Why The War Party Loves To Call Foreign Leaders Insane

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

When the US government decides it doesn't like a foreign regime, it's become something of a tradition for US politicians — with the help of a compliant media — to portray those leaders as irrational, unhinged, or even downright insane. 

This was true of Saddam Hussein, and it was true of Slobodan Milosevic. In both cases, a foreign head of state was condemned as irrational in order to help justify US invasions and bombings of foreign nations that were no threat to the United States. 

The US narrative usually goes something like this — as described by Ronnie Lipschutz: 

Why would so-called rogues — and these are the only countries that, according to Washington, threaten US forces, allies, or interests — choose to [threaten the US]? No rational reason can be given, and so irrational ones are offered instead. They hate us, but for no reason since we have no designs on them. They desire vengeance, but for no reason since we have never offended them. They wish to injure us, for for no reason, since they have only been injured through their interference with our pusuit of order. 

This narrative helps to reinforce the credulous American public's naive acceptance of the idea that the US government is an untrammeled force for good in the international sphere, and that any opposition to the US must be based on irrational, evil motives. If any other head of state is angry with the United States, it's simply because he absurdly desires world conquest, or to massacre innocents. Or he may even be insane. 

Why We Must Claim They're Crazy

But there's an even more important motivation behind portraying "rogue" nations as being run by crazy people. It allows advocates for war to claim that deterrence via America's huge nuclear  and conventional arsenals will not work — and thus these leaders present a grave threat to the American public. Lipschutz notes: "if insanity or irrationality are to blame for wars, deterrence cannot work to prevent them."

A rational head of state, of course, would understand that any existential threat to the US could mean total nuclear annihilation for the offender. On the other hand, if the head of state is just insane, then all bets are off. 

It is not surprising, then, that this narrative is being trotted out yet again in the case of North Korea. 

Nuclear deterrence may have worked against Joseph Stalin — who apparently was a super-reasonable and level-headed guy — but Kim Jong-un is just crazy.

Naturally, ultra-hawk John McCain has been at the forefront of this rhetorical effort, calling Kim Jong-un a "crazy fat kid." Later, McCain's daughter got in on the act, calling Kim a "total absolute maniac." 

These attempts at portraying Kim as immune to deterrence are so common, in fact, that Isaac Fish from Foreign Policy magazine has declared "there is widespread belief in the US that North Korea is so hard to deal with because Kim is insane." Fish, on the other hand, concludes Kim has understandable motives just like most everyone else. 

Certainly, in social media, it's not uncommon to encounter pro-war commenters who insist — without proffering any evidence — that Kim is simply impervious to nuclear deterrence, and thus must be killed (along with millions of other North Koreans) in a pre-emptive nuclear holocaust. 

Kim is Sane — and Predictable

Those who have actually bothered to study Kim and his regime, however, often take a rather more moderate position. 

Charles Peña begins with the obvious question and provides the obvious answer: "But isn’t Kim Jong-un an unpredictable—even crazy—leader who can’t be deterred? The same was said of Stalin and Mao in their time, yet both those leaders were deterred. Moreover, Kim Jong-un would have to be suicidal to launch a nuclear weapon against the United States since the United States has the ability to retaliate with utter devastation."

David C. Kang also concludes: "Kim Jong-un may be many things, but he is not suicidal. Deterrence will continue to work." 

Contrary to the idea that Kim and the North Koreans are crazed loose cannons, the North Koreans behave exactly as any other regime bent on maintaining its regime. Far from seeking to die in a blaze of glory, Kim wants to go on living as a dictator indefinitely.

As Peña notes, Kim wants "to secure his own survival and that of his regime, much like his father and his father’s father before him. That would certainly explain the executions and assassinations of those who might usurp him, which include family members."

The regime wants to survive — and not be a victim of "regime change" which is exactly why, as Kang writes, "North Korea isn’t unpredictable; rather, it is the most predictable country on earth."

Even Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — perhaps the most reasonable person on Trump's foreign policy team — admits "He may be ruthless. He may be a murderer. He may be someone who in many respects we would say by our standards is irrational. But he is not insane." 

It's Rational to Want Nuclear Weapons

But why would the regime want nuclear weapons if not to use them? Kim wants nukes as protection against "regime change" imposed by the US, since, as Pena notes, "Having nuclear weapons would seem to be an effective deterrent against regime change. After all, other dictatorial leaders who gave up their weapons programs—such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi—paid a high price for those decisions."

Jacob Hornberger has explained how Fidel Castro was one of the first to figure out the need for nuclear weapons as protection against American-sponsored regime change: "[Cuba's success in the Cuban Missile Crisis] showed that if an independent, recalcitrant Third World regime wants to protect itself from a US national-security-state regime-change operation, the best thing it can do is secure nuclear weapons."

Thus, North Korea's behavior in this regard has been utterly predictable, rational, and what we would expect from a head of state in his position. 

Kim understands nuclear deterrence perfectly well. He knows that it is the only thing that works against the US's plans for yet another regime change operation. 

However, in order to justify a first-strike nuclear war or a pre-emptive war against the North Koreans, the John McCains of the world must convince the world that Kim is simply insane and is not subject to deterrence. 

North Korea Is Not Unique

This "he's crazy!" strategy is then mixed with endless ominous news reports about what new missile Kim's regime is testing this week, and just how many nuclear warheads he may or may not have. Indeed, the evidence is rather spotty in this regard. For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that the regime has nuclear warheads, and it has the ability to deliver them to the North American mainland. 

Okay, well, then it's a good thing nuclear deterrence works. After all, we know for sure that the Chinese regime has many nukes, and the ability to deliver them. In fact, the Chinese have had nuclear capability for decades, and will continue to have it. 

While Russia and the US both have more than 7,000 warheads and enough nuclear firepower to destroy the planet many times over, the French have 300 warheads, and China has 260 warheads.

nuclear.jpg

Source: ICAN and the Arms Control Association.

Why the Silence about Chinese Nuclear Capabilities? 

Moreover, it was just last month that China rolled out new ICBMs, including the DF-31AG, which puts most of the North American mainland within reach — and undoubtedly with far greater precision and reliability than anything the North Koreans have. And yet, all we heard about in the news was about North Korea's low-rent, often-failing missile system. 

So, the Chinese can almost certainly deliver multiple nuclear warheads to North America. So why aren't we talking about a pre-emptive strike on Beijing? Why not strike now before the Chinese strike us? Is it just because the Chinese leadership — a faceless entity headed by people whom virtually no American can name — is so eminently sane? The Chinese heads of state are almost certainly sane, but unlike the North Koreans — and like the Americans — they seek expansion. This can be seen in the continued shows of strength by the Chinese state in the South China Sea and elsewhere. So why not talk about a war to stop this quest for global dominance?2

In all likelihood, few talk about pre-emptive war on China precisely because it is known that a war against China would be an unmitigated global disaster. North Korea is small enough that the US military establishment can still flatter itself with the idea that it can pull off yet another regime change without having to face a real nuclear arsenal such as that held by China. Sure, Seoul might be totally destroyed, but that is a price the Pentagon is willing to pay. 

Indeed, the vast nuclear capability of the Chinese, not to mention Pakistan's growing ICBM capability, illustrates the absurdity of the claim that any country that has nuclear weapons is about to use them on the US, and thus requires a pre-emptive war. 

Yes, North Korea is currently involved in efforts to expand its ICBM capability. But we're only hearing about it because China, Russia, and others already have the capability. They don't have to fire test missiles into the ocean. They can already nuke North America, and everyone who's paying attention knows it. We've already been down this road with the the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis, and others. 

What to Do 

So what is a reasonable response to nuclear proliferation? President Dwight Eisenhower can offer some useful insights here. 

The Soviet Union conducted its first successful nuclear tests in 1949. By the early 1950s, the Soviets were testing air-dropped bombs — which made sense for a country with a sizable air force. By 1956, the Soviets were testing medium-range ballistic missiles. 

What did Eisenhower do? Did he threaten a pre-emptive war with the Soviets? Did he massively increase military spending? 

mac3_1.png

Source: “US Military Spending in the Cold War Era” by Robert Higgs

No. In fact, during the early fifties, Eisenhower cut military spending, and by the end of Eisenhower's term, military spending had still not matched the levels built up by Harry Truman during the Korean war. This all occurred while the Soviets expanded their nuclear capability. 

Naturally, if Eisenhower were president today, he'd be denounced by neoconservatives as a Russian tool and a traitor for both his military budget-cutting and his reliance on nuclear deterrence. Fortunately for Eisenhower, however, Lindsay Graham and John McCain were not yet in the Senate. 

The larger point, of course, is that Eisenhower understood that nuclear deterrence works, and that, while it is an unfortunate option in a nuclear-armed world where much is beyond the control of the US military — it is the most reasonable and low-risk option. 

Unfortunately, the current US regime is practicing what looks like the opposite approach. 

With his constant "tough talk" about invading or attacking North Korea, Trump and his aides are courting the type of situation that leads to actual nuclear war. After all, North Korea has to only believe that the country is about to be invaded and the regime annihilated. Constant threats of invasion are just the sort of things that lead to misunderstandings, human error, miscalculation, and disastrous wars. 

Moreover, its unclear that Trump is taking seriously the possibility that China could act to defend the North Korean regime from destruction. As John Mearshimer recently noted, the Chinese regime views North Korea as an essential buffer state against Western encirclement. The Chinese regime is unlikely to sit around and do nothing while the US adds North Korea to its list of Asian client states. 

On the other hand, why talk about any of this when it all can be be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and one need only declare "they're crazy!" In that case, the possibility of World War III with China and others need not even be weighed. If Kim is "crazy" then prudence dictates we must "do something" before his suicidal insanity takes over and he nukes San Francisco. 

The "he's crazy!" claim thus acts as a magical talisman of warhawks who can denounce all caution and strategic concern that speaks against "taking out" the bad guy who will bomb us any second. 

It's easy to see why John McCain is so fond of the tactic.

Comment viewing options

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

kim flungdung has made repeated threats to use nuclear weapons on the usa and or its allies.  This is not the ' war machine ' manufacturing threats.  These are real words backed up by successively more intrusive ' test runs' .  This level of threat deserves to be extinguished with extreme prejudice.  We would be happy of ONLY kim were terminiated but if we need to 5 or 10 million of his countrymen can and will be included for one low price...........

HowdyDoody's picture

Why the silence about self-described 'mad dog' Israel and its Samson Option? /rhetorical

strannick's picture

"He may be ruthless. He may be a murderer. He may be someone who in many respects we would say by our standards is irrational.

I thought Tillerson was talking about John McCain, or Hillary Clinton, or Madelaine Albright, or Victoria Nuland or Lindsey Graham

beemasters's picture

If there are no crazy psychopaths, there won't be willing politicians. But yes, it's a kettle-pot case.
NK is like a cornered dog; there are good reasons for them to be angered/frustrated. Now, they have little to lose and that can be dangerous. However, as Putin fairly assessed, it's not too late for diplomacy...but do the crazy psychopaths in Washington want pea?e or WAR$$$$$...that isn't hard to tell. Same scenario at play, they want to "liberate" Nk'an people (to make it sound more palatable to the ignoramus)...of course, by destroying their nation and killing them. The innocents are always the victims. (sigh)

BennyBoy's picture

 

When the US government decides it doesn't like an elected regime like Trump, it's become something of a tradition for US politicians — with the help of a compliant media — to portray those leaders as irrational, unhinged, or even downright insane.

Hmmm, Trumps russian "connection"....

Swampster's picture

You can't have a NATIONAL anthem (See jew run NFL)and a Jew World Order (But Israel can)

You can't have a Bill of Rights and a Jew World Order

You can't have a Free Russia and a Jew World Order, can you?

You can't have BORDERS and a Jew World Order(But Israel can)

You can't have a Nuclear North Korea and a Jew World Order

You can't have a NEW BORDER WALL and a Jew World Order, (But Israel can)

You can't have a Muslim Travel Ban and a Jew World Order (But Israel can)

You can't have any White Countries in Europe (or anywhere else) and a Jew World Order

You can't have a Nuclear China and a Jew World Order

You can't have a Middle Class and a Jew World Order

GET READY TO WASH THE FEET OF YOUR 'nazi JEW MASTERS, GOYIM SHEEPLETARDS!!!!

It's Time to ICE THE 'NAZI JUICE, BEFORE THEY ICE YOUSE....

land_of_the_few's picture

Excellent point. And why do they always skirt around the fact that France could nuke any point on the planet any time they liked? Doesn't quite fit the narrative, does it.

When they were getting arm-twisted to support the Gulf Wars based on "instant-WMD-threat from Iraq", France pointed out that they were quite willing to take out any "regional power" that may be threatening them. Of course they didn't specify exactly who they meant by that :D

Sanity Bear's picture

"Samson Option" is just a local brand of the plain old "Mutually Assured Destruction". Nothing special about it.

Blue Steel 309's picture

The moment Jews took control/invented the academic fields of psychology and sociology/anthropology they started pathologizing every normal behavior ethnic Europeans exhibit.

You are all insane. The Jews said so. They are right because of the holohoax. It was real in their minds.

americanreality's picture

You didn't read the article, did you?  "These are real words.."  Oh no!  Words!   And not just any words, REAL words!  Gasp!  Head for the bunkers!  Is your Uncle Sam paying you time and a half for staying up late?  

Blue Steel 309's picture

The Mises institute would see us all serfs so that they can benefit because they are OBVIOUSLY more worthy of the benefits of USURY. Mises sees things as "some animals are more equal than others".

There is a road that considers merit without being communist.

Give Me Some Truth's picture

North Korea: We are building a nuclear deterrent to deter threats from American agression. That is, we are scared of an attack from America and are trying to do something to prevent this.

America: We are worried about North Korea attacking us or our allies. That is, we are afraid of North Korea (which, yes, is led by an insane person).

Question: Which nation's fear of attack is more plausible (you might even say "rational")?

Nona Yobiznes's picture

I'm not for war, but it troubles me how so many independent media figures have started supporting the NK regime. No, Kim Jong-Un is not crazy, he's actually doing a pretty good job at deterring invasion, but the regime is a piece of shit. It is a communist military cult that elevates its leaders to deities and requires every room of every building to have a portrait of Eternal Leader. The propaganda it puts out itself gives some insight into the ideological disease of this nation. Fuck that shit, the NK regime gets no sympathy from me. 

Is the US government the #1 threat to world peace and security? I am inclined to believe so. But the US government is by no means the only evil in the world. War is not the answer, but I cannot wait for the day North Koreans stick their Dear Leader's head on a pike.

sinbad2's picture

Every year the US practices invading North Korea, the Koreans never know if this year the US will really invade.

Right now the US is moving nukes(THAAD) up to the Korean border, so naturally the Norks are building nukes to deter a US invasion.

I know Americans are so brainwashed that their brains are now whiter than white, but it's the US that is the aggressor.

The Norks think, with good reason that they are the next Iraq Syria Sudan Somalia Libya Ukraine Yemen Afghanistan, and can you blame them.

White Devil's picture

The United States can't hack it anymore. Our military can't even beat a bunch of sand monkeys in a third world shithole. They can't even beat an egg. It is in the interests of the MIC that our military is hamstrung. Thanks you fucking jews.

BeansMcGreens's picture

All the North Koreans need to understand is that the US gov. invaded its own country and killed men, women, children under the guise of stopping a war. See Shermans's march to the sea, into SC then NC, burning people out of their homes in late winter, destroying all their food, looting like the attila the hun.

Give Me Some Truth's picture

One nation has to have the most backward, unfree, totalitarian regime/society in the world. Right now, North Korea seems to have this title (our great ally and friend Saudi Arabia would be a contender for this title).

The above stipulated, I don't see where in our Constitution it says that it is America's job to change or end such regimes. If such nations have not declared war on our nation, let them be. Plus, such societies will implode on their own - see the former USSR, Venezuela, etc.

And, theoretically, once North Korea is deposed of and its regime is changed, some other society will move up the ladder and become the most oppressive in the world. Do we then take out this regime? In other words, where does this policy (?) end?

P.S. Furthermore, there will always be regimes led by alleged crazy people. Has our logic/foreign policy become "if we say your leader is crazy we will take him out?" And why does our nation alone get to decide who is "crazy" and who is not?  One can certainly make the argument that creating a nuclear deterrent to protect your nation from possible/likely invasion is not, in fact, crazy.

FWIW, I think George Washington shared his thoughts on this topic in his Farewell Address. It's at least worth noting that the ideas and philosophies of the neocons who control our foreign policy these days summarily reject the warnings of our nation's most esteemed founder.

 

Nona Yobiznes's picture

I said I am not in favor of intervention multiple times - I don't know why people seem to have understood my comment as  being pro-war. The point was to say that the NK regime is not deserving of the coddling I am hearing from a lot of anti-war figures I respect. No, the US has no right to attack, and yes, NK is acting in self defense for the most part. However, the NK government remains a brutal, oppressive and disgusting force to its own people. Defending it against criticism is ridiculous.

On a radio show I listen to very often, the host actually suggested that NK has a thriving middle class and all of the horror stories coming out of there are propaganda. That's completely laughable. A satellite image of the peninsula at night is enough to show how well the Dear Leader's economic policies are working out. As for the brutality, there are numerous first-hand accounts of people who have escaped from their hard labor camps. These are people who were sentenced to life in captivity for their parents' treason during the Korean war. It's a fucked up society, people suggesting otherwise have no idea what they are talkong about.

Squid Viscous's picture

Please die soon McCain...

sinbad2's picture

No let him live to see the desolation he has brought to America.

otschelnik's picture

Neocons and the war party label our president as inadequate, lacking the temperment, psychologically unstable, in short, our leader is insane.  97% of psychologists agree that DJT should be removed under the 25th amendment as mentally unfit. 

land_of_the_few's picture

Which means by their logic, the rest of the world should be obliged to team up to do a sudden decapitating first-strike.

To not do so "would be immoral". "The time has run out for words"

So, does that mean DC, or ...?

 

 

Brazen Heist's picture

The Neocon Deep State seems to be obsessed with maligning and overthrowing non-compliant governments, yet they can't smell their own shit.

They keep telling us about the evil machinations of everybody else, except their own that is.

All this is happening not out of strength, but out of weakness.

The US may be a formidable military force, but deep down it is run by a bunch of batshit insecure men who can't adapt to the world - so they'd rather have the world adapt to them. Overthrowing regimes with wild abandon is weakness, not strength. It shows that you cannot adapt and deal with those who won't kiss your feet. Pathetic show you fucking clowns!

dogismycopilot's picture

John McCain is a crazy mother fucker who was born a loser.

wisehiney's picture

And we shall never trust nor give him command again.

Once you have lost the trust of.

Only by some insane Patriotic redemption will you ever get it back.

I wish he could for his family's sake.

Blow our minds John.

You can die in peace.

And sit at the table with you Patriot Fathers.

Were they not JM?

You brought the doubt about them.

Only you can squelch it.

Rock the world McCain with a Old School American Patriotic Surprise.

And be remembered forever.

Or fade away like a forgotten slimy weasel.

Probably so.

Sandmann's picture

and people in Arizona simply can't get enough of him

wisehiney's picture

Yeah, you guys are still.

Jackasses.

But, not easily overcome.

Don't be defeated fellers.

They are just punks.

DemandSider's picture

Nice article, but they are both the war party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

Expat's picture

If you travel abroad and speak to the people or follow the local news a bit, you will discover that many foreigners think American leaders are slightly insane.  Of course, we excuse our presidents (well, here on ZH we excuse Trump but blame Obama and Clinton) by saying they are prisoners of the Deep State or the Pentagon.  Yet we don't say the same thing about, say, Kim Jong-un.

Kim was handed the throne in 2011 at the ripe age of 27.  He had little to no experience in doing anything and was given the title only because his older brother was such a wastrel.  He is likely a figurehead though it is hard to tell how things really work in North Korea.  The state and personality cults man that the military leaders are beholden to Kim while Kim is beholden to them since they run the show.  Is Kim insane?  There is no reason to believe so, though his upbringing, his bizarre status, and the North Korean society itself probably mean he is a tad odd.

Was Ayatollah Khomeini insane?  It doesn't seem like he was.  Saddam?  Paranoid, certainly.  Cruel and sociopathic, definitely.  Insane?  Not really.

Qaddaffi might have been a bit insanse or he might have been a consummate showman...seems more likely he was crazy.  Idi Amin was nuts. 

What about GW Bush who invaded Afghanistand and Iraq on false pretenses and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians?  Was he insane? 

How about Obama who invaded Syria,Libya and Yemen and contirbuted to the deaths of thousands of civilians as well?  Or his continuance of the occupations of Afghanistand and Iraq?  Is he insane?

And now Trump, who more foreigners call insane than anyone ever called Obama, Clinton or Bush.  Is he nuts?  Sociopath?  Yes.  Narcissist?  Yep.  Ignorant?  Of course, by his own admission.  But insane?  Well, he wants to continue and increase our "involvement" in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Insane" is just an eptithet our leaders use as propaganda.  Much like GW Bush calling A- Qaeda "fascists".  No one knows what these terms really mean, except that they are insults and labels we put on our enemies.  The US war machine needs justication and approval.  We no longer have bloodthirsty commies coming for our children to drink their blood, so we need new enemies.  We get fascists, nut-cases, and religious freaks instead of Stalin and Mao.

And we buy this, drink it up, and ask for more.  Fucking stupid Americans.

Sandmann's picture

No one thinks US leaders are "insane". - most people in ROW think US leaders are simply "pig ignorant" and proud of their imbecility

Sandmann's picture

No one thinks US leaders are "insane". - most people in ROW think US leaders are simply "pig ignorant" and proud of their imbecility

Expat's picture

I travel extensively throughout Europe, Africa and the Middle East.  I meet and talk with students and business from Asia regularly.  They all ask me if Trump is crazy.  They also question the sanity of the military leaders under this and previous administrations. 

Yes, most people know that Americans are ignorant and proud to be so (why?  Why are Americans so proud of being stupid and ignorant?  It bewilders me.) but many also toss crazy into the conversation.

 

Give Me Some Truth's picture

Re: What if OUR LEADER is deemed to be crazy?

You raise a great point. If the accepted world view is that it is right and proper to "take out" regimes led by crazy people, what is stopping nations from banding together to take out our government (if conventional wisdom is that our leader is crazy)?

It seems to me that the key point here is who gets to make the diagnosis of insanity.

... Of course, no nations are going to attack or invade America. We do have a credible nuclear deterrent. To launch such an attack would be, ah, crazy. So maybe getting such a deterrent for your own nation is not crazy after all.

Aristofani's picture

I'm in shock!

Something intelligent from the mises institute!

Probably helped it wasnt another lame attempt at 'economics'. :)

moorewasthebestbond's picture

I like to call Zerohedge insane for devolving into an inane esoteric blog (that used to be focused on high finance) but is now mostly just a hodgepodge of doom porn and mainstream news.

wisebastard's picture

oh yeah, they will show you a 1 minute chart and write an article like the Brawndo stocks crashed when Not Sure started to water the plants in the movie Idiocracy.....

MK ULTRA Alpha's picture

These issues are critical to determine the life or death of this nation. We're on the edge of the abyss even if you don't want to know the real hard core cold reality. I'm old enough to remember critical events back to the 60's and we are on the threshold of events which will force the likes of you to end your life choking your guts out in a ditch.

Your comments are always one and two line sound bite TV head smart ass remarks making a joke out of serious issues, this is a sign of a brainwashed TV head.

The scenario has changed, a global event can crash the markets in the blink of an eye. ZH article on the dollar and silver was timely to say the least. I was monitoring Asia many times before ZH came out with charts.

The India China war could have wrecked your world. The North Korea ICBM thermonuclear scenario may tank the markets. The Mueller investigation may cause a civil war. These are all critical economic events requiring a greater understanding than you have.

The markets are a bubble ready to flash crash.

Give Me Some Truth's picture

As for myself I say, "More Mises please."

Give Me Some Truth's picture

McCain, Graham, the administration, the MSM both help create and rely on the widespread existence of people such as this:

"Man, you know I ain't for war or anything. But sometimes you got no other choice. Some people are just crazy. They get nuclear weapons and they will use them. They don't care what happens to them. These people are crazy. I say nuke 'em before they nuke us. These people are crazy, man ..."

Sound familiar?

This article correctly points out the strategy of reinforcing such views and the necessity of creating such views. The points made in this article need to be presented.

Swampster's picture

says a jew ball licking shabbos goy sodomite....Why not leave, Schlomo?

Give Me Some Truth's picture

Re: Why don't you leave, Schlomo?

But if he leaves (and others with opinions that contradict your own also leave), this forum would be left with only those who castigate "Jew ball licking goy sodomites."

Is that the goal here? I'm starting to wonder if posters such as yourself aren't in fact CIA-paid trolls trying their best to discredit - and ultimately shut down - this site.

MK ULTRA Alpha's picture

The US is an extraordinary evil nation, it's citizens aren't informed, and are shallow and plastic. The level of trust in institutions is extremely low. The US is morally, politically and financially bankrupt.

Instead of making other nations provide for their own defense, it is easier to keep the same strategy of world policeman. It gives the government and military a sense of meaning while ignoring fiscal responsibility, the plight of the growing poor and the danger of eventual collapse.

When we review administration globalist, the generals and others, they're oblivious to the nations real
problems nor do they care. Trade deficits, false economic data like the real high rate of unemployment, the real rate of inflation and the growing wealth gap are issues not to be considered. The generals especially are out of touch with reality. Each one, won their rank through politics, not for being the best leader.

McCain is in a psychosis from being a prisoner of war. He hates our country. When he ran for president, the first acceptance speech was over board on how much he loved America. In his kind of psychosis one will make a big deal about the opposite to conceal his deeper driver. The man has made the most outlandish statements. He is re-elected by the Israel lobby machine for his vote for war. And it is interesting, NYC mind control MSM have always interviewed him and a select group to pound the war drum.

We voted for Trump for the opposite reality, but the war machine didn't slow down. South Korea and Japan should be doing it all, this was the main reason for the Trilateral Commission to build up Japanese and German economies at our expense as a bulwark against communism. Evidently that was a lie to weaken America for one world government.

The NYC Council on Foreign Relations and the banking cartel Bilderberg Group replaced the Trilateral Commission. One world government isn't working for the American people but it works for the elite one percent and multinational corporations. The only way we will be free is the destruction of the federal government through civil war and dividing the nation in to five new countries. This will be in our life time because we're on the edge of the abyss for this nightmare called America.

Give Me Some Truth's picture

I'd quibble with one of your statements: "The level of trust in institutions is extremely low."

I'd say that the level of trust in our "Institutions" (the government, the Fed, the CIA, the big banks, the mainstream press) is way too high."

As a society - or members of society - we should be questioning everything. Instead, we pretty much accept as gospel everything we are told by people from said "institutions."

MK ULTRA Alpha's picture

You're correct to a degree, but two institutions, the congress and news media have a low trust rating. Your comment made me remember a report on trust in the military. Americans gave the military the highest trust rate. This makes me think, maybe Trump who reads all the time, chose generals for key positions for that reason. This was a poll before the election.

My best advise, buy a gun and learn how to use it. Zombie hordes will be hungry, when not if, it hits the fan.

SPQR 70AD's picture

fuck the military also. they have a high rating because of thumb sucking bed wetting cowards who want others to fight wars for pissrael. I dont need the military killing a million women little girls and goatherders and making me enemies so I get stripped searched at an airport

Apeon's picture

You said:

       "The US is an extraordinary evil nation, it's citizens aren't informed, and are shallow and plastic.            The level of trust in institutions is extremely low. The US is morally, politically and financially                   bankrupt."

And then you said:

      "McCain is in a psychosis from being a prisoner of war. He hates our country"

Which of you hates this country more?