Auswirkungen auf die Zivilbevölkerung in dieser Region hatte und hat....hier weiterlesen: https://apolut.net/die-unfahigkeit-lehren-aus-dem-westfalischen-frieden-zu-ziehen-von-wolfgang-effenberger/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Start at the beginning with episode 1 of the podcast series at davidrovics.com/ahistoryoftheworld or just listen to episode 11 here. 2004-2008 The Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal breaks in the New York Times (“After We Torture Our Prisoners”) Neocon architect of the Iraq occupation, Paul Wolfowitz, is appointed head of the World Bank (“Paul Wolfowitz”) Cindy Sheehan starts camping out in front of President Bush's ranch (“Song for Cindy Sheehan”) Hurricane Katrina and government ineptitude kill thousands of people in New Orleans (“New Orleans”) Construction of Israel's Apartheid Wall in Palestine begins (“They're Building a Wall”) Israel invades Lebanon in 2006, killing thousands (“Lebanon, 2006”) My dear friend and longtime activist and musician Brad Will is killed by paramilitaries in Oaxaca, Mexico (“Brad”) Rod Coronado spends eight months in prison for giving a speech (“Burn It Down”) The premier squatted social center in Denmark, Ungdomshuset, is destroyed by the Danish government, setting in motion a new social movement (“Ungdomshuset's Microphone”) The Global Financial Crisis leads to massive protests in Iceland (“Iceland, 2008”) The GFC leads to massive protests in Greece, too, in which a dog named Loukanikos plays a prominent role (“Riot Dog”) Founders of the Holy Land Foundation are charged with supporting terrorism, and five men are sentenced to between 15 and 65 years in prison (“Holy Land 5”)

For some reason, the highly Christianized west seems to neglect, maybe even punish, Christians elsewhere in the world. From Nagasaki to Syria, not to mention Lebanon, Christians are slaughtered en masse with the backing of conservative Christian Zionists and Israel. Israel has been bombing Christian villages in Lebanon for months, and despite a recent cease-fire, has continued to drop bombs. Now with the fall of the Syrian government, this past weekend, admittedly at the hands of Israel and the United States, Christians are going to be the target of an ongoing genocide throughout the Middle East. Syria, furthermore, has what is probably the highest Christian population of any Muslim country, about 12%. Yet Christians, especially of the conservative variety, continue to blindly back, or zealously support, Israel's attempts to expand into an even greater state by overthrowing governments and installing puppets, and slaughtering Christians in the process. As of today, Israeli forces continue to advance in Syria, taking up military positions around the country despite the fact that the regime was supposed to be overthrown by independently, organized terrorist groups, which are called rebels.All of this is par for the course with an incoming neocon administration which paints itself as America first and independent of the Bush era military industrial complex Zionist leadership. It's no coincidence that Paul Wolfowitz, at the pentagon, and the two authors of the Project for the New American Century, Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, are Jewish. Paul was not only deputy Secretary of defense for Bush, but was investigated by the FBI for providing intelligence to an Israeli government official. He was accused of handing over a classified document, via an AIPAC intermediary, which detailed the proposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government. The incoming fake America first administration, is packed, maybe more than any other, with Zionists and Christians, who are demanding the continued expansion of Israel. Even anti-war appointees have suddenly become pro war. The new defense secretary openly calls for Islam to be stripped of its religious status in America, and for the US government to wage war on all of Israel's enemies. He is literally a crusader, tattooed with such insignia. This is the kind of thing that inflames the Arab and Islamic world, justifiably. Although there are without doubt radical Muslims, the real question is how many of those groups are actually financed, controlled, and directed by the west? Considering that the Saud family themselves are descended from Jews, those that converted to Islam during the Ottoman Empire, and not Muslims, it would make sense that further considering all of the fake Jewish hate crimes, much of the perception of Islam is merely a projection of the crimes committed by those who hide under the cloak of Mohammed. The sexual abuse of children, the pushing of gender, dysphoria, and the belittling of Christianity, can all be found in the Jewish Talmud, not the Koran. Furthermore, both of the corporate and private porn industry, porn, hub, and only fans, are run by rabbis and Jews. Yet Muslims are accused of doing all of these things.At the front of the Syrian overthrow, are the Golan Heights, which feature a village named after former president Donald. Why? Because he, after a five minute history lesson, gave away what was supposed to be non-settled to Israel, as if the United States has the authority to do that in the first place. He was then paid $100 million by Miriam Addison, who believes he is the Messiah of the Jewish people. But don't worry, everything is kosher. As the book of Isaiah reads: “See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins.”-FREE ARCHIVE (w. ads)SUBSCRIPTION ARCHIVEX / TWITTER FACEBOOKWEBSITEPAYPALCashApp: $rdgable EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407/support.

Dr. Joe Young, Director of the University of Kentucky's Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, discusses some of the causes of violence  in the US and worldwide.   Violence should never be tolerated; however, a democracy depends upon the peaceful transfer of power, which was not recognized during the illegal insurgency  to overthrow the free election and US Government on January 6, 2021.  Tragically, two of the major areas of extreme violence are in Gaza and Ukraine. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine could lead to a larger international conflict if it is not neutralized. Through the support of scores of countries, NATO,  and the United Nations agencies, the Ukrainians were much more resilient in confronting Russian aggression. Although the United Nations Security Council has been partially paralyzed, due to the Russian Veto, other UN agencies such as the WHO, UNICEF, and WFP are on the front lines to assist Ukrainians.

Currently a fellow at the Hoover Institution, Paul Wolfowitz previously served as director of policy planning at the State Department, as US ambassador to Indonesia, as under secretary of defense for policy, as dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, as deputy secretary of defense, and as president of the World Bank. He is perhaps best known as a policymaker during the war in Afghanistan and the first and second wars in Iraq, and that is what we delve into in great detail in this episode. Wolfowitz gives his views on what the United States got right and got wrong in both Iraq and Afghanistan, recounting the data available to decision makers at the time and the decision-making processes. He also gives new details on why the Bush administration believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and determined an invasion of Afghanistan was necessary after 9/11, and how the idea for the surge in Iraq was conceived and executed.

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd   FULL TRANSCRIPT Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:15): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which these events occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze these events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issues before us are, what are the three steps leading to war, and what's the real story behind the so-called Uyghur genocide or oppression in China? My guest today is a peace activist, a writer, a teacher, a political analyst, KJ Noh. KJ, welcome to the show. Speaker 3 (01:22): Thank you. Pleasure to be with you. Wilmer Leon (01:24): So in talking with you yesterday, you had expressed this concept that there are three steps leading to war. You talked about an information war, you talked about shaping of the environment and provocation. As we look at what's transpiring between the United States and Russia, as we look at what's transpiring more specifically between the United States and China over Taiwan, walk us through these steps and how these steps apply to where we are today. Speaker 3 (02:03): Yes, this is exactly what is going on. So the first thing to understand is that before the US goes to war, there is an information campaign, which we can understand as both manufacturing consent and stirring up people's emotions to demonize and to other the opponent. And so we see that very, very clearly in China. That's been ongoing for many years now. But if you look at all the polls, everybody is convinced that China is a threat. So the first step is information warfare, which is the pre kinetic sube dimension of war. The second dimension is shaping the environment. The US never likes to go to war without shaping the environment first. So in order to do that, it wants to weaken the adversary and it wants to bring as much force to bear as possible against its opponents. So we see that right now with the United States. (03:08) It's created a vast set of alliances against China, Aus Jaas, JAAS, the Quad, NATO plus, and then you can see that there is the first island chain, which it has completely militarized, and it is prepositioning supplies, materials, troops, all along it, including troops, right on Gman Island of Taiwan, which is less than three miles from the mainland. So you see the constant shaping of the environment. Also, you will see preparations for war in terms of massive military exercises. You see this in Korea, which spent 200 days out of the past year in constant military exercises. You see the military exercises all over the Pacific, which are essentially nonstop. And then the last step is the provocation. That is you want to provoke the other side to fire the first shot. You want to wrong foot them so that then you can build on all the demonization and the ally building that you've created and then use that as a ally to start the war. (04:25) And we see these provocations happening more and more frequently. We see the provocations by the Philippines against the Chinese overtaking their boats, trying to cut them off and seeing if they'll get rammed. You see the provocations on the Korean peninsula where there's this constant in your face provocation against North Korea, threatening to decapitate, sending the message to Korean troops to shoot first and report later, shoot, first report later. And you see the provocation, as I just mentioned, in Jinman Island where you have US special forces troops parked permanently three miles away from the Chinese mainland. Imagine if the PLA stationed Chinese troops on Key West or Galveston Island or the Farone Island just right up against the nose of right up against the US coast. Would that be considered provocative? I would think so. And so essentially we see all these three steps happening, the information warfare, the hatemongering, the shaping of the environment, the very, very deliberate shaping of the environment for war, and then the constant provocation. So this is why I think that we have to be very, very careful that it will just take one small misstep in this minefield for something to go off, and that will create a chain reaction that will affect the entire Pacific. Wilmer Leon (06:06): So we saw in the seventies, we saw Nixon go to China. Henry Kissinger helped to orchestrate that entire process and a development of a reproach mon with China. And one of the objectives of that was to be sure that China stayed on our side of the equation as the United States was still involved in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. When we got to, I think it was the Obama administration, that's where this whole idea of the pivot towards China started to manifest itself. What, first of all, do I have my history? And then secondly, if so, what is it that or who was in the American foreign policy elite that decided that this pivot needed to take place? Speaker 3 (07:09): Yeah, that's a really, really good question. I have to go back to a little bit of the history. You absolutely are about Nixon. Nixon tried to peel China off away from the Soviet Union as part of their Cold War strategy, and then they engaged with China, and then they dumped Taiwan, which previous to that had been considered the legitimate China, but they were always hedging, so they always kind of had their foot partially on Taiwan because they didn't want to give it up completely. Wilmer Leon (07:43): They who Speaker 3 (07:44): The US establishment didn't want to give it up completely as a US outpost. And so they always kept a little foot in there. And so this is what they call strategic ambiguity. But the official line was the one China policy. The Shanghai communicates essentially there's only one China. The PRC is the legitimate government of China. Taiwan Island is a part of China, and any issues between Taiwan province and China are to be resolved amongst themselves. The US is going to withdraw troops, it's going to withdraw arms, and it's not going to be involved. That was the agreement, and that was the foundation of the relationship between the US and China. All of that is now completely dissolved. It's gone. There is no defacto one China policy anymore. But who started this war? That is the $64,000 question. In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, the NeoCon Mino, Greece, he wrote a document called the Defense Planning Guidance Document, and essentially it was declaration that the United States would be the uni polo global hegemon, regardless, and at any measure, uni polo global hegemon simply means that it would be the boss of the world and it would take any measure, it would go to war, et cetera, as necessary. (09:12) This document, the defense planning guidance document, became the project for a new American century. The project for a new American century was unquote disavowed, but it's simply mutated, and then it was picked up again by a group of people at Center for a New American Security. And those two words, new American, they are not a coincidence. The CNA or Center for New American Security is a kind of a reestablishment of the neocons who started pen A. And so you see this entire chain of ideology continuing from Wolfowitz and the people around him, the neocons around him, the Cheney, Wilmer Leon (09:57): Dick Cheney, Speaker 3 (09:59): Yes, Wilmer Leon (10:00): Richard Pearl, Speaker 3 (10:01): Richard Pearl, all of these neocons, they simply bequeathed their legacy onto a younger group of neocons, the neocons who are associated with the Center for New American Security. Wilmer Leon (10:13): In fact, let me jump in. I'm sorry. Just really quickly on the pen side with Wolfowitz and Pearl, I think Scooter Libby, when George HW Bush was in the White House, that crew came to him and wanted to promote all of this rhetoric. He referred to them as the crazies and said, and this is from Ray McGovern who was in the White House at the time with the CIA said, get these crazies out of here and keep them away from me. And I think it was George HW that by pushing them out, that moved them to Form P NAC and all of that. Speaker 3 (11:02): Absolutely. And remember, these crazies also wanted to go to war against China in the early two thousands. So it was actually, and Wilmer Leon (11:12): They also wanted Bill Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They sent, and folks, you can go and look on the, you can Google this and you can pull up the letter and see all the signatories to the letter. They sent a letter to Bill Clinton when he was president, asking him to invade Iraq. And he said, no, Speaker 3 (11:35): Exactly. And then nine 11 happened, and the Pen Act document actually said, we need something like a Pearl Harbor in order to be able to trigger our plans. And so then conveniently, nine 11 happened, and then Iraq was invaded. But anyway, these crazies never went away. They went into various think tanks, but one of the key think tanks is CNAs, which is an outcome. It's a kind of an annex of CSIS itself, one of the deep state think tanks. And starting 2008, they drew up a plan for War against China specifically. There's an organization called CSBA, which is, it's a kind of a think tank. It's a procurement and strategy think tank associated with the Pentagon. And it was once again, related to another deep state think tank inside the Pentagon that does long-term strategic planning. And they came up with something called Air Sea Battle, which is the doctrine of war against China. (12:48) So since then with Air Sea Battle, air Sea Battle is actually, it's derived from Air land battle, which was the doctrine of war against the Soviet Union, which is why it has a similar resonance to it. And that itself was derived from the Israeli doctrine of war from the Yom Kippur war where they did massive aggressive strikes deep inside their opponents infrastructure. And that became Airland battle. Airland battle was never used against the Soviet Union, but it was used in Iraq, in Kosovo, et cetera. Colloquially, it's known as shock and awe. And they created a shock and awe version for China called Air Sea Battle. And that was developed in earnest starting around 2009. And then remember 2012, the US declared the pivot to Asia. So this is the Obama administration. They essentially declared in so many terms that we are going to make sure that China does not develop any further. (14:06) We're going to encircle China, we're going to station troops in Australia. It was declared in Adelaide. We're going to encircle the entire, essentially it was a plan to encircle China all along the first island chain from the corals to Japan, to Okinawa to Taiwan Island along the Philippine Archipelago, and then all the way to Indonesia. This very, very deliberate plan to encircle and to escalate to war against China. 2008 and 2009 was really the turning point, because it was the time of the change. It was the global financial crash, and the people who engaged with China, they engaged with China under the conceit that China would essentially be absorbed into the US capitalist system. That is, it would become a tenant farmer on the US capitalist plantation. Wilmer Leon (15:11): That's what they tried to do with the Soviet Union. Speaker 3 (15:13): Exactly, exactly. Wilmer Leon (15:15): Under Gorbachev, Speaker 3 (15:16): Exactly right. Yes. So we would become a tenant under the global US capitalist plantation, or it would collapse. That was what they believed. And then in 2008, the Western Catalyst financial system collapsed on itself, and it turned out that China was not going to collapse. It was actually incredibly strong, incredibly resilient, and they actually had to go hat in hand to China to beg for support, in order to prop up the system and then to do a controlled demolition on the backs of the working class here. And so when that became clear that China was not going to collapse and it was not going to be subordinated, then the DCAS came out and explicit doctrine of war started to be prepared. This is what I referred to as Air Sea baffle. So that doctrine of war was created inside various think tanks, CSBA, and then supported by css, CNAs, et cetera. (16:18) And then when the Obama administration transition, those plans were simply kept alive with CNAS, and some of it was incorporated into Trump's strategy, but Trump had neo mercantile tendencies, so he was not as aggressive as they would like him to be. And then when Biden came back, the pivot to Asia was rebranded as the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and it's gone full tilt since then. So we see this constant escalation, as I said, the information warfare, the shaping, the environment, the exercises, the alliances, the prepositioning, and then we see the constant provocation. So we are well on the way to war. Henry Kissinger said that we were in the foothills of a cold war. No, we are high up in high altitude and very, very close to kinetic war. Wilmer Leon (17:14): I think I said when I made the reference to Russia that that's what they try to do with Gorbachev, but I think it was Yeltsin to Gorbachev is where all of that financial intrigue was taking place. And I think it was Gorbachev who realized the danger on the horizon and shifted the game plan on the United States, which is why one of the reasons why Gorbachev Gorbachev had to go leading us into where we are now with President Putin. But that's another, I hope I have again, that history, right? Yes, (17:50) Absolutely. So with all that you've just laid out, and before we get into some of the specifics about the info war, as all of this is going on, what we also have is the de-industrialization of the United States and the offshoring or outsourcing of American manufacturing to China. So how do you, on the one hand, offshore or outsource your manufacturing, particularly as a capitalist economy, going to China in search of cheaper labor to make more profit, but then at the same time, you're planning to go to war with the people that are manufacturing a whole lot of the stuff that your country consumes? Is that a good question? Speaker 3 (18:53): Yeah, no, it's absolutely valid. I mean, it's a very, very good point. That's the core contradiction. The US has outsourced Wilmer Leon (19:00): Needs, and by the way, the country that you go to buy your bonds so that your economy can stay afloat. Speaker 3 (19:07): Absolutely. Absolutely. Right. So not only has China financed the United States and supported or propped up the US dollar as the global reserve currency, but also the US exported its industrial base to China because it thought that it could simply exploit the hell out of the Chinese worker at the cost of the US worker, Wilmer Leon (19:33): The sick man of Asia mentality, and we can just play these Chinese people for fools. Speaker 3 (19:38): Exactly. Exactly. So exploit the hell out of them, make a killing, and then eventually China would be completely absorbed into the US capitalist system, or it would collapse, right? It was either collapse or be absorbed. This is what Bill Clinton believed. So that was the plan, except that China developed on its own terms, and it showed that not only is it possible to develop that it doesn't have to become subjugated to the west, to the western institutions, that's when the daggers came out. But now there is the contradiction that on the one hand, the US wants to go to war against China. On the other hand, it's significantly, it's so deeply enmeshed with Chinese industry and the Chinese economy that it is not easy. And so it's trying this very delicate operation of what they refer to as de-risking, but it's really decoupling, and they're trying to separate themselves from China as you would try to separate conjoined twins. (20:43) Except the problem is that China has the beating heart, the beating heart of the industry. So if you separate that out, then you're going to give yourself a lot of problems. And so they have not thought this through, but these are people who are not known for their clear thinking. As I said, they're neocons, they're neo neocons, they're crazies. They are drunk with power. They do not want to give up their power and their dominance over the planet, certainly not to China, and they would rather end the planet than see the end of their hegemony, of their dominance. And that's the really dangerous moment that we're in. I've referred to it as a drunk who as the bar is closing and your credit cards are being rejected, you've struck out with everybody. You're just spoiling for a fight, a fight. You're not going to go home without a fight. And that's currently what it looks like right now. Wilmer Leon (21:44): So the first element of the three that you mentioned is the info war. So we're being told that President Xi is an authoritarian. We're being told that China has stolen American manufacturing secrets and has exploited American manufacturing processes. We're being told that China is trying to take over Africa. There are a number of stories that get repeated ATD nauseum, very little if any evidence to support them. But this is the info drumbeat that you keep hearing on M-S-N-B-C and CNN and Fox News. So let's start with the G is a authoritarian, and he's the dictator of China. China is a communist country, and therefore everything is evil that comes from China. Speaker 3 (22:48): Yeah, I mean, this is warmed over Cold War rhetoric. It's essentially a red scare plus yellow peril, right? I mean, we've heard this stuff before. I mean, if you go to China, you realize that there's nothing authoritarian about it. Actually. You feel much freer and much more at liberty to do what you want and to be who you are than you do here. It's not at all an authoritarian state. It's simply the US plasters, the label authoritarian against any country that it doesn't like and where it's usually planning to go to war against. So that is a very, very clear signal. I mean, just from a kind of statistical polling standpoint, the Chinese government is the most popular government on the planet. It ranks in the 90th percentile, and this is Wilmer Leon (23:42): High 90, I think 96 was the last number I saw, Speaker 3 (23:47): Something like that. Yes, certainly in above 90 percentile. And this is from Harvard University, correct? With longitudinal studies. So clearly they have the trust and the full faith of its people. Wilmer Leon (24:01): Repeat that, because most people, when they hear, I know this, when I say that to listeners or if I'm in conversation and I say, well, when you poll the Chinese people, they back their government at around 96%. And of course, the response I get is, well, of course they would, because that's Chinese polling, and that's Xi telling them what to think. And if they don't do what Xi tells them to do, then they wind up missing. Speaker 3 (24:30): No, no, no, that's sorry. Yeah, I mean, it's good. It's what people think, but first it is not Chinese polling. It is US polling, it's Harvard University doing this over a longitudinal study, I think over 10. It's over a decade, maybe 15 years long. And so it's us polling, not Chinese polling. The second thing is that over 150 million Chinese travel abroad every year, they travel all over the world. They go as tourists, they go as students, et cetera, and then almost every single one of them goes back home. You would not get that in an authoritarian state. You think that if you live in a prison or a concentration cab that you go free and then you come back of your own volition? No, that's not possible. It's absurd. So as I said, the Chinese travel all over the world, and then they simply come back because that's where they want to be. (25:34) So this notion that Chinese are authoritarian, that it's an authoritarian state, nobody's allowed to do anything that's completely fault. It does contrast, for example, with the east block where it was very, very difficult to travel abroad, and once when people did travel abroad, they did defect. That much is true. That is certainly not the case with China. As I said, 150 million people travel abroad and then go back home. So that is a lie from top to bottom. I mean, of course you have a few people who defect. I think the defection rate from China is about the same number of people who defect from the United States. So if you want to, oh, really? Wilmer Leon (26:16): Yes. Speaker 3 (26:16): Okay, Wilmer Leon (26:17): I didn't know that. Speaker 3 (26:17): Yes. So it's about the same. So it's a kind of a net zero. So anything that says otherwise is usually an exaggeration or a misconstrue of the actual numbers Wilmer Leon (26:30): To this idea of authoritarian, and I was just thinking about this as you were talking. I think one of the great misnomers is the conflation of a planned economy versus an authoritarian government. I don't think I'm off base to say that China is very, very focused on planning its economy, and that makes it very nimble. That makes it, in my opinion, easier for the government to shift as world economic dynamics shift. Also, because it doesn't have predatory capitalism in China, corporations in China and the Chinese government that owns corporations, they reinvest their money into their economy as opposed to into stock buyback programs and high executive compensation packages. Hence, we wind up with a lot of technological advancements coming out of China, which to a great degree is what is scaring the hell out of the United States government. Yeah, Speaker 3 (27:49): You're absolutely right. Yeah. So the Chinese system is planned, but it's planned in a very rational way. Most of the leaders are unlike the United States, most of the leaders in the US are lawyers or failed business people in China. Most of the leadership are scientists and engineers, and they go through an incredibly complex vetting process where they have to show their capacity and show their ability over and over again before they even reach to the level of becoming a city or a province governor. And then from there, it just gets harder and harder. So you really make sure that the top people are leading. And then there's a system where there's a constant process of feedback and consultation with the people. So the government makes sure that it's doing what the people wants. And so it's planned Wilmer Leon (28:42): In political science. That's the Easton model, I think James Easton model of the feedback loop, how effective governments are supposed to function. They implement policy, they get feedback from the populace on how that policy is being implemented. They then translate that into better policy. That's the eastern model of called the policy feedback loop. Speaker 3 (29:18): Yes, exactly. There's this policy feedback loop, and once again, as I said, the Chinese leadership are scientists, so they do this thing called a trial spot. What is when they have a policy, they try it out in one city or one area, and if it works, then they scale it up and they try it again in a larger province on a larger scale. And if it works, they scale it up even further, et cetera. So it's a very kind of scientific method that they use called trial spots where they're essentially using the scientific method and a vast system of feedback and consultation in order to see if something works or not. That's why they're, for example, creating sustainable cities, sustainable energy generation, mass transit, et cetera, all sorts of public goods. But the problem with this is that the Western concede is that if it's not liberal capitalists, that is if you don't let the capitalists do whatever they want to, this is an infringement on freedom, and that's the framing that they use. (30:23) If you don't let the predatory capitalists do anything and everything, they want to, you have infringed upon their freedom. And so that's where this authoritarian trope comes from. The thing to notice once again is as you do this extensive planning, what you get to do is you build out the foundations, and those foundations are in public health and in public housing and infrastructure and transportation and education. Once you build out all of those foundations, then you can build up real human capacity, and then you build up a real powerful economy. And so for example, if you look at the 20 largest corporations on the planet, the majority of them are Chinese. But the other thing about those large corporations is the majority of them are state owned corporations. That is to say they're owned by the people. For example, the largest banks in the world are Chinese banks. (31:25) How much do the leaders of these banks make? Well, they make probably they wouldn't make enough to rent an apartment in San Francisco, maybe two times, three times max, what their average income of their average worker is, as opposed to Jamie Diamond, who makes 18,000 times what his lowest workers make. And so it's a very, very different system where you bring up the highest most qualified people. At the same time, you do not reward them for greed. You do not reward them for, with exorbitant pay, essentially, you give them a decent salary, not an exorbitant salary, but a salary, which is good enough for a decent level of standard of living in China. You may give them an apartment and you may give them, there may be a canteen where they can get discount meals, but that's about it. But it's understood that you are going to really work to improve your country, serve the people, serve your countrymen, and then make a better society. (32:39) And you see this real kind of whole society effort to improve the country, which is why over the last 30, 40 years, wages have flatlined in the United States, but wages in China have gone up anywhere five to 10 to 15 times for your average worker, for your average blue collar worker. I mean, they see their lives improving, and also you see the bottom being lifted up where they essentially ended poverty. You go to China, you will not see any slums. I mean, it's kind of astonishing. You go to almost any city in the world, you will see homeless. Or if you don't see homeless, you will see slums in China, you will see neither. And in the past few decades, they brought 850 million people out of poverty. 850 million people were brought out of poverty. This is the world's greatest economic accomplishment in the history of the world. (33:43) And essentially, they show that poverty is a policy choice. You don't have to have poor people. The Bible says the poor will always be with us. No, it's not true. It's an ideological choice, and you can end poverty in a country, and for all of these reasons, by showing that a planned economy where there's reasonable and systematic feedback can have deliver better results. This is why this example is why the western liberal elite class feels the need to destroy China because it cannot have that example, cannot have an example, which puts the lie to the massive exploitation and mystification and deceit that this system is built on. The suffering that we undergo on a daily basis is not necessary. Wilmer Leon (34:45): I want to go back to the point. China has brought 800 million people out of abject poverty over about what? The last 10 to 15 years Speaker 3 (35:03): Over the last, I would say over the past 40 years. Okay, 40 years ago, China was poorer per capita than Haiti. Wilmer Leon (35:14): That's poor. Speaker 3 (35:15): And now there's no comparison, right? Wilmer Leon (35:17): The United States has on the upper end, in terms of what the government numbers are, not 800 million unhoused, 800,000, Speaker 3 (35:32): Yeah. Somewhere in that range. Wilmer Leon (35:34): And so me being from Sacramento, California, you go to north side of Sacramento near the American River near the Sacramento River, people living under bridges, you go to Oakland, people living under overpasses, you go to San Francisco, people living under overpasses, people can't even afford the middle class in San Francisco, can't even afford to rent an apartment that people that work in San Francisco can't afford to live in San Francisco. Okay, pick a city, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia. Pick one. You see people standing in the medians of intersections with signs and cups begging for money. 800,000 people homeless in the United States. We can't fix it, but China brings 800 million people out of poverty. Folks do the math. Speaker 3 (36:37): Yeah, I mean, it's pretty astounding. I mean, the 800,000 homeless is probably an under count because it's hard to count. Wilmer Leon (36:44): Sure. That's why I said it's a government number. Speaker 3 (36:47): Yes, it's a government number. But even without looking at the homeless, think about the fact that 60% of the people in the United States do not have $500 to their name. That means if they get a flat tire, if they need to change their tires, fix their car, or get a parking ticket, they are in real trouble, right? I mean, there's just no margins. And so the vast majority of working people in the United States are struggling, and they see no light at the end of the tunnel at the same time that they expect their children to have even worse conditions. No longer housing is no longer, nobody can think of housing anymore. Now its cars are no longer affordable. Right? When I taught in community college, I was told that 80% of the students were housing insecure. When I taught, most of the students would come to class and they couldn't focus because they were hungry. (37:52) I mean, you have adjunct professors living out of cars. So this is the level of ridiculous, absurd maldistribution of wealth that you can do everything right, work your rear off, and still end up with nothing, just barely be treading water if even that. And on the other hand, you have a country like China where if you work, you will see your life constantly improving from year to year. On average, your worker has been seeing their wages increase 8% every year for the past 20, 30, 40 years. I mean, that's astounding. Wilma, have you had an 8% increase in your salary for the past 30 years? Wilmer Leon (38:45): Can't say that I have. Speaker 3 (38:48): You must be doing something wrong then. Wilmer Leon (38:50): I can't say that I have. Let's move to element number two, shaping the environment. What are the techniques and what are some of the tangible elements that we can point to in terms of shaping the environment? Speaker 3 (39:05): Okay, the first thing about shaping the environment is creating alliances. So the US is creating multiple alliances. That's alliance between the United States, Korea, and Japan. I refer to it as jackass or jackass. You see the alliance between Australia, the United States, uk, to prepare for war, nuclear war against China, Aus. You see the Japan, Philippines, US Alliance, and the South China Sea jaas, which is once again unthinkable as it is with Korea, that the colonial dominator, Japan would be creating a military alliance with the colonized. But all of this is mediated and midwife by the United States. And then you see NATO coming into Asia. So already when the US does military exercise in the Pacific, you see the LFA flying over. You see NATO exercises. You see that Korea is linking up to the NATO intelligence system, B-I-C-E-S, bcs. And that Taiwan is getting the link 16 tactical data link, which allows the US to create a common tactical and operational picture of the Warfield in order to create what they refer to as a transnational kill chain. (40:29) That is, you're using all of these countries for combined joint all domain command and control. It's simply one large military machine, all of these different countries together. So that's one part of shaping the environment. Another part of shaping the environment is pre-positioning troops, pre-positioning material, and also doing these constant military exercises and escalating to industrial war footing, which is what they are talking about. They're saying the US has to shift immediately to an industrial war footing. Certainly South Korea and Japan are already expected to do this. The plans to use shipyards in Korea for to repair us battle damage, and then the constant escalation into what I refer to as the third offset. The third offset is that China has the capacity to respond. If the US and the US has over 300, probably close to 400 bases right around China, China has the capacity to fire missiles and keep the United States at bay. (41:50) It has the Don Feng missiles that are very, very precise. And the US offset to that has been to disperse its troops all around the first island chain, prepare for island hopping, prepare for Ace agile deployment, and essentially to attack China through diffused, distributed, dispersed warfare. All of this is preparation. And then the other way, which is traditionally the environment is shaped, is through information warfare and economic warfare, trade warfare, tech warfare. The idea is that you are going to try and try to create as much disruption inside China itself, create as much descent inside China itself, and also try and degrade its economy before you go into war. Ideally, you want to level sanctions on it before you go in, but in the case of Russia, for example, they will level sanctions after the war starts. But the idea is to degrade the economy and the will to fight, and the capacity to fight as much as possible so that you enter into the battle with an unfair advantage, an overmatch. (43:12) The analogy that I sometimes think of is that when a matador goes into the ring to fight a bull, what they've done is they've drug the bull, they've starved it, they've beaten it, they've dehydrated it, et cetera. And then you go to war, and then you have this theatrical presentation of how you've dominated the bull. In the bull fight, usually the US tries to do this kind of degrading before it enters into war. So for example, it sanctioned Iraq for a decade before it blew it up into smithereens, et cetera. So you see all of these things happening in terms of the hybrid war, the preparations, the alliances, the exercises, the prepositioning and the military preparation. Wilmer Leon (43:58): In fact, the sanctions regime that you've just talked about as it relates to Iraq is exactly what the United States has been trying to do with Russia, has been trying to do with Iran has tried to do with China. And what the reality that the United States now finds itself dealing with is that sanctions regime has forced those sanctioned countries to establish relationships amongst themselves and relationships amongst themselves. So they've entered into trade agreements. They've entered into the bricks, for example, the Chinese development Bank. There are a number of elements now where China and Russia have developed trade agreements, have developed defense cooperation agreements. So really what the United States has done through this sanctions regime is really shot itself in the foot because what it thought it could do with economic pressure and other types of sanctions has actually created a much bigger problem than the United States ever could have imagined. Speaker 3 (45:15): Well, I mean, the US has sanctioned what something close to one third of the countries on the planet or something approaching that. I mean, the idea is that it's simple. A sanction is like a siege. It's like you're building a wall around a country. The problem is if you build a wall around a country, you're also building a wall around yourself, and eventually you're walling yourself in, which is what the United States is doing here. And so with the financial sanctions, with the trade sanctions and economic sanctions, essentially it's strengthening China, Russia, Iran, and the countries of the global south, and it's weakening itself. And so that is the contradiction there. But they don't understand that, and they think that they're still capable of destroying, for example, Russia. I mean, they still believe that they almost brought Russia to its knees, and it's just a matter of applying a little bit more pressure. They're not reading the situation directly. But yes, this is what they want to do, and they consider this to be part of shaping the environment. Wilmer Leon (46:24): And one quick example of that is the whole chip sanction where the United States figured that it could cripple the Chinese economy from a technology side by prohibiting China's access to high processing chips. What did China do? They figured it out. They make their own and better than the ones that they were getting from Taiwan. And an example of that is the Huawei made 60 telephone. A lot of people in the West think that the iPhone is the greatest phone on the planet. No folks, it's a phone that we can't get in the United States. It's the Huawei mate, 60 plus, which not only is a cell phone, but is a satellite phone as well. Speaker 3 (47:15): Yes, it's an extraordinary piece of technology, incredible engineering, and it just goes to show that when the US tries to sanction China or even a single Chinese company by putting it in a choke hold, and its CFO, China just responds with even greater strength and better technology. So it's not happening. It's not happening to an individual corporation, and it's not going to happen to China in general, which is why the US wants to pull the trigger on war. I think there's a part of the NeoCon elite that are so desperate, they see that kinetic war is the only thing that it's the only Trump card that they have left. Wilmer Leon (48:00): And I've been saying for a while to Jake Sullivan and to the Secretary of State, to the President, be careful what you pray for because you might get it even with the hypersonic missile technology. I want to say that, what was it last year or about a year and a half ago, the United States War gamed against China 25 times and lost 25 times. Speaker 3 (48:38): Yes, each time it lost and it lost faster, and then eventually they had to deposit all kinds of hypotheticals that didn't exist in order to give themselves some kind of pretext of winning. Clearly, if they do the math and if they do the simulations, it's not going to work out for them. But the really dangerous thing here, and I'll be very, very honest here, the dangers is that because the US no longer has overmatch and none of these offsets work, it's going to go back to the final first offset, which is mass a bigger bomb, which is to say that they're going to go nuclear on this war and going nuclear against another nuclear power is a very, very bad idea. The US is doctrine of counterforce, which essentially argues that in order for us to prevail, we have to strike first with nuclear weapons. (49:30) That's the idea. It's not counter value. Counterforce. We strike with nuclear weapons first. We knock out as many nuclear targets as possible, and that way we come out ahead and we can shoot down anything that's left. This is the US nuclear position, the nuclear posture. And this is very, very dangerous because it's clearly an act of madness. But as I said before, the ruling, ruling elite, the imperial elite believes that they signal that they would rather see the end of the world than the less than the end of their power, than the end of their domination. Because for them, the end of their domination is the end of their world, not the end of their world, but the end of their world, and they're very happy to bring down the rest of the world with them. Wilmer Leon (50:21): Provocation is the third. We've talked about the info war. We've talked about shaping the environment. And now the third element is the provocation. And we are seeing this play itself out damn near daily, right before our very eyes. And thank God that President Rai in Iran, that President Xi, that Kim Jong-un in North Korea and President Putin, thank God that these are sensible, sensible people that are not reactionary and engage in knee jerk responses to provocation. Because if they weren't as thoughtful as they are, we'd be in a much, much different world circumstance than we are right now. Speaker 3 (51:12): I agree with you. I mean, I think it's the sober sanity of US opponents, which is keeping the world from exploding into war. Just as during the Cold War, it was Russian officers who understood US culture and for example, understood that when there were signals of a nuclear attack being launched, they also understood that the World Series was happening at the same time, and they thought it was unlikely the US would launch a nuclear attack during the World Series. But this is predicated on the idea that you have cultured intelligent, calm people who are able to make clear distinctions. And we see that in RACI and President Xi and President Putin, who are very, very measured in their responses. And they're not seeking war. They're seeking diplomacy and peace. And you can see that there is a constant attempt to provoke them and to demonize them and to trigger war, but they understand that time is on their side, and these are the mad thrashings of a dying empire, and their approach is not to engage. (52:34) The problem is that the provocations become even more extreme, more and more extreme as they become more and more desperate. And there's another piece of the information war that I didn't touch on, but I think it's worthwhile touching on, is one of the key tropes of information warfare is that the other country is a threat to the people of your country. Not simply a threat, but an existential threat, A WMD type of threat, a genocidal threat. We saw that WMD type of language when it was alleged that Covid was a Chinese bio weapon, which somehow was being paid for by the United States. So that doesn't make any sense that research was being funded by the United States. So how is the US funding that research for China to attack us? Nobody seems to be able to explain that piece, but so they're WMD type allegations, and then the China is genocidal in intent, and this is most commonly demonstrated by the allegations of a genocide happening in Xinjiang. Now, just to go over the facts, there Wilmer Leon (53:51): Is, wait, wait a minute. Before we get to that, I want to touch on one thing you mentioned not firing the missile. And I want to say that that was a Russian technician, Vasili arch, about what, 65 years ago, who was looking at his radar screen, saw what most would've perceived to be an incoming nuclear missile from the United States on his screen. And the protocol was you got to push the button. And he, to your point, said, wait a minute. This doesn't make sense right now. This might be a mistake, and thank God he was right. It was a mistake. I wanted to make that point because you kind of glossed over that point. But it's very important for people to understand how perilous the circumstances are that we're in today. Speaker 3 (54:55): Absolutely. I mean, there were so many close shaves during the Cold War, and they're even more now, and the world owes a debt of gratitude to vestly ov. I think he's one of the unsung heroes of world history, but we can't rely on the fact that there will always be a vasili arch of a patient measured, well-informed, educated person on the other side who exercises prudent caution. There's no guarantee of that. And everything that we are doing on our side is simply escalating the danger that that will not happen and that this could end in a nuclear conflagration. Wilmer Leon (55:41): Final point on that, then we'll go to the Uyghur issue. And that is, that's one of the points that President Putin was making about NATO and why his perception was a uk, a Ukraine in NATO means NATO missiles in Ukraine, which means his response time to a message of incoming would be cut more than in half. And he was saying, we can't do that. You can't put these missiles on my border and cut my response time from 16 or 17 minutes down to seven minutes. That means if my system say incoming, I got a button to push. I don't have a phone to pick up. I don't have questions to ask. I got a fire on receipt. Speaker 3 (56:37): Absolutely, yes. Launch on warning, Wilmer Leon (56:39): Launch on warning. Speaker 3 (56:41): Yes. And that's exactly the danger. And this is why this was so important that by bringing NATO right up into Ukraine, the Soviet Union, well, Russia lost all of its strategic debt that it had no cushion with which to make a rational decision. And that is a very, very dangerous thing to do against a nuclear superpower that you have designated as an official enemy. So yes, it's absolutely correct, and this is both the danger and what we are seeing replicated in against China. Once again, the US used to have nuclear weapons in Taiwan Island. Right now, they're probably preparing more nuclear weapons, certainly the tomahawks that are being prepared for Japan or nuclear capable, they can carry nuclear warheads. And if you take US troops and place them right three miles from China's mainland, I mean, you've essentially said that you either have to preempt the attack or you are going to be annihilated. So that is the danger here. Wilmer Leon (57:58): The other great myth, one of the other great myths is the genocide of the Uyghurs and the oppression of the Uyghurs who are a group of Chinese Muslims in a region of China. And also if they're not being genocided, then they're being put into reeducation and concentration camps. Where did this myth come from? Speaker 3 (58:28): It was started by a guy called Adrian Zant, working for the victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is extreme far right organization, fascists, Nazis, anti-communist, who essentially have it on their banner head to destroy communism. Adrian ZZ himself believes that it is God's mission, his mission from God to destroy Chinese communism. And he essentially pulled those figures and those facts out of, pardon my French, his rear end. And so initially, so Wilmer Leon (59:07): Actually French kg would be ass, he pulled those data, excuse my French, out of his ass. Speaker 3 (59:14): I think the French word is true or football. Wilmer Leon (59:20): But Speaker 3 (59:21): Yes, the BBC asked him to do the research. He said, I can't do it. And then they offered him more money, and then suddenly all of a sudden he was pulling numbers out of his rear end. Apparently there were perhaps a few dozen people that were interviewed. A small percentage of them said that certain things happened to us, and then they extrapolated that, and all of a sudden we have 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, 5 million, 7 million uighurs either in concentration camps or being genocided. Okay, Wilmer Leon (01:00:00): So how does that jive with the population of Xinjiang, which I think is the western part of China, which is where these folks are supposed to be. Speaker 3 (01:00:09): There are about 12 million Uyghurs. And so if you had even a million that had been disappeared or in concentration camps, you wouldn't have a functioning society. You would have almost every adult male in prison. And that's certainly not the case. 200, 250 million people visited Xinjiang last year, and it was fine. The people in Xinjiang were doing fine. It's a vibrant, multicultural society that is thriving and happy, and anybody can go there. You and I could go there. Anybody listening to this podcast could go there tomorrow. You don't even have to. A visa. China allows Americans to go to China without a visa now for a short period of time, and you could go immediately to Xinjiang and see for yourself. But essentially the fact is there is no Chinese genocide happening in Xinjiang because there's not a single shred of credible evidence. Let me emphasize that. Not a single shred of credible evidence. This is the only genocide in history that one has no deaths. Nobody can point to a body, no refugees. Wilmer Leon (01:01:24): Well, that's, they've been disappeared. They've been taken up by the mothership, and I guess they're floating around in the nuclear. I mean the, what do you call this? The nebula Speaker 3 (01:01:38): In the fifth? Wilmer Leon (01:01:39): Yeah, they're in the nebula somewhere, Speaker 3 (01:01:41): Right? Right in the fifth space, time war somewhere. But look, there are five Muslim majority countries. China has borders with 14 countries, and Xinjiang itself has borders with five Muslim majority countries, very porous borders. If there were any credible oppression, you would see massive refugees going to all these countries right next to it. But it's not. Instead, what you see is preferential treatment of the Uyghurs. For example, they were exempt from the one child policy. They had two, three, sometimes more children. They received preferential treatment in school, admissions and employment. The population has increased sixfold since the start of the PRC, and the life expectancy has increased 150%, and you can look high and low and you will see no hate speech and no tolerance of hate speech against Muslims, and no messages or rhetoric targeting the group whatsoever. In fact, the organization of Islamic Corporation, which represents the rights of 2 billion Muslims in 56 countries, commended China for its exemplary treatment of Muslim minorities. (01:03:00) So this is completely and totally fraudulent. There are 24,000 mosques in the region. People live their own lives, they speak their own language. And then here's the contrast, or here's the test case, because when you want to make a proposition, you also want to make a test group against that. Okay? In Gaza, there is a real genocide happening, either sheer unspeakable, barity and atrocity, the daily massacre of men, women, children, infants, starved to death, unimaginable privation and starvation and suffering, and compare that. And nobody can get into Gaza, right? Nobody can get into Gaza. Anybody can get into Xinjiang any day of the day or night. So really this fraud about Xinjiang being some kind of genocide, this is as much a signal of the dying empire as the real genocide in Palestine, it's foundationally mating, and it's a foundationally violent lie, but it's the other side of the same coin that is you are enabling and covering up a real genocide while you were fraudulently concocting a non-existent one. But the thing we have to understand is the invention of a false genocide cannot cover up a real one. Those of us on the right side of history, we know what to believe and we know how to act, and we know who's responsible, who's covering up what and why they're doing it. Wilmer Leon (01:04:53): And the United States is also trying to foment another genocide in Haiti. So there's a false one in Xinjiang. There's a real one in Gaza, and there's another one on the horizon in Haiti, and thank you United States because it's our tax dollars that are fanning the flames and funding all three kj. No, my brother. Thank you, man. I really, really, really appreciate the time that you gave this evening and for you coming on connecting the dots, because as always, kj, you connected the dots, man. Thank you for joining me today. Speaker 3 (01:05:39): Thank you. Always a pleasure and an honor to be with you. Wilmer Leon (01:05:43): And folks, I want to thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wiler Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe, leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below. Go to Patreon. Please contribute. Please, please contribute because this is not an inexpensive venture to engage in. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Have a great one, peace and blessings to y'all. Announcer (01:06:40): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

On today's interminable Ruminant, Jonah subjects listeners to musings about the death of Henry Kissinger and the gross reveling by some. He then turns to the shortcomings of realpolitik and realism, the debate between Gov. DeSantis and Gov. Newsom, the anticipated sequel to Suicide of the West, and the presence of post-liberalism on the right. Stick around to find out why Jonah doesn't write comedic columns anymore. Show Notes: -G-File: Elizabeth Warren, Countess of Sandwich, Schmears the Market -Henry Kissinger, War Criminal Beloved by America's Ruling Class, Finally Dies -George Will: The Conservative Sensibility -Axios: The Trump job applications revealed -Donald Trump poses the biggest danger to the world in 2024 -Paul Wolfowitz's interview with Vanity Fair -Tim Alberta on The Remnant -Danielle Pletka on The Remnant Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ya estamos otra vez con todos vosotros desde el canal de Telegram. Veo que no se ha comprendido muy bien nuestro programa anterior. Ni contándoles la anécdota de Voltaire y lo masón que era y como desde la masonería han creado esa dualidad de partidos que no son más que las dos manos del mismo titiritero se ha entendido que necesitamos de toda la sociedad para lograr un cambio efectivo. El ser humano es un mamífero y como todos ellos necesita del rebaño, eso que se llama la mentalidad de rebaño, mentalidad de turba o mentalidad de manada. Como dice la wikipedia: “…las personas pueden ser influenciadas por sus compañeros para que adopten ciertos comportamientos sobre una base más emocional que racional. Cuando las personas se ven afectadas por la mentalidad de rebaño, pueden tomar decisiones diferentes a las que tomarían individualmente.” “Los experimentos de conformidad de Asch (1951) incluyeron una serie de estudios dirigidos por el psicólogo estadounidense Solomon Asch que midieron los efectos de las creencias y opiniones del grupo mayoritario en los individuos. Un participante ingenuo fue colocado en una sala con siete cómplices (es decir, actores) que habían acordado de antemano igualar sus respuestas. El participante no estaba al tanto de esto y se le dijo que los actores también eran participantes ingenuos. Hubo una condición de control sin cómplices. Los cómplices dieron a propósito la respuesta incorrecta en 12 de los 18 ensayos. El otro participante solía ir con el grupo y decía la respuesta incorrecta. Se encontró que un tercio (33%) de los participantes ingenuos se conformaron siempre con la mayoría claramente incorrecta, y el 75% de los participantes se conformaron en 12 de los 18 ensayos. El 99% de los participantes dieron una respuesta verdadera cuando no había cómplices.” Es por esto que el camino de la búsqueda de la verdad es un camino solitario y plagado de obstáculos, sobre todo entretenimientos y la soberbia de creerse mas sabio que el resto de la población. No debemos caer tampoco en la absoluta desilusión que sobreviene en las primeras etapas de eso que se ha llamado entrecomillas “el despertar”. Les cuento todo esto porque hay que poner en duda absolutamente todo lo que caiga en nuestras manos e intentar comprobarlo por nuestros medios en la medida de lo posible. Obviamente nadie sabe de todo y a veces será muy difícil dilucidar lo que es verdad y lo que es mentira, lo que es paja y lo que es grano, lo que nos lleva por el camino del mal y lo que nos acerca al todo. Hoy vamos a intentar hablar sobre geopolítica y como esta esta determinada no solo por los planes oscuros que tienen las élites para las masas sino y mucho más importante por el acuerdo tácito al que lleguen estas masas según lo que están experimentando y lo que crean desear. Circula un texto entre los conspiranoicos supuestamente escrito en 1981 por el que fue asesor de François Mitterrand, Jacques Attali, que dice así "En el futuro será cuestión de encontrar la forma de reducir la población. Empezaremos por el viejo, porque en cuanto supera los 60- 65 años el hombre vive más de lo que produce y le cuesta caro a la sociedad. Luego los débiles y luego los inútiles que no aportan nada a la sociedad porque cada vez serán más, y sobre todo finalmente los estúpidos. Eutanasia dirigida a estos grupos; la eutanasia deberá ser un instrumento esencial de nuestras sociedades futuras, en todos los casos. Por supuesto, no podremos ejecutar personas ni organizar campamentos. Nos desharemos de ellos haciéndoles creer que es por su propio bien. Una población demasiado grande, y en su mayor parte innecesaria, es algo económicamente demasiado caro. Socialmente, también es mucho mejor que la máquina humana se detenga abruptamente en lugar de deteriorarse gradualmente. ¡No podremos pasar pruebas de inteligencia en millones y millones de personas, se puede imaginar! Encontraremos algo o lo causaremos; una pandemia que apunte a ciertas personas, una crisis económica real o no, un virus que afectará a los viejos o los mayores, no importa, los débiles y los miedosos sucumbirán. El estúpido la creerá y pedirá ser tratado. Nos habremos cuidado de haber planificado el tratamiento, un tratamiento que serà la solución. La selección de los idiotas se hará, pues, por si sola: irán solos al matadero". Supuestamente este fragmento se recoge en su libro "Breve historia del futuro", publicado en Francia en 2006. No nombran ni el capitulo ni la página del libro, tan solo esos datos que os he comentado. Si leemos la versión de 2006 veremos que el pdf ocupa 422 páginas y en una última nota a pie de página se indica que el libro fue escrito antes de la caída del muro de Berlín y publicado en Francia en 1990. Pero como digo en la web oficial de wikipedia sobre este libro se indica claramente que fue publicado en 2006. En Archive punto org hay un libro de la versión original publicado por la editorial Fayard que tiene 436 páginas aunque nos indican que le faltan las páginas 388 y 389 por escanear. Si buscamos versiones mas recientes en Amazon tenemos una de 2010 que nos dice que el pdf tiene solo 320 páginas. Yo he leido una versión incompleta publicada por la editorial Paidós en 2007 y esta que es supuestamente la original del 2006. En ninguna de ellas he encontrado la cita donde se dice de reducir la población de esa manera tan clara… ¿Qué quiero decir con todo esto? Pues que es casi imposible poder asegurar que en ese libro se citan esas frases tan elocuentes sobre lo que piensan esta plutocracia psicópata sobre nosotros. Lo que si podemos encontrar es alguna versión en español de segunda mano por casi 900 euros mientras en Amazon te venden el pdf por poco más de 14 euros. ¿El pdf estará ya capado y en el libro original si podremos leer esas frases? Dudo muchísimo que un oficialnoico como el señor Atalli nos contaría a las claras los planes de la elite psicopatocratica de la que el posiblemente sea un miembro destacado. De lo que si habla este ex asesor del presidente francés Mitterrand es del cambio climático, el agujero de la capa de ozono, la subida del nivel de los océanos, etc. O sea, nos vende todas y cada una de las partes de la agenda que tenían preparadas para todos nosotros. Y eso es lo único que nos debe importar al intentar comprender alguno de estos temas tan complejos. ¿Nos intenta vender la moto o vemos una intención sincera de contar la verdad? El señor Atalli nos habla en este libro de los tres órdenes que condicionan el desarrollo de las sociedades humanas: el orden ritual (religioso), el orden imperial (militar) y el orden comercial (control de la economía). El orden comercial, es decir el del capitalismo liberal, ha ido sustituyendo paulatinamente a los órdenes anteriores, el de las religiones y el de los imperios. Nos habla del núcleo de dichos imperios como de los corazones y como este orden mercantil pasó por nueve "corazones" sucesivos asociados al desarrollo de nueve tecnologías dominantes: Brujas y el timón de popa , Venecia y la carabela , Amberes y la imprenta , Génova y la contabilidad , Ámsterdam y la flauta , Londres y el motor de vapor, Boston y el motor de combustión interna, Nueva York y el motor eléctrico, Los Ángeles y el microprocesador. Una ciudad se convierte en “corazón” si reúne los medios para transformar un nuevo servicio en un producto industrial. Su entorno inmediato es el medio, el resto del mundo es la periferia. A este señor Atalli se le olvidó reseñar que las mismas familias que empezaron en Sumeria, en Egipto, en Roma son las que terminaron en Venecia, Amsterdam o Nueva York. Un pequeñísimo detalle que junto con repetir y dar por buena la Agenda 2030 nos debería dejar claro de que lado está y para quién habla. Por otro lado tenemos a genios como Pedro Bustamante que en su primer libro titulado “El imperio de la ficción - Capitalismo y sacrificios hollywoodenses” nos dice esto sobre la geopolítica del Imperio: “El capitalismo supone la sumisión de la política, la religión y la moral, que tienden a pasar a operar como meras fachadas vacías de contenido, como fenómenos colaterales que el régimen capitalista tiende a poner a su servicio, por activa o por pasiva. O en todo caso como fenómenos minoritarios. Al mismo tiempo, el régimen capitalista incorpora de alguna manera estas dimensiones en su propia lógica, sin dejar de servirse de las antiguas formas como máscaras que esconden el verdadero rostro del capital. Así, tanto la política, como la religión y la moral funcionan hoy, sobre todo, como máscaras del imperio. Hay que leerlas siempre en conjunción con el resto de fenómenos si se quiere entender cómo contribuyen al dominio imperial, a la manera del «poli bueno» y el «poli malo». Entender, por ejemplo, la complicidad que puede existir entre el Vaticano y la agenda del Nuevo Orden Mundial. Esta dimensión enmascaradora se observa en el caso de los Estados-nación, cada vez más sometidos a las dinámicas capitalistas e imperiales, hasta el punto de que hoy están en proceso de desaparición.” “Como fase actual de esta dinámica de destrucción y construcción, lo que hoy estamos presenciando es, a través de numerosos mecanismos, la desintegración de los Estados-nación y su reintegración en el orden neoliberal global, que tiene como objetivo final, relativamente encubierto, la instauración de un Nuevo Orden Mundial totalitario.” “De manera que estamos atravesando una época de inflexión histórica en la que los equilibrios globales se están redefiniendo, lo que explica la situación de crisis e incertidumbre generalizadas y los reacomodos en la geopolítica global. Al mismo tiempo grandes sectores de la población que han ido siendo cada vez más marginados, en distintos grados, por las políticas neoliberales globales de las últimas décadas, se sienten cada vez menos identificados con las políticas imperiales, son cada vez más víctimas de estas, pasan a engrosar las filas de la resistencia, de una forma u otra.” “En todas estas áreas de conflicto o desestabilización está jugando un papel fundamental el factor social, la existencia de sectores de la población descontentos. Pues estas situaciones locales reales son, como veremos, la base en la que las dinámicas ficticias del imperio se inscriben. Si a esto le unimos la enorme capacidad que tiene todavía el imperio atlantista para crear dinero, la sofisticación de sus métodos para infiltrarse en otros Estados —a través de los medios de comunicación, las redes sociales, fundaciones y ONGs, apoyo a grupos insurgentes y terroristas, la catalización de catástrofes «naturales», etc. — , tenemos ya algunos de los ingredientes necesarios para comprender en qué sentido el imperio de la ficción-actúa hoy sobre la realidad. De nuevo, lo que estamos intentando hacer con nuestro marco teórico es comprender la aparente complejidad y variedad de los fenómenos que hoy se están produciendo. Todos estos conflictos, crisis, desestabilizaciones, revueltas, catástrofes, etc., son lo que se ha dado en llamar conflictos de baja intensidad o guerras de cuarta generación. Y es que hoy nada es lo que parece. Aunque muchos no se hayan dado cuenta, estamos ya en plena tercera guerra mundial, que al mismo tiempo es una guerra civil planetaria de las élites capitalistas contra todos. La clave es entender que todos estos fenómenos de diverso tipo, que no parecen guerras como lo eran las guerras tradicionales, también lo son. Esto es lo que el imperio de la ficción no quiere que entendamos, y mucho menos que luchemos en su contra en esta guerra total capitalista.” Y eso que describe tan bien Pedro en 2015 es exactamente lo que sufrimos hoy. Eso es por lo que la entrecomillas “gente normal”, gente que tiene un buen trabajo y gana suficiente dinero se manifiestan a diario frente a la sede de un partido político sin entender que están llevando su protesta a la ventanilla equivocada. Es contra el Imperio, contra el Imperio del mal, donde deberían dirigir su indignación y formular allí sus preguntas: ¿Por qué debemos aceptar la cultura de la muerte como algo normal, los abortos, la eutanasia, los suicidios? ¿Por qué cada dia es peor la salud física y mental de las personas? ¿Por qué nuestros cielos están cubiertos de una pátina grisácea que nos dicen que es vapor de agua? ¿Por qué cada vez es peor la educación y la sanidad siendo cada vez mayores las partidas que se destinan a ello? ¿Por qué no sirve de nada votar y por qué no les pasa nada a los partidos políticos que no cumplen nada de lo que prometen? ¿Por qué se promueven políticas de reemplazo de las poblaciones autóctonas europeas por inmigrantes foráneos? Podríamos seguir indefinidamente formulando preguntas sin respuesta y la única pregunta que nos debería importar seria: ¿Cómo podemos acabar con este Imperio del mal? ………………………………………………………………………………………. Decía el presidente Roosevelt que “en política, nada ocurre por casualidad. Cada vez que un acontecimiento surge, se puede estar seguro que fue previsto para llevarse a cabo de esa manera”. En muchos de los artículos que hay en el blog tecnicopreocupado todo junto y sin acento punto com hemos tocado de forma implícita la geopolítica y los intereses geoestrategicos que muchas veces son muy contradictorios. Por ejemplo, ¿por que USA le proporcionaría la tecnologia nuclear a Japón después de devastarlo en la segunda guerra mundial y por que contribuiría a modernizar el pais? ¿Y por qué un pais golpeado por dos bombas nucleares permitiría la introducción de dicha tecnologia y de la forma desproporcionada que termino creando el monstruo de Fukushima? En mi blog podéis leer una serie de artículos que yo titulé Fukushima y la aldea nuclear y que son en parte la traducción de un artículo titulado EN EL CAMINO A FUKUSHIMA: LA HISTORIA NO DECLARADA DETRÁS DEL COMPLEJO NUCLEAR-MEDIA-INDUSTRIAL DE JAPÓN escrito por BRIAN COVERT y que fue uno de los más censurados en 2013. “Es la historia de cómo la prensa japonesa ha llegado a convertirse en una potencia global de medios en sí misma, y cómo la industria de noticias dominada por las corporaciones de Japón creció mano a mano con el desarrollo de la nación de la energía atómica y otras industrias importantes después de la guerra. Es la historia de crímenes de guerra cometidos por sospechosos japoneses encarcelados por las fuerzas de ocupación estadounidenses, del magnate de los medios de comunicación por excelencia de Japón, del padrino del desarrollo de la energía nuclear en Japón, y del padre del béisbol japonés profesional -todos los cuales resultan ser el mismo hombre, el poderoso antecesor japonés del conocido actualmente como Rupert Murdoch. Es la historia del poder ejercido por las fuerzas de la derecha en Japón y, en la periferia, de la mafia japonesa. Es una historia que también involucra de cerca a los Estados Unidos de América como benefactores: la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA), el Congreso de EE.UU., y el establecimiento de los medios de comunicación de los EE.UU.. Es la historia de las prioridades geopolíticas de la Guerra Fría de los Estados Unidos sobre la seguridad a largo plazo y la seguridad del medio ambiente del planeta.” ¿Os suena Rupert Murdoch? Pues si no es así es por que es uno de los capos de los medios de comunicación nivel global. Esto explica porque apenas sabemos nada sobre Fukushima y es casi imposible encontrar nada del pasado ya que los enlaces han dejado de funcionar o se han redireccionado a otras páginas. El rastro de silencio es enorme con respecto a la mayor catástrofe nuclear del planeta, algo que por los efluentes radiactivos vertidos es innegable. Pero no es creas que lo que paso con la energia radiactiva en Japón es algo especial, ha vuelto a pasar en Irán. Programa nuclear de Irán que empezó bajo el mandato del Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlevi de Irán en la década de 1950, con la ayuda obviamente de los Estados Unidos de América. Con la creación de la agencia atómica de Irán y con la firma del NPT (Tratado de no Proliferación Nuclear), el Sha planeó la construcción para el año 2000 de hasta 23 estaciones de energía nuclear por todo el país en conjunto con los EE.UU. En 1976 se firma un tratado estando Gerald Ford como presidente de USA, Dick Cheney, como su Jefe de Gabinete en la Casa Blanca, Donald Rumsfeld como el Secretario de Defensa y Paul Wolfowitz, dentro de la Agencia de Control de Armas y Desarme lo que permitiría a Irán comprar y operar una instalación de procesamiento, de fabricación estadounidense, para extraer plutonio. Y después vino lo que todos sabemos, Iran inicio una revolución islámica y supuestamente USA y el mundo occidental deberían haber roto todas las relaciones para impedir que Irán siguiese con su programa nuclear, pero no fue así. Muchos países estaban involucrados y colaborando con Irán en los 70: Alemania, Francia, Bélgica, España y Suecia. Incluso argentina lo intentó pero eso que llaman la comunidad internacional no la dejo. Japón fue uno de los que participó activamente intercambiando el uranio iraní por tecnologia en secreto y no reza en ningún sitio pero esta también es una de las razones de Fukushima. Los rusos y los chinos fueron los últimos en ayudar a Iran logrando que este pudiera enriquecer su propio uranio y se proyectase de facto como una potencia nuclear. El último acuerdo internacional sobre la congelación del programa nuclear iraní ha sido la puntilla que ha proporcionado la última tecnologia necesaria. Supuestamente se trata de que Iran solo desarrolle tecnologia nuclear de uso civil, o sea, solo centrales nucleares para obtener energia eléctrica. El problema es que todos sabemos que los residuos de dichas centrales son necesarios para procesar el plutonio militar por mucho que los pronucleares lo nieguen. O sea, hemos generado el enemigo que necesita el Hegemón occidental para poder seguir lo cantinela de lo militar. Sin una fuerza de destrucción parecida no sería necesario invertir tanto en armamento, ¿verdad? ………………………………………………………………………………………. Decía Pedro Bustamante en su libro El Imperio de la ficción: “Cuanto más poder acumula y concentra el imperio, cuanto menor sea su penetración en el no-imperio, cuanto más crítica sea su necesidad de conquista, cuanto más desprotegida sea la situación en las áreas a conquistar, más violento tenderá a ser este proceso de conquista. Insistimos, la convivencia-libre se caracteriza por su tendencia al equilibrio. Este debería ser el verdadero significado del término «sostenibilidad». Por el contrario el imperio se basa en el desequilibrio, en la asimetría; pues lo que persigue es la dominación de un polo sobre otro, la explotación y la extracción de riqueza desde el polo inferior hacia el polo superior del sistema. De manera que la estrategia básica del imperio es, por un lado, aprovecharse de los desequilibrios ya existentes, y por otro, intensificarlos, catalizarlos, provocarlos. En suma, fomentar las crisis. «No vivimos una crisis del capitalismo sino, al contrario, el triunfo del capitalismo de crisis» …” Y da igual que la crisis sea real o ficticia, que haya sido potenciada artificialmente o provenga de un proceso natural de desgaste de las sociedades. “Las crisis ficticias se basan en el método problem-reaction-solution. Se trata de crear o fomentar problemas ficticios para, aprovechando la reacción ciudadana a dichos problemas, adoptar soluciones que no habrían sido aceptadas en condiciones normales, y que es lo que se pretendía desde un principio, para lo que se monta toda la operación. Los medios de propaganda ponen particular énfasis en la vinculación entre unas crisis y otras, nos recuerdan antecedentes y casos similares, insisten en que los mismos virus o los mismos terroristas o los mismos accidentes aéreos concurrieron en crisis anteriores, reforzando así con nuevas mentiras oficiales las viejas mentiras oficiales, que terminan convirtiéndose en «verdades», como proclamaba el viejo Goebbels, a fuerza de repetición, desinformación y censura.” En esta misma línea podemos leer En el nombre del falo y del ano y de la matriz transhumana lo siguiente: “El mundo es un guiñol, un teatro de marionetas. La mayoría de los fenómenos que se dan en el ámbito de lo social, de lo moral, de lo político- religioso, podemos interpretarlos como un teatro de guiñol. Vemos dos marionetas en escena, pero, de hecho, están siendo movidas, al menos, por un titiritero, que se esconde detrás del escenario. La habilidad del titiritero consiste en generar una tensión dramática tal que el público se olvide de que lo que está viendo son marionetas, movidas por hilos, y crea que está ante seres autónomos dotados de libre albedrío.” “Todo el sistema, desde la educación a la cultura, desde los medios de masas al llamado "estado de derecho", consiste en colocar en el escenario personajes, conflictos, dialécticas, etc., e incentivar el infantilismo del espectador para que no comprenda que todas estas oposiciones no tienen sentido si no es porque hay, al menos, una tercera parte que los maneja en algún grado, según sus propios intereses.” “En todo caso, hay que insistir en que el poder-religión está muy vinculado con la ficción. Sabemos que el ritual oscila entre crisis reales y escenificaciones en las que estas crisis se ritualizan, se simbolizan.” “…en la disociación mental de la psicopatocracia, que se ve obligada a ejercer el → mal para que este produzca el bien. El poder se basa en esta ficción, en esta virtualidad, en esta disociación. Todo lo que decimos debe servir para comprender que el poder-religión no puede renunciar a esta dimensión ficticia, escénica, representativa, virtual. Y esto se intensifica en el hollycapitalismo, en el que esta virtualidad del poder es un elemento central. Dicho de una manera muy simple, el poder- religión en el hollycapitalismo es hollywoodense. Hollywood es político y religioso. De ahí que las relaciones entre hollywood, las agencias de inteligencia, el pentágono, la geopolítica, el nuevo orden mundial, el satanismo, la programación mental, etc., sean tan estrechas. Porque en el hollycapitalismo el poder y los medios son indistinguibles, forman parte indisoluble de una misma mecánica.” “…una de las claves de la estrategia geopolítica angloamericana en eurasia es la separación entre Alemania y Rusia.” “El otro paradigma de esta trinidad hollycapitalista es el terrorismo de bandera falsa. Si la pornografía produce goce sintético, de acuerdo con un guion, el terrorismo de bandera falsa —es decir, el 99% del terrorismo que hoy padecemos—, es exactamente lo mismo: producción sintética de violencia, de acuerdo a una agenda, a una intencionalidad política o geopolítica. Como la pornografía, el terrorismo necesita cierta materia prima, pero luego esta es muy elaborada y manipulada por los medios de espectacularización y ritualización de masas. La pornografía necesita semen real y el terrorismo necesita sangre real, pero a esto se le suma un alto porcentaje de ficción, manipulación, montaje, actores, control mental, drogas, etc. Uno de las ideas centrales de este trabajo es que, cuanto más cerca estamos del goce y la violencia, más dispuesto está el espectador a tomar la ficción por una realidad. Porque más cerca estamos del → trauma y de la disociación, de la respuesta robótica, y a un tiempo irracional, inconsciente.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. Me voy a despedir hoy citando doblemente a Pedro Bustamante. En una primera cita nos habla de porque considera al mundo actual una psicopatocracia: “Hoy la hipocresía es generalizada. La franqueza es una grosería. Una cosa es tener tacto y diplomacia, no tener que decir las cosas abiertamente para que se entiendan, y otra cosa es la escisión brutal entre el decir y el hacer que hoy domina. El sistema está podrido hasta los tuétanos y la sangre de los niños sacrificados en los rituales de la élite rezuma por todos sus poros. Pero hay que seguir recitando el mantra vacío de la democracia y el estado de derecho. Y si uno no lo hace se convierte en un apestado. Porque las reglas del juego consisten, precisamente, en esta escisión radical entre el decir y el hacer.” Nunca lograran convencer a nadie de dentro de la caverna ya que la verdad no necesita de pruebas: “Lo que nos vende el pensamiento dominante es que una verdad superficial vale más que una intuición profunda. Los que nos interesamos por las verdades profundas sabemos que tenemos poco que hacer a la hora de demostrar nuestras hipótesis, nuestras intuiciones, nuestras verdades. Esta es la estrategia que van a utilizar una y otra vez para desacreditarnos, para desautorizarnos, para demonizarnos, para censurarnos, en el límite, para criminalizarnos.” Sean felices, no tengan miedo y protejan a sus familias. Nos vemos en el siguiente. ………………………………………………………………………………………. Invitados: …. Dra Yane #JusticiaParaUTP Médico y Buscadora de la verdad. Con Dios siempre! No permito q me dividan c/izq -derecha, raza, religión ni nada de la Creación. https://youtu.be/TXEEZUYd4c0 …. UTP Ramón Valero @tecn_preocupado Un técnico Preocupado un FP2 IVOOX UTP http://cutt.ly/dzhhGrf BLOG http://cutt.ly/dzhh2LX CANALES TELEGRAM Promocional donde hacemos los directos https://t.me/UnTecnicoPreocupado Abierto para comentarios https://t.me/MiVidaMiOxigeno Ayúdame desde mi Crowfunding aquí https://cutt.ly/W0DsPVq ………………………………………………………………………………………. Enlaces citados en el podcast: Mentalidad de rebaño https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalidad_de_reba%C3%B1o Experimento de Asch https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimento_de_Asch Una breve historia del futuro (wikipedia) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Une_br%C3%A8ve_histoire_de_l%27avenir Une brève histoire de l’avenir (Archive punto org) https://archive.org/details/unebrevehistoire00atta Une brève histoire de l'avenir Tapa blanda – 25 octubre 2006 https://www.amazon.es/br%C3%A8ve-histoire-lavenir-Jacques-Attali/dp/2213631301 Une brève histoire de l'avenir - Nouvelle édition 2010: https://www.amazon.es/Une-br%C3%A8ve-histoire-lavenir-Documents/dp/2253159697/ref=zg-te-pba_sccl_1_2/260-0979256-5312402?pd_rd_w=B3KYT&content-id=amzn1.sym.a3e48913-64f8-4290-b8fb-6cbfec71f208&pf_rd_p=a3e48913-64f8-4290-b8fb-6cbfec71f208&pf_rd_r=YY32KBYMFF71FCNK8BJW&pd_rd_wg=DoNRw&pd_rd_r=5de16b36-66d4-4171-8add-61ebe2dd9f3e&pd_rd_i=2253159697&psc=1 Breve historia del futuro de Jacques Attali (iberlibro) https://www.iberlibro.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&cm_sp=SearchF-_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=Breve%20historia%20del%20futuro&an=Jacques%20Attali ROJOS Y AZULES PARA SEGUIR EN LA RUEDA DEL HAMSTER https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2023/11/15/rojos-y-azules-para-seguir-en-la-rueda-del-hamster/ Análisis completo portada #TheEconomist 2024 en Español. The World Ahead 2024, todos sus secretos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtQtM3wz3oo UTP257 De guerras en Gaza y falsas banderas https://www.ivoox.com/utp257-de-guerras-gaza-falsas-banderas-audios-mp3_rf_118168579_1.html FUKUSHIMA Y LA ALDEA NUCLEAR I https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2014/04/15/fukushima-y-la-aldea-nuclear-i-2/ FUKUSHIMA Y LA ALDEA NUCLEAR II (Historia de la nuclearización de Japón) https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2014/04/16/fukushima-y-la-aldea-nuclear-ii/ IRÁN: TORTA AMARILLA ROJA DE IRA https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2020/01/11/iran-torta-amarilla-roja-de-ira/ Programa nuclear de Irán https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programa_nuclear_de_Ir%C3%A1n ¿CATALUÑA SE INDEPENDIZA? https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2017/10/05/cataluna-se-independiza/ NTRODUCCIÓN A LAS LINEAS LEY POR UN TÉCNICO PREOCUPADO https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2019/02/07/introduccion-a-las-lineas-ley-por-un-tecnico-preocupado/ EGREGORES, OBELISCOS Y LÍNEAS LEY https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2016/09/01/egregores-obeliscos-y-lineas-ley/ Audio Introducción a las líneas ley por un técnico preocupado https://www.ivoox.com/introduccion-a-lineas-ley-tecnico-audios-mp3_rf_32331046_1.html UTP 54 Introducción a las lineas ley https://www.ivoox.com/utp-54-introduccion-a-lineas-ley-audios-mp3_rf_32412589_1.html UTP78 Líneas ley: ¿Magia o ciencia avanzada? https://www.ivoox.com/utp78-li-neas-ley-magia-o-ciencia-avanzada-audios-mp3_rf_46663362_1.html ……………………………………………………………….. Música utilizada en este podcast: Tema inicial Heros ……………………………………………………………….. Epílogo Nil Moliner - VUELA ALTO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMjZ9ZyM7cc Regalito final Mouseland: Una animación para no repetir la historia - Movimiento Ciudadano https://youtu.be/gQ4yTxJQ_S8?feature=shared

Ya estamos otra vez con todos vosotros desde el canal de Telegram. Veo que no se ha comprendido muy bien nuestro programa anterior. Ni contándoles la anécdota de Voltaire y lo masón que era y como desde la masonería han creado esa dualidad de partidos que no son más que las dos manos del mismo titiritero se ha entendido que necesitamos de toda la sociedad para lograr un cambio efectivo. El ser humano es un mamífero y como todos ellos necesita del rebaño, eso que se llama la mentalidad de rebaño, mentalidad de turba o mentalidad de manada. Como dice la wikipedia: “…las personas pueden ser influenciadas por sus compañeros para que adopten ciertos comportamientos sobre una base más emocional que racional. Cuando las personas se ven afectadas por la mentalidad de rebaño, pueden tomar decisiones diferentes a las que tomarían individualmente.” “Los experimentos de conformidad de Asch (1951) incluyeron una serie de estudios dirigidos por el psicólogo estadounidense Solomon Asch que midieron los efectos de las creencias y opiniones del grupo mayoritario en los individuos. Un participante ingenuo fue colocado en una sala con siete cómplices (es decir, actores) que habían acordado de antemano igualar sus respuestas. El participante no estaba al tanto de esto y se le dijo que los actores también eran participantes ingenuos. Hubo una condición de control sin cómplices. Los cómplices dieron a propósito la respuesta incorrecta en 12 de los 18 ensayos. El otro participante solía ir con el grupo y decía la respuesta incorrecta. Se encontró que un tercio (33%) de los participantes ingenuos se conformaron siempre con la mayoría claramente incorrecta, y el 75% de los participantes se conformaron en 12 de los 18 ensayos. El 99% de los participantes dieron una respuesta verdadera cuando no había cómplices.” Es por esto que el camino de la búsqueda de la verdad es un camino solitario y plagado de obstáculos, sobre todo entretenimientos y la soberbia de creerse mas sabio que el resto de la población. No debemos caer tampoco en la absoluta desilusión que sobreviene en las primeras etapas de eso que se ha llamado entrecomillas “el despertar”. Les cuento todo esto porque hay que poner en duda absolutamente todo lo que caiga en nuestras manos e intentar comprobarlo por nuestros medios en la medida de lo posible. Obviamente nadie sabe de todo y a veces será muy difícil dilucidar lo que es verdad y lo que es mentira, lo que es paja y lo que es grano, lo que nos lleva por el camino del mal y lo que nos acerca al todo. Hoy vamos a intentar hablar sobre geopolítica y como esta esta determinada no solo por los planes oscuros que tienen las élites para las masas sino y mucho más importante por el acuerdo tácito al que lleguen estas masas según lo que están experimentando y lo que crean desear. Circula un texto entre los conspiranoicos supuestamente escrito en 1981 por el que fue asesor de François Mitterrand, Jacques Attali, que dice así "En el futuro será cuestión de encontrar la forma de reducir la población. Empezaremos por el viejo, porque en cuanto supera los 60- 65 años el hombre vive más de lo que produce y le cuesta caro a la sociedad. Luego los débiles y luego los inútiles que no aportan nada a la sociedad porque cada vez serán más, y sobre todo finalmente los estúpidos. Eutanasia dirigida a estos grupos; la eutanasia deberá ser un instrumento esencial de nuestras sociedades futuras, en todos los casos. Por supuesto, no podremos ejecutar personas ni organizar campamentos. Nos desharemos de ellos haciéndoles creer que es por su propio bien. Una población demasiado grande, y en su mayor parte innecesaria, es algo económicamente demasiado caro. Socialmente, también es mucho mejor que la máquina humana se detenga abruptamente en lugar de deteriorarse gradualmente. ¡No podremos pasar pruebas de inteligencia en millones y millones de personas, se puede imaginar! Encontraremos algo o lo causaremos; una pandemia que apunte a ciertas personas, una crisis económica real o no, un virus que afectará a los viejos o los mayores, no importa, los débiles y los miedosos sucumbirán. El estúpido la creerá y pedirá ser tratado. Nos habremos cuidado de haber planificado el tratamiento, un tratamiento que serà la solución. La selección de los idiotas se hará, pues, por si sola: irán solos al matadero". Supuestamente este fragmento se recoge en su libro "Breve historia del futuro", publicado en Francia en 2006. No nombran ni el capitulo ni la página del libro, tan solo esos datos que os he comentado. Si leemos la versión de 2006 veremos que el pdf ocupa 422 páginas y en una última nota a pie de página se indica que el libro fue escrito antes de la caída del muro de Berlín y publicado en Francia en 1990. Pero como digo en la web oficial de wikipedia sobre este libro se indica claramente que fue publicado en 2006. En Archive punto org hay un libro de la versión original publicado por la editorial Fayard que tiene 436 páginas aunque nos indican que le faltan las páginas 388 y 389 por escanear. Si buscamos versiones mas recientes en Amazon tenemos una de 2010 que nos dice que el pdf tiene solo 320 páginas. Yo he leido una versión incompleta publicada por la editorial Paidós en 2007 y esta que es supuestamente la original del 2006. En ninguna de ellas he encontrado la cita donde se dice de reducir la población de esa manera tan clara… ¿Qué quiero decir con todo esto? Pues que es casi imposible poder asegurar que en ese libro se citan esas frases tan elocuentes sobre lo que piensan esta plutocracia psicópata sobre nosotros. Lo que si podemos encontrar es alguna versión en español de segunda mano por casi 900 euros mientras en Amazon te venden el pdf por poco más de 14 euros. ¿El pdf estará ya capado y en el libro original si podremos leer esas frases? Dudo muchísimo que un oficialnoico como el señor Atalli nos contaría a las claras los planes de la elite psicopatocratica de la que el posiblemente sea un miembro destacado. De lo que si habla este ex asesor del presidente francés Mitterrand es del cambio climático, el agujero de la capa de ozono, la subida del nivel de los océanos, etc. O sea, nos vende todas y cada una de las partes de la agenda que tenían preparadas para todos nosotros. Y eso es lo único que nos debe importar al intentar comprender alguno de estos temas tan complejos. ¿Nos intenta vender la moto o vemos una intención sincera de contar la verdad? El señor Atalli nos habla en este libro de los tres órdenes que condicionan el desarrollo de las sociedades humanas: el orden ritual (religioso), el orden imperial (militar) y el orden comercial (control de la economía). El orden comercial, es decir el del capitalismo liberal, ha ido sustituyendo paulatinamente a los órdenes anteriores, el de las religiones y el de los imperios. Nos habla del núcleo de dichos imperios como de los corazones y como este orden mercantil pasó por nueve "corazones" sucesivos asociados al desarrollo de nueve tecnologías dominantes: Brujas y el timón de popa , Venecia y la carabela , Amberes y la imprenta , Génova y la contabilidad , Ámsterdam y la flauta , Londres y el motor de vapor, Boston y el motor de combustión interna, Nueva York y el motor eléctrico, Los Ángeles y el microprocesador. Una ciudad se convierte en “corazón” si reúne los medios para transformar un nuevo servicio en un producto industrial. Su entorno inmediato es el medio, el resto del mundo es la periferia. A este señor Atalli se le olvidó reseñar que las mismas familias que empezaron en Sumeria, en Egipto, en Roma son las que terminaron en Venecia, Amsterdam o Nueva York. Un pequeñísimo detalle que junto con repetir y dar por buena la Agenda 2030 nos debería dejar claro de que lado está y para quién habla. Por otro lado tenemos a genios como Pedro Bustamante que en su primer libro titulado “El imperio de la ficción - Capitalismo y sacrificios hollywoodenses” nos dice esto sobre la geopolítica del Imperio: “El capitalismo supone la sumisión de la política, la religión y la moral, que tienden a pasar a operar como meras fachadas vacías de contenido, como fenómenos colaterales que el régimen capitalista tiende a poner a su servicio, por activa o por pasiva. O en todo caso como fenómenos minoritarios. Al mismo tiempo, el régimen capitalista incorpora de alguna manera estas dimensiones en su propia lógica, sin dejar de servirse de las antiguas formas como máscaras que esconden el verdadero rostro del capital. Así, tanto la política, como la religión y la moral funcionan hoy, sobre todo, como máscaras del imperio. Hay que leerlas siempre en conjunción con el resto de fenómenos si se quiere entender cómo contribuyen al dominio imperial, a la manera del «poli bueno» y el «poli malo». Entender, por ejemplo, la complicidad que puede existir entre el Vaticano y la agenda del Nuevo Orden Mundial. Esta dimensión enmascaradora se observa en el caso de los Estados-nación, cada vez más sometidos a las dinámicas capitalistas e imperiales, hasta el punto de que hoy están en proceso de desaparición.” “Como fase actual de esta dinámica de destrucción y construcción, lo que hoy estamos presenciando es, a través de numerosos mecanismos, la desintegración de los Estados-nación y su reintegración en el orden neoliberal global, que tiene como objetivo final, relativamente encubierto, la instauración de un Nuevo Orden Mundial totalitario.” “De manera que estamos atravesando una época de inflexión histórica en la que los equilibrios globales se están redefiniendo, lo que explica la situación de crisis e incertidumbre generalizadas y los reacomodos en la geopolítica global. Al mismo tiempo grandes sectores de la población que han ido siendo cada vez más marginados, en distintos grados, por las políticas neoliberales globales de las últimas décadas, se sienten cada vez menos identificados con las políticas imperiales, son cada vez más víctimas de estas, pasan a engrosar las filas de la resistencia, de una forma u otra.” “En todas estas áreas de conflicto o desestabilización está jugando un papel fundamental el factor social, la existencia de sectores de la población descontentos. Pues estas situaciones locales reales son, como veremos, la base en la que las dinámicas ficticias del imperio se inscriben. Si a esto le unimos la enorme capacidad que tiene todavía el imperio atlantista para crear dinero, la sofisticación de sus métodos para infiltrarse en otros Estados —a través de los medios de comunicación, las redes sociales, fundaciones y ONGs, apoyo a grupos insurgentes y terroristas, la catalización de catástrofes «naturales», etc. — , tenemos ya algunos de los ingredientes necesarios para comprender en qué sentido el imperio de la ficción-actúa hoy sobre la realidad. De nuevo, lo que estamos intentando hacer con nuestro marco teórico es comprender la aparente complejidad y variedad de los fenómenos que hoy se están produciendo. Todos estos conflictos, crisis, desestabilizaciones, revueltas, catástrofes, etc., son lo que se ha dado en llamar conflictos de baja intensidad o guerras de cuarta generación. Y es que hoy nada es lo que parece. Aunque muchos no se hayan dado cuenta, estamos ya en plena tercera guerra mundial, que al mismo tiempo es una guerra civil planetaria de las élites capitalistas contra todos. La clave es entender que todos estos fenómenos de diverso tipo, que no parecen guerras como lo eran las guerras tradicionales, también lo son. Esto es lo que el imperio de la ficción no quiere que entendamos, y mucho menos que luchemos en su contra en esta guerra total capitalista.” Y eso que describe tan bien Pedro en 2015 es exactamente lo que sufrimos hoy. Eso es por lo que la entrecomillas “gente normal”, gente que tiene un buen trabajo y gana suficiente dinero se manifiestan a diario frente a la sede de un partido político sin entender que están llevando su protesta a la ventanilla equivocada. Es contra el Imperio, contra el Imperio del mal, donde deberían dirigir su indignación y formular allí sus preguntas: ¿Por qué debemos aceptar la cultura de la muerte como algo normal, los abortos, la eutanasia, los suicidios? ¿Por qué cada dia es peor la salud física y mental de las personas? ¿Por qué nuestros cielos están cubiertos de una pátina grisácea que nos dicen que es vapor de agua? ¿Por qué cada vez es peor la educación y la sanidad siendo cada vez mayores las partidas que se destinan a ello? ¿Por qué no sirve de nada votar y por qué no les pasa nada a los partidos políticos que no cumplen nada de lo que prometen? ¿Por qué se promueven políticas de reemplazo de las poblaciones autóctonas europeas por inmigrantes foráneos? Podríamos seguir indefinidamente formulando preguntas sin respuesta y la única pregunta que nos debería importar seria: ¿Cómo podemos acabar con este Imperio del mal? ………………………………………………………………………………………. Decía el presidente Roosevelt que “en política, nada ocurre por casualidad. Cada vez que un acontecimiento surge, se puede estar seguro que fue previsto para llevarse a cabo de esa manera”. En muchos de los artículos que hay en el blog tecnicopreocupado todo junto y sin acento punto com hemos tocado de forma implícita la geopolítica y los intereses geoestrategicos que muchas veces son muy contradictorios. Por ejemplo, ¿por que USA le proporcionaría la tecnologia nuclear a Japón después de devastarlo en la segunda guerra mundial y por que contribuiría a modernizar el pais? ¿Y por qué un pais golpeado por dos bombas nucleares permitiría la introducción de dicha tecnologia y de la forma desproporcionada que termino creando el monstruo de Fukushima? En mi blog podéis leer una serie de artículos que yo titulé Fukushima y la aldea nuclear y que son en parte la traducción de un artículo titulado EN EL CAMINO A FUKUSHIMA: LA HISTORIA NO DECLARADA DETRÁS DEL COMPLEJO NUCLEAR-MEDIA-INDUSTRIAL DE JAPÓN escrito por BRIAN COVERT y que fue uno de los más censurados en 2013. “Es la historia de cómo la prensa japonesa ha llegado a convertirse en una potencia global de medios en sí misma, y cómo la industria de noticias dominada por las corporaciones de Japón creció mano a mano con el desarrollo de la nación de la energía atómica y otras industrias importantes después de la guerra. Es la historia de crímenes de guerra cometidos por sospechosos japoneses encarcelados por las fuerzas de ocupación estadounidenses, del magnate de los medios de comunicación por excelencia de Japón, del padrino del desarrollo de la energía nuclear en Japón, y del padre del béisbol japonés profesional -todos los cuales resultan ser el mismo hombre, el poderoso antecesor japonés del conocido actualmente como Rupert Murdoch. Es la historia del poder ejercido por las fuerzas de la derecha en Japón y, en la periferia, de la mafia japonesa. Es una historia que también involucra de cerca a los Estados Unidos de América como benefactores: la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA), el Congreso de EE.UU., y el establecimiento de los medios de comunicación de los EE.UU.. Es la historia de las prioridades geopolíticas de la Guerra Fría de los Estados Unidos sobre la seguridad a largo plazo y la seguridad del medio ambiente del planeta.” ¿Os suena Rupert Murdoch? Pues si no es así es por que es uno de los capos de los medios de comunicación nivel global. Esto explica porque apenas sabemos nada sobre Fukushima y es casi imposible encontrar nada del pasado ya que los enlaces han dejado de funcionar o se han redireccionado a otras páginas. El rastro de silencio es enorme con respecto a la mayor catástrofe nuclear del planeta, algo que por los efluentes radiactivos vertidos es innegable. Pero no es creas que lo que paso con la energia radiactiva en Japón es algo especial, ha vuelto a pasar en Irán. Programa nuclear de Irán que empezó bajo el mandato del Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlevi de Irán en la década de 1950, con la ayuda obviamente de los Estados Unidos de América. Con la creación de la agencia atómica de Irán y con la firma del NPT (Tratado de no Proliferación Nuclear), el Sha planeó la construcción para el año 2000 de hasta 23 estaciones de energía nuclear por todo el país en conjunto con los EE.UU. En 1976 se firma un tratado estando Gerald Ford como presidente de USA, Dick Cheney, como su Jefe de Gabinete en la Casa Blanca, Donald Rumsfeld como el Secretario de Defensa y Paul Wolfowitz, dentro de la Agencia de Control de Armas y Desarme lo que permitiría a Irán comprar y operar una instalación de procesamiento, de fabricación estadounidense, para extraer plutonio. Y después vino lo que todos sabemos, Iran inicio una revolución islámica y supuestamente USA y el mundo occidental deberían haber roto todas las relaciones para impedir que Irán siguiese con su programa nuclear, pero no fue así. Muchos países estaban involucrados y colaborando con Irán en los 70: Alemania, Francia, Bélgica, España y Suecia. Incluso argentina lo intentó pero eso que llaman la comunidad internacional no la dejo. Japón fue uno de los que participó activamente intercambiando el uranio iraní por tecnologia en secreto y no reza en ningún sitio pero esta también es una de las razones de Fukushima. Los rusos y los chinos fueron los últimos en ayudar a Iran logrando que este pudiera enriquecer su propio uranio y se proyectase de facto como una potencia nuclear. El último acuerdo internacional sobre la congelación del programa nuclear iraní ha sido la puntilla que ha proporcionado la última tecnologia necesaria. Supuestamente se trata de que Iran solo desarrolle tecnologia nuclear de uso civil, o sea, solo centrales nucleares para obtener energia eléctrica. El problema es que todos sabemos que los residuos de dichas centrales son necesarios para procesar el plutonio militar por mucho que los pronucleares lo nieguen. O sea, hemos generado el enemigo que necesita el Hegemón occidental para poder seguir lo cantinela de lo militar. Sin una fuerza de destrucción parecida no sería necesario invertir tanto en armamento, ¿verdad? ………………………………………………………………………………………. Decía Pedro Bustamante en su libro El Imperio de la ficción: “Cuanto más poder acumula y concentra el imperio, cuanto menor sea su penetración en el no-imperio, cuanto más crítica sea su necesidad de conquista, cuanto más desprotegida sea la situación en las áreas a conquistar, más violento tenderá a ser este proceso de conquista. Insistimos, la convivencia-libre se caracteriza por su tendencia al equilibrio. Este debería ser el verdadero significado del término «sostenibilidad». Por el contrario el imperio se basa en el desequilibrio, en la asimetría; pues lo que persigue es la dominación de un polo sobre otro, la explotación y la extracción de riqueza desde el polo inferior hacia el polo superior del sistema. De manera que la estrategia básica del imperio es, por un lado, aprovecharse de los desequilibrios ya existentes, y por otro, intensificarlos, catalizarlos, provocarlos. En suma, fomentar las crisis. «No vivimos una crisis del capitalismo sino, al contrario, el triunfo del capitalismo de crisis» …” Y da igual que la crisis sea real o ficticia, que haya sido potenciada artificialmente o provenga de un proceso natural de desgaste de las sociedades. “Las crisis ficticias se basan en el método problem-reaction-solution. Se trata de crear o fomentar problemas ficticios para, aprovechando la reacción ciudadana a dichos problemas, adoptar soluciones que no habrían sido aceptadas en condiciones normales, y que es lo que se pretendía desde un principio, para lo que se monta toda la operación. Los medios de propaganda ponen particular énfasis en la vinculación entre unas crisis y otras, nos recuerdan antecedentes y casos similares, insisten en que los mismos virus o los mismos terroristas o los mismos accidentes aéreos concurrieron en crisis anteriores, reforzando así con nuevas mentiras oficiales las viejas mentiras oficiales, que terminan convirtiéndose en «verdades», como proclamaba el viejo Goebbels, a fuerza de repetición, desinformación y censura.” En esta misma línea podemos leer En el nombre del falo y del ano y de la matriz transhumana lo siguiente: “El mundo es un guiñol, un teatro de marionetas. La mayoría de los fenómenos que se dan en el ámbito de lo social, de lo moral, de lo político- religioso, podemos interpretarlos como un teatro de guiñol. Vemos dos marionetas en escena, pero, de hecho, están siendo movidas, al menos, por un titiritero, que se esconde detrás del escenario. La habilidad del titiritero consiste en generar una tensión dramática tal que el público se olvide de que lo que está viendo son marionetas, movidas por hilos, y crea que está ante seres autónomos dotados de libre albedrío.” “Todo el sistema, desde la educación a la cultura, desde los medios de masas al llamado "estado de derecho", consiste en colocar en el escenario personajes, conflictos, dialécticas, etc., e incentivar el infantilismo del espectador para que no comprenda que todas estas oposiciones no tienen sentido si no es porque hay, al menos, una tercera parte que los maneja en algún grado, según sus propios intereses.” “En todo caso, hay que insistir en que el poder-religión está muy vinculado con la ficción. Sabemos que el ritual oscila entre crisis reales y escenificaciones en las que estas crisis se ritualizan, se simbolizan.” “…en la disociación mental de la psicopatocracia, que se ve obligada a ejercer el → mal para que este produzca el bien. El poder se basa en esta ficción, en esta virtualidad, en esta disociación. Todo lo que decimos debe servir para comprender que el poder-religión no puede renunciar a esta dimensión ficticia, escénica, representativa, virtual. Y esto se intensifica en el hollycapitalismo, en el que esta virtualidad del poder es un elemento central. Dicho de una manera muy simple, el poder- religión en el hollycapitalismo es hollywoodense. Hollywood es político y religioso. De ahí que las relaciones entre hollywood, las agencias de inteligencia, el pentágono, la geopolítica, el nuevo orden mundial, el satanismo, la programación mental, etc., sean tan estrechas. Porque en el hollycapitalismo el poder y los medios son indistinguibles, forman parte indisoluble de una misma mecánica.” “…una de las claves de la estrategia geopolítica angloamericana en eurasia es la separación entre Alemania y Rusia.” “El otro paradigma de esta trinidad hollycapitalista es el terrorismo de bandera falsa. Si la pornografía produce goce sintético, de acuerdo con un guion, el terrorismo de bandera falsa —es decir, el 99% del terrorismo que hoy padecemos—, es exactamente lo mismo: producción sintética de violencia, de acuerdo a una agenda, a una intencionalidad política o geopolítica. Como la pornografía, el terrorismo necesita cierta materia prima, pero luego esta es muy elaborada y manipulada por los medios de espectacularización y ritualización de masas. La pornografía necesita semen real y el terrorismo necesita sangre real, pero a esto se le suma un alto porcentaje de ficción, manipulación, montaje, actores, control mental, drogas, etc. Uno de las ideas centrales de este trabajo es que, cuanto más cerca estamos del goce y la violencia, más dispuesto está el espectador a tomar la ficción por una realidad. Porque más cerca estamos del → trauma y de la disociación, de la respuesta robótica, y a un tiempo irracional, inconsciente.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. Me voy a despedir hoy citando doblemente a Pedro Bustamante. En una primera cita nos habla de porque considera al mundo actual una psicopatocracia: “Hoy la hipocresía es generalizada. La franqueza es una grosería. Una cosa es tener tacto y diplomacia, no tener que decir las cosas abiertamente para que se entiendan, y otra cosa es la escisión brutal entre el decir y el hacer que hoy domina. El sistema está podrido hasta los tuétanos y la sangre de los niños sacrificados en los rituales de la élite rezuma por todos sus poros. Pero hay que seguir recitando el mantra vacío de la democracia y el estado de derecho. Y si uno no lo hace se convierte en un apestado. Porque las reglas del juego consisten, precisamente, en esta escisión radical entre el decir y el hacer.” Nunca lograran convencer a nadie de dentro de la caverna ya que la verdad no necesita de pruebas: “Lo que nos vende el pensamiento dominante es que una verdad superficial vale más que una intuición profunda. Los que nos interesamos por las verdades profundas sabemos que tenemos poco que hacer a la hora de demostrar nuestras hipótesis, nuestras intuiciones, nuestras verdades. Esta es la estrategia que van a utilizar una y otra vez para desacreditarnos, para desautorizarnos, para demonizarnos, para censurarnos, en el límite, para criminalizarnos.” Sean felices, no tengan miedo y protejan a sus familias. Nos vemos en el siguiente. ………………………………………………………………………………………. Invitados: …. Dra Yane #JusticiaParaUTP Médico y Buscadora de la verdad. Con Dios siempre! No permito q me dividan c/izq -derecha, raza, religión ni nada de la Creación. https://youtu.be/TXEEZUYd4c0 …. UTP Ramón Valero @tecn_preocupado Un técnico Preocupado un FP2 IVOOX UTP http://cutt.ly/dzhhGrf BLOG http://cutt.ly/dzhh2LX CANALES TELEGRAM Promocional donde hacemos los directos https://t.me/UnTecnicoPreocupado Abierto para comentarios https://t.me/MiVidaMiOxigeno Ayúdame desde mi Crowfunding aquí https://cutt.ly/W0DsPVq ………………………………………………………………………………………. Enlaces citados en el podcast: Mentalidad de rebaño https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalidad_de_reba%C3%B1o Experimento de Asch https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimento_de_Asch Una breve historia del futuro (wikipedia) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Une_br%C3%A8ve_histoire_de_l%27avenir Une brève histoire de l’avenir (Archive punto org) https://archive.org/details/unebrevehistoire00atta Une brève histoire de l'avenir Tapa blanda – 25 octubre 2006 https://www.amazon.es/br%C3%A8ve-histoire-lavenir-Jacques-Attali/dp/2213631301 Une brève histoire de l'avenir - Nouvelle édition 2010: https://www.amazon.es/Une-br%C3%A8ve-histoire-lavenir-Documents/dp/2253159697/ref=zg-te-pba_sccl_1_2/260-0979256-5312402?pd_rd_w=B3KYT&content-id=amzn1.sym.a3e48913-64f8-4290-b8fb-6cbfec71f208&pf_rd_p=a3e48913-64f8-4290-b8fb-6cbfec71f208&pf_rd_r=YY32KBYMFF71FCNK8BJW&pd_rd_wg=DoNRw&pd_rd_r=5de16b36-66d4-4171-8add-61ebe2dd9f3e&pd_rd_i=2253159697&psc=1 Breve historia del futuro de Jacques Attali (iberlibro) https://www.iberlibro.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&cm_sp=SearchF-_-NullResults-_-Results&tn=Breve%20historia%20del%20futuro&an=Jacques%20Attali ROJOS Y AZULES PARA SEGUIR EN LA RUEDA DEL HAMSTER https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2023/11/15/rojos-y-azules-para-seguir-en-la-rueda-del-hamster/ Análisis completo portada #TheEconomist 2024 en Español. The World Ahead 2024, todos sus secretos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtQtM3wz3oo UTP257 De guerras en Gaza y falsas banderas https://www.ivoox.com/utp257-de-guerras-gaza-falsas-banderas-audios-mp3_rf_118168579_1.html FUKUSHIMA Y LA ALDEA NUCLEAR I https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2014/04/15/fukushima-y-la-aldea-nuclear-i-2/ FUKUSHIMA Y LA ALDEA NUCLEAR II (Historia de la nuclearización de Japón) https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2014/04/16/fukushima-y-la-aldea-nuclear-ii/ IRÁN: TORTA AMARILLA ROJA DE IRA https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2020/01/11/iran-torta-amarilla-roja-de-ira/ Programa nuclear de Irán https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programa_nuclear_de_Ir%C3%A1n ¿CATALUÑA SE INDEPENDIZA? https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2017/10/05/cataluna-se-independiza/ NTRODUCCIÓN A LAS LINEAS LEY POR UN TÉCNICO PREOCUPADO https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2019/02/07/introduccion-a-las-lineas-ley-por-un-tecnico-preocupado/ EGREGORES, OBELISCOS Y LÍNEAS LEY https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2016/09/01/egregores-obeliscos-y-lineas-ley/ Audio Introducción a las líneas ley por un técnico preocupado https://www.ivoox.com/introduccion-a-lineas-ley-tecnico-audios-mp3_rf_32331046_1.html UTP 54 Introducción a las lineas ley https://www.ivoox.com/utp-54-introduccion-a-lineas-ley-audios-mp3_rf_32412589_1.html UTP78 Líneas ley: ¿Magia o ciencia avanzada? https://www.ivoox.com/utp78-li-neas-ley-magia-o-ciencia-avanzada-audios-mp3_rf_46663362_1.html ……………………………………………………………….. Música utilizada en este podcast: Tema inicial Heros ÚRSULA - CÓDIGO DE HONOR feat LA MALDITA INFAMIA prod EVIL FINGERS https://youtu.be/rxURdtm6IXk?feature=shared Herbs - Nuclear Waste https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqCSNH5gxKY Terra Sur - Infierno Nuclear (tema desechado) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzrE9JWNADw Lèpoka x Pulpul de Ska-P - Pandemonium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpCDq-C7V14 La Polla Records - Ni descanso, ni paz! https://youtu.be/BEtuy-3KOTA?feature=shared Gatillazo - Odio a los partidos Directo PintorRock 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqOkKWes5hE Ska-P - El Ático https://youtu.be/x_uU-Olmpqk?feature=shared URSULA - FEMAZ LPS BEATS - TRES [[FULLMOON]] https://youtu.be/c6IIoQm5C7A?feature=shared Cimientos (Alma Full Album Despertar 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKnewLSCE2o ……………………………………………………………….. Epílogo Nil Moliner - VUELA ALTO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMjZ9ZyM7cc Regalito final Mouseland: Una animación para no repetir la historia - Movimiento Ciudadano https://youtu.be/gQ4yTxJQ_S8?feature=shared

Original Air Date: 8/31/2022 Today, as the news of Trump's various trials continues to drop out, we take a look back at this episode covering the long and illustrious history of powerful people avoiding prosecution in the United States. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Transcript BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Get AD FREE Shows and Bonus Content) Join our Discord community! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Welcome to the golden age of white collar crime (with Michael Hobbes) - Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer - Air Date 3-10-20 Why is right now the easiest time in modern history for the wealthy to get away with whatever they want? HuffPost reporter and fellow Seattleite Michael Hobbes join Zach in the studio for a deep dive into his most recent article about white-collar crime. Ch. 2: Flint Residents Outraged as Charges Dropped in Fatal Water Scandal That Poisoned Majority-Black City - Democracy Now - Air Date 5-30-22 Eight years after the deadly Flint water crisis began, the state's Supreme Court has thrown out charges against former Governor Rick Snyder and eight other former officials for their complicity in the public health emergency. Ch. 3: Obama Requests Immunity for War Criminal George W. Bush - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder - Air Date 8-22-13 Obama's DOJ has requested that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz be granted immunity in a case that is alleging that they violated international law with the Iraq War... Ch. 4: Obama on Investigating Bush Crimes: "Need to Look Forward" - This Week - Air Date 1-11-09 Barack Obama on This Week, January 11, 2009 Ch. 5: How George H.W. Bush's Pardons for Iran-Contra Conspirators Set the Stage for Trump's Impunity - Democracy Now - Air Date 12-4-18 In 1992, when Bush Sr. was president, he pardoned several Iran-Contra defendants, including Caspar Weinberger, Robert McFarlane, and Elliott Abrams. We speak with Greg Grandin, prize-winning author, and professor of Latin American history at New York Univ. Ch. 6: Pardon Me - Reveal - Air Date 7-6-19 Presidential pardons grab the headlines each time Donald Trump grants clemency to a controversial person. We tell the untold story of a pardon system that is completely broken and a pardon attorney's office that is being ignored by the White House. Ch. 7: Bryan Stevenson on the racial terrorism of lynching - Cape Up - Air Date 4-24-18 Bryan Stevenson wants us to confront our country's racial terrorism and then say, ‘Never again' Ch. 8: Justice Department Weighs Whether Or Not To Prosecute Trump - MSNBC - Air Date 8-29-22 New York Times Justice Department Reporter Katie Benner and former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman discuss how the inquiry into Trump's handling of classified documents poses an unparalleled test for DOJ MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS CLIP(S) Ch. 9: Restoring the Brotherhood of Union: Confederate Pardon and Amnesty Records, 1865-1877 - US National Archives - Air Date 5-21-15 "Restoring the Brotherhood of Union: Confederate Pardon and Amnesty Records, 1865-1877" Archives specialist John Deeben provides a brief legislative history of amnesty activity during and after the Civil War. Ch. 10: The power of presidential pardons - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 12-25-20 Pardons are among the most powerful tools a president has. While pardons can be politically motivated, drawing criticism, they can also change lives. FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 11: Final comments on the nature of pardons, accountability and hurt feelings MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions)   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com

The Project for the New American Century was a NeoConservative think-tank in Washington D.C. Some of the members include, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Donald Rumsfeld. These people are said to be the ones responsible for planning the attacks on September 11th. Dick Cheney, in particular, had major financial incentives to benefit from a war in Afghanistan because of his association with Halliburton. Also discussed in this episode was the story of Osama Bin Laden and the real reason why the United States invaded Afghanistan. If you like the show, please help us out by sharing the show with your friends or family. The best way to reach us is through Instagram. The links are posted down below. ----------------- Follow us: Instagram @Con_Men_Podcast, Twitter- @Conmenpodcast1 -------------- We are also streaming on all podcast platforms https://linktr.ee/conmenpodcast Subscribe to our Patreon here https://www.patreon.com/conmenpodcast -------------- MERCH STORE IS NOW LIVE!!! CHECK IT OUT HERE https://conmenmerch.myshopify.com --------------- Check out Adam Hesters Podcast: Skeleton Factory Podcast. You can find it here https://linktr.ee/skeletonfactory Patreon.com/Skeletonfactory Instagram: @Skeleton_Factory -------------- Special Thanks to Mr. Charles Elliott for allowing us to use his song for the intro. Check out his music here on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/79LJ4cbLYlMarMq5YydyrO

Twenty years ago, thousands of American troops were racing across the deserts of Iraq toward Baghdad to depose Saddam Hussein. It led to a near-decade of civil war and occupation, no discovery of weapons of mass destruction, the deaths of more than 4,400 American troops and an estimated 300,000 Iraqis. Amna Nawaz discussed the decision to invade with Paul Wolfowitz, Vali Nasr and Charles Duelfer. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

There are few thinkers who engender as much debate about their legacy as Leo Strauss (1899 –1973). His critics and biographers often don't even agree about what scholarly discipline he practiced. Political theory or philosophy? Was he a proto-neoconservative or a middle-of-the-road Cold War defender of liberal democracy? He is often depicted as a major intellectual influence on sections of the national security state right, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush when he was portrayed as a puppeteer pulling from the grave the strings of such notable hawks as Paul Wolfowitz. But the writings of Strauss often go unexamined. That is partly because they lean towards the abstruse. Strauss was not a general-audience-friendly public intellectual in his day and much of the homage to and attacks on him at this point are to be found in the pages of academic journals and in the halls of think tanks. We are fortunate, therefore, that we can turn to the 2021 book, Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education by Timothy W. Burns for elucidation of Strauss's thinking about how we can preserve liberal democracy in the face of apathy from moderates, classical liberals and traditional conservatives flummoxed by the rise of an aggressive left that questions whether the United States is a democracy at all and an alienated alt-right that regards liberal democracy as now practiced as a character-sapping anachronism leading to civilizational decline. We learn from Burns of Strauss's admiration for Winston Churchill and touting of him as an exemplar of greatness within democracy. In one of the most absorbing sections of the book we learn of a 1941 lecture by Strauss entitled, “German Nihilism” in which he examined the arguments of such groups as rightist German students in the 1920s that liberal democracy fostered moral mediocrity. Burns contrasts in detail the ideas of Strauss and Martin Heidegger and shows that Strauss foresaw that the other man's emphasis on resoluteness would metastasize into Heidegger's support for Nazism. Burns tells us that Strauss can speak to us today via his call to defend democratic constitutionalism and its spiritual and religious traditions. That call can lead to charges of elitism against Strauss because it entailed his championing of the idea of an “aristocracy within democracy,” a cadre of cultivated, well-educated leaders who would help maintain the intellectual and cultural moorings of democracies. Let's hear now from Professor Burns about who Leo Strauss was and what he actually wrote and thought. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

There are few thinkers who engender as much debate about their legacy as Leo Strauss (1899 –1973). His critics and biographers often don't even agree about what scholarly discipline he practiced. Political theory or philosophy? Was he a proto-neoconservative or a middle-of-the-road Cold War defender of liberal democracy? He is often depicted as a major intellectual influence on sections of the national security state right, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush when he was portrayed as a puppeteer pulling from the grave the strings of such notable hawks as Paul Wolfowitz. But the writings of Strauss often go unexamined. That is partly because they lean towards the abstruse. Strauss was not a general-audience-friendly public intellectual in his day and much of the homage to and attacks on him at this point are to be found in the pages of academic journals and in the halls of think tanks. We are fortunate, therefore, that we can turn to the 2021 book, Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education by Timothy W. Burns for elucidation of Strauss's thinking about how we can preserve liberal democracy in the face of apathy from moderates, classical liberals and traditional conservatives flummoxed by the rise of an aggressive left that questions whether the United States is a democracy at all and an alienated alt-right that regards liberal democracy as now practiced as a character-sapping anachronism leading to civilizational decline. We learn from Burns of Strauss's admiration for Winston Churchill and touting of him as an exemplar of greatness within democracy. In one of the most absorbing sections of the book we learn of a 1941 lecture by Strauss entitled, “German Nihilism” in which he examined the arguments of such groups as rightist German students in the 1920s that liberal democracy fostered moral mediocrity. Burns contrasts in detail the ideas of Strauss and Martin Heidegger and shows that Strauss foresaw that the other man's emphasis on resoluteness would metastasize into Heidegger's support for Nazism. Burns tells us that Strauss can speak to us today via his call to defend democratic constitutionalism and its spiritual and religious traditions. That call can lead to charges of elitism against Strauss because it entailed his championing of the idea of an “aristocracy within democracy,” a cadre of cultivated, well-educated leaders who would help maintain the intellectual and cultural moorings of democracies. Let's hear now from Professor Burns about who Leo Strauss was and what he actually wrote and thought. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

There are few thinkers who engender as much debate about their legacy as Leo Strauss (1899 –1973). His critics and biographers often don't even agree about what scholarly discipline he practiced. Political theory or philosophy? Was he a proto-neoconservative or a middle-of-the-road Cold War defender of liberal democracy? He is often depicted as a major intellectual influence on sections of the national security state right, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush when he was portrayed as a puppeteer pulling from the grave the strings of such notable hawks as Paul Wolfowitz. But the writings of Strauss often go unexamined. That is partly because they lean towards the abstruse. Strauss was not a general-audience-friendly public intellectual in his day and much of the homage to and attacks on him at this point are to be found in the pages of academic journals and in the halls of think tanks. We are fortunate, therefore, that we can turn to the 2021 book, Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education by Timothy W. Burns for elucidation of Strauss's thinking about how we can preserve liberal democracy in the face of apathy from moderates, classical liberals and traditional conservatives flummoxed by the rise of an aggressive left that questions whether the United States is a democracy at all and an alienated alt-right that regards liberal democracy as now practiced as a character-sapping anachronism leading to civilizational decline. We learn from Burns of Strauss's admiration for Winston Churchill and touting of him as an exemplar of greatness within democracy. In one of the most absorbing sections of the book we learn of a 1941 lecture by Strauss entitled, “German Nihilism” in which he examined the arguments of such groups as rightist German students in the 1920s that liberal democracy fostered moral mediocrity. Burns contrasts in detail the ideas of Strauss and Martin Heidegger and shows that Strauss foresaw that the other man's emphasis on resoluteness would metastasize into Heidegger's support for Nazism. Burns tells us that Strauss can speak to us today via his call to defend democratic constitutionalism and its spiritual and religious traditions. That call can lead to charges of elitism against Strauss because it entailed his championing of the idea of an “aristocracy within democracy,” a cadre of cultivated, well-educated leaders who would help maintain the intellectual and cultural moorings of democracies. Let's hear now from Professor Burns about who Leo Strauss was and what he actually wrote and thought. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

There are few thinkers who engender as much debate about their legacy as Leo Strauss (1899 –1973). His critics and biographers often don't even agree about what scholarly discipline he practiced. Political theory or philosophy? Was he a proto-neoconservative or a middle-of-the-road Cold War defender of liberal democracy? He is often depicted as a major intellectual influence on sections of the national security state right, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush when he was portrayed as a puppeteer pulling from the grave the strings of such notable hawks as Paul Wolfowitz. But the writings of Strauss often go unexamined. That is partly because they lean towards the abstruse. Strauss was not a general-audience-friendly public intellectual in his day and much of the homage to and attacks on him at this point are to be found in the pages of academic journals and in the halls of think tanks. We are fortunate, therefore, that we can turn to the 2021 book, Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education by Timothy W. Burns for elucidation of Strauss's thinking about how we can preserve liberal democracy in the face of apathy from moderates, classical liberals and traditional conservatives flummoxed by the rise of an aggressive left that questions whether the United States is a democracy at all and an alienated alt-right that regards liberal democracy as now practiced as a character-sapping anachronism leading to civilizational decline. We learn from Burns of Strauss's admiration for Winston Churchill and touting of him as an exemplar of greatness within democracy. In one of the most absorbing sections of the book we learn of a 1941 lecture by Strauss entitled, “German Nihilism” in which he examined the arguments of such groups as rightist German students in the 1920s that liberal democracy fostered moral mediocrity. Burns contrasts in detail the ideas of Strauss and Martin Heidegger and shows that Strauss foresaw that the other man's emphasis on resoluteness would metastasize into Heidegger's support for Nazism. Burns tells us that Strauss can speak to us today via his call to defend democratic constitutionalism and its spiritual and religious traditions. That call can lead to charges of elitism against Strauss because it entailed his championing of the idea of an “aristocracy within democracy,” a cadre of cultivated, well-educated leaders who would help maintain the intellectual and cultural moorings of democracies. Let's hear now from Professor Burns about who Leo Strauss was and what he actually wrote and thought. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

There are few thinkers who engender as much debate about their legacy as Leo Strauss (1899 –1973). His critics and biographers often don't even agree about what scholarly discipline he practiced. Political theory or philosophy? Was he a proto-neoconservative or a middle-of-the-road Cold War defender of liberal democracy? He is often depicted as a major intellectual influence on sections of the national security state right, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush when he was portrayed as a puppeteer pulling from the grave the strings of such notable hawks as Paul Wolfowitz. But the writings of Strauss often go unexamined. That is partly because they lean towards the abstruse. Strauss was not a general-audience-friendly public intellectual in his day and much of the homage to and attacks on him at this point are to be found in the pages of academic journals and in the halls of think tanks. We are fortunate, therefore, that we can turn to the 2021 book, Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education by Timothy W. Burns for elucidation of Strauss's thinking about how we can preserve liberal democracy in the face of apathy from moderates, classical liberals and traditional conservatives flummoxed by the rise of an aggressive left that questions whether the United States is a democracy at all and an alienated alt-right that regards liberal democracy as now practiced as a character-sapping anachronism leading to civilizational decline. We learn from Burns of Strauss's admiration for Winston Churchill and touting of him as an exemplar of greatness within democracy. In one of the most absorbing sections of the book we learn of a 1941 lecture by Strauss entitled, “German Nihilism” in which he examined the arguments of such groups as rightist German students in the 1920s that liberal democracy fostered moral mediocrity. Burns contrasts in detail the ideas of Strauss and Martin Heidegger and shows that Strauss foresaw that the other man's emphasis on resoluteness would metastasize into Heidegger's support for Nazism. Burns tells us that Strauss can speak to us today via his call to defend democratic constitutionalism and its spiritual and religious traditions. That call can lead to charges of elitism against Strauss because it entailed his championing of the idea of an “aristocracy within democracy,” a cadre of cultivated, well-educated leaders who would help maintain the intellectual and cultural moorings of democracies. Let's hear now from Professor Burns about who Leo Strauss was and what he actually wrote and thought. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

There are few thinkers who engender as much debate about their legacy as Leo Strauss (1899 –1973). His critics and biographers often don't even agree about what scholarly discipline he practiced. Political theory or philosophy? Was he a proto-neoconservative or a middle-of-the-road Cold War defender of liberal democracy? He is often depicted as a major intellectual influence on sections of the national security state right, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush when he was portrayed as a puppeteer pulling from the grave the strings of such notable hawks as Paul Wolfowitz. But the writings of Strauss often go unexamined. That is partly because they lean towards the abstruse. Strauss was not a general-audience-friendly public intellectual in his day and much of the homage to and attacks on him at this point are to be found in the pages of academic journals and in the halls of think tanks. We are fortunate, therefore, that we can turn to the 2021 book, Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education by Timothy W. Burns for elucidation of Strauss's thinking about how we can preserve liberal democracy in the face of apathy from moderates, classical liberals and traditional conservatives flummoxed by the rise of an aggressive left that questions whether the United States is a democracy at all and an alienated alt-right that regards liberal democracy as now practiced as a character-sapping anachronism leading to civilizational decline. We learn from Burns of Strauss's admiration for Winston Churchill and touting of him as an exemplar of greatness within democracy. In one of the most absorbing sections of the book we learn of a 1941 lecture by Strauss entitled, “German Nihilism” in which he examined the arguments of such groups as rightist German students in the 1920s that liberal democracy fostered moral mediocrity. Burns contrasts in detail the ideas of Strauss and Martin Heidegger and shows that Strauss foresaw that the other man's emphasis on resoluteness would metastasize into Heidegger's support for Nazism. Burns tells us that Strauss can speak to us today via his call to defend democratic constitutionalism and its spiritual and religious traditions. That call can lead to charges of elitism against Strauss because it entailed his championing of the idea of an “aristocracy within democracy,” a cadre of cultivated, well-educated leaders who would help maintain the intellectual and cultural moorings of democracies. Let's hear now from Professor Burns about who Leo Strauss was and what he actually wrote and thought. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education

There are few thinkers who engender as much debate about their legacy as Leo Strauss (1899 –1973). His critics and biographers often don't even agree about what scholarly discipline he practiced. Political theory or philosophy? Was he a proto-neoconservative or a middle-of-the-road Cold War defender of liberal democracy? He is often depicted as a major intellectual influence on sections of the national security state right, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush when he was portrayed as a puppeteer pulling from the grave the strings of such notable hawks as Paul Wolfowitz. But the writings of Strauss often go unexamined. That is partly because they lean towards the abstruse. Strauss was not a general-audience-friendly public intellectual in his day and much of the homage to and attacks on him at this point are to be found in the pages of academic journals and in the halls of think tanks. We are fortunate, therefore, that we can turn to the 2021 book, Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education by Timothy W. Burns for elucidation of Strauss's thinking about how we can preserve liberal democracy in the face of apathy from moderates, classical liberals and traditional conservatives flummoxed by the rise of an aggressive left that questions whether the United States is a democracy at all and an alienated alt-right that regards liberal democracy as now practiced as a character-sapping anachronism leading to civilizational decline. We learn from Burns of Strauss's admiration for Winston Churchill and touting of him as an exemplar of greatness within democracy. In one of the most absorbing sections of the book we learn of a 1941 lecture by Strauss entitled, “German Nihilism” in which he examined the arguments of such groups as rightist German students in the 1920s that liberal democracy fostered moral mediocrity. Burns contrasts in detail the ideas of Strauss and Martin Heidegger and shows that Strauss foresaw that the other man's emphasis on resoluteness would metastasize into Heidegger's support for Nazism. Burns tells us that Strauss can speak to us today via his call to defend democratic constitutionalism and its spiritual and religious traditions. That call can lead to charges of elitism against Strauss because it entailed his championing of the idea of an “aristocracy within democracy,” a cadre of cultivated, well-educated leaders who would help maintain the intellectual and cultural moorings of democracies. Let's hear now from Professor Burns about who Leo Strauss was and what he actually wrote and thought. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

There are few thinkers who engender as much debate about their legacy as Leo Strauss (1899 –1973). His critics and biographers often don't even agree about what scholarly discipline he practiced. Political theory or philosophy? Was he a proto-neoconservative or a middle-of-the-road Cold War defender of liberal democracy? He is often depicted as a major intellectual influence on sections of the national security state right, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush when he was portrayed as a puppeteer pulling from the grave the strings of such notable hawks as Paul Wolfowitz. But the writings of Strauss often go unexamined. That is partly because they lean towards the abstruse. Strauss was not a general-audience-friendly public intellectual in his day and much of the homage to and attacks on him at this point are to be found in the pages of academic journals and in the halls of think tanks. We are fortunate, therefore, that we can turn to the 2021 book, Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education by Timothy W. Burns for elucidation of Strauss's thinking about how we can preserve liberal democracy in the face of apathy from moderates, classical liberals and traditional conservatives flummoxed by the rise of an aggressive left that questions whether the United States is a democracy at all and an alienated alt-right that regards liberal democracy as now practiced as a character-sapping anachronism leading to civilizational decline. We learn from Burns of Strauss's admiration for Winston Churchill and touting of him as an exemplar of greatness within democracy. In one of the most absorbing sections of the book we learn of a 1941 lecture by Strauss entitled, “German Nihilism” in which he examined the arguments of such groups as rightist German students in the 1920s that liberal democracy fostered moral mediocrity. Burns contrasts in detail the ideas of Strauss and Martin Heidegger and shows that Strauss foresaw that the other man's emphasis on resoluteness would metastasize into Heidegger's support for Nazism. Burns tells us that Strauss can speak to us today via his call to defend democratic constitutionalism and its spiritual and religious traditions. That call can lead to charges of elitism against Strauss because it entailed his championing of the idea of an “aristocracy within democracy,” a cadre of cultivated, well-educated leaders who would help maintain the intellectual and cultural moorings of democracies. Let's hear now from Professor Burns about who Leo Strauss was and what he actually wrote and thought. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are few thinkers who engender as much debate about their legacy as Leo Strauss (1899 –1973). His critics and biographers often don't even agree about what scholarly discipline he practiced. Political theory or philosophy? Was he a proto-neoconservative or a middle-of-the-road Cold War defender of liberal democracy? He is often depicted as a major intellectual influence on sections of the national security state right, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush when he was portrayed as a puppeteer pulling from the grave the strings of such notable hawks as Paul Wolfowitz. But the writings of Strauss often go unexamined. That is partly because they lean towards the abstruse. Strauss was not a general-audience-friendly public intellectual in his day and much of the homage to and attacks on him at this point are to be found in the pages of academic journals and in the halls of think tanks. We are fortunate, therefore, that we can turn to the 2021 book, Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education by Timothy W. Burns for elucidation of Strauss's thinking about how we can preserve liberal democracy in the face of apathy from moderates, classical liberals and traditional conservatives flummoxed by the rise of an aggressive left that questions whether the United States is a democracy at all and an alienated alt-right that regards liberal democracy as now practiced as a character-sapping anachronism leading to civilizational decline. We learn from Burns of Strauss's admiration for Winston Churchill and touting of him as an exemplar of greatness within democracy. In one of the most absorbing sections of the book we learn of a 1941 lecture by Strauss entitled, “German Nihilism” in which he examined the arguments of such groups as rightist German students in the 1920s that liberal democracy fostered moral mediocrity. Burns contrasts in detail the ideas of Strauss and Martin Heidegger and shows that Strauss foresaw that the other man's emphasis on resoluteness would metastasize into Heidegger's support for Nazism. Burns tells us that Strauss can speak to us today via his call to defend democratic constitutionalism and its spiritual and religious traditions. That call can lead to charges of elitism against Strauss because it entailed his championing of the idea of an “aristocracy within democracy,” a cadre of cultivated, well-educated leaders who would help maintain the intellectual and cultural moorings of democracies. Let's hear now from Professor Burns about who Leo Strauss was and what he actually wrote and thought. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

There are few thinkers who engender as much debate about their legacy as Leo Strauss (1899 –1973). His critics and biographers often don't even agree about what scholarly discipline he practiced. Political theory or philosophy? Was he a proto-neoconservative or a middle-of-the-road Cold War defender of liberal democracy? He is often depicted as a major intellectual influence on sections of the national security state right, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush when he was portrayed as a puppeteer pulling from the grave the strings of such notable hawks as Paul Wolfowitz. But the writings of Strauss often go unexamined. That is partly because they lean towards the abstruse. Strauss was not a general-audience-friendly public intellectual in his day and much of the homage to and attacks on him at this point are to be found in the pages of academic journals and in the halls of think tanks. We are fortunate, therefore, that we can turn to the 2021 book, Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education by Timothy W. Burns for elucidation of Strauss's thinking about how we can preserve liberal democracy in the face of apathy from moderates, classical liberals and traditional conservatives flummoxed by the rise of an aggressive left that questions whether the United States is a democracy at all and an alienated alt-right that regards liberal democracy as now practiced as a character-sapping anachronism leading to civilizational decline. We learn from Burns of Strauss's admiration for Winston Churchill and touting of him as an exemplar of greatness within democracy. In one of the most absorbing sections of the book we learn of a 1941 lecture by Strauss entitled, “German Nihilism” in which he examined the arguments of such groups as rightist German students in the 1920s that liberal democracy fostered moral mediocrity. Burns contrasts in detail the ideas of Strauss and Martin Heidegger and shows that Strauss foresaw that the other man's emphasis on resoluteness would metastasize into Heidegger's support for Nazism. Burns tells us that Strauss can speak to us today via his call to defend democratic constitutionalism and its spiritual and religious traditions. That call can lead to charges of elitism against Strauss because it entailed his championing of the idea of an “aristocracy within democracy,” a cadre of cultivated, well-educated leaders who would help maintain the intellectual and cultural moorings of democracies. Let's hear now from Professor Burns about who Leo Strauss was and what he actually wrote and thought. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Air Date 8/31/2022 Today, as we wait to see if Trump will ever be indicted for any of his many, many, many crimes, we take a look at the long and illustrious history of powerful people avoiding prosecution in the United States. Be part of the show! Leave us a message at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com  Transcript BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Get AD FREE Shows and Bonus Content) Join our Discord community! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Welcome to the golden age of white collar crime (with Michael Hobbes) - Pitchfork Economics - Air Date 3-10-20 HuffPost reporter and fellow Seattleite Michael Hobbes join Zach in the studio for a deep dive into his most recent article about white-collar crime. Ch. 2: Flint Residents Outraged as Charges Dropped in Fatal Water Scandal That Poisoned Majority-Black City - Democracy Now - Air Date 5-30-22 Eight years after the deadly Flint water crisis began, the state's Supreme Court has thrown out charges against former Governor Rick Snyder and eight other former officials for their complicity in the public health emergency. Ch. 3: Obama Requests Immunity for War Criminal George W. Bush - The Majority Report - Air Date 8-22-13 Obama's DOJ has requested that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz be granted immunity in a case that is alleging that they violated international law with the Iraq War... Ch. 4: Obama on Investigating Bush Crimes: "Need to Look Forward" - This Week - Air Date 1-11-09 Barack Obama on This Week, January 11, 2009 Ch. 5: How George H.W. Bush's Pardons for Iran-Contra Conspirators Set the Stage for Trump's Impunity - Democracy Now - Air Date 12-4-18 In 1992, when Bush Sr. was president, he pardoned several Iran-Contra defendants, including Caspar Weinberger, Robert McFarlane, and Elliott Abrams. We speak with Greg Grandin. Ch. 6: Pardon Me - Reveal - Air Date 7-6-19 We tell the untold story of a pardon system that is completely broken and a pardon attorney's office that is being ignored by the White House. Ch. 7: Bryan Stevenson on the racial terrorism of lynching - Cape Up - Air Date 4-24-18 Bryan Stevenson wants us to confront our country's racial terrorism and then say, ‘Never again' Ch. 8: Justice Department Weighs Whether Or Not To Prosecute Trump - MSNBC - Air Date 8-29-22 New York Times Justice Department Reporter Katie Benner and former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman discuss how the inquiry into Trump's handling of classified documents poses an unparalleled test for DOJ MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS CLIP(S) Ch. 9: Restoring the Brotherhood of Union: Confederate Pardon and Amnesty Records, 1865-1877 - US National Archives - Air Date 5-21-15 Archives specialist John Deeben provides a brief legislative history of amnesty activity during and after the Civil War. Ch. 10: The power of presidential pardons - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 12-25-20 Pardons are among the most powerful tools a president has. While pardons can be politically motivated, drawing criticism, they can also change lives. FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 11: Final comments on the nature of pardons, accountability and hurt feelings MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions) SHOW IMAGE:  Description: The word “Accountability” is in all caps in white, cracked marblized text above a long rectangle of a computer “loading” bar. The white lines in the loading bar are being drawn in by a hand holding a marker and only fill the bar half-way. Two caution symbols fill in the rest of the bar. Credit: “Handwriting Text Accountability Loading. Concept meaning Forecasting the future event” by Jernej Furman, Flickr | License: CC by 2.0 | Changes: Enlarged, addition of yellow and black caution symbols and “sleeve” to the arm of the hand.

Here's a special preview of The Yes Men's Andy Bichlbaum in conversation with Rushkoff explaining how he was invited to return to Newsmax as “Paul Wolfowitz” — and what happened on the air. The Yes Men's Originally recorded September 11, 2021.Become a contributing supporter for as little as $2 per month. You'll instantly gain access to:

On this edition of Parallax Views, the great Scott Horton, an inspiration for Parallax Views, the host of The Scott Horton Show, and the author of both Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan and Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terror, joins us to provide a down-and-dirty history lesson on the War on Terror and how neoconservative war hawks played right into bin Laden's hands in the aftermath of 9/11. Bin Laden, Scott argues, wanted the U.S. to react to 9/11 by getting involved in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, Scott says, was a "Vietnam 2.0" that would inevitably end the same way the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan ended. Who were the architects of these wars? We delve into the neocons like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Michael Ledeen and their enablers like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who gave us the decades long nightmare of the War on Terror in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. We talk George W. Bush, the waste of the War on Terror, why conservative, libertarians, and progressives should oppose wars and imperial hubris, the history of the neocons and their ex-Trotyskite roots, John Podhoretz, radical Islamists, Colin Powell, and much, much more!

On COI #155, Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter update the situation in Afghanistan, including the aftermath of a deadly suicide bombing outside the Kabul airport on August 26. President Joe Biden authorized two separate retaliatory drone strikes on what the government claims were ISIS-K targets in Afghanistan. The first was launched Friday in Nangarhar province and was said to have killed two militant "planners" and injured another. A second strike on Sunday hit a neighborhood in Kabul itself, reportedly killing nine civilians, including six children, in addition to at least one jihadist fighter in a vehicle carrying explosives. Will and Kyle take on a steady stream of bad arguments from war hawks of all stripes, including the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the War on Terror and an unrepentant cheerleader for the invasion of Afghanistan. The DC police officer who murdered Ashli Babbitt – who was fatally shot after entering the Capitol on January 6 alongside a mob of Trump supporters – has given his first public interview. Identified as Lieutenant Michael Byrd, the officer insists he was right to shoot Babbitt, who was unarmed, arguing she posed a threat to US representatives. Odysee Rumble  Donate LBRY Credits bTTEiLoteVdMbLS7YqDVSZyjEY1eMgW7CP Donate Bitcoin 36PP4kT28jjUZcL44dXDonFwrVVDHntsrk Donate Bitcoin Cash Qp6gznu4xm97cj7j9vqepqxcfuctq2exvvqu7aamz6 Patreon Subscribe Star YouTube Facebook  Twitter  MeWe Apple Podcast  Amazon Music Google Podcasts Spotify iHeart Radio Support Our Sponsor Visit Paloma Verde and use code PEACE for 25% off our CBD

On COI #155, Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter update the situation in Afghanistan, including the aftermath of a deadly suicide bombing outside the Kabul airport on August 26.  President Joe Biden authorized two separate retaliatory drone strikes on what the government claims were ISIS-K targets in Afghanistan. The first was launched Friday in Nangarhar province and was said to have killed two militant "planners" and injured another. A second strike on Sunday hit a neighborhood in Kabul itself, reportedly killing nine civilians, including six children, in addition to at least one jihadist fighter in a vehicle carrying explosives.  Will and Kyle take on a steady stream of bad arguments from war hawks of all stripes, including the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the War on Terror and an unrepentant cheerleader for the invasion of Afghanistan.  The DC police officer who murdered Ashli Babbitt – who was fatally shot after entering the Capitol on January 6 alongside a mob of Trump supporters – has given his first public interview. Identified as Lieutenant Michael Byrd, the officer insists he was right to shoot Babbitt, who was unarmed, arguing she posed a threat to US representatives.  Odysee Rumble  Donate LBRY Credits bTTEiLoteVdMbLS7YqDVSZyjEY1eMgW7CP Donate Bitcoin 36PP4kT28jjUZcL44dXDonFwrVVDHntsrk Donate Bitcoin Cash Qp6gznu4xm97cj7j9vqepqxcfuctq2exvvqu7aamz6 Patreon Subscribe Star YouTube Facebook  Twitter  MeWe Apple Podcast  Amazon Music Google Podcasts Spotify iHeart Radio Support Our Sponsor Visit Paloma Verde and use code PEACE for 25% off our CBD  

The Pentagon says there are still ten thousand people waiting for US flights out of Kabul. Many more are still outside the airport, desperate to get out of Afghanistan before the end of month deadline. We speak to veteran US foreign policy decision-maker, Paul Wolfowitz about this. Also on the programme, Nepal and Madagascar - at the sharp end of global climate change; And why the Chinese authorities are encouraging the idea Covid came from America. (Photo: Evacuation from Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul; Credit: Reuters)

As the Taliban storms into Kabul, Paul Wolfowitz reflects on the 'never-ending war' and Biden's withdrawal of troops

“In June of 2001, Paul Wolfowitz, then U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, addressed the cadets at West Point. While the speech he gave was not itself a historical moment, one remark in it would go down in history. Because it was one of those quotes that history would, in retrospect, make particularly poignant, if not outright ironic.”Ryan explains why you should never be caught unprepared, and reads this week's meditation from The Daily Stoic Journal, on today's Daily Stoic Podcast.Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: http://DailyStoic.com/signupFollow us: Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, and FacebookSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Scott interviews Andrew Cockburn about his new book, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy. Scott and Cockburn discuss Rumsfeld's ascent to power through various presidential administrations, with special focus on his role in the disastrous post-9/11 terror wars. In addition to the historical events, Cockburn shares many private anecdotes about Rumsfeld's character from those who knew him. Discussed on the show: Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy “A Letter to Paul Wolfowitz, by Andrew J. Bacevich” (Harper's Magazine) “War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (2007)” (IMDb) “State Department Cables” (WikiLeaks) “Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says” (The New York Times) Andrew Cockburn is the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine and the author of Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins. Follow him on Twitter @andrewmcockburn. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Photo IQ; Green Mill Supercritical; Zippix Toothpicks; and Listen and Think Audio. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

Scott interviews Andrew Cockburn about his new book, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy. Scott and Cockburn discuss Rumsfeld's ascent to power through various presidential administrations, with special focus on his role in the disastrous post-9/11 terror wars. In addition to the historical events, Cockburn shares many private anecdotes about Rumsfeld's character from those who knew him. Discussed on the show: Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy "A Letter to Paul Wolfowitz, by Andrew J. Bacevich" (Harper's Magazine) "War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (2007)" (IMDb) "State Department Cables" (WikiLeaks) "Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says" (The New York Times) Andrew Cockburn is the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine and the author of Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins. Follow him on Twitter @andrewmcockburn. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Photo IQ; Green Mill Supercritical; Zippix Toothpicks; and Listen and Think Audio. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG. https://youtu.be/CV0fb72OyiM

Scott interviews Andrew Cockburn about his new book, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy. Scott and Cockburn discuss Rumsfeld's ascent to power through various presidential administrations, with special focus on his role in the disastrous post-9/11 terror wars. In addition to the historical events, Cockburn shares many private anecdotes about Rumsfeld's character from those who knew him. Discussed on the show: Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy "A Letter to Paul Wolfowitz, by Andrew J. Bacevich" (Harper's Magazine) "War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (2007)" (IMDb) "State Department Cables" (WikiLeaks) "Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says" (The New York Times) Andrew Cockburn is the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine and the author of Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins. Follow him on Twitter @andrewmcockburn. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Photo IQ; Green Mill Supercritical; Zippix Toothpicks; and Listen and Think Audio. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

Scott interviews Andrew Cockburn about his new book, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy. Scott and Cockburn discuss Rumsfeld's ascent to power through various presidential administrations, with special focus on his role in the disastrous post-9/11 terror wars. In addition to the historical events, Cockburn shares many private anecdotes about Rumsfeld's character from those who knew him. Discussed on the show: Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy "A Letter to Paul Wolfowitz, by Andrew J. Bacevich" (Harper's Magazine) "War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (2007)" (IMDb) "State Department Cables" (WikiLeaks) "Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says" (The New York Times) Andrew Cockburn is the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine and the author of Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins. Follow him on Twitter @andrewmcockburn. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Photo IQ; Green Mill Supercritical; Zippix Toothpicks; and Listen and Think Audio. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG. https://youtu.be/CV0fb72OyiM

Depuis l'émergence du nouveau coronavirus, les scientifiques ne ménagent pas leur peine pour trouver comment le virus a pu se transmettre à l'homme. Cette question est au cœur d'une guerre informationnelle entre la Chine et les États-Unis. Taxée de thèse complotiste dans un premier temps, l'hypothèse d'une fuite de laboratoire refait surface. En réalité la thèse d'une fuite accidentelle d'un laboratoire n'a jamais été totalement invalidée. Mais au moment où l'épidémie commençait à se propager, la transmission naturelle à l'homme par un hôte intermédiaire, lui-même contaminé par la chauve-souris, apparaissait de loin comme l'hypothèse la plus probable, sur le modèle de ce qui s'était passé avec les virus du SRAS et du MERS. Or, contrairement à ces précédents épisodes où l'on avait pu rapidement trouver l'animal par lequel le virus avait contaminé l'homme, cette fois-ci, rien ne permet d'aboutir à de telles conclusions. Quinze mois se sont écoulés sans que les recherches ne débouchent sur une piste sérieuse. À défaut, la « piste du labo » est de nouveau évoquée. Cela n'en fait pas forcément une piste à privilégier. L'instrumentalisation de la « thèse du labo » De fait, une partie des défenseurs de cette thèse, ont dès le début, voulu s'en emparer à des fins politiques, sans qu'aucun fait avéré ne permette encore de l'étayer. Fin janvier 2020, avant même le début d'une enquête sur le sujet, ce sont les milieux nationalistes ultra-conservateurs, Steve Banon et ses comparses, qui se sont emparés de l'affaire, excluant d'emblée l'hypothèse d'une contamination naturelle. Breitbart News pointant du doigt le laboratoire le plus sécurisé de Wuhan. De son côté, dans la revue The National Interest, le néoconservateur Paul Wolfowitz parlant du même laboratoire, ajoutait qu'il travaillait en secret pour l'armée chinoise. Mais aucun des tenants de ladite « thèse du labo » n'a jamais fourni la moindre preuve. L'administration Trump elle-même penchait pour cette hypothèse, affirmant détenir des preuves qu'elle n'a jamais dévoilées. Insatisfait de l'enquête menée par les experts de l'OMS, le président Biden vient de demander à ses agences de redoubler d'efforts dans la collecte et l'analyse des informations qui pourraient permettre d'aboutir à une conclusion définitive. La Maison Blanche donne trois mois à ses services pour avancer sur la question, -origine naturelle ou accident de laboratoire. Une façon de mettre la pression sur Pékin, accusé d'opacité. Même si en l'état actuel, aucun élément de preuve ne permet encore d'accréditer cette thèse, elle reste une piste à l'étude, ne pouvant être exclue comme Pékin tente de le faire. Sur la défensive, désireuse de projeter une image positive à travers le monde, les autorités chinoises promeuvent un autre récit. Le journal pro-gouvernemental Global Times cite une nouvelle étude selon laquelle le Pangolin pourrait bien avoir été cet hôte intermédiaire d'un virus qui aurait entre temps subit mutations et recombinaisons. Mais les auteurs de cette étude sont en fait un groupe de chercheurs émanant du laboratoire de virologie de Wuhan et de l'Académie des Sciences chinoises. Il aurait été étonnant de voir ces chercheurs aboutir à des conclusions mettant en cause leur propre centre de recherche. L'opacité chinoise alimente les soupçons Les autorités chinoises s'en tiennent aujourd'hui encore à considérer la thèse d'un virus échappé d'un laboratoire uniquement sous l'angle de la théorie du complot, mais ils ne sont pas les seuls à montrer un certain embarras face à une telle éventualité. En fait, les milieux de la recherche sont partagés, entre les partisans des études de gain de fonction, et leurs détracteurs. Les études de gain de fonction ce sont des travaux en laboratoire, qui permettent au virus d'acquérir des propriétés le rendant plus transmissible à l'humain. Ceci afin de se donner les moyens d'anticiper de futures épidémies. Il y a eu manifestement des pressions venant d'un groupe de chercheurs ayant collaboré avec la Chine dans ce type de recherche, pour éviter que leurs collègues ne soient mis en cause. Néanmoins, le fait que la Chine évacue d'emblée l'hypothèse du labo, n'a fait que renforcer les soupçons au lieu de les dissiper. Le besoin d'une enquête indépendante et sans entrave reste criant. À lire aussi, notre article : Covid-19: le rapport de l'OMS sur les origines du virus en Chine peine à convaincre

On this edition of Parallax Views, on May 13th, 2021 the New York Times published a tantalizing report by journalists Adam Goldman and Mark Mazzetti. "Activists and Ex-Spy Said to Have Plotted to Discredit Trump ‘Enemies’ in Government", read the eye-catching headline that promised to add yet another scandalous chapter to the already scandal-ridden story of the Trump Presidency. Following the attention-grabbing headline, Goldman & Mazzetti, through documents and interviews, details a "campaign" by pro-Trump elements to discredit government officials perceived as potentially disloyal to the modus operandi of President Trump in the early years of his Presidency. Brining to mind Richard Nixon's "dirty tricks" and the tradition of what in D.C. slang has come to be known as political "ratf*cking, said campaign included a "planned sting operation against Mr. Trump’s national security adviser at the time, H.R. McMaster" and "secret surveillance operations against F.B.I. employees, aimed at exposing anti-Trump sentiment in the bureau’s ranks". According to Goldman & Mazzetti's reporting the plot involved former British spy Richard Seddon, controversial private security contractor Erik Prince of Blackwater infamy (and, for what it's worth, the younger brother of Trump's Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos), and operatives of Project Veritas, a right-wing conservative activist group founded by James O'Keefe and previously known for its operations against Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and others. In regards specifically to the sting operation against Gen. McMaster, which involved what in intelligence circles is known as a "honey trap", the NYT story mentioned another player in this cast of character: Barbara Ledeen. A former GOP Senate Judiciary Committee staffer, Ledeen admits to at least a minor role in the plot against McMaster in the NYT report. However, she is only mentioned rather briefly in the article itself. Investigative journalist Russ Baker, author of Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years and CEO/Editor-in-Chief of the news outlet WhoWhatWhy, joined me to discuss his recent article, co-authored with Matt Harvey, detailing how there may be another angle to explore in this story after taking a closer look at who Barbara Ledeen is and the circles she travels in. As Baker explains, Ledeen is the wife of one Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen, for the uninitiated is "a historian, campaign adviser, and freelance intelligence operative, who served as a consultant to the National Security Council and departments of State and Defense under Republican administrations" who figures into such political intrigues as the Iran/Contra affair and the Niger yellowcake forgeries that played a role in launching the Bush administration war on Iraq on the basis of that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Michael Ledeen is part of a milieu that has come to be known as the Neoconservatives. The neocons reached the apex of their political influence during the Presidency of George W. Bush and took hawkish positions on Iraq, Iran, and other countries in the Middle East even prior to 9/11. Prominent elements of the movement included the Project for a New American Century think tank and long-time D.C. mainstays like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliot Abrams among others.  In our conversation, Baker notes the complexity of this story and why the Ledeen connection matters. Chiefly, Baker points out the the Ledeens are heavily associated collaborators of Gen. Mike Flynn, who was fired from a prominent position under President Obama only to return to prominence under President Donald Trump. However, Flynn's return proved short-lived and he was ultimately replaced by Gen. H.R. McMaster. Additionally, Baker discusses the issue of neoconservatism and its relation to Israel and Netanyahu's Likud Party. Specifically, neoconservatives take an approach of strong, hardline support to Israel. In fact, for some neocons, this support is so hardline that it has led to right-wing admonishments of generally Israel-friendly Presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for being perceived as not sufficiently supportive of Israel. McMaster, Baker, argues may, despite not having a particularly radical stance on Israel, be seen in this regard by some neocons. Baker is quick to point out in our conversation that this discussion of neoconservatism and pro-Likud politics should not be used to support anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Instead he believes we should examined how the foreign policy ideas of neocons like the Ledeen and their relationship to Flynn may figure into the contour of a broader story about why politically right-wing elements in Washington, D.C. would seek to craft a sting operation against Gen. H.R. McMaster. And moreover how this plot against McMaster by alleged 'Anti-Deep State' elements may instead actually represent feuding factions of the deep state (by which, Russ points out, we mean the entrenched bureaucracy in D.C. rather than the lunatic fringe conspiracy theories of QAnon and its ilk). All that and more on this edition of Parallax Views!

Paul Wolfowitz is a visiting scholar at AEI, where he works on development and national security issues. Before joining AEI, Dr. Wolfowitz spent more than three decades in public service and higher education, working in the administrations of seven different presidents. Paul joins the show to talk with Robert and Phoebe about the greatest foreign policy challenges confronting the Biden administration.

When it comes to demonstrating the paper thin difference between Democrats and Neocons, no other moment in American history has been more useful or instructive than this present one. Conflicting rumors are swirling regarding what Mike Pence might do tomorrow as the entirety of the Neocon establishment lines up to brow beat Republicans into supporting Deep State Joe. It's almost as though they're in on Pedo Joe's coup attempt... Liz and Dick Cheney both wrote letters to Republican leaders and they got the last ten deep state heads of the DoD to sign it -- as though anyone gives a fuck what Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Gates think. I've got the latest! This is EPISODE 588 of So to Speak w/ Jared Howe!

Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and President of the World Bank, joined NSI's NatSec Nightcap series for a discussion about what national security challenges the next presidential administration faces among a variety of other topics. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Say What Wednesday edition. This week’s question comes from Francesca. “I have really liked your podcast on the pandemic bonds, I had read about these bonds maybe a month ago in The Economist. My question after listening to the podcast on pandemic bonds was, who controls the world bank? Well I know...the member countries, but how could they screw it up so well? Thanks for keeping us update on it. And keep up with your great work Thanks!”   In this episode – look at the world bank, what they do, who controls it, who funds it and at the core – why does it have problems What is the world bank – The World Bank Group is a family of five international organizations that make leveraged loans to developing countries. It is the largest and most well-known development bank in the world and is an observer at the United Nations Development Group. The bank is headquartered in Washington, D.C. in the United States – what makes up the group – the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), established in 1945, which provides debt financing on the basis of sovereign guarantees; the International Finance Corporation (IFC), established in 1956, which provides various forms of financing without sovereign guarantees, primarily to the private sector; the International Development Association (IDA), established in 1960, which provides concessional financing (interest-free loans or grants), usually with sovereign guarantees; the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), established in 1965, which works with governments to reduce investment risk; the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), established in 1988, which provides insurance against certain types of risk, including political risk, primarily to the private sector. Not a bank in the ordinary sense, the World Bank Group is a unique partnership, made up by 189 member countries – has two goals: ending extreme poverty by 2030 and promoting shared prosperity by lifting the bottom 40% in every country. The IMF and the World Bank were both created at an international conference convened in Bretton Woods - 1944. Who controls the World bank - The 189 member countries are technically shareholders – but each country is represented by a Board of Governors – they are the policymakers at the World Bank. Generally, the governors are member countries' ministers of finance or ministers of development. They meet once a year at the Annual Meetings of the Boards of Governors of the World Bank Group and the IMF – sets the agenda for the year – But The governors delegate specific duties to 25 Executive Directors – they make up the board of directors at the world bank - who work on-site at the Bank - five largest shareholders appoint an executive director, while other member countries are represented by elected executive directors - normally meet at least twice a week to oversee the Bank's business, including approval of loans and guarantees, new policies, the administrative budget, country assistance strategies and borrowing and financial decisions. office is usually held by the country's minister of finance, governor of its central bank, or a senior official of similar rank The United States and the World Banks relationship - The US Secretary of the Treasury sits on the World Bank’s Board of Governors, the World Bank’s highest governing body – the US gets to choose who is president as well- The World Bank is treated as an “exempt issuer” under the US securities laws since 1949 in recognition of its status as an international organization in which the U.S. is the largest shareholder (with about 17%). The United States’ membership in the World Bank was authorized by a federal statute known as the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286 et seq.). The other countries on the list – Japan (8%), China (5%), Germany (4.3%) – UK and France tied for 5th (4%) – make up about 42% of voting rights But – some of the countries have higher voting rights with other of the agencies – USA has around 23% voting rights its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Statement: The World Bank looks forward to continuing to provide support to US investors so that they may consider supranationals when looking for safe investments – i.e. an organization is an international group in which the power and influence of member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in decision making Who funds the world bank has - three main income streams - The first derives from their lending operations, charging mainly the borrowing countries; and the second from their income on investments in financial markets. Additionally, the International Development Association (IDA) receives contributions from members Have replenishments every three years – Aus donated $345m (USD) - $526m Aus – Denominations are in SDRs though in a lot of cases – in total raised $23.5bn USD But they make most of their money through their investments or assets – like most banks these are loans But what plagues the world bank – and in a way controls it – lack of transparency and corruption – The curse of any unaccountable massive organisation with hundreds of billions of dollars at its finder tips What they do – at the core they provide Financial Products and Services – but the private sector does well out of this – remember the 5 agencies - One provides loans to governments for projects deemed appropriate by the bank, one gives the money raised from member countries to give to other countries – both of these can be spent to hire the private sector, the other provides loans to the private sector, one works with governments to reduce the risk to the private sector and the other provides insurances against political risks – again mainly to the private sector In their own words - These loans support a wide array of investments in such areas as infrastructure, financial and private sector development, agriculture, and environmental and natural resource management. These loans are also made – In USD – or in SDRs - Make austerity requirements to the receiving countries if they are concessional loans – Practices even been criticised by their former Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz - that the so-called free market reform policies in practice are often harmful to economic development if implemented badly, too quickly ("shock therapy"), in the wrong sequence, or in very weak, uncompetitive economies loan agreements can also force procurements of goods and services at uncompetitive, non free-market, prices.  Again – their aim is to help “the vulnerable in the poorest countries.” But these very institutions are culpable of accelerating the spread of poverty There was a frenzy of deregulation and poorly planned privatization in third world countries – at the same time the World Bank cut away both oversight of the private sector and social safety nets for the poor beginning in the 1980s – most of the progress towards their goals is reported back to them from the very private companies that are implementing projects Even by 1998 – World Bank (and IMF) were presiding over a spectacular financial collapse in East Asia, Russia and Brazil – 2001 - Argentina went bust and half of its people were suddenly poor Defenders of the World Bank contend that no country is forced to borrow its money – but the people don’t borrow the money – the politicians do – and in already corrupt places – some of the money is bound to go missing Academics in the West decide what is best for developing countries -but when you listen to them the World Bank isn’t helping enrich their lives – but those that they are in bed with – topic the practices and how a lot of these projects don’t help as they are promoted is a topic that takes a lot to unravel – do another episode down the road on it - but there is no shortage of reports of corruption and nepotism in their practices -   One organisation - Government Accountability Project (GAP) produced a 10-page investigative report focusing on corruption at the World Bank focuses on extensive internal problems at the bank including how “kickbacks, payoffs, bribery, embezzlement, and collusive bidding plague bank-funded projects around the world.” The estimates are that more than 20% of the loans distributed by the World Bank, or $4 billion annually, are associated with corrupt practices Another paper – by three economists with previous ties to the bank (Anderssen, Johannesen, and Rijkers) found that “aid disbursements to highly aid-dependent countries coincide with sharp increases in bank deposits in offshore financial centers -associated with local officials steal a significant part of development aid funds and hide that money in their personal offshore accounts The paper studies a sample of the 22 most aid-dependent countries, with average disbursements from the World Bank exceeding 2 percent of GDP: Findings - In quarters when a country receives aid equivalent to 1 percent of GDP, its deposits in havens increase by 3.4% relative to a country receiving no aid, but its deposits held in non-haven financial centers remain constant. The implied average leakage is around 7.5%:This means that for every $100 of development aid, $7.50 apparently becomes corruption profits, hidden in offshore financial centers. Ironically - The data the three authors use for their study all comes from the BIS and from the World Bank. The development aid that fuels corruption is actually money disbursed by two major World Bank institutions: the International Development Association and the Bank of Reconstruction and Development – other examples - One $600 million bank program was alleged to be corrupt as early as 1995, but it took two years for the bank to look into the issue at all, and another four years for the bank to officially open an investigation. The bank found indications of widespread theft involved with the program – got rid of a scapegoat and went back to business as usual In 2019, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China questioned the World Bank about a loan in Xinjiang, China that was used to buy high-end security gear. There are a lot of good people working there – and im sure that they are frustrated by the lack of leadership – but the culture is the problem that makes matters worse - Staffers have traditionally been professionally rewarded for ensuring that projects go through as planned, but not for reporting corrupt practices – and when whistleblowers report corruption they are often punished for doing so They were not allowed to inform affected governments or the press, except under the most stringent constraints. If they do, they risk deportation back to their home countries. It was a wistleblower who flipped the lid on one of the Bank’s biggest black mark in history. This resulted in the resignation of president Paul Wolfowitz in 2007 - who exposed his “cronyism, favouritism, incompetence and improper political dealings” This had part to do with paying his girlfriend a large salary scandal – but also showed revelations of coordinated support he received from the Bank’s general counsel more recently Jim Yong Kim suspiciously resigned last year – reason was to join a private-sector infrastructure investment fund The bank adopted a “whistle-blower protection policy” last year – but it hasn’t been taken up on as it can be a trap for staff members – removes confidentiality and the investigative reports remain within the organisation and be hidden Where does each stand in relation to these systemic problems with corruption and who controls them - World Bank themselves are without any real external oversight - impenetrable by the legislatures of their member governments – they are massive bureaucracies, coupled with immunities from national and international laws – Neither Bank nor Fund officials can be subpoenaed by national legislatures, nor can they be obliged to testify in court. No government can demand internal documents from them. While each has some disclosure policies, these often remain unimplemented because the organizations cannot be sued. This is the stunning contradiction of the G-20 action: the signatories declared, “the era of bank secrecy is over,” but then dumped a trillion dollars of public money into the most secretive financial institutions in the world so they essentially control themselves – and those who are chosen to be on the board – if anyone is pulling the strings behind this – who knows – no way to request any of that information – even for governments Given that government are giving away hundreds of billions of dollars without any accounting for it – the results are not surprising – but if an institution is going to collect public money and the profit off it – it should be accountable to the public I don’t think it is incompetence that is the problem – but corrupt unaccountable practices that are – that is how they can screw up their prime objectives so well   Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3329392 https://ida.worldbank.org/about/contributor-countries

La Chine, déjà mobilisée contre la propagation du coronavirus, l’est aussi contre les infox qui se répandent sur les réseaux sociaux encore plus vite que l’épidémie. Pékin, aidé par l’OMS, tente d’enrayer ce phénomène de désinformation qui alimente la panique et lui complique la tâche. D’un côté, la culture du secret et du contrôle exercé par le régime de Pékin conduit à des abus en matière de répression contre la divulgation de ce qui est présenté, parfois à tort, comme de fausses nouvelles. Le cas du docteur Li Wenliang, décédé ce vendredi 7 février 2020, en est la tragique illustration. Il a d’abord été réprimandé par la police pour avoir alerté contre le virus. Il n’est pas le seul. De l'autre, ce virus, comme d’autres avant lui, a déclenché une avalanche d’infox sur les réseaux sociaux, propagées notamment par les adeptes du complotisme. Certaines théories, imprégnées de suspicions anti-chinoises et anti-communistes, venant de l’ultra droite américaine, ne visent pas seulement à critiquer la façon dont Pékin gère la crise, mais vont beaucoup plus loin, prétendant, sans preuve, que le virus se serait échappé de l’institut de virologie de Wuhan – où se trouve un laboratoire de biosécurité de niveau 4, le niveau le plus élevé –, où sont manipulés les virus les plus dangereux au monde : Sras, Ebola et autres. « C’est irréfutable, le coronavirus est l’invention de scientifiques dans un laboratoire… », c’est ce que veut nous faire croire le site pseudo-scientifique anti-vaccin Natural news. Autre exemple : le site Zero Hedge, brièvement suspendu par Twitter, a fait circuler sur internet les coordonnées d’un chercheur de l’institut de virologie de Wuhan, expliquant comment il a été recruté pour travailler sur la chauve-souris, animal bien connu pour renfermer une concentration de virus dangereux. Mais au lieu de présenter ce scientifique comme quelqu’un qui lutte contre la propagation de ce type de virus, il est accusé comme étant lui-même responsable de la propagation du virus et son laboratoire est incriminé, suspecté de travailler en fait à la fabrication d’armes biologiques. Le laboratoire P4 de Wuhan faussement accusé Des suspicions auxquelles font écho le magazine français Challenge en évoquant « la sulfureuse coopération franco-chinoise à Wuhan ». En fait, il est exact de rappeler que la coopération entre les Chinois et l’Institut Pasteur pour le développement de ce laboratoire ultra-sensible, a fait l’objet d’enquêtes minutieuses. Il s’agissait d’avoir des garanties concernant les normes de sécurité des installations et de s’assurer que Pékin n’utilise les équipements fournis à des fins offensives. Cette coopération a été lancée en 2004 du temps de Jacques Chirac, et le laboratoire a finalement été inauguré en 2017. S’agissant d’un domaine ultra-sensible, le fait que des enquêtes soient menées au préalable, était un passage obligé. Ce sont ces précautions que le récit conspirationniste fait passer pour les indices d’une « coopération sulfureuse » afin d’alimenter les soupçons. L’argument des complotistes consiste aussi à dire : « Comme par hasard », c’est à Wuhan que se trouvent ces installations, et c’est là qu’explose le virus… En fait, il n'y a ni hasard ni coïncidence suspecte. Frédéric Keck, chercheur du CNRS, qui s’est lui-même rendu sur place pendant la construction du laboratoire, fournit des explications parfaitement rationnelles : « La  coïncidence entre l’émergence du coronavirus de Wuhan et la présence d’un laboratoire P4 à Wuhan s’explique par le fait que c’est dans cette région de Chine qu’émerge un grand nombre de nouveaux virus et que donc la France et la Chine ont souhaité être au plus près des lieux d’émergence pour pouvoir séquencer rapidement un nouveau virus au moment où il émerge et ainsi arrêter sa propagation. À chaque fois qu’un nouveau virus émerge, il y a ces rumeurs selon lesquelles il viendrait d’un laboratoire, mais c’est très difficile de fabriquer un nouveau virus et encore plus difficile de le relâcher sans en être la première victime. C’est la nature qui fabrique des nouveaux virus, ce ne sont pas les laboratoires. Et on voit maintenant que ce nouveau virus possède des séquences génétiques communes avec des virus de chauve-souris qui étaient connus depuis longtemps ». Autrement dit, le raisonnement complotiste inverse la cause et l’effet, les ingénieurs de Wuhan en coopération avec des scientifiques du monde entier sont bel et bien engagés dans une course pour lutter contre le virus et pas le contraire. Le communisme en ligne de mire Enfin, dans une tonalité plus ouvertement politique, des sites ultra-droite comme War Room 2020 de Steve Bannon, ou The National Interest avec Paul Wolfowitz titrent sur le « Tchernobyl chinois », se livrant à une attaque en règle du régime. Pour Paul Wolfowitz, « le communisme est la raison pour laquelle le coronavirus est si dangereux ». La ligne éditoriale est assez claire, il s’agit en général de saisir l’opportunité du virus pour enfoncer le régime de Pékin. Ces thèses diffusées dans la sphère des néoconservateurs et autres ultra- nationalistes américains sont relayées à Washington par des sénateurs comme le républicain Tom Cotton. Le 30 janvier 2020, devant une commission du Sénat américain, il explique que l’on ne connaît pas l’origine du virus, qu’il ne faut pas croire les autorités chinoises, et que le patient zéro n’avait rien à voir avec le marché aux animaux sauvages de Wuhan. Et de poursuivre avec des allégations à peine voilées : « Je note que Wuhan abrite le seul laboratoire de niveau 4 qui travaille sur les éléments pathogènes les plus dangereux du monde, y compris, oui, le coronavirus ». De façon implicite, le sénateur américain laisse penser que l’origine du virus pourrait provenir de cet établissement. Sa démonstration ne s’embarrasse d’aucun début de preuve.

The Fed wants to get involved in fiscal policy and wealth distribution. Paul Wolfowitz takes a vacation from some circle in hell and writes a piece in the NYT advocating for more war. The real reason Uber has been banned in London. Maxine Waters says Dr. Ben Carson pediatric neurosurgeon is unintelligent. Careful what you wish war liberal advocacy group on the Bidens. Another real estate reality moment! Brats at Harvard vs.Yale. Dumb ideas. Sprite commercial made made sick.

The Fed wants to get involved in fiscal policy and wealth distribution. Paul Wolfowitz takes a vacation from some circle in hell and writes a piece in the NYT advocating for more war. The real reason Uber has been banned in London. Maxine Waters says Dr. Ben Carson pediatric neurosurgeon is unintelligent. Careful what you wish war liberal advocacy group on the Bidens. Another real estate reality moment! Brats at Harvard vs.Yale. Dumb ideas. Sprite commercial made made sick.

"I understood Paul Wolfowitz as a man who believed in promoting democracy in other countries, and I played him as somebody who thought he was doing the right thing. " - Eddie Marsan In the second part of the movie roundup that saw us reviewing three major new releases, we now trawl through the annals of film history to bring you a wide-ranging discussion of the form, from our love of South Korea's thriving national cinema, to the dazzlingly vibrant filmmaking that came from one of Italy's most politically tumultuous periods, namely Pasolini's Salo and Elio Petri's Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion. We talk about mid-period (post-exile) Roman Polanski thrillers, The Night of the Living Dead + 4K restorations of lo-fi films, and get stuck into Adam MacKay's Dick Cheney biopic Vice, which Yair hadn't actually seen at the time of recording, but we both quite liked. Opening tune - Morricone's theme to ...Citizen Above Suspicion Closing tune - Crazy Moose covering Neil Young & Crazy Horse's Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere (This episode will be released on SoundCloud in a day or two, at which point we'll upload some exclusive Patreon content.)

In a far-reaching conversation, Amb. Wolfowitz discusses the threat posed by China, developments in Iraq and the Middle East, and the appeal of democratic capitalism to developing countries. The post The global challenges facing America: A conversation with Paul Wolfowitz appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

In a far-reaching conversation, Amb. Wolfowitz discusses the threat posed by China, developments in Iraq and the Middle East, and the appeal of democratic capitalism to developing countries. The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-global-challenges-facing-america-a-conversation-with-paul-wolfowitz/ (The global challenges facing America: A conversation with Paul Wolfowitz) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

When you're scouring the shelves for some hot new Jack, sometimes you reach, er, farther, and thus might you happen upon L.T. Ryan's Noble Beginnings: A Jack Noble Thriller (Jack Noble #1). Anyway, that's pretty much what happened to us! This semi-taut sorta-thrill quasi-ride introduces us to Jack Noble, a man who one-punch breaks jaws at least two separate times and gets caught up in a conspiracy to ... it's not clear. We think the conspiracy is to perpetuate and expand the war in Iraq after 9/11, and a lot of the conspirators seem Ripped From the Headlines (we see you, homage to Paul Wolfowitz!), but, again: it's not super clear. It's probably fine. If your idea of fun is a taciturn Jack Reacher drinking coffee and punching evil all silent but deadly, this series may tickle your fancy, even if the chatty/sassy Jack Noble gasses on now and again. Squad up and get ready to drive up and down I-95, because it's time for ... beginnings ... noble beginnings.   Recommendations: "Take the Way Home That Leads Back to Sullivan Street" by Chavisa Woods A Wind in the Door by Madeleine l'Engle Music Recs: "Jawbreaker" by Judas Priest "Noble Stabbings!!!" by Dillinger 4

There are countless ways to study the history of U.S. foreign policy. David Milne, however, makes the case that it is “often best understood” as “intellectual history.” In his innovative book, Worldmaking: The Art and Science of American Diplomacy (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2015), follows the lives and ideas of several foreign policy thinkers, from the naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan at the turn of the twentieth century to Barack Obama in the twenty-first. By doing so, Milne helps us understand the changes and continuities in US foreign policy. One of the virtues of studying biography is that a life is idiosyncratic and one's experiences shapes how one sees the world. An examination of the lives of foreign policy thinkers can therefore help explain why U.S. foreign policy took particular paths. It matters, for instance, that the pessimist Henry Kissinger was deployed as a U.S. soldier in post-Holocaust Germany. It also matters, as you'll find out during the interview, that the cosmopolitan neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz won a cooking contest in Indonesia. The book will interest a wide audience, including historian of U.S. foreign relations, intellectual historians, and political scientists. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are countless ways to study the history of U.S. foreign policy. David Milne, however, makes the case that it is “often best understood” as “intellectual history.” In his innovative book, Worldmaking: The Art and Science of American Diplomacy (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2015), follows the lives and ideas of several foreign policy thinkers, from the naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan at the turn of the twentieth century to Barack Obama in the twenty-first. By doing so, Milne helps us understand the changes and continuities in US foreign policy. One of the virtues of studying biography is that a life is idiosyncratic and one’s experiences shapes how one sees the world. An examination of the lives of foreign policy thinkers can therefore help explain why U.S. foreign policy took particular paths. It matters, for instance, that the pessimist Henry Kissinger was deployed as a U.S. soldier in post-Holocaust Germany. It also matters, as you’ll find out during the interview, that the cosmopolitan neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz won a cooking contest in Indonesia. The book will interest a wide audience, including historian of U.S. foreign relations, intellectual historians, and political scientists. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are countless ways to study the history of U.S. foreign policy. David Milne, however, makes the case that it is “often best understood” as “intellectual history.” In his innovative book, Worldmaking: The Art and Science of American Diplomacy (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2015), follows the lives and ideas of several foreign policy thinkers, from the naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan at the turn of the twentieth century to Barack Obama in the twenty-first. By doing so, Milne helps us understand the changes and continuities in US foreign policy. One of the virtues of studying biography is that a life is idiosyncratic and one’s experiences shapes how one sees the world. An examination of the lives of foreign policy thinkers can therefore help explain why U.S. foreign policy took particular paths. It matters, for instance, that the pessimist Henry Kissinger was deployed as a U.S. soldier in post-Holocaust Germany. It also matters, as you’ll find out during the interview, that the cosmopolitan neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz won a cooking contest in Indonesia. The book will interest a wide audience, including historian of U.S. foreign relations, intellectual historians, and political scientists. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are countless ways to study the history of U.S. foreign policy. David Milne, however, makes the case that it is “often best understood” as “intellectual history.” In his innovative book, Worldmaking: The Art and Science of American Diplomacy (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2015), follows the lives and ideas of several foreign policy thinkers, from the naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan at the turn of the twentieth century to Barack Obama in the twenty-first. By doing so, Milne helps us understand the changes and continuities in US foreign policy. One of the virtues of studying biography is that a life is idiosyncratic and one’s experiences shapes how one sees the world. An examination of the lives of foreign policy thinkers can therefore help explain why U.S. foreign policy took particular paths. It matters, for instance, that the pessimist Henry Kissinger was deployed as a U.S. soldier in post-Holocaust Germany. It also matters, as you’ll find out during the interview, that the cosmopolitan neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz won a cooking contest in Indonesia. The book will interest a wide audience, including historian of U.S. foreign relations, intellectual historians, and political scientists. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are countless ways to study the history of U.S. foreign policy. David Milne, however, makes the case that it is “often best understood” as “intellectual history.” In his innovative book, Worldmaking: The Art and Science of American Diplomacy (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2015), follows the lives and ideas of several foreign policy thinkers, from the naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan at the turn of the twentieth century to Barack Obama in the twenty-first. By doing so, Milne helps us understand the changes and continuities in US foreign policy. One of the virtues of studying biography is that a life is idiosyncratic and one’s experiences shapes how one sees the world. An examination of the lives of foreign policy thinkers can therefore help explain why U.S. foreign policy took particular paths. It matters, for instance, that the pessimist Henry Kissinger was deployed as a U.S. soldier in post-Holocaust Germany. It also matters, as you’ll find out during the interview, that the cosmopolitan neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz won a cooking contest in Indonesia. The book will interest a wide audience, including historian of U.S. foreign relations, intellectual historians, and political scientists. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are countless ways to study the history of U.S. foreign policy. David Milne, however, makes the case that it is “often best understood” as “intellectual history.” In his innovative book, Worldmaking: The Art and Science of American Diplomacy (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2015), follows the lives and ideas of several foreign policy thinkers, from the naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan at the turn of the twentieth century to Barack Obama in the twenty-first. By doing so, Milne helps us understand the changes and continuities in US foreign policy. One of the virtues of studying biography is that a life is idiosyncratic and one’s experiences shapes how one sees the world. An examination of the lives of foreign policy thinkers can therefore help explain why U.S. foreign policy took particular paths. It matters, for instance, that the pessimist Henry Kissinger was deployed as a U.S. soldier in post-Holocaust Germany. It also matters, as you’ll find out during the interview, that the cosmopolitan neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz won a cooking contest in Indonesia. The book will interest a wide audience, including historian of U.S. foreign relations, intellectual historians, and political scientists. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are countless ways to study the history of U.S. foreign policy. David Milne, however, makes the case that it is “often best understood” as “intellectual history.” In his innovative book, Worldmaking: The Art and Science of American Diplomacy (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2015), follows the lives and ideas of several foreign policy thinkers, from the naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan at the turn of the twentieth century to Barack Obama in the twenty-first. By doing so, Milne helps us understand the changes and continuities in US foreign policy. One of the virtues of studying biography is that a life is idiosyncratic and one’s experiences shapes how one sees the world. An examination of the lives of foreign policy thinkers can therefore help explain why U.S. foreign policy took particular paths. It matters, for instance, that the pessimist Henry Kissinger was deployed as a U.S. soldier in post-Holocaust Germany. It also matters, as you’ll find out during the interview, that the cosmopolitan neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz won a cooking contest in Indonesia. The book will interest a wide audience, including historian of U.S. foreign relations, intellectual historians, and political scientists. Dexter Fergie is a PhD student of US and global history at Northwestern University. He is currently researching the 20th century geopolitical history of information and communications networks. He can be reached by email at dexter.fergie@u.northwestern.edu or on Twitter @DexterFergie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On June 1st, 2005, Paul Wolfowitz was appointed by President George W Bush to head the World Bank. The appointment of Wolfowitz to this ostensibly financial institution was especially notable at the time because his role just prior to this appointment was overseeing the wholesale privatization of the economy of occupied Iraq. Conflict of interest, anyone?

Two Scottish Libertarians discuss good jews, bad jews, jewish libertarians, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, The Frankfurt School, Theodore Adorno, The Neo-cons. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, The Alt-Right. Scottish Liberty Podcast episode 63 brought to you by Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird.

Plot Summary The crew of the Free Enterprise travels to psych ward planet Planet Crawford Two (not a typo) to deliver precious clue-giving anti-psychotic pretzels to Commodore George W. Bush, who is interned on the planet under the questionable care of Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, far from the terrestrial hoofed creatures (i.e. horses and cows) that … Continue reading Ned Trek 24: Whom Gods Deploy →

In an exclusive for The Global POLITICO, Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the Iraq war, talks Trump, Iraq and his fears the country could descend into “chaotic violence” all over again, and the need for America to step back up in the melting down Middle East. An original #nevertrumper, hehe says he’s now seeing “fantastic opportunity” in Trump’s newly assertive foreign policy.

Photo by flickr user Brooke Anderson. Given Trump's massive military budget proposal and the 14th Anniversary of the United States war in Iraq, we bring you this program from our archives with the voices of U.S. Soldiers and Iraqis reflecting on the costs of war. Special thanks to KALW News in San Francisco. Photo Credit: Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War present at the U.S. Social Forum in Atlanta, GA. Featuring: George W. Bush, former U.S. President; Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense; Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State; Yara Badday, Iraqi-American; Paul Bremer, former U.S. Administrator to Iraq; Richard Becker, West Coast Coordinator for ANSWER Coalition; Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Secretary of Defense; Ghazwan Al-sharif, Iraqi translator; Ryan Berg, U.S. Marine; Starlyn Lara, U.S. Army; Jordan Towers, U.S. Marine; Barack Obama, U.S. President; Aaron Glantz, journalist. Credits: Host: Anita Johnson and Kyung Jin Lee Staff Producers: Marie Choi, Monica Lopez, R.J. Lozada, Andrew Stelzer, Esther Manilla Executive Director: Lisa Rudman Web Editor & Audience Engagement Manager: Sabine Blaizin Special thanks to KALW News in San Francisco. Featured Music: Blue Dot Sessions: Lesser Gods of Metal. Photo Credits: flickr user Brooke Anderson For More information: KALW News Aaron Glantz, reporter and author of The War Comes Home Answer Coalition Iraq Veterans Against the War Swords to Plowshares Coalition for Iraq + Afghanistan Veterans for Peace Civilian-Soldier Alliance War Resisters League Veteran Artists Articles and Books: Happy anniversary, Iraq War by Matthew Duss, Michael Cohen, Foreign Policy Clamor, by Elise Fenton, Cleveland State University Poetry Center War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War with Iraq ed. Milan Rai, Verso Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations by Iraqi Veterans Against the War & Aaron Glantz, Haymarket Books The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan by Dahr Jamail, Haymarket Books The post The Cost of War: A Reflection on the United States and Iraq Conflict (Encore) appeared first on KPFA.

Is Donald Trump "softening" on immigration? Or is the media using this potential as a means to sow division within the GOP? A conversation with Tom Tancredo on his latest Breitbart column. Is the fate of the Supreme Court the fundamental issue of 2016? What to make of Hillary Clinton's divisive speech on race relations in America? What is this so-called "Alt-Right" anyways? Plus, we listen to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks offer hints to Fox & Friends as to what revelations he may have in store for the Clinton Campaign, and we make note of Chris Christie's strong critique of Hillary's "Amnesty Plan." Also, Paul Wolfowitz, a chief architect of the Iraq War, has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Should she disavow? With Listener Calls and Music via Dwight Yoakam, Guns & Roses and Cheap Trick.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My guest is Paul Wolfowitz, former President of the World Bank, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Ambassador to Indonesia.  Today the world’s most famous neoconservative will tell us why he doesn’t like the term neocon.  He'll talk about how his hatred of dictators and the teachings of Leo Strauss have shaped his own political philosophy, and how that has led to a lifelong passion for promoting freedom and combatting corruption as the first step to ending global poverty and preventing wars.  Ambassador Wolfowitz will discuss both U.S. conflicts in Iraq and how Saddam Hussein's cynical manipulation of Iraqi Islamists may have inadvertently lead to ISIS.  He will discuss his time as Ambassador to Indonesia and how that country might be a good template for democracy and reform in the Muslim world.  He’ll share some great advice he once got from Secretary of State George Schultz and voice his concerns over the Iran nuclear deal and North Korean missile tests.   Special thanks to the Milken Institute for hosting this interview during the 2016 Milken Global Conference. Visit www.milkeninstitute.org to learn more.  If you enjoyed today’s episode, then you can keep up with Paul Wolfowitz's work and writings at www.aei.org.  You can also follow the American Enterprise Institute on Twitter at @AEI. Please subscribe to KickAss Politics on iTunes and leave us a review. You can also help us reach our fundraising goal for this year and donate at www.gofundme.com/kickasspolitics. Or go to the website for the show at www.kickasspolitics.com and click on the donate button. Thanks for listening!

Media Roots Music - DJ Paul Wolfowitz 'Did You See The Pictures?' by Abby & Robbie Martin

Almost 4,500 American soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Although President Obama officially declared the end of U.S. combat in August 2010, 50,000 U.S. troops still occupy Iraqi soil and financially it's estimated to cost $750 billion dollars thus far. Eight years after the U.S.' began its “Shock and Awe” campaign, we look back and assess the consequences of the war. On this edition, we hear an audio documentary, “The Cost of War: A Reflection on Eight Years in Iraq” produced by KALW News in San Francisco. Special thanks to KALW News in San Francisco. Featuring:   George W. Bush, former U.S. President; Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense; Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State; Yara Badday, Iraqi-American; Paul Bremer, former U.S. Administrator to Iraq; Richard Becker, West Coast Coordinator for ANSWER Coalition; Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Secretary of Defense; Ghazwan Al-sharif, Iraqi translator; Ryan Berg, U.S. Marine; Starlyn Lara, U.S. Army; Jordan Towers, U.S. Marine; Barack Obama, U.S. President; Aaron Glantz, journalist. The post Making Contact – The Costs of War: A Reflection on 8 Years in Iraq appeared first on KPFA.

Decrying the current crop of tee vee and web "pundits" gracing the political landscape. Who let Paul Wolfowitz back on our tee-vee? Also, why we all must nail our 95 theses to the door of the conservative church, and why the word "liar" should return to public discourse. More at ProfessionalLeft.blogspot.comSupport the show (https://www.paypal.me/proleftpodcast)

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Daniel talks to a listener about how to improve the show.In the news segment he talks about:the Republican Debate, John McCain's anti-gay statement, and Paul Wolfowitz.He also plays a piece of exclusive audio that might change how you feel about Dick Cheney. The show ends with an editorial on speech in America.Download

An interview with Karl E. Meyer the author of Kingmakers: The Invention of the Modern Middle East. Kingmakers is the story of how the modern Middle East came to be, told through the lives of the Britons and Americans who shaped it. Some are famous (Lawrence of Arabia and Gertrude Bell); others infamous (Harry St. John Philby, father of Kim); some forgotten (Sir Mark Sykes, Israel's godfather, and A. T. Wilson, the territorial creator of Iraq); some controversial (the CIA's Miles Copeland and the Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz). All helped enthrone rulers in a region whose very name is an Anglo-American invention. As a bonus, we meet the British Empire's power couple, Lord and Lady Lugard (Flora Shaw): she named Nigeria, he ruled it; she used the power of the Times of London to attempt a regime change in the gold-rich Transvaal. The narrative is character-driven, and the aim is to restore to life the colorful figures who for good or ill gave us the Middle East in which Americans are enmeshed today. Meyer has written extensively on foreign affairs as a staff member of the New York Times and the Washington Post. His co-author, Shareen Blair Brysac, formerly a prize-winning documentary producer at CBS News, is the author of Resisting Hitler. Tournament of Shadows was their previous book together. The couple lives in New York and Weston, Connecticut.

In this week's news: Super Tuesday leaves the presidential nomination super-undecided. And, "Oh Kwame, you dawg." Happenings of Paul Wolfowitz and Arlen Spector, updates from the campaign trail, and news from the mitten.Subscribe to the podcast!! Search "DEMTV" in the iTunes Music Store.tags: demtv university michigan college democrats bush obama hillary news politics super tuesday mccainhttp://www.archive.org/download/DannyAboschDEMTVEpisode22-8-08/DEMTV2808.m4v

This spring World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz was forced out after being accused of arranging a big raise and promotion for a woman with whom he was having a relationship. As anyone who works in an office knows though favoritism isn't confined to love and sex: Family relationships and close friendships can upset co-workers' sense of fairness too and end up undermining an organization's performance. What's the solution? There's no one answer according to Wharton faculty and other experts but companies would be well-advised to keep their rewards systems transparent and to have clear policies regarding conflicts of interest. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

President Bush has embraced yesterday's bi-partisan compromise on immigration reform. It appeals to both the Right and the Left as a way to secure America's borders and to to bring 12 million people out of the shadows. However, there's opposition from both ends of the political spectrum. Also, Paul Wolfowitz's forced resignation: how big a slap is it to the United States?

The professional staff is in open revolt against Paul Wolfowitz, and the leaders of Europe want him removed as President of the World Bank. Also, the breakup of DaimlerChrysler, and US postage rates are going up, but that's not all that's changing.

THE WAR THAT WON'T STOP [Col. Writ. 9/29/06] Copyright '06 Mumia Abu-Jamal There has been a blizzard of books released about the ill-fated Iraq War. Some have been penned by Bush insiders; others by outsiders. Such is the blizzard that the net result is often confusion, for each is written from the perspective of the writer, and to project or protect one side or the other. Well, here's another one for ya. Now comes Greg Palast, the irascible author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (2004), whose newest work is a broad, if irreverent, look at not just the Iraq disaster, but also the nation's economic debacle, and other perfidies of the governing classes. Palast's new book is: Armed Madhouse (New York: Dutton, 2006). Palast is perhaps best known for his BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reports on the stolen elections in Florida, and the subsequent assaults on democracy in 2004, in Ohio, and beyond. What hit me, however, was his analysis of the conflicting interests in the Bush administration on the Iraq invasion and occupation. One side, he argues, wanted to use the Iraq takeover as a massive tool to crack OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), and by so doing, kick the Saudis out of the driver's seat, and flood the market with cheap oil. The second option was a relatively modest invasion, the installation of a dutifully obedient puppet, but hands off oil, except to control its flow. According to Palast, the objective was never to take the oil, but to control it, and thereby moderate its flow. By so doing, this would keep the price at a high level, based on the principle that plenty would bring prices too low. Palast writes: "In the short term, Iraq's fields were trashed even before saboteurs torched them. The CIA and the Pentagon knew it no matter what (Paul) Wolfowitz said to bobble-headed Congressmen. In the long run, however, many years from now, Iraq, with 114 billion barrels of proven reserves, might be able to crank up above its OPEC quota. "*But that won't happen*. The globe is littered with the economic skeletons of nations that fragrantly busted their OPEC quotas.. There's the skeleton of Venezuela. In 1973, Venezuela broke the first Arab oil boycott. But in 1997, when Venezuela again ramped up production, punishment was swift. Saudi Arabia, which can live without big oil revenues for up to a year, opened its spigots and drowned the market. The price of oil dropped to $8 a barrel and Venezuela went bankrupt. Its government fell. The current President of that nation, Hugo Chavez, is now a good member of OPEC, indeed its most fanatic adherent to the quota system." (pp. 86-87) This was a war, Palast explains, not to get oil, so much as it was to keep goo-gobs of oil in the ground! The rarer a commodity, the higher its price. In fall, 2005, Exxon Oil raked in $9.9 billion, net. It made more profit during its third quarter than in the history of money! Now why would they want to threaten that? The guy makes one hell of a point. These were wars of capital, with the army, air force, and generals, but footmen for big businesses. This was a 'war for oil', as millions of protesters screamed in spring, 2003. But not the way we thought it. It was a war to make more profits, profits that have only grown since the war began -- till now. Hey, Congress belongs to the corporations. Why shouldn't the army? In a real sense, oil explains everything, in ways that other explanations do not. It seamlessly slips throughout the political, theological, and military justifications for the carnage in Iraq, and emerges as the only consistent rationale for this continuing disaster, which seems to so easily elude logic. Reading Palast's latest book, I thought of a quote from the book, The Lessons of History by Will & Ariel Durant: "...[T]he men who can manage men manage the men who can manage only things, and the men who can manage money manage all." [p. 54] This hot, deadly war is but a front in the invisible economic war. Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal

What is Neoconservatism? Who is behind it? Tank Riot talks about the movement, its major neocon players and their goals. The Tank Team pushes neoconservatives Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney through the analysis grinder. Listen to the show to hear what comes out!

Articles and posts are flying around the web with headlines like ‘The End of the Internet'. How serious is the threat of the disturbingly named "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act" and what can you do about it? And, how does it connect to the threat currently facing public access TV? We'll talk about both issues with Jeff Chester, of the Center for Digital Democracy. Also: when activists used to protest the World Bank and IMF, many in the mainstream media took the lazy way out, pointing and laughing at the blue haired, street-marching anarchists. Nowadays, coverage of the World Bank has a different kind of problem-kid glove treatment of its new boss, former Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz. He's getting high marks from the press, but what do World Bank critics think? We'll speak to one-Ann Louise Colgan of the group Africa Action. The post Counterspin – April 28, 2006 appeared first on KPFA.

Paul Wolfowitz was confirmed as the new President of the World Bank on March 31, 2005 and will join the Bank on June 1. Terra Verde’s April 29 show will consider predictions of the World Bank’s environmental performance under Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz is known as one of the leading proponents of the Iraq war. This show will be presented in honor of Bay Area activist and humanitarian worker Marla Ruzicka, who lost her life on April 16, 2005 in Iraq. Terra Verde co-hosts Michelle Chan-Fishel and Adrienne Fitch-Frankel first got to know Ruzicka in the mid-1990s, when she was a young intern at the 50 Years is Enough Campaign, an organization that monitors the environmental and human rights performance of the World Bank. The post Terra Verde – April 29, 2005 appeared first on KPFA.