Guest Post: Blowback Works Both Ways

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

Blowback Works Both Ways

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows how to inflame American and Israeli leaders.

He’s claimed 9/11 was an inside job:

Making reference to what he called the “mysterious September 11th incident” and the “slave masters and colonial powers” of the West, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad excoriated Western member nations in an address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York

Ahmadinejad said after the speech that as an engineer he’s sure the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center in New York were not brought down by jetliners.


Ahmadinejad, in an interview with The Associated Press, says it would have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply by hitting them. He says some kind of planned explosion must have taken place.

(Amusingly, this sparked al-Qaeda to supposedly put out a counter-statement defiantly claiming responsibility and condemning Ahmadinejad, although such disputes have not prevented America from claiming that Iran and al-Qaeda were jointly responsible for 9/11).

He’s claimed that the holocaust may have never happened:

During an interview with CNN, which aired Monday on “Piers Morgan Tonight,”the Iranian president said he will not judge Nazi Germany’s extermination of the Jews during World War II.


“Whatever event has taken place throughout history, or hasn’t taken place, I cannot judge that. Why should I judge that? I say researchers and scholars must be free to conduct research and analysis about any historical event,” Ahmadinejad said.

And today, he claimed that Israel was a “nuclear armed fake regime”, and that Israel will be eliminated:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be “eliminated,” ignoring a U.N. warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session.


Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel could launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, denied sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran’s threats to the life of British author Salman Rushdie.

Ahmadinejad claims that Israel and America are bluffing in their threats to attack Iran:

In a series of combative interviews in New York on the eve of the UN General Assembly, Iran’s political leader said Israel was making a lot of ‘noise’ and encouraging the West to prevent legitimate scientific progress in his country.


Reiterating that he was open to dialogue with the United States on the nuclear issue he also said he was prepared to defend Iran from any external threat.


“Fundamentally, we do not take seriously threats of the Zionists,” he said. “We believe the Zionists see themselves at a dead end and they want to find an adventure to get out of this dead end. While we are fully ready to defend ourselves, we do not take these threats seriously.”

He may be right on that count, because America can ill afford another costly invasion, and nothing less than a full invasion and regime change is likely to in the long run prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.Yet while I believe that an American or Israeli attack on Iran is an entirely foolish policy that will only serve to weaken America and Israel in the long run, it is foolish and dangerous for Ahmadinejad to needlessly enrage the ferocious neoconservative beast.

Ahmadinejad may well be playing the same long game as Osama bin Laden:

We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.

Osama bin Laden

And they may succeed (although those who believe that war is a stimulus that can end a depression will surely disagree — as Antal Fekete has noted, Western governments may look to a new hot war in the middle east as an opportunity to exit an economic depression that they cannot control).  But for Ahmadinejad and Iran, it may come at a huge, huge cost — a long painful invasion, ending in death in the street or on the gallows. Neoconservatism — and Obama and Romney are both to lesser and greater degrees neoconservatives — is a violent utopian ideology that seeks to force the entire world — by whatever means and at any cost — to conform to American foreign policy imperatives. As America should have learned a long time ago — and as Ahmadinejad may well soon learn — needlessly pissing off violent utopian ideologues creates blowback.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
john39's picture

"conform to american foreign policy"?  come now, that is not exactly accurate.... shouldn't it state "conform to zionist" control?

Cortez the Killer's picture

It continues to surprise me that someone with a high powered sniper rifle hasnt taken out this ass faced monkey during one of his visits to the UN.

MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

I agree with the premise of this article. Blowback does work both ways. Libertarians, for example, have been poking the hornets' nests of governments for decades, and now they seem surprised that governments are finally retaliating by targeting potential libertarian domestic terrorists such as sovereign citizens, Ron Paul supporters and Oath Keepers. Libertarians can hardly claim innocence when they have been provoking the government for decades by spreading damaging conspiracy theories and smearing the reputations of respectable politicians. Payback's a bitch, and libertarians need to stop crying and accept that they had it coming from the start. 

Precious's picture

Another reason why the Globalists are doomed.  

All of the centralized mega-institutions they design to consolidate power are vulnerable to asymmetrical attack by distributed, loosely-tied, hostile networks.

ParkAveFlasher's picture

+1.  Clearly, "Iran" is the "high speed rail" of foreign policy in American politics.  Thrown out there as a diversion every election cycle.

mick68's picture

What has he to fear from a nation that doesn't even have the balls to attack Syria?  As if they're going to attack Iran when the commander in chief cowers at the thought of Syria. An easy deduction, unless your name is Obama, then you think sending your navy over countless times will convince him of your courage.

In the end, this guy is making an ass of the US and NATO simply by calling their bluff.

Anusocracy's picture

Get back in your cage humonkey.

Animals aren't allowed to roam in human society.


Bicycle Repairman's picture

The West has pushed all their chips to the center of the table.  Ahmadinejad has responded by going all in.  Check to Israel.  Netanyahu is history in less than a month.  Show or fold.

Ghordius's picture

Precious, the Globalists are winning. At least as for now. The centralized mega-institutions' reach is global, with the exception of a very few negligible cases. The true clients of the Great Commercial Empire - the stock-market-listed MegaCorporations - have the whole world as their oyster.

What further "consolidation of power" do you really think that they want? This is a honest question. Btw, consolidation would hurt the weapons industries. They are already moaning that insurrections are not as profitable as full-blown wars (cold or hot).

Precious's picture

Wrong.  You believe they are winning.  They are clearly losing.  In fact, they cannot even beat a group like Al Quibler. Yet they continue to consolidate at every possible opportunity. They are lathered and layered with incompetence and ineffectiveness.  They cannot even find people to read their own thick manuals to carry out their own ridiculous plans.  It's everywhere.  Planning in the complete absense of execution.  A total inability to motivate their legions of workers except with the most inane, unappetizing rewards.  Every one of their beloved institutions is failing and under attack because of complete obsolescence. Give me any globalist mnemonic and I'll show you 1000 points of failure

People are so used to the media propaganda and the bullshit from the globalists that they cannot see that everthing these people influence, manage or own is completely, utterly falling into ruin. 

For-profit corporations are not globalists.  They may be many undesirable things, but they are not "globalists".  Their agenda is profit, not mass control of the citizendum.  Your example of for-profit corporations as globalists is off point. They are not political except if it is expedient.  For-profit corporations ordinarly do not care what size soda you drink or whether you read about Darwin in public school or whether you have 3 children or whether you own gold or whether you see a doctor or whether you own a gun or whether you drive a car or how much your toilet flushes or what kind of lightbulb you want ...

i-dog's picture


"For-profit corporations are not globalists. They may be many undesirable things, but they are not "globalists". Their agenda is profit, not mass control of the citizendum."

Zing ... BULLSEYE!!!

Ghordius's picture

I disagree with this article of faith of yours: "For-profit corporations are not globalists"

we are talking about globalists. this has something to do with the globe, remember? That's the world.

You are making a purely American political statement, mixing up what your domestic perception is with what happens elsewhere.

Ask Non-Americans what they think about the WTO and those dear multinationals that steer the global economy. Ask Latin Americans what they think about Monsanto, for example. Go and look what Coca Cola does.

Check how Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted throughout the globe.

If you talk about globalists, you have to start with world trade and go on from there.

i-dog's picture

That is definitely the most childish piece of globalist disinfo I've ever seen you attempt, Ghordie!! Surely you can do better than this!

Your strawman ("something to do with the globe") is so weak that it falls over with nary the slightest breeze!!

Globalism is a political movement to centrally control the planet ... the multinationals are just hangers-on ... as you well know....

Ghordius's picture

come on i-dog, this is becoming silly

the globally accepted definition of globalism/globalist is advancing/someone that advances globalization

the Webster dictionary goes on like this:

Definition of globalization 
noun the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale

I was discussing the matter according to this definition. Should I be wrong on this assumption, they we were discussing two completely different things, including cup sizes in NY as above mentioned --- Note that Precious mentions:"what size soda you drink or whether you read about Darwin in public school or whether you have 3 children or whether you own gold or whether you see a doctor or whether you own a gun or whether you drive a car or how much your toilet flushes or what kind of lightbulb you want". I fail to see global matters in it, it looks to me mostly local.
i-dog's picture

The term "globalist" refers to those on the international committees (including the WTO, which you referred to earlier) working towards a global single currency, global 'Agenda 21' development rules, global carbon taxing, global regulation and standardisation of food, drugs and more, and a global ZATO police force.

As 'Precious' pointed out, that has nothing at all to do with corporations seeking a profit through arbitrage between resource and labour markets on a global scale ... ie. "free enterprise and free trade".

I'm a director of a multinational with dozens of manufacturing and sales offices around the world, but we are no more "globalists" than the kid in Argentina who buys trinkets from China and sells them around the world over eBay. Indeed, even as we speak, I'm waiting to sign papers transferring our 'global headquarters' from one country to another ... in yet another arbitrage opportunity that has nothing at all to do with "globalisation".

You are confused.

Ghordius's picture

see below, even the international Webster is confused about this US term that is used in a US-centric terminology nexus. as I accused you a few times, my English might not be the best but your thoughts have definitely an US-slant for me.

and as a director of a multinational, how do you react to local legislation that hampers your operations? with the cry of sovereignty-uber-alles?

and what is your position on taxes? what do you think of the multi-nationals tax dodges? what do you make of Apple/Foxxconn and their labour "techniques"?

I find it interesting that you are on board of a globalization-driver and that your biggest personal political enemy are globalists, to be frank... what is even the sense of one without the other?

i-dog's picture

Your last paragraph shows that you either have no clue of the difference between politics and business (though, in a Venn diagram, they would overlap) or you're just being deliberately obtuse. I suspect the former (for a change).

"how do you react to local legislation that hampers your operations?"

LOL ... Why do you think we're changing our "domicile"? (Hint: I placed it in quotes because nothing will actually change operationally). Why do you think Microsoft moved a couple of people to Ireland? Negotiating with governments for quid-pro-quo deals is just as much a part of business as is negotiating with suppliers and customers for discounts or other tradeoffs. It has been that way for thousands of years, by the way.

You need to stop politiciking and read some books on business.

tip e. canoe's picture

i-dog, it's within that overlap that lies the crux of the problem.   of course, not all corps have the same overlap, which is why it's impossible to paint with such a wide brush on either side of the argument.

i-dog's picture

I disagree that the overlap contains the crux of the "globalisation" problem. To repeat what Precious said: "For-profit corporations are not "globalists". Their agenda is profit, not mass control of the citizendum."

The overlap only occurs where business MUST get involved in government (through bribes and the necessity to obtain influence in government bureaucracies that can override the terms of business between a buyer and a seller). If business involvement in influencing government is a problem with local and national governments (which it is, but it is localised), then supranational governments just present an even greater potential for global oligarchy - and they have done so. It's the wrong direction for seeking solutions.

The true solution lies in reverting back to [much] smaller nation-state governments and the re-imposition of tariffs as the means to fund governments. This would reduce the natural arbitrage between different labour and resource markets. Then, Monsanto (to take just one of Ghordius' examples) would have to negotiate with each local community for the right to sell its seeds and possibly suffer prohibitive tariffs from those communities that were averse to GMO (a solution that is impossible under the global WTO). AAPL would be faced with large import tariffs bringing iCrap from China into the US (or, better still, Texas) market and would therefore be more inclined to manufacture and/or assemble locally to avoid tariffs.

The solutions lie in political philosophy at the local level; the problems lie in global one-size-fits-all directives from an expanding global politburo.

tip e. canoe's picture

i agree wholeheartedly with the solution you propose and am not arguing with that (nor is ghordius above, though i may be mistaken).  i just happen to choose to believe that from a corporate perspective, maximum profit is derived through maximum control, so control is a means to an end.  whereas with the "globalist" agenda (as you have defined it), maximum control is derived through maximum profit, so profit is a means to an end.  it's 2 sides of the same coin, just looking at the same problem from opposite perspectives. 

it's a similar disconnect that is happening between those who think "capitalism" (as they choose to define it) is the problem and those who think "government" is the problem (e.g. TP vs. Occupy).   the more we argue over which color hat the devil is wearing instead of accepting that it is multi-colored, the less collective energy we are able to muster to discover a solution that we can all agree upon.

this is all assuming that the energy variable remains constant which is a massive assumption as we know.

Ghordius's picture

+1 not arguing with that, particularly with your multicolored devil. the problem might be that i-dog sports a pure white coat and to me he seems to be colour-blind, between his unnecessary insults and unfounded prejudices

Ghordius's picture

"their agenda is profit, not mass control of the citizendum"

this is indeed one of the most puzzling parts of this, for me. I started the argument by saying "they are winning". by now, you know that I see the whole shebang as a commercial and military empire led by the US (a point of view that seems to be very painful to you and others).

then Precious brought those examples with cup sizes (a local NY matter), Darwinism in local schools (a US cultural war "thing"), the 3 kids thing (ditto or chinese?), whether you own gold (a strongly US matter). ok, fine, I see that my global/local barb was not of your liking

then you brought the beef. thanks, btw.:

global single currency (a BRIC demand based on a revolt against the dollarization of the world), the Agenda 21 (IMO a dream of a couple of bureaucrats), development rules (a broadly diverse lefty issue), global carbon taxing (a clearly international lefty thing), the WTO (that is nothing else that the neo-liberal-spawned enemy of those tariffs you were mentioning), global standardization of food, drugs and more (eh? food might be an EU "thing", otherwise it's the first time I hear that, usually those things are painfully national), and then the "global policemen" NATO (which, for us europeans, is nothing else that the continuation of our old imperial traditions - a point of view that is utterly painful for many US citizens to even contemplate - our old empires had their navies and fleets in order to "open markets" and "secure resources" - has something changed? Except for the existence of the State of Israel? Even that is nothing new, look up the Crusades and the Religious Orders like the Templars and the Maltese).

meanwhile I have checked in 7 languages, by the way. for me, it looks like the whole non-American-English speaking world makes no distinction between the "globalizationists" and the "globalists" (including for pure lack of this US-term "globalist" in this sense), and I realize that only very few (strictly Americans) people put all of the above beef in one basket and label it "the globalist agenda". For us-all-others, they are totally different agendas driven by totally different people and countries. But there is one nexus I've found: the US Democratic Party. Funny, eh?

and then comes this (purely US Republican+Libertarian vs Democratic?) point about the "mass control of the citizenship". On one side there is a lot of propaganda about FEMA camps to-be-used-for-concentration-of-rebels (for which I have sensed fears and read rumours of huge expenditures, including here) and on the other side, as we have discussed other times, there is this incredible existing and tangible prison population in the US, coupled with an arms industry that is selling like candies to people it scares to death. Now, again, I really fail to see where this is applicable outside of the US. Why should the "mass control of the US citizenship be on any global agenda? The more you write about, the more I find US national issues, not global ones.

to me, your critical attitude is admirable, but I have the impression that you lack a certain global/historic perspective when looking at the globe. you simply don't "see" the empire and perhaps this gives you an utterly distorted view. and you keep "projecting" your issues to others. Again, a US-centric view, IMHO.

i-dog's picture

So many misinterpretations! I won't have time for a detailed reply until tomorrow evening CEST.

GoinFawr's picture

"The true solution lies in reverting back to [much] smaller nation-state governments and the re-imposition of tariffs as the means to fund governments. This would reduce the natural arbitrage between different labour and resource markets"

I heard that. No small task though! Who gets to draw the imaginary lines this time around; or do we need another WW to decide that one?

i-dog's picture

Your puzzlement doesn't surprise me, Ghordius -- in light of your demonstrated inability (or unwillingness) to understand the business mindset (whether large corporation or small business).

Firstly, multinational corporations and inter-national arbitrage are nothing new. Early manifestations included booze traders operating out of southern Europe and bottling or transhipping through England to other parts of the empire ... sometimes bootlegging, sometimes paying bribes, sometimes paying tariffs - depending on the governmental styles and restrictions in place.

There is always a niche market for the entrepreneur ... even a multinational one! Modern communications simplify management and distributed manufacturing across national borders, but they have been a feature of business since before even the Templars and Venetians exemplified the principles.

Secondly, the drive for centralised control of world trade and finance (ie. "globalisation") has been a political one. The owners of innovative and well-run corporations can become multi-billionaires under ANY political regime ... ask the de'Medicis, Fuggers, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Carnegies, Hearsts, Vanderbilts, Fords, Astors, Gettys, Hughes, Forbes, Gates, Agnellis, Mittals, Lis, Slims, Bransons, Arnaults...

If there is a government in the equation, then business must deal with it (usually to attempt to gain some benefit or avoid some penalty). The larger and more pervasive the government, the greater the potential benefit to be gained for a business. Global government brings global advantages to create global oligarchs. The politics come first ... the opportunities for misuse by businesses come later as a fully expected consequence.

The WTO, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, IMF, and other international organs of centralised control, were all instigated at the behest of globalist politicians in Europe and America after WWII. The most important instrument of globalisation has been the WTO, using the added muscle of the World Bank and IMF to influence policies of developing countries and which succeeded the multilateral GATT agreements dating back to 1947. The WTO is driven by "think tanks" and staffed by career bureacrats who have no allegiance to corporations or oligarchs.

The same applies to the FAO, which drafted the Codex Alimentarius back in 1961 (long before Falak Pena's buggyboos Ronnie and Maggie came on the scene) and which now decrees, as of 2012, that any country not compliant with ALL of its food and drug standardisation dictums will no longer have recourse to the WTO to settle ANY trade disputes. Corporations have absolutely nothing to do with these grabs for centralised "globalist" bureaucratic and political power. So you don't need to jump on the strawman of the simple examples that Precious gave ... because there are many more extreme examples to be found in the pages of global WTO agreements and the Codex Alimentarius that have global repercussions.

The exact same situation as the above for global trade also applies within your pet 'European Experiment" (which is in fact a microcosm, or test bed, for extension globally - having started with 5 states and now encompassing 27, on the way to 50 or more - it's just a thinly veiled replacement for the equally failed Soviet Union) ... where the ability of a nation state to impose differential tariffs to account for natural labour and resource arbitrage between undeveloped periphary countries and the developed core have been eliminated. This naturally encourages corporations to decentralise to the lowest cost state with the result that it either drives down wages in the home state (reducing 'standard of living') or eliminates jobs in the home state (increasing 'unemployment'). We can all see how that is working out!!

Again, the European Experiment was dreamed up in the minds of ambitious empire-building politicians wtih a political agenda, rather than in the board roooms of corporations. Churcill, Adenauer, Mitterand, Spaak and Spinelli had absolutely no allegiance to any multinational corporations - indeed, they were more antagonistic towards them than anything. I won't go into to whom they were in fact beholden....

Then we move on to 'Agenda 21' - which you dismiss as a "dream of a couple of bureacrats". Apart from the fact that it was adopted by all nations attending the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and published by the UN in 1993, as "an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels", there are very visible signs of strict adherence to its principles already manifesting throughout the developed world. All governments are complicit, with some corporations as winners and some as losers. Again, the "globalisation" is political.

Further, the issue of "global control of the citizenry" is not restricted to the US and FEMA camps. That is childish disinfo. As stated above, it encompasses world trade, world food, world health, world finance, world development and world resource usage. It's not quite here yet, but anyone with even half an eye open and a couple of functioning neurons can both read the plans (they've all been widely published for decades) and see the emerging manifestations of this political drive to global central planning throughout most of the world ... ie. "globalisation". And it's not driven by the US, though the US has been the prime vehicle through which the globalists have acted.

"I have the impression that you lack a certain global/historic perspective"

LOL ... I spit my coffee when I read this one!! I've spent decades as a highly paid consultant to the biggest multinationals, lived and/or worked in dozens of countries, communicate in half a dozen languages, owned my own multinational businesses, sit on the board of others, and live and breath internationalism. I've hardly ever lived in my birth place (which was not the US, btw), especially since I completed my first university degree. It is you who is lacking those qualities. So there!!! Take your trite condescension someplace else, Ghordie....

Ghordius's picture

lol - it pays to "talk" to you, even when we are of different opinions

ok - first(ly), to get it out of our way, the aristocratic sneer you call "trite condenscension": I am at least as much an entrepreneur as you are, I've founded several companies and co-founded half a dozen others, and operated in several countries/continents. All this tempered by having been broke twice. In my youth I would have sneered down my nose at you as a "corporate mercenary". So I broadly agree with you on several points. Though I might point out that the Venetian Merchants were aware of operating within an empire (and funding it with their taxes and actions). Oh, and I have bribed, too, so I can't look down at you on this...

Secondly, I also agree though I find your bunch of examples worthy of singular consideration.

Regarding the "monsters", i.e. the WTO, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, IMF - those who belong to the UN have a different history than for example the IMF. You can't understand the IMF without the French involvement in it. Which has a financialist/imperialist background.

Nevertheless, I find your view interesting. No "oligarchs" and no corporate interests behind the WTO (and before GATT)? Perhaps no specific ones but collective (imperial) commercial/corporate interests? I have difficulties at thinking that the various left-leaning parties of this world have an interest in promoting the "free-trade". Tariff barriers against free trade were - in Europe - the domain of the Left, protecting Labour. Are you sure there are no ties between the neo-liberals of old and new and all this free-trade nexus? Remember that the discussion about that started in the British Empire when the US was still full-blown protectionist (for "budding" Industrialist's interests). Cui bono? Only bureucrats? In my experience they need instructions even to find their asses.

I will look up some of this, particularly the Code Alimentarius of 1961, of which I admit total ignorance. You seem to think that the Agenda 21 is important, so I'll look this up, too.

About your view on the European Project that I support with moderation and of which I had the chance of knowing many of his "fathers": I will there, too, rethink on some of my prejudices. Though I can tell that I, too, am broadly antagonistic against several of the Big Biz Multinationals - from my Small/Medium Biz perspective. Which carries more economic and political weight here. Perhaps I can find a few examples how a small/medium entrepreneur can literally hate the gargantuans you seem to think are - can I say it this way? - "mostly blameless". Whenever I meet others of my size in several countries, I find that our "political agenda" (mostly defensive) differs from that of Big Biz and from the Left (on both sides quite offensive).

FEMA camps: I'm still clueless, and you have not helped, there. Mindless tax-money-sucking provisioning or real plans?

On one point I still "differ vehemently": we don't have the same "globalists" here. One reason why the US word does not even exist (yet?) here. For some of the issues where you find one nexus in the US you'll find several here, plus the national divides. Perhaps I can find an easy example for that.

Meanwhile, have a good tax-residence transition. I still have nightmares from the last I had, they are still dogging me after 20+ years!

Precious's picture

More brilliance from the WHO, part of the Globalist club of self-appointed civilian molestors.

Ghordius's picture

just as an addendum to the vocabulary used in this context: here Brandon Smith was using this "globalist" term. I asked for clarification and

Precious replied "Globalist?  Start your research with the Rockefellers and their Foundation and go from there.  It will lead you to everying nefarious, like the UN, and so on.  Is that too complicated?  The fucking UN is built on land donated by Rockefeller.  How much hand holding do you need?"

To this I have to answer: we in europe wanted to build up the League of Nations after the WWI. Yes, this was part of an American-European plan and part of the overt presidential agenda, but the very US did not join until WWII as the UN was born. Now the forces here behind the original concept were mostly from the left (including the Catholic Church, yes) but all in all quite diverse. The opponents of the plan were the european imperialists, particularly the French and the British ones - the same guys that were envisioning on papers the bombing of villages in the Middle East as a cheap way of holding colonies there.

To that the answer from Clashfan:

"Or examine the Freemasonic and Luciferian nature of Izrahole itself, even to the falsely labeled "star of David" on their flag, a hexagram, an occult symbol that never had anything to do with David.

 Rockefeller, Rothschild, occultism. Search that one."

These people are Illuminati Luciferians. Even reducing it to Izrahole or Judaism does not explain the full story."

Now, without taking sides or scoffing at any unfamiliar-to-me terms, in europe even Hitler had plans for a jewish state (the Nazis originally thought about Madagascar). But somehow this is all bunched together, for Clashfan: Freemasons, "Luciferians", Israel, occultism, and of course the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Again I question: is this not an American View? Fuelled by the Internet websites that propose those views? I don't see any equivalent elsewhere, except in pockets of the British Commonwealth. Though the Iranians are drawing from those views, too, as a fairly recent development.

The way I see it is that in the US there was a broad overt opposition to all "foreign meddling". They were nicknamed the Isolationists.

Meanwhile, in Europe we had a broad overt opposition to intra-european wars, spearheaded by the International Socialists, flanked by various Catholic and Lutheran movements and broadly agreed (with some skepticism) upon by our (Classical) Liberals. We called them the Internationalists.

Their bane were our Imperialists. Who, if you decompose them in their parts, were investors with interests in the colonies, banks funding corporations drawing resources from the empires, Nationalists (where it fitted), Militarists (including the military/aristocratic castes from which I descend) and so on, including the Anglican Church and others favouring an Imperial Commonwealth. And of course the Weapons Producers. All in plain view, regardless if you looked at the UK, France or even Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal or the Netherlands.

Now, if I look from this Internationalist vs Imperialist european conflict and look at the US, I find some strange distortions:

The "Internationalists" are called Globalists, as I just found out. The Imperialists? You don't talk about them. Nope, they don't exist, really. You have a military caste, huge military expenditures that would have made our Militarists of old green with envy, powerful interests in the weapons manifacturing industry, churches that propagate an American Exceptionalism and duty vs the flag that sends young people to the military. But they are not Imperial Interests in your eyes.

And a huge cultural fight between Conservatives (the right) and Progressives (the left) of a kind that is familiar to us (we have it too) but is way more bitter that here, way more bitter than Bismark's "Kulturkampf" with the Catholics.

And then you have the true Winners of the World Wars: the great stock-exchange traded Corporations that act as multi-nationals on the whole globe and have, thanks to the new markets, created great wealth through efficiency, return-on-scale, ingeniousness (for a while the US produced half of all engineers of the world) and old-fashioned imperialistic-colonialistic extraction/exploitation. All this aided by the former european Imperialists that thought "a shared pie is better than no pie".

Now, please, for someone that thinks that an Empire is not bad per se, it depends how you drive it, my view is that there is a powerful "rationalization" undercurrent in the US that makes those comments like "corporations are just for profit, all the baddies are the Globalists, who btw are occult fiends".

Hence my point that America Has A Blind Spot. And demons lurk in those shadows.

Ghordius's picture

meanwhile I see that an US dictionary goes like this

Definition of globalist noun

  • a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.a person or organization advocating or practicing operations across national divisions.
seems I'm mistaken and we were indeed talking about different matters. I was not aware of this American term though I still fail to see how most of Precious' issues are truly global instead of US-specific ones Further, I doubt there is anything else than commercial interest driving all this political forces. Cui bono? I was saying that the MegaCorps drive globalization. I'd also say that the globalists (from an european, african and asian perspective a grossly misleading and conflating term) ride piggyback on globalization meanwhile I note I'm not the only one making this assumption. see here on the international version of the Webster
Definition of globalism noun

the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis:millions have lost jobs to the new globalism

i-Dog, please note how the example is geared toward globalization

AurorusBorealus's picture

I am no libertarian.  However, I find the policies of the United States government abhorrent: debasing the currency by printing money, stealing the wages of workers with an income tax all the while allowing goods and services from abroad to enter the country tax-free, creating an enormous underclass dependent upon the state for handouts (in order to capture a large block of voters), engaging in an endless series of aggressive wars, acting as interloper in every part of the world whether invited or not, promoting socialism, feminism, racism, and homosexuality in young people by recreating the curriculum of the public schools to emphasize nothing but race, class, and gender, creating innumerable secret police agencies, and on and on. I am an old-school conservative, ala Bismark, so what do you make of that?

ClassicalLib17's picture

  I think someone is using MDB's computer when he is away.  Wife or life partner, perhaps?  This comment is totally out of character.

Canadian Dirtlump's picture

How dare he have the balls to tell the truth and stand up to an empire that is asshurt they got kicked out of iran 30 years ago and another regime which take the term rogue nuclear state to new heights.

RSloane's picture

Oh right, then his open firing on and killing his own citizens during their protest was what? ...just unfortunate?

Precious's picture

You make it sound like he pulled the trigger.  Could you be wrong, and was it instead calculated, planned and premeditated, as a false flag operation? 

GoinFawr's picture

which 'protest'? Which country?

DaveyJones's picture

it continues to surprise me that someone with an avatar named "killer" would believe such a "simple" solution

Cortez the Killer's picture

Not as a solution, but for sport

Ima anal sphincter's picture

How many points will I get when I put YOUR head in my scope? I need to know before I squeeze the trigger.

akak's picture

Cortez (the original) is my hero.

Very good man. Brought civilization to the savages.

I am glad to see you honor him here.

DaveyJones's picture

...and the avocado to Europe. The Aztecs considered him a male Mother Theresa.  He is the poster child for Chiquita (and our attorney general).

Ima anal sphincter's picture

Just who is a greater threat right now, Ima-dinner-jacket or Nutty-yahoo? I'm inclined to say Nutty-boy, who is quite pissed off right now. I haven't verified this, but it "seems" the Israeli delegation walked off during Ima's speech. BUT, the US's DID NOT!!! Is this a clear message that we won't be joining in on the fun if Israel attacks? Ol-nutty-boy must be livid. Big daddy ain't going to be there to finish the fight that the skinny loud mouthed punk started. I'd SO MUCH enjoy watching the punk get it's ass kicked.

So much death at the hands of so few. There is something VERY wrong with this picture.

Amagnonx's picture

Which ass faced monkey?  Bush, Obama or Clinton?

Dalago's picture

Email Antal Fekete and let him know that war is not profitable and it actually ruins nations and their people on both sides:

BLOTTO's picture

The world puppet leaders are serving their puppet master(s) very well...with the strong help of the illuminati controlled MSM.

They own both sides.

How else do you control the outcome - unless you own both fuckin sides.

The end.

Now lets go vote. (obv sarc)

The creek is polluted WAYYYYY further up the stream...we need to cut the head off the beast - not its tail.

not fat not stupid's picture

Iran is NOT Iraq. Only fools think it is. Ground invasion would meet huge well prepared ground forces.

Air war all the way and a willingness to inflict massive civilian casualties (not advocating but thats the only way to avoid huge US casualties.)

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 1

Correct.  No land war in Iran, no way.  Too many (US) casualties.

I do recognize that just about ANYTHING else is possible re the USA, Israel and Iran.  I sure do not know.  But, we will not be sending in GIs to that mountainous and heavily populated country, where everyone would likely shoot at our troops, and no way that is going to happen.

GetZeeGold's picture




We sent a drone in there.....showed them.


Don't make us do it again.