Military Affairs

The Twilight of the War

Leave a comment

The undermining of the right of peoples to self-determination by transnational financial elites will come to an end

by Thierry Meyssan*, Damascus (Syria)

If we consider the war in Syria not as a singular event, but as the culmination of a world war which has persisted for a quarter of a century, we have to ask ourselves about the con- sequences of the imminent end of hostilities. Its completion marks the defeat of an ideology, that is to say globalization and financial capitalism. The people who have not understood this, particularly in Western Europe, are defining their own exclusion from the rest of the world.
World wars do not only end with a winner and a loser. Their termination defines the contours of a new world.
The First World War ended with the defeat of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. The cessation of hostilities was marked by the elaboration of an international organisation, the League of Nations (LN), tasked with abolishing secret diplomacy and settling any conflicts between the member-states by arbitration.
The Second World War ended with the victory of the Soviet Union over the Nazi Reich and the Japanese Empire of hakk’ ichiu1,2, followed by a frantic chase between the Allies to occupy what was left of the vanquished Coalition. It gave birth to a new structure, the United Nations Organisation (UNO), tasked with preventing new wars by establishing international law around a double legitimacy – the General Assembly, where each state has a voice, irrespective of its size, and a directorate composed of the five main victors, the Security Council.
The Cold War was not the Third World War. It did not end with the defeat of the Soviet Union, but by its collapse in and onto itself. It was not followed by the creation of new structures, but by the integration of the states of the USSR into pre-existing organisations.

From Yugoslavia to Syria – the Third World War as a fight for …

The Third World War began in Yugoslavia, continued in Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Libya and Yemen, and ended in Syria. Its battle-grounds were confined to the Balkans, the Caucasus and what we now call the „Greater Middle East“. It has cost the lives of countless Muslim and Orthodox Christian populations, without spilling over too much into the Western world. It is in the process of drawing to a close since the Putin-Trump Summit in Helsinki.

… A shift in power in favour of transnational “elites”

The profound changes which have transformed the world over the last 26 years transferred a part of the power of governments towards other entities, both administrative and private — and also vice versa. For example, we saw a private army, Daesh, proclaim itself a sovereign state. Or again, we watched General David Petraeus organise the most voluminous arms traffic in History when he directed the CIA, and then continue it after his resignation on behalf of a private company, the hedge fund KKR3.
This situation may be described as a confrontation between, on the one hand, a transnational ruling class and, on the other, the governments responsible to their people.

War propaganda obfuscates the real causes of war

Contrary to the imputations of propaganda, which attribute the causes of war to immediate circumstances, the true causes are to be found in rivalries and in deep- seated, ancient ambitions. States take years to challenge one another. Often, it is only with the passage of time that we are able to understand the conflicts which devour us.
For example, very few people understood what was happening during the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931) and waited until the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Germany (1938) to understand that it was racist ideologies which provoked the Second World War. Identically, rare are those who understood that by the war of Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992) the alliance between NATO and political Islam opened the way for the destruction of the Muslim world.4
And today, despite the work of journalists and historians, many people have still not understood the enormity of the manipulation of which we have all been victims. They refuse to admit that NATO coordinated its Saudi and Iranian auxiliaries on the European continent. And yet this is a fact which is impossible to contest.5
Similarly, they refuse to admit that Al- Qaïda, accused by the United States of having perpetrated the terrorist attacks of 9/11, fought under the orders of NATO in Libya and Syria. And yet this is another fact that is impossible to contradict.6
The initial plan, which was intended to set the Muslim world against the Orthodox world, became transformed as it unfolded. There was no “war of civilisations”. Shiite Iran turned against NATO, which it had served in Yugoslavia, and allied with Orthodox Russia in order to save multi-confessional Syria.
We must open our eyes to History and prepare ourselves for the dawn of a new world system in which certain of our friends of yesterday have become our enemies of today, and vice-versa.
In Helsinki, it was not the United States which drew up an agreement with the Federation of Russia. It was the White House alone. Because the common enemy is a transnational group which exercises authority in the United States. Since this group considers itself, and not the elected President, to be the representative of the USA, it did not hesitate to immediately accuse President Trump of treason.

Neoliberal distraction theories to erode state power

This transnational group has succeeded in making us believe that ideologies are dead and that History is finished. It presents globalization, in other words Anglo-Saxon domination by way of the extension of the US language and lifestyle, as the consequence of the technical development of transport and communication. It assures us that a single political system is the ideal for all humanity — democracy (in other words “government of the People, by the People, for the People”) — and that it is possible to impose this ideal by force on all humanity. Finally, it presents the freedom of circulation of people and capitals as the solution to all problems of labour and investment.
However, these assertions, which we all accept in the course of our daily lives, do not stand up to a minute of thought.
Behind these lies, the transnational group has systematically worn down the Power of states and amassed fortunes.
The right of peoples to self-determination resists transnational financial governance
The side which will be the victor of this long war defends, on the contrary, the idea that in order to chose their destiny, people must organise themselves into clearly- defined Nations, based either on a land or else on a common history or project. Consequently, it supports national economies rather than transnational finance.
We have just experienced the World Football Cup. If the ideology of globalisation had won the war, we should have supported not only our national team, but also the teams of other countries according to their membership of our common supra-national structures. For example, the Belgians and the French would have had to support one another mutually by waving the flag of the European Union. But this did not occur to a single supporter. This fact shows the chasm which separates the propaganda with which we are force-fed and which we repeat, and our spontaneous behaviour. Despite appearances, the superficial victory of globalism has not modified what we are.
It is obviously no coincidence if Syria, where the idea of a state was first imagined and developed several thousand years ago, is the land upon which this war will end. It is because they benefited from a true state which never stopped functioning that Syria, its people, its army and its President were able to resist against the most gigantic coalition in History, constituted by 114 member states of the United Nations.

Notes

1. Hakk’ ichiu (the eight corners of the world under one roof) is the ideology of the .Japanese Empire. It claims the superiority of the Japanese race and its right to dominate Asia.
2. The Soviet armies overran Manchuria on the assumption that Tokyo would then surrender to Moscow. But President Truman launched the second atomic bomb in Nagasaki, forcing the Japanese to surrender to General McArthur so that the Penta- gon could occupy the country.
3. “[Billions of dollars’ worth of arms against Syria]”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 18 July 2017.
4. Les Dollars de la terreur : Les États-Unis et les is- lamistes, Richard Labévière, Grasset, 1999. Eng lish version : Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam, Algora Publishing, 2000.
5. Wie der Dschihad nach Europa kam. Gotteskrieger und Geheimdienste auf dem Balkan, Jürgen Elsässer, Kai Homilius Verlag, 2006.
6. Sous nos yeux. Du 11-septembre à Donald Trump, Thierry Meyssan, Demi-Lune 2017.
(Translation: Pete Kimberley)
Source: Voltaire Network, 31 July 2018

Cultural/Ideological Divide

A Google query for the subject ‘American inventors’

Leave a comment

A Google query for the subject ‘American inventors’ provides for the first 10 places only two American inventors of European lineage. They are Thomas Edison (6th place), and Alexander Graham Bell (10th place).

Here are the first 35 names that appear when a person performs a Google search for ‘American inventors’:

1. George Washington Carver (1864-1943), African American

2. Lewis Howard Latimer (1848-1928), African American

3. Garrett Morgan (1877-1963), African American

4. Madam C.J. Walker (1867-1919), African American

5. Elijah McCoy (1844-1929), African American

6. Thomas Edison (1847-1931), European American

7. Lonnie Johnson (1949-), African American

8. Patricia Bath (1942-), African American

9. Granville Woods (1856-1910), African American

10. Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922), European American

11. Jan Ernst Matzeliger (1852-1889), African American

12. James Edward Maceo West (1931-), African American

13. Frederick McKinley Jones (1893-1961), African American

14. Thomas L. Jennings (1791-1856), African American

15. Otis Boykin (1920-1982), African American

16. Benjamin Banneker (1731-1806), African American

17. Norbert Rillieux (1806-1894), African American

18. Marie Van Brittan Brown (1922-1999), African American

19. Sarah E. Goode (1855-1905), African American

20. Percy Lavon Julian (1899-1975), African American

21. Henry Blair (1807-1860), African American

22. George Robert Carruthers (1939-), African American

23. Henry Ford (1863-1947), European American

24. Eli Whitney (1765-1825), European American

25. Sarah Boone (1832-1904), African American

26. Janet Emerson Bashen (1957-), African American

27. Samuel Morse (1791-1872), European American

28. Ben Montgomery (1819-1877), African American

29. Valerie Thomas (1943-), African American

30. Andrew Jackson Beard (1849-1921), African American

31. David Crosthwait (1898-1976), African American

32. Nikola Tesla (1856-1943), European American

33. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), European American

34. Marjorie Joyner (1896-1994), African American

35. Alfred L. Cralle (1866-1920), African American

Western Hegemony's Collapse

What Sears’ Bankruptcy Says About Amazon’s Future

Leave a comment

by Joe Jarvis Via The Daily Bell

Sears was the Amazon of the 1900s.

Sears Roebuck started in 1892 as a mail-order watch catalog. They soon moved into selling almost any consumer goods you could think of in their catalogs.

Imagine being able to shop from the convenience of your own home!

You could order sewing machines, buggies, clothes, and even guns through the mail, and have them delivered to your door.

Of course, brick and mortar physical retail stores were not so happy. Some even went out of business. Sears was cheap, convenient, high quality, and even offered free delivery.

In 1925, Sears opened its first retail store and quickly expanded to physical locations throughout the country.

It soon grew to become the largest retailer in the world.

Does this story sound familiar?

Amazon started in 1994 as an internet book retailer. They soon moved into selling almost any consumer goods you could think of on their website.

They made it so easy to shop from home!

Of course, brick and mortar physical retail stores were not so happy. Some even went out of business. Amazon was cheap, convenient, and sometimes offered free delivery.

Amazon is now moving into physical retail by buying Whole Foods and introducing humanless convenience stores.

Now Sears is on the verge of bankruptcy after 126 years in business. The stock price is down to $0.34 per share, from $9 just over a year ago, from a 2007 peak of $133 per share.

On Monday, Sears has $134 million in loans coming due. The company is expected to file for bankruptcy according to the Wall Street Journal. The plan will likely include shuttering stores and selling off the remaining inventory.

Competition

Walmart came along in 1962 and challenged Sears’ retail supremacy. By 1989, Walmart surpassed Sears as the largest retailer in the country.

And then it was Amazon’s turn to challenge Walmart…

I’m not saying this means Walmart has only 56 years of life left, or that has Amazon will expire in 2120, following the 126-year life cycle of Sears.

I am just pointing out that it is easy to have a distorted view in the present.

Ask anyone in 1955 if they thought Sears would go bankrupt and they would have scoffed. How could such a dominant business ever collapse?

Right now Amazon is dominating. But that doesn’t mean Amazon will always dominate.

Just a few years ago Walmart was on top, and it was hard to imagine a strong competitor rising from nowhere to challenge their number one spot.

Walmart still has higher sales than Amazon. But the overall value of the Amazon company is much higher than Walmart.

The two retail giants are battling for control over online retail, as well as grocery delivery. Walmart is a major grocery retailer, and of course, Amazon just entered the space with its acquisition of Whole Foods.

Competition between the two companies has even led to drastic drops in pricing when the companies get into price slashing wars.

The important point is that Amazon and Walmart do have competition.

They are far from monopolies. And no company is safe in its dominant position forever.

This competition forces companies to become better in some way, or lose business. This can manifest itself in a better customer experience, cheaper products, better products, or even better working conditions for employees.

And there is no telling what other companies will come along to challenge these companies’ dominance.

But history shows there will be challengers to the likes of Sears, Walmart, Amazon, and even behemoths like Google, Facebook, and Apple.

None of them are guaranteed their top spots forever. In fact, history all but guarantees that their time will come too…

As long as the market stays relatively free, these companies cannot become or remain true monopolies.

There is one concern…

When the government gets involved, they screw up this natural, beneficial, free-market competition.

And that is the real threat. That the government will keep something alive despite its market failure.

Wall Street got bailed out after the 2008 financial crisis. The bankers responsible for risky investments and financial manipulation didn’t lose their jobs–they didn’t even lose their bonuses. The taxpayers took the bill, while we wallowed in the mess that Wall Street created.

General Motors was also considered too big to fail. The taxpayers were forced to bail out the failing automaker, losing over $10 billion. Meanwhile, GM still laid off over 20,000 employees.

The government protected the status quo and killed innovation. These industries were due for an upset, for a major competitor to shake them to the core, to clear out the dead wood so that new plants could grow.

Instead, they were propped up with the support of the government, making it harder for better alternatives to emerge.

Luckily, we don’t hear talk of bailing out Sears, even though they have far more employees than GM had–150,000 versus 90,000.

Unfortunately, Amazon already makes some money from the government. They have a CIA contract worth $600 million per year.

Some also say that the US Postal Service–and therefore the US taxpayer–subsidizes Amazon’s business by not charging a market rate for package deliveries. A 2006 law does, however, prohibit the Postal Service from charging below its actual costs to deliver packages.

Regardless, that is one more interesting similarity to note between Amazon and Sears.

The Rural Free Delivery Act of 1896 was a huge help to Sears’ mail-order business. The law expanded package delivery to more rural areas of the United States. Previously, these people had to travel quite some distance to pick up their packages at a Post Office.

So in the end, we shouldn’t worry about the market dominance of any particular company. We should really concern ourselves with being informed consumers.

And that might mean boycotting businesses when the government gives them an unfair advantage.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

It's All About Jews

The Big Lie

Leave a comment

Frequently attributed to Joseph Goebbels, the oft-cited big lie theory appears instead to have been Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler‘s explanation for how people came to believe that Germany lost World War I in the field — a “big lie” that Hitler attributed to Jewish influence on the press.

Hitler writes in Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”From time immemorial. however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. Schopenhauer called the Jew “The Great Master of Lies.” Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.”

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda, is alleged to have stated that if a lie is repeated enough times it would become widely accepted as truth. However, in a 1941 article titled “Churchill’s Lie Factory,” he wrote:

“One should not as a rule reveal one’s secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

Portions of this article were adapted from Wikipedia’s article.

Military Affairs

The US Military-Industrial Complex’s Worst Nightmare: The S-300 May Destroy & Expose The F-35

Leave a comment

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The tragic episode that caused the death of 15 Russian air force personnel has had immediate repercussions on the situation in Syria and the Middle East. On September 24, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu informed allies and opponents that the delivery of the S-300 air-defense systems to the Syrian Arab Republic had been approved by President Vladimir Putin. The delivery had been delayed and then suspended as a result of Israeli pressure back in 2013.

In one sense, the delivery of S-300 batteries to Syria is cause for concern more for Washington than for Tel Aviv.Israel has several F-35 and has claimed to have used them in Syria to strike alleged Iranian weapons transfers to Hezbollah. With the S-300 systems deployed in an updated version and incorporated into the Russian command, control and communications (C3) system, there is a serious risk (for Washington) that Israel, now incapable of changing the course of events in Syria, could attempt a desperate maneuver.

It is no secret that Greece taking out the S-300s, having apparently discovered their weaknesses.

Tel Aviv’s warning that it will attack and destroy the S-300 battery should not be taken as an idle threat. It is enough to look at the recent downing of Russia’s Il-20 surveillance aircraft to understand how reckless a desperate Israel is prepared to be. Moreover, more than one IDF commander has over the years reiterated that a Syrian S-300 would be considered a legitimate target if threatening Israeli aircraft.

At this point, it is necessary to add some additional information and clarify some points. Greece’s S-300s are old, out of maintenance, and have not had their electronics updated. Such modern and complex systems as the S-300s and S-400s require maintenance, upgrades, and often replacement of parts to improve hardware. All this is missing from the Greek batteries. Secondly, it is the operator who uses the system (using radar, targeting, aiming, locking and so forth) that often makes the difference in terms of overall effectiveness. Furthermore, the system is fully integrated into the Russian C3 system, something that renders useless any previous experience gleaned from wargaming the Greek S-300s. No Western country knows the real capabilities and capacity of Syrian air defense when augmented and integrated with Russian systems. This is a secret that Damascus and Moscow will continue to keep well guarded. Yet two years ago, during the operations to free Aleppo, a senior Russian military officer warned (presumably alluding to fifth-generation stealth aircraft like the F-35 and F-22) that the range and effectiveness of the Russian systems may come as a surprise.

The following are the words of Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu concerning the deployment of the S-300 to Syria and its integration with other Russian systems:

“Russia will jam satellite navigation, onboard radars and communication systems of combat aircraft, which attack targets in the Syrian territory, in the Mediterranean Sea bordering with Syria. We are convinced that the implementation of these measures will cool hotheads and prevent ill-considered actions threatening our servicemen. Otherwise, we will respond in line with the current situation. Syrian troops and military air defense units will be equipped with automatic control systems, which have been supplied to the Russian Armed Forces. This will ensure the centralized management of the Syrian air defense forces and facilities, monitoring the situation in the airspace and prompt target designation. Most importantly, it will be used to identify the Russian aircraft by the Syrian air defense forces.”

If the Israelis will follow through with their reckless attempts to eliminate the S-300 (if they can find them in the first place, given that they are mobile), they will risk their F-35s being brought down. The US military-industrial complex would suffer irreparable damage. This would also explain why Israel (and probably the US) has for more than five years put enormous pressure on Moscow not to deliver the S-300 to Syria and Iran. The US State Department’s reaction over the future purchase by Turkey and India of the S-400 confirms the anxiety that US senior officials as well as generals are experiencing over the prospect of allies opting for the Russian systems. This would allow for a comparison with weapons these allies purchased from the US, leading to the discovery of vulnerabilities and the realization of the US weapons’ relative inferiority.

Given Tel Aviv’s tendency to place its own interests above all others, it would not be surprising to find them using the possibility of attacking the S-300 with their F-35s as a weapon to blackmail Washington into getting more involved in the conflict. For the United States, there are two scenarios to avoid.

The first is a direct involvement in the conflict with Russia in Syria, which is now unthinkable and impractical.

The second – much more worrying for military planners – concerns the possibility of the F-35’s capabilities and secrets being compromised or even being shown not to be a match against air-defense systems nearly half a century old.

An illuminating example of how the United States operates its most advanced aircraft in the region was given in eastern Syria around Deir ez-Zor. In this part of Syria, there is no threat from any advanced air-defense systems, so the US is often free to employ its F-22 in certain circumstances. The Russian military has repeatedly shown radar evidence that unequivocally shows that when Russian Su-35s appear in the same skies as the F-22, the US Air Force simply avoids any confrontation and quickly withdraws such fifth-generation assets as the F-22. The F-35 is not even ready in its naval variant, and has yet to be deployed on a US aircraft carrier near the Middle Eastern theater or the Persian Gulf; nor is it present in any US military base in the region. The US simply does not even consider using the F-35 in Syria, nor would it risk its use against Russian air defenses. Israel is the only country that so far may have already used these aircraft in Syria; but this was before the S-300 came onto the scene.

The F-35 program has already cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will soon reach the exorbitant and surreal figure of over 1 trillion dollars. It has already been sold to dozens of countries bound by decades-long agreements. The F-35 has been developed as a multi-role fighter and is expected to be the future backbone of NATO and her allies. Its development began more than 10 years ago and, despite the countless problems that still exist, it is already airborne and combat-ready, as the Israelis insist. From the US point of view, its employment in operations is played down and otherwise concealed. The less data available to opponents, the better; though the real reason may lie in a strong fear of any revelation of potential weaknesses of the aircraft damaging future sales. At this time, the Pentagon’s marketing of the F-35 is based on the evaluations provided by Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, and on the tests carried out by the military who commissioned it to Lockheed Martin.Obviously, both Lockheed Martin and the US Air Force have no interest in revealing any weaknesses or shortcomings, especially publicly. Corruption is a big thing in Washington, contrary to common assumptions.

The combination of Israel’s ego, its inability to change the course of events in Syria, coupled with the loss of its ability to fly throughout the Middle East with impunity due to Syria now being equipped with a superior air defense – all these factors could push Israel into acting desperately by using the F-35 to take out the S-300 battery. Washington finds itself in the unenviable position of probably having no leverage with Israel over the matter ever since losing any ability to steer events in Syria.

With the Russian air-defense systems potentially being spread out to the four corners of the world, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and who knows how many other countries waiting in the queue, Russia continues to increase its export capacity and military prestige as it demonstrates its control of most of the Syria’s skies. With the introduction of the the S-500 pending, one can imagine the sleepless nights being spent by those in the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin’s headquarters worrying about the possibility of an F-35 being taken down by an S-300 system manufactured in 1969.

Cultural/Ideological Divide

IQ, Age and Race

Leave a comment

Peter Frost says:

Intellectual capacity is much more malleable in children than in adults. This is well known in the IQ literature, including studies on African and Euro Americans. When Dickens and Flynn (2006) analyzed the results of the 2002 standardization sample for the WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children), they found that IQ starts off high in African American children and then declines with age:

African-American WISC scores
Age — IQ
4 — 95.5
12 — 90.5
15 — 88.8
24 — 84.5

Dickens and Flynn (2006) similarly note that these scores show a gain of 5-6 points over the scores of black children thirty years earlier. But the decline of black IQ with age has remained stable. This decline also shows up in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study —a longitudinal study of black, biracial (black/white), and white children adopted into white middle-class Minnesota families (Scarr and Weinberg, 1976; Weinberg, Scarr, and Waldman, 1992). The children’s IQs were measured at 7 years of age and again ten years later:

——————- Age 7 Age 17
Black children –—- 97 — 89
Biracial children – 109 — 99
White children –– 112 – 106

Finally, we see this age effect in a study of children fathered by soldiers stationed in Germany and then raised by German mothers (Eyferth 1961). One third of the children were between 5 and 10 years old and two thirds between 10 and 13 years old. The study found no significant difference in IQ between children with white fathers (83 subjects) and those with black fathers (98 subjects), the mean IQ being about 97 for both groups.

So Chanda has discovered what many IQ researchers have long known: if you place children in an enriched learning environment, they will do much better on IQ tests. Unfortunately, this improvement will not last. It will “wash out” and disappear by adulthood. This was pointed out by Franz Boas (yes, the same Franz Boas!) in a speech delivered in 1894 under the title “Human Faculty as Determined by Race”:

“When we compare the capacity for education between the lower and higher races, we find that the great point of divergence is at adolescence and the inference is fairly good that we shall not find in the brains of the lower races the post-pubertal growth in the cortex to which I have just alluded.” (Boas, 1974, p. 234)

Among humans in general, intellectual capacity seems to decline with age. Indeed, there are statements in the literature that IQ declines from one’s twenties onwards (presumably among European Americans). Is this decline due to natural aging processes? Or is it prewired into the human organism?

Perhaps the ability to acquire new information became less useful with age in ancestral humans. What we call ‘intelligence’ may have originally been an infant trait that humans lost as they grew up. With the expansion of our cultural environment, natural selection would have progressively extended this infant trait into older age groups, and more so in some populations than in others.

By way of analogy, lactose tolerance was originally an infant trait and is still so in most human populations. It has become an adult trait in those populations that have long practiced dairy farming and adult consumption of milk.

References

Boas, F. (1974). A Franz Boas Reader. The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911, G.W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Dickens, W.T., and J.R. Flynn. (2006). Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap. Evidence from standardization samples. Psychological Science, 17, 913-920.

Eyferth, K. (1961). Leistungen verscheidener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern in Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest für Kinder (HAWIK). Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 113, 222-241.

Scarr, S., and Weinberg, R.A. (1976). IQ test performance of Black children adopted by White families, American Psychologist, 31, 726-739.

Weinberg, R.A., Scar, S., and Waldman, I.D. (1992). The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence. Intelligence, 16, 117-135.

It's All About Jews

Will London, Paris and Tel-Aviv be sanctioned by Moscow and Washington?

2 Comments

By Thierry Meyssan
The confrontation which recently occurred in Lattakia may result in a complete global redistribution of the cards. There are two reasons for this, the second of which is being hidden from the Western world. First of all, it cost the lives of 15 Russian soldiers; secondly, it not only implicates Israël, but also the United Kingdom and France. This is potentially the most dangerous crisis in more than 60 years. We now have to find out whether President Trump, currently in the middle of his election campaign, is capable of supporting his Russian counterpart, in order that the United States and Russia may sanction the colonial powers as they did in 1956, during the Suez crisis.

JPEG - 47.4 kbMoscow, 20 September 2018 – the Chief of Staff for the Israëli Air Force, General Amikam Norkin, arrives in a hurry to present his version of events. Once these proofs were checked and compared with other recordings, it transpired that Israël was lying straight-faced.

On 17 September 2018, France, Israël and the United Kingdom carried out a joint operation against Syrian targets. During the brief moments of combat, a Russian reconnaissance plane was brought down by Syrian ’friendly fire’. Study of the recordings shows that an Israëli F-16 had flown hidden behind the Ilyushin Il-20 in order to confuse the Syrian Air Defences.

The destruction of a Russian military aircraft by the fault of Israël, during a joint operation by the United Kingdom, France and Israël, caused consternation in all the chancelleries. Since the start of hostilities in Syria seven years ago, if there were a ’red line’, it was that the different protagonists should never endanger Russian, US, or Israëli forces.

We are sure about very little of what actually happened, except that :
- a British Tornado took off from Cyprus to land in Iraq. During the flight, it violated Syrian air space in order to scan the Syrian defences and make the allied attack possible.
- less than an hour later, four Israëli F-16s and a French frigate, L’Auvergne, fired on targets in the Syrian governorate of Lattakia. The Syrian air defences protected their country by firing their S-200s against the French and Israëli missiles.
- During the battle, an F-16 used a Russian Ilyushin Il-20 as a shield. The Ilyushin was flying a surveillance mission over the area, localising jihadist drone launch sites. The Syrian defences fired a missile, aiming for the thermal signal of the Israëli aircraft. Theoretically, therefore, it could have destroyed the Russian plane by mistake.

This is, however, implausible, because S-200 missiles are equipped with a reconnaissance system able to distinguish between friendly and enemy targets, which the Russian Minister for Defence successively confirmed, then denied. In any case, the Ilyushin was destroyed, without our knowing for certain how, or by whom.

The cowardice of the British and French leaders led them to censor all information concerning their responsibility in this operation. London made no comment, and Paris denied the facts. Neither the BBC, nor France-Television dared to mention the subject. For these two countries, more than ever, the reality of external politics is excluded from the democratic debate.

Immediate interpretation of the events

We do not know if the destruction of the Russian aircraft (causing the death of the 15 men on board) can be blamed on the Israëli pilot – which seems highly unlikely – on the Israëli army, or on the alliance which carried out the attack.

On the answer to this question hangs the possibility of conflict between four nuclear powers. The situation is therefore extremely serious. It has no precedent since the creation of the Russian Federation, at the end of 1991.

The British-French-Israëli aggression is the response by these three countries to the Russian-Turkish agreement signed only a few hours earlier at Sotchi. It came into play after the US refusal, at the beginning of September, to bomb Syria under false pretences, and the sending of a US delegation into the Arab world in order to express its disagreement with the British-French initiatives [1].

The Sotchi agreements were signed by Turkey under intense pressure from Russia. In Teheran, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had refused to sign the Memorandum concerning the withdrawal of the jihadist and Turkish forces in Idlib. This had not pleased President Vladimir Putin, who answered first of all by reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria [2] and, furthermore, by underlining for the first time the illegitimacy, under international law, of the Turkish military presence in the country. Ten days later, a very unsettled Mr, Erdoğan accepted an invitation to Russia.

The Sotchi agreement, while distancing Turkey a little further from NATO with its energy contracts, forced Ankara de facto to withdraw from a part of the territory that it occupies, allegedly to better protect the pseudo-« rebels » gathered in the governorate of Idlib [3]. Besides this, Turkey only has one month in which to confiscate the heavy weaponry of its friends from Al-Qaïda and Daesh in the demilitarised zone [4].

This agreement was obviously unacceptable for London, Paris and Tel-Aviv :
- in the end, it plans for the disappearance of the jihadists as an army, while London has been supervising, training and manipulating them for decades [5] ;
- the end of the dream of a French mandate over Syria and of the creation of a new French colony in the North of the country, under the phoney name of Kurdistan (Kurdistan is legitimate only within the frontiers which were recognised by the Sèvres Conference, in 1920.) In other words, not in Iran, nor Iraq or Syria, but only in what is now known as Turkey [6]).
- the end of the regional domination of Israël, faced with a stable Syria under Russian protection.

Mid-term interpretation of the events

The British-French-Israëli military alliance has not entered into action since the Suez Canal crisis in 1956. At that time, Anthony Eden, Guy Mollet and David Ben Gourion joined their forces in order to humiliate the Arab nationalists, particularly the Egyptian Gamal Abdel Nasser, and to re-establish the British and French colonial empires (« Operation Musketeer »).

This is exactly what happened with this new attack : as was confirmed by the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, none of the targets under attack were linked in any way to Iran or Hezbollah. This British-French-Israëli action had nothing to do with the international struggle against the jihadists in general and Daesh in particular. It also had no connection with the overthrow of the Syrian Arab Republic or its President, Bachar el-Assad. Its main objective was to kill military scientists, in particular the rocket specialists from the Institute of Technical Industries in Lattakia.

This is therefore the resumption and continuation of the policy of targeted assassinations waged by Israël for the last twenty years, successively against the Iraqi, Iranian, and now Syrian scientists. It is one of the pillars of colonial policy : to prevent the submitted populations from attaining the same level of education as their masters. In former times, the Westerners forbade their slaves from learning to read under pain of death. Today, they eliminate their scientists.This policy was relaunched with the British-French-US bombing of 14 April 2018, in which the only target destroyed was the Scientific Research Centre in Barzeh [7], then with the breakdown of the 5+1 agreement with Iran (JCPoA) which forced the country to close its nuclear physics faculties (May 8, 2018).

It was a joint initiative : the jihadists destroy the past, the Westerners destroy the future.

Long-term interpretation of the events

Since the deployment of Russian troops in Syria, on 13 September 2015, to help Syria in its fight against the terrorists, the allies of the United States have understood the impossibility of carrying out the US plan without risking a world war. With the arrival of Donald Trump at the White House, they have progressively questioned their war objectives, abandoned the plans of the « Friends of Syria » and fallen back on their respective historical strategies [8].

It is this logic that led them to reform the alliance which provoked the Suez crisis, and it is this same logic which pushed Germany to distance itself from them.

At the beginning of the First World War, the British, French and Russian empires decided on the partition of the world which they would implement as soon as they had gained victory. The treaty was negotiated by Mark Sykes, Georges Picot and Sergueï Sazonov. During the course of the World War, however, the Tsar was overthrown by the Bolcheviks, which meant that the areas of the world originally reserved for the Russian empire were once again up for grabs. Finally, at the end of the World War, only the part of the plan relative to the Middle East was applied, under the name of the « Sykes-Picot » agreement.

The return of Russia to the international game obviously brings into question the British-French colonial sharing of the Middle East. The foreseeable clash has just occurred, either accidentally or deliberately, with the destruction of the Ilyushin Il-20 during the joint British-French-Israëli military operation.

How to react

The bewilderment of the international community in the face of this brutal awakening of a century-old conflict can be measured by the Twitter silence from the White House.

During the Suez crisis, the Israëli troops engaged were twice as numerous as all the British and French forces together. The total number of coalition forces was about 250,000 men. This was therefore a very large-scale operation compared to that of Lattakia. But it remains true that the two sequences work from the same diplomatic logic, and may lead to the same developments.

During the Suez crisis, in the middle of the Cold War, the Soviet Union threatened the United Kingdom, France, and Israël with a nuclear riposte if they refused to withdraw from Egypt. At first, NATO supported the Europeans in threatening Moscow with a World War, before changing its mind. In the middle of the Cold War, therefore, the United States temporarily supported the USSR in order to halt the European folly.

For Washington, allowing the Europeans to pursue their plans was the equivalent of pushing all the Arab nations into the arms of the Soviets. Apart from that, it simply was not feasible to accept the French-British intervention at the same time as they were denouncing the repression of the Hungarian revolution by the Warsaw Pact.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice-President Richard Nixon launched a monetary attack against the pound sterling, sent their naval and airborne forces to interfere with the British-French-Israëli complex, and forbade the use of French military material financed by US funds.

International peace was preserved thanks to certain third parties such as the Secretary General of the UNO, Dag Hammarskjöld (who was assassinated three years later, and was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize); the Canadian Minister for Foreign Affairs Lester B. Pearson (who also received the Nobel Peace Prize); and the leader of the non-aligned nations and Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru.

The Suez crisis profoundly upset not only international political life, but also the national reality of the United Kingdom, France and Israël.
- Circumventing the European vetos at the Security Council, the UNO General Assembly called for the withdrawal of the invaders and created the first United Nations intervention force.
- In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons demanded the end of colonial politics to the profit of the promotion of the economic interests of London via the Commonwealth.
- In France, the Communists, the Gaullists and the Poujadists (including Jean-Marie Le Pen) united against the Centrists and the Socialists; a configuration that has never been seen since. Six years later, President De Gaulle considered that by recognising the independence of Algeria, he would put an end to military collaboration with the colonial state of Israël and restore the policy of friendship and collaboration with the Arab peoples, which had always characterised France, apart from its colonial period [9].

The position of the Western powers concerning the aggression on Lattakia is all the more difficult because, in violation of their agreement with Russia, the Israëlis only informed Moscow of their operation a long time after it had begun, and only one minute before they began firing. As for the Pentagon, they affirmed that they had not been warned at all. But let us not forget that the Israëli-Russian mutual non-aggression pact in Syria only exists because Israël is the US arsenal for the Middle East, housing (with Italy) the stocks of US weaponry for the entire region. If Israël truly did not inform the Pentagon of its actions in advance, then it can not benefit from US protection, and consequently the mutual non-aggression pact may be called into question by Russia.

The Russian response depends on the position of the White House, which we do not know for the moment. It must be guided by a desire to lessen tension, if possible, and also to maintain dissuasion by punishing the guilty party or parties as soon as the Kremlin names them. It is not necessary for Russia to make this sanction public as long as the chancelleries concerned are informed.

The Russian response

Russia has the choice of seeing in the destruction of their aircraft nothing more than a mistake by an Israeli pilot, or by the Israëli army, or again, by all three of the states implicated (the United Kingdom, France and Israël). The Russian Minister for Defence, Sergueï Choïgou, telephoned his Israëli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman to inform him that he held Israël responsible for the accident, and reserved the right to riposte. A little later, President Putin declared « This is a series of tragic events, because our plane was not shot down by an Israëli aircraft ». He was careful to distinguish this situation from that of the deliberate destruction of a Sukhoï 24-M by Turkish fighters in November 2015. We are therefore heading towards the public designation of Israël as the sole responsible and a secret sanction against the three states involved.

The Israëli chargé d’affaires in Moscow, Keren Cohen Gat, was summoned by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, while in a knee-jerk reaction, Israëli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to shovel the responsibility for the accident onto Iran. An Israëli delegation, led by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Amikam Norkin, rushed off to Moscow with unprecedented haste. They contested the claims of the Russian Minister for Defence, affirmed that Israël was innocent, and that all the blame belonged to the negligence of the Syrians.

President Donald Trump, a great admirer of Richard Nixon’s foreign policy, was thus provided with the perfect occasion to finish with the British-French-Israëli support for the US deep state. However, in the middle of his election campaign, he can not afford to give the impression of supporting the Russian rival while he beats up his allies. He is therefore seeking a way of presenting his internal public with this major change of direction. From this perspective, during an interview with Hill TV, he condemned the US engagement in the Greater Middle East which was decided by his predecessor George Bush Jr after the attacks of 11 September 2001.

On 23 September, the spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defence, General Igor Konashenkov, presented the synthesis of Russian intelligence and the information transmitted by Syria and Israël.
- He accused the Hebrew state of having deliberately violated the mutual non-aggression agreement of 2015 by not giving Russia advance notice of its attack and by lying about its targets.
- He accused it of having endangered civilian flights present in this zone of the Mediterranean, and of being responsible for the destruction of the Ilyuchin Il-20.
- He denounced its non-assistance to the Russian soldiers when their plane stalled.
- He also accused General Amikam Norkin of lying by pretending that the Israëli jets had already returned to Israël when the Russian plane stalled and crashed.
- Finally, he deflected the accusations of amateurism laid at the door of the Syrian Anti-Air Defence System.

However, he abstained from publicly blaming the United Kingdom and France, who were nonetheless just as concerned by his remarks against Israël.

In case the White House should find an acceptable narrative of the facts for its electors, Russia could forbid the United Kingdom, France and Israël from making any intrusion into the maritime, terrestrial and aerial space of Syria without the authorisation of Damascus. London and Paris would have to cease their threats of bombing under whatever pretext at all (false chemical weapons) and withdraw their special forces. This measure would be valid for all protagonists in general, except for the United States and, in Idlib, for Turkey.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Pete Kimberley

[1] “Who wants to relaunch the war in Syria?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 4 September 2018.

[2] “Joint Statement by Iran, Russia and Turkey dealing with Syria”, Voltaire Network, 7 September 2018.

[3] “The battle of Idleb is pushed back”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 22 September 2018.

[4] “Memorandum on Stabilization of the Situation in the Idlib De-escalation Area”, Voltaire Network, 17 September 2018.

[5] See the second part of Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump, Thierry Meyssan, Soon publish by Progressive Press.

[6] “The Kurdistan projects”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 5 September 2016.

[7] “The fiasco of the bombing raid on Syria”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 24 April 2018.

[8] “Finding a way out of the war against Syria”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 11 September 2018.

[9] « Conférence de presse de Charles De Gaulle, extrait relatif à Israël », Réseau Voltaire, 27 novembre 1967.

Cold War

US’ Foreign Policy

Leave a comment

I recommend a decent atlas and a pirated PDF copy of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chessboard.” And a good supply of your mood-altering chemical of choice. I’d suggest a dry red wine of some sort, but I’m no expert.
Afghanistan has a lot of natural resources, mineral mostly; weird metals that are critical to electronics. But more than that, it’s location, location, location. There’s been talk of oil and gas pipelines from Iran to China. And from the -stan countries south to the Pakistani ports on the Indian Ocean. None of that can happen if Afghanistan is a flaming dumpster fire. Also Afghanistan is right in the middle of the -stan countries Russia still considers their area of control, China, Pakistan, Iran, India; with huge-mongous mountains in the way every other way to get from Point A to Point B. There may not be a more strategically-located spot, if one is of a mind to dominate southern Asia.

Syria and Iraq are similarly strategically-located. Libya has a lot of oil, just across the Mediterranean from Europe. After Libya fell, all of a sudden there was a lot of trouble with “Jihadis” in Algeria, also with lots of oil, also just across the Mediterranean; and in Nigeria and Chad. Nigeria has a lot of oil, and there’s talk of a pipeline from Nigeria north to the Mediterranean, crossing…Chad and either Algeria or Libya. Interesting.

Heading East in Africa, there’s a lot of oil in the south of Sudan. Now there’s a totally feckless “independent” state of South Sudan there. And where that oil would want to go to get to market would go through Somalia. Every time anybody gets the upper hand in the chaos in Somalia, the US bombs the **** out of them and the other side gets a lot of weapons. Interesting.

The Chinese had built a lot of oil infrastructure in all those places, and that investment has been among the first things bombed by “Jihadis” whenever they show up. Almost like “Jihadis” hate money. Which they don’t seem to anyplace else; curious. And it’s weird how the “Jihadis” seem to hate everybody the US wants dispossessed.

The strategy is for the US to control Europe and China’s access to energy. Meanwhile, surrounding the EU, Russia and China with little dumpster fires, arming the most unreasonable and violent people in every area, demolishing civil society and making the perimeter of those rivals to US supremacy in Eurasia dangerous and unstable, applying pressure to every fracture line in societies on those areas.

The US can’t just invade Eurasia, but it can splinter it and create so much chaos Russia, China and the EU have all they can handle just staying afloat. That increases internal tensions in those areas, which the US can exploit. The goal is to break up all those nations and associations so the smaller, bickering groupings can be set against each other under the Pax Americana.

Yes, it’s some crazy. But Brzezinski made that his life’s work, and I haven’t seen anything in US foreign policy these past 40 years that doesn’t conform to it.

Can the reason for Afghanistan be so hard to see now ?

US foreign policy supports the workings of a thriving criminal economy in which the demarcation between organized capital and organized crime has become increasingly blurred.

The heroin business is not “filling the coffers of the Taliban” as claimed by US government and the international community: quite the opposite! The proceeds of this illegal trade are the source of wealth formation, largely reaped by powerful business/criminal interests within the Western countries. These interests are sustained by US foreign policy.

Decision-making in the US State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon is instrumental in supporting this highly profitable multibillion dollar trade, third in commodity value after oil and the arms trade.

The Afghan drug economy is “protected”.

The heroin trade was part of the war agenda. What this war has achieved is to restore a compliant narco-State, headed by a US appointed puppet.

The powerful financial interests behind narcotics are supported by the militarisation of the world’s major drug triangles (and transshipment routes), including the Golden Crescent and the Andean region of South America (under the so-called Andean Initiative).

Including Vatican and Royals all over the World. TPTB still believe Slaves and Drugs are the best way to profit & CONTROL.

Western Hegemony's Collapse

Roman Empire’s Demise

Leave a comment

It was the horses and north European deforestation that changed everything. Roman horse got bigger, barbarians were burning pine forests north of Rome thus creating paved roads. By 3-4 century horse breeds got bigger and could haul a serious load of goods. Costs of trade over sea met the costs of land trade at the end of Roman empire, suddenly Mediterranean trade routes were obsolete and hinterland area changed.

Constantinople was now a main trade hub, because the silk road was getting busier and land trade replaced Red Sea route.

Also, Saint Bernard pass opened for trade connecting England, Normand and Venice by land. The horse killed the Rome. Before the horse and European deforestation, trade over land was about 6x more costly than sea trade, Rome was a weighted centre of Mediterranean sea, a natural port and a natural centre of the world (trade area) at the time, an unmatched comparative advantage. Alps made the peninsula almost unassailable. Although Carthage had a very good central Mediterranean position, Carthage hinterland couldn’t measure up to Rome and its access to wood and stone. Carthage had no chance.

it was always all about the money.

Cold War

China Halts Licenses For US Companies Amid Tariff Battle

Leave a comment

CashMcCall says:

China is winning. China Trade is 4 Trillion a year and up 15% a year. US Trade is falling. Trump Tariffs were levied against Supply chain goods. 95% of China trade to the US is supply chain. Companies like Cummins engine and Rustoleum import their own Chinese made products as components for their US production.

Trump tariffed phenols for example and hundreds of other chemicals. Some dumbass Trumptard claimed that the phenols should be made in Merica, they could not be made cheaper than the US companies that make them in China and ship them globally. Even with a tariff of 100% they would still be cheaper than making them in the USA.

So American paint and coating companies import the phenols for products mixed in the USA for domestic and export markets. Trump Tariffs on phenols only hurt US paint and coating companies. ALL BTW have requested exemptions from Trump Tariffs and are getting them. Thus the Trump Tariffs are a paper tiger fraud.

China is also moving to bypass the Trump Tariffs. They are shipping the US Chinese factory made phenols to the Asian Tigers such as Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. The Asian tigers are then packaging and adding value and shipping to the USSA. There are no tariffs from phenols from the Asian Tigers. Trinh Thi Thu Trang is a leading paint coating producer and private labeler out of Vietnam.

But it gets worse for Merica. The Asian tigers and cubs are also setting up mixing lines for epoxy, and paint coating and shipping finished products to the USA cheaper than they can be made in Merica. Thus, just as happened with Smoot Hawley, international competition has taken away US foreign ready made markets. So this is why Trump’s Tariffs are nothing but a blowhard song in the wind. The Tariffs are just a Goldman scheme to buy cheap emerging market while selling off US Tech.

This is also why Trump Tariffs have not reported any accounting for how much Tariff tax has been collected. This is because it is all a Trump Fraud. Once the realization was noted that Chinese imports to the US were up 15% with Tariffs, the Trump Tariffs collections immediately became suspect.

Since then, the Asian Tiger imports to the US are up 20%. There is no DNA to trace the origin of the China and Asian Tiger chemicals. RPM International a leading US coating company has operations in China. They make Rust Oleum products BTW.

So you see, old dottard, low tech, no-brains Trump is just scamming the tards. With Tards all they can think of is their anti-Chinese racism and their stupid orange blowhard. Meanwhile, China has outflanked the Orange idiot, and is shipping [exporting] US ready made markets through Asian affiliates. Trump is just a fraud. He can’t stop any of this.

Trump admin projected $582 million tariffs from steel imports and $195 million from Aluminum WITH NO EXEMPTIONS! This is a bogus number. Even if you accepted this Trump bullshit, it doesn’t even come close to the $1.6 Trillion in damages to the US Farmer which are verifiable.

This is why you have not seen any decline in Chinese PMI, manufacturing and why Chinese exports are at record levels. Look no further than to John Deere to see how US Companies are doing. The Trump Tariff plan is leaking like a sieve. Trump’s a fraud.

China produces

90% of PCs
80% of Air Conditioners
80% of Energy Saving Light Bulbs
74% of Solar Cells
70% of Mobile Phones
63% of shoes
60% of cement
49% of pork
48% of coal
45% of shipbuilding

etc etc etc