John Bolton exclusive interview: Trump does not represent the Republican cause that I want to back 1

Well. well, well…Is Walrus man lobbying for a position in a future Biden administration? That would make the circle complete, and cement the recolonization of the Democrats by the neocons, along with the wider Deep State/chickenhawk/neoliberal/totalitarian humanist alliance. I figured this would happen.

By Con Coughlin


As a lifelong Republican who has held high office in the Reagan and both Bush administrations, John Bolton, Donald Trump’s former National Security Advisor, is not someone who normally considers voting Democrat.

Yet, such is the strength of the 71-year-old Washington veteran’s disaffection with Mr Trump’s presidency, that this is precisely how he intends to cast his vote in November’s U.S. presidential election. Rather than voting for the president he served for 17 months as National Security Advisor until his resignation last year, Mr Bolton says he intends to vote for Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate.


Bolton says he hopes Trump is 1-term president, warns country imperiled by his reelection Reply

President Donald Trump‘s longest-serving national security adviser John Bolton condemned his presidency as dangerously damaging to the United States and argued the 2020 election is the last “guardrail” to protect the country from him.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Bolton offered a brutal indictment of his former boss, saying, “I hope (history) will remember him as a one-term president who didn’t plunge the country irretrievably into a downward spiral we can’t recall from. We can get over one term — I have absolute confidence, even if it’s not the miracle of a conservative Republican being elected in November. Two terms, I’m more troubled about.”


John Bolton wouldn’t be a good fit for any administration: Keith Kellogg Reply

This more or less confirms what I have been thinking is the real source of the conflict between the Trumpists and the Deep State, i.e. differences over strategy for the long-term survival of the Empire. On one hand, there is the Deep State/MIC apparatus, represented in politics by the neonconservative/liberal internationalist duopoloy. This faction thinks the Empire can keep going on like it is just fine. On the other hand are neo-realists who understand that the Empire is cracking and certain strategic adjustments and structural changes need to be made to keep from losing the whole thing. Bolton is a parody version of the former category.

The Military Must be De-Funded Along with the Police 1

The USA accounts for 35% of all global military spending, most of which is corporate welfare.

By Dan Kovalik

As Vijay Prashad explains in his book, Red Star Over The Third World, domestic fascism in the West has reflected the West’s pre-existing colonial practices abroad. Citing Martinique communist Aimé Césaire, Prashad explains: “What had come to define fascism inside Europe through the experience of the Nazis – the jackboots and the gas chambers – were familiar already in the colonies. . . . [F]ascism was a political form of bourgeois rule in times when democracy threatened capitalism; colonialism, on the other hand, was naked power justified by racism to seize resources from people who were not willing to hand them over. Their form was different but their manners were identical.


John Bolton’s bombshell Trump book: eight of its most stunning claims 1

Trump vs. Bolton is the ultimate heel vs. heel match. It sounds like Bolton may be lobbying for a position in a future Biden administration. Not a good sign. One of the best things Trump has done to date is ditching this guy.

By Max Benwell

The Guardian

Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton has made a series of explosive claims about the US president in his new book The Room Where It Happened, according to numerous news reports and an excerpt.

Most notably, Bolton claims Trump asked China to use its economic power to help him in the 2020 election, and tried to kill criminal investigations as “favors” for dictators whom he liked.


Scores of Indian, Chinese troops KILLED after brutal hand to hand combat Reply

At one point, I thought the BRICS might be able to emerge as a unified, effective opposition block to the Atlanticist domination of global capitalism. The more I observe East-West relations and the performance of Eastern nations,  in addition to the ongoing conflicts in the East., the more skeptical of that I become.

Krystal and Saagar discuss a bloody brawl that occurred late Monday night along a disputed border between India and China.

First came a pandemic. Then, looting. Small businesses pick up the pieces as their debt mounts. 1

A reflection on the problem of interclass and intra-lumpen proletarian conflict.

Many positive things have happened in the uprising. These include the mass participation of normies and civilians (non-revolutionaries) in protests and civil disobedience against the state, along with direct attacks on the state such as the destruction of enemy military bases (police precincts), star chambers (courts), and enemy military vehicles (police cars).

The outright assassinations of enemy troops (cops), mostly carried out by Leon Czolgosz-like lone wolves, has been unnecessary and mistaken, because we are not yet in a high-intensity civil war situation, only a low-grade uprising. The insurgents have no capacity for fighting much less winning an actual civil war at this point.

There have also been many other mistakes involving random violence against individuals, along with interracial, inter-tribal, and inter-sectarian violence. Inter-class violence has also been a problem. The direct expropriation of ruling class resources (“looting,” or what I prefer to call a grassroots economic stimulus plan organized from the bottom up and implemented through direct action) is legitimate. Places like Bank of America (neo-usurers), Wal-Mart and Target (neo-plantations), Amazon (neo-manors), McDonald’s, and Wendy (neo-sweatshops) are clearly part of the statist, capitalist, and imperialist enemy. One can argue against such actions on practical grounds (corporations write off losses as a business expense), propagandistic grounds (FOX News-like outlets use such actions in their anti-insurgent propaganda), or pro-labor grounds (employees lose their jobs if their employer is burned out). It could certainly be argued that worker occupation of such places would be a better approach. But clearly, attacks on the neo-manorial outposts of the neo-aristocracy are legitimate.

However, this does not mean that all interclass violence is legitimate. It would be a grave error, for example, to engage in arson in upper-class residential areas, or simply to attack people who seem like that might be part of the capitalist class on the street. This opens the door for a Jacobin/Stalinist/Maoist class genocide. Even more problematic is the interclass violence that has taken place between the lumpenproletariat and the conventional proletarian or petite bourgeoisie. These kinds of things have the same effect as the destruction of monuments, landmarks, temples, and artifacts, i.e. it provides propagandistic fuel that the ruling class enemy can use to its advantage.

The intra-class violence, or threats of such, within the lumpenproletariat is also a major problem. Primarily, this is the fault of the anarchists and other far-left sectors, but not for the reasons that Donald Trump would give. The anarchists, who should be the political leadership of the lumpenproletariat, have failed to build class unity among the lumpenproletariat. For example, anarchists have protested against ICE on anti-racist/pro-immigrant grounds, but have they exhibited similar zeal for defending gun nuts and militiamen against the BATF, drug users against the DEA, tax protestors against the IRS, sovereign citizens against the FBI, “white-collar criminals” against the DOJ, and, yes, urban street gangs, motorcycle gangs, Mafiosi (Bill Kuntsler was John Gotti’s attorney), cults (Charles Garry was the attorney for the Black Panthers AND the Peoples’ Temple), and (hold your nose) white nationalists and far-right extremists against the local municipal pigs, state pigs, and federal alphabet soup agency pigs? Have the anarchists adopted the mode of “defending the undefendable”? Nothing would undermine the ability of reactionary state forces to recruit the right-wing of the lumpenproletariat than efforts by anarchists and the general far-left to defend ALL (I repeat, ALL) enemies of the state as vigorously as they defend illegal migrants against ICE.

Of course, the difference is that illegal migrants are considered to be “progressive” (fueling cosmopolitanism or “diversity”) while these other sectors are considered to be “reactionary” (the modern equivalent of Marx’s “non-historical peoples”). This indicates that most “anarchists” or “far-leftists” are really just Blue Tribe fundamentalists first, with their anarcho-progressivism merely being an afterthought, and who are not yet ideologically and psychologically ready to launch a full-fledged war against the state even if they were militarily capable of doing so, which they clearly are not.

By Leticia Miranda

NBC News

Salih Mothana came home so quietly after he surveyed the damage to his small grocery store in Chicago that his family had no idea their business had been destroyed. Looters had raided the family store after a night of peaceful protests against police brutality ended with pockets of destruction last weekend.

“I understand why it happened, and it’s OK,” Mothana, a Yemeni immigrant, said in Arabic as his daughter translated. “It’s not like I have to blame someone for this. I understand why this happened. If it sends out the message, it doesn’t matter to us.”

Mothana, who has run Express Food Market on the South Side of Chicago for over 20 years, is one of scores of small-business owners across the country who are now trying to pick up the pieces after social justice protests over the killing of George Floyd.


Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police Reply

While I agree with 99% of this article, I’m a bit suspicious as to why the New York Times (“Voice of the Ruling Class”-Abbie Hoffman) was willing to publish it. It seems like some kind of co-optation scheme is in the works. The left-wing of the ruling class (the tech-oligarch/financier/new clerisy alliance) seems to envision a future American empire that is organized domestically more like the European Union, complete with the social worker cops of Scandinavia, and which continues to rule the world under the cover of the UN. I’ve been saying that this is the end-game of the “left-wing of capital” for 20 years as opposed to the neoconservatives and traditional hawks (the John Bolton types) who simply want a Pax Americana.

The main disagreement I have with this is that the author appears to be a social democrat/welfare statist. I am critical of social democracy even as it’s practiced in relatively benign states like the Scandinavian countries, which strike me as totalitarian humanist theocracies even if they lack military power or the massive police states of the US. Their small size and geographic constraints prevent them from becoming imperialistic. However, they are basically the “blue states” of the European Union, which is a rising totalitarian humanist empire.  North Korea is the Stalinist/fascist dystopia of Orwell’s 1984, while the European Union (particular England and Scandinavia) are Huxley’s Brave New World, with America being more like byzantine bureaucracy depicted in Kafka novels.

As a decentralist and an anti-imperialist, I am willing to tolerate the occasional totalitarian humanist microstate (like Iceland), the occasional fascist city-state (like Singapore), or the occasional Stalinist island (like Cuba). But I can’t really see promoting any of those as ends unto themselves.

Another problem with this article is that, like most liberal and leftist writing on the police state, it tends toward racial reductionism. Historically, African-Americans were the Dalits of the Western hemisphere, with Native Americans being more like the Palestinians of the Western hemisphere.


Zapatistas to extend their control with 11 more autonomous zones in Chiapas Reply

They’re doing this with the acquiescence of the Mexican President, just as CHAZ is existing with the apparent acquiescence of local and state governments of Seattle and Washington, which raises some interesting questions about anarchist strategy.

Mexico News Daily

The Zapatistas are on the move in Chiapas, extending their control into another 11 areas of the state.

The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) announced in a statement on the weekend it will create 11 new caracoles, or autonomous zones, in the southern state.


Western Civilization has low self-esteem. What can raise its spirits? Reply

Western civilization doesn’t really exist anymore. It died during the two world wars. “The West” today is basically just the American Empire, and it’s not the America of Nathaniel Hawthorne or Mark Twain. It’s the America of McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, and Amazon. Western Europe is the most far gone, but you see this even in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and East Asia.

Ingraham: Democrats cancel America Reply

I totally disagree with Laura here, but not for the usual reasons.

So far I have actually seen very little “canceling America” going on in the present uprising. Unlike Berkeley or Charlottesville, which were low-grade sports riots carried out by rookie-league middle-class gangs, the present uprising is a genuine fourth-generation insurgency, albeit one of very low intensity.

But it’s “anti-American” character is doubtful. I haven’t seen much anti-Americanism thus far. I’ve seen plenty of anti-Confederatism, celebrating the death of a state that died 155 years ago. Today, Confederate nostalgia is a regional fetish (like Cajun food) that only deep red zone inhabitants have any remaining interest in. I’ve seen plenty of anti-Spanish Empirism but the Spanish Empire was expelled from the Western hemisphere in the 19th century, with its final defeat coming at the hands of the nascent American Empire in the Spanish-American War. I’ve seen plenty of anti-Red Tribism, anti-Trumpism, and, perhaps on the margins, actual anti-WASPism. But not much anti-Americanism.


Historic First: Under Trump, Half Of National Security Council Leaders Are Women Reply

Virtually everything that is wrong with “liberal” or “progressive” thinking, and the thinking of many others further to the left, is summed up in a single headline.

By Madeline Osburn

The Federalist

For the first time in history, half of the senior leaders of the National Security Council are women. Twelve of the 24 directorates are led by women now, including three of the six regional directorates that cover the world.

While the White House press corps has not yet noticed that fact, and Vanity Fair didn’t have Annie Leibovitz come do a photo shoot, as would have been obligatory in the previous administration, women in the White House noticed and appreciated the historic first.

“President Trump has demonstrated his commitment to empowering women in the U.S. and across the world, implementing a pro-growth, pro-family agenda that lifts up women of all backgrounds. It’s no surprise that women are leading the way across the Trump administration, including more women leaders at the National Security Council than at any other time in history,” adviser to the President Ivanka Trump said.


Anti-China Rhetoric Is On The Rise. Is The US Right To Be Worried?- Bill Jones Reply

The Chinese have their problems but they’re being used by the US regime to deflect Americans’ attention from the fact that they’re being ruled by incompetent morons.

William Jones is the Washington Bureau Chief for the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR). He is also a Non-Resident Fellow of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University. His articles have appeared in numerous Chinese publications.

The Disappeared Reply

Current faux Sinophobic rhetoric aside, China is just a province in global capitalism, a loan and labor mine for Western governments and corporations, and a test market in state repression. Far too many Western radicals promote China, Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc. as model societies or as alternatives to the Empire. No, they are merely exotic Klingon territories (from a Western perspective) that function as occasionally rebellious provinces in the Empire. The imperial overlords hate them because, unlike the other 3/4 of the world’s nations, they have not been fully consolidated into the Empire in terms of political control, i.e. there are no US military bases in their countries, their domestic economies are not fully under the control of US corporations or global bankers,  or because their nuclear weapons make them immune to invasion.

By Zach Dorfman

Foreign Policy

Before he disappeared from his luxury apartment at the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong on Jan. 27, 2017, Xiao Jianhua, a Chinese-Canadian billionaire, favored female bodyguards. Why, exactly, was unclear: Perhaps he simply liked being surrounded by women; perhaps he trusted them more than men.

Whatever the reason, those guards weren’t much help when a group of mysterious men showed up at his apartment that January day and took him away. According to anonymous sources who viewed the hotel’s internal video feed and later spoke to the New York Times, Xiao, who may have been sedated, was rolled through the Four Seasons lobby in a wheelchair, a sheet covering his head. He was then reportedly loaded onto a boat and ferried to the Chinese mainland.


Iran says it is ready for more prisoner exchanges with U.S. Reply

The conflict between the US and Iran is an international equivalent of when the Scarfo crime family and Pagans motorcycle club went to war over control of methamphetamine markets in Philadelphia. Iran’s successful expulsion of the US in 1979, expropriation of Western petroleum interests, leadership of the resistance axis, role as a counterbalance to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and alliance with the BRICS are the real reasons why the US hates Iran.


(Reuters) – Iran is ready for further prisoner exchanges with the United States, Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said on Sunday, according to the official IRNA news agency.

Michael White, a U.S. Navy veteran detained in Iran since 2018, was freed last Thursday as part of a deal in which the United States allowed Iranian-American physician Majid Taheri to visit Iran – a rare instance of U.S.-Iranian cooperation.


Libya Unity Government Claims Full Control of Tripoli, Suburbs Reply

The Defense Post

Libya’s UN-recognised unity government said Thursday that it was back in full control of the capital and its suburbs after more than a year of fighting off an offensive by eastern strongman Khalifa Haftar.

“Our heroic forces have full control of Greater Tripoli right up to the city limits,” Mohamad Gnounou, spokesman for the forces of the Government of National Accord (GNA), said in a Facebook post.

The announcement came after GNA forces retook the capital’s civilian airport on Wednesday, more than a year after losing it in Haftar’s initial drive on the capital. The airport, in Tripoli’s southern outskirts, had been disused since 2014 when it was heavily damaged in fighting between rival militias.


Tear Gas Is Banned in International Warfare––Why Are Police Using It On U.S. Civilians? Reply

Because the US is run by serial war criminals. Duh?

By Janea Wilson

In These Times

On June 2, President Trump threatened to deploy military troops against Americans in response to nationwide protests after the recent murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Trump’s suggestion to use military force against U.S. civilians shocked many—but in fact police already have been using a weapon banned in international warfare against protesters: tear gas.


CIA veterans who monitored crackdowns abroad see troubling parallels in Trump’s handling of protests Reply

The Washington Post has long been known in “foreign policy dissident” circles as the “voice of CIA.” The WaPo is now owned by Bezos which indicates that an alliance has formed between the Deep State and the techno-oligarchs (the rising wing of the ruling class, gradually eclipsing the old monied elites and Sunbelt industries). The Deep State exists to protect the interests of the military-industrial complex on a permanent basis irrespective of shifting political winds and power dynamics elsewhere in the government or the economy.

In recent years, the Deep State seems to have seen the writing on the wall and moved toward the rising ruling class of techno-oligarchs and the new clerisy (see Joel Kotkin). Hence, the seeming alliance between the Deep State, neoliberals, techno-oligarchs, and new clerisy against the Trumpists. The CIA-FBI-DNC-Pelosi-Bezos-Maddow axis. The closest parallel I know of to something like this from elsewhere is the conflict between Turkey’s Deep State and the Erdogan regime. Factions of Turkey’s Deep State actually attempted a coup against Erdogan a few years back.

However, there also seems to be some sectors of the military-industrial complex that have thrown in their lot with Trumpism as well. Elements of Trump’s foreign policy seem rooted in the ideas of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is a Kissinger-affiliated group. Some arms merchants such as Raytheon are clearly aligned with Trump (which is why former Raytheon lobbyist Mark Esper is Secretary of Defense).

The surface-level impression I get is that the private civilian sectors of the military-industrial complex (like arms merchants, who are concerned about war profiteering) are more friendly to Trump and his standard Republican “rebuild the military” rhetoric, along with think-tank strategists who favor a more “realist” approach to foreign policy, knowing that the empire is overextended and cracking (i.e. the Steve Bannon types). However, the state sectors of the MIC (particularly the intelligence services and upper strata military) and those with a more conventional liberal internationalist and/or neoconservative perspective on foreign policy, seem to be more hostile to Trumpism.

By Greg Miller

Washington Post

The scenes have been disturbingly familiar to CIA analysts accustomed to monitoring scenes of societal unraveling abroad — the massing of protesters, the ensuing crackdowns and the awkwardly staged displays of strength by a leader determined to project authority.

In interviews and posts on social media in recent days, current and former U.S. intelligence officials have expressed dismay at the similarity between events at home and the signs of decline or democratic regression they were trained to detect in other nations.


Everything You Know About Global Order Is Wrong Reply

How the Empire was formed.

By Adam Tooze

Foreign Policy

Klaus Schwab, impresario of the World Economic Forum, released a manifesto in the run-up to this year’s annual meeting at Davos, Switzerland, in which he called for a contemporary equivalent to the postwar conferences that established the liberal international order. “After the Second World War, leaders from across the globe came together to design a new set of institutional structures to enable the post-war world to collaborate towards building a shared future,” he wrote. “The world has changed, and as a matter of urgency, we must undertake this process again.” Schwab went on to call for a new moment of collective design for globalization’s alleged fourth iteration (creatively labeled Globalization 4.0).

Schwab is not the first to make this kind of appeal. Since the financial crisis, there have been repeated calls for a “new Bretton Woods”—the conference in 1944 at which, in Schwab’s words, “leaders from across the globe came together to design” a financial system for the postwar era, establishing the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in the process.


Donald Rumsfeld Expressed Sympathy with Looters in 2003 Reply

So what do you know? Rummy the Dummy actually got one right.

“While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed…”

– Donald Rumsfeld

An old UPI article from 2003 during the early phase of the Iraq War.

WASHINGTON, April 11 (UPI) — U.S. forces should not be blamed for the lawlessness and looting in Baghdad as it is a natural consequence of the transition from a dictatorship to a free country, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday at the Pentagon.

“The task we’ve got ahead of us now is an awkward one … It’s untidy. And freedom’s untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that’s what’s going to happen here,” Rumsfeld said.