How the U.N. Joined America’s War Against Syria

Eric Zuesse

America has been at war to transfer control of Syria over to the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia; and America has been trying to do this ever since the first of the CIA’s coups against Syria failed in 1949. But only during the U.S. Presidency of Barack Obama did the United Nations become a tool in this American enterprise. Obama entered the White House in 2009 secretly hoping to be able to overthrow Syria’s Government; and when the CIA-assisted “Arab Spring” uprisings in the Arab world started flowering in 2011, the U.S. Government had the important U.N. operatives fully on-board assisting the U.S. Government to assist this overthrow — to hand Syria to the Sauds (the Sauds being America’s most important international ally, and the world’s richest family) to control.

By the time of June 2011, the Obama State Department, under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was already deep into planning the overthrow not only of Syria’s Government (planning the international recruitment of jihadists to do that), but of Ukraine’s Government (planning international recruitment of nazis to do that).

Although the common view is that America’s main allies are European, that viewpoint is no longer true. Today’s America is allied mainly with the Sauds, and with Israel, which latter is the Sauds’ chief lobbying arm both in North America and in Europe, because Christian-majority populations are far more sympathetic to Jews than to Moslems. For a politician to be publicly sympathetic to Jews is much better for a politician than for him/her to be publicly sympathetic to Muslims. So, Israel carries the Sauds’ lobbying water, not only their own.

On 3 December 2011 (near the end of the year when the “Arab Spring” started), the independent investigative journalist Sibel Edmonds headlined “US Media: Distorters of Reality & Gravediggers of Truth”, and she reported:

Follow Up — The Continued Blackout on West’s Secret Training & Support Camp in Turkey for War on Syria

12 days ago, on November 21, here at Boiling Frogs Post, I reported on the ongoing joint US-NATO secret training camp in the US air force base in Incirlik, Turkey, which began operations in April-May 2011 to organize and expand the dissident base in Syria. I had received the information for that story from multiple sources including highly credible insiders in Turkey and government insiders here in the US. …

I immediately started checking our infamous US mainstream media sites — still nothing on this significant information. I then contacted one of my high-level sources and asked why he had come to me with his documented report instead of going directly to the big guys. With several credible insiders as his corroborators and a high-level official in Turkey, he would have no problem getting their attention. And his response? Well here it is minus a few expletives:

“Who said we didn’t go to MSM [Main Stream Media] first? We got them the info back in October. First they were interested and drooling. At least the reporters. Then, they disappeared.”

I was the last resort. … This goes down as one more example of very many cases of intentional, willful censorship by the US mainstream media and their so-many-times-proven role as distorters of reality and gravediggers of the truth.

Keeping the “MSM” on-board was likewise something that went back as far as the CIA’s “Operation Mockingbird” had started in 1948 with the cooperation of all of the United States’ mainstream ‘news’-media, and of virtually all of the ‘alternative’ news-media. (The case against the latter, the ‘alternative’ media, was documented by Stuart Jeanne Bramhall here and here; and by me here; with both of us relying heavily upon the encyclopedic researches from Bob Feldman, who is the major historian of the corruptness of almost all of America’s ‘progressive’ ‘news’ media — the present medium being obviously among the few exceptions that actually is progressive, and this article is simultaneously distributed to all media, so all media have been invited to publish it.) (The corruptness of self-declared conservative ‘news’-media is virtually automatic, since their chief function is to aggrandize the aristocracy — doing that is what defines them; they are clearly doing what they are paid to do, whereas the non-conservative media need to use subterfuges to do it, in order for them to seem to be supportive of the poor, which conservative media don’t even pretend to support.)

Right and left, America’s ‘news’-media are loaded with rot — especially regarding foreign countries, including Syria. Here are a few CIA documents from 2012 showing how obsequiously American ‘journalists’ respect and adhere to their CIA minders.

Aristocrats everywhere do business internationally and have much more of a personal interest in foreign relations than does the average person; so, lying about international relations is especially important to them, in order to control the masses on these matters, matters which aristocrats are especially determined to control. The aristocracy are the people who determine which nations are “allies” and which nations are “enemies.” The public don’t control that.

This is why the CIA, which is an agency of the U.S. aristocracy, has at least all of the mainstream ‘news’-media trumpeting their lies on foreign affairs. Aristocrats control their country’s foreign policies. Their international corporations demand this control, and tell the politicians what to do in foreign matters. The ‘news’-media provide the back-up for the politicians’ lies. They’re all on the same team, the aristocracy’s team. They all are agents for the aristocracy, against the public — and not only against whichever foreign aristocracies are labeled “enemy” nations (i.e., as being suitable targets for the given aristocracy’s military — places where the U.S. aristocracy’s weapons-manufacturing corporations such as Lockheed Martin don’t sell their wares but instead upon which those wares are to be used, as targets, the opposite end of the international weapons-trade from the “allies,” which are the markets-side, instead of the targets-side).

International relations is relations between aristocracies. The publics are ignored.

So, if democracy exists anywhere or at all, then it exists only in regards to domestic issues. However, studies have shown that even on domestic issues, the U.S. Government ignores the U.S. public — the U.S. is totally an aristocracy; it’s no democracy at all, not even on domestic issues, such as Medicare-for-all.

That’s the reason why Sibel Edmonds found herself to be a “last resort.” That was a euphemism referring actually to a dead-end for the important news — for the type of news that would have contradicted the Obama Administration’s infamous joyous lie-based “We came, we saw, he died!” (the Libya case), and now the follow-on invasion and destruction of Syria. (Trump continues Obama’s aggressions; he doesn’t end them. It doesn’t make much difference whom the occupant of the White House is, at least not regarding foreign relations, because the same aristocracy remains in control of U.S. foreign relations, even though that might be a different faction of this aristocracy — Obama representing the liberal billionaires, and Trump representing some of the conservative ones, but they are different segments of the same aristocracy; nobody in such a Government represents the public).

Here’s how psychopathic the U.S.-and allied aristocracies are:

A video shows at 2:18 that it was taken on “27/11/2012,” and it’s titled, “EMIR OF QATAR AND PRIME MINISTER OF TURKEY STEAL SYRIAN OIL EXCAVATORS – ENGLISH SUBTITLES”. Both Qatar’s Emir and Turkey’s Prime Minister are enormously wealthy individuals, but they wanted still more. Both were there using their being heads-of-state so as to assist not only their own wealth but America’s and Europe’s aristocracies to steal and sell oil and oil-well equipment from the Syrian public — from Syrians’ Government — for the benefits not only of those aristocrats but also of Al Qaeda and of ISIS (two jihadist groups trying to overthrow Syria’s Government). As Syrian News reported this, on 28 November 2012, “Emir of Qatar & Muslim Brotherhood Prime Minister of Turkey send their Al Qaeda FSA terrorists to Syria to destroy the country, kill the people and destroy whatever they can of its infrastructure so their companies would have jobs in the future to rebuild as they think they will win the war against Syria.”

Syrian News headlined on 5 September 2015, “What Did Syrians Do to Deserve the Hatred of the Whole World” and commented:

Syrians stood by each oppressed nation in the planet, all liberation movements from the colonial powers had their main offices in Syria, including South African anti-apartheid party…this is how the colonial powers revenge.

It is beyond kafkaesque to realize that virtually the entire world chants its enmity against the Syrian people, and their country, and that the rest have not even noticed.

On 2 September, “greatest psy op of the last century,” al Jazeera, degraded a photo of a drowned Syrian boy, into an emoticon, to use for a new round of imperial malfeasance against the SAR [that being an acronym for Syria’s Government]. It seems to be of no importance, that al Jazeera (renamed “al Khanzeera,” “the pigsty,” by Libyan patriots, during the destruction of their country), is owned by the absolute monarchy Qatar — “pronounced ‘gutter’”), the little Gulfie gas station that has spent over 3 billion dollars in looting and bombing Syria. Twenty-four hours later, a Google search of “drowned Syrian boy” yielded over 10 million ‘hits’ (a number which has jumped to over 14 million, 48 hours later), reports which neglect to mention there was no Syrian refugee crisis before the mass-murderers of the colonial powers, and their Levant and Gulfie rabid dogs decided to “arab spring” Syria. …

On Sunday, 23 August, the city of Damascus came under massive mortar and missile attacks by the Obama-Cameron moderate death squads. Seven days later, the Syrian Arab Army [Syrian Government’s Army] Facebook page posted the following:

“The city of Damascus had 4.5 to 5 million inhabitants in 2011. Today and due to the war there are over 8.5 million inhabitants in the city; most of which were forced outside of their homes by the “moderate rebels” backed by NATO in general specifically the U.S. Turkey and France; also backedand financed by the terrorist nations of the Gulf. …

The cacaphony of murderous silence among the Vichy [nazi] media and sham activists and NGOs [charities that are funded by U.S.-and-allied aristocracies] has increased, exponentially, in perverse rhyme, with the increase in the bombings of the villages of Kafraya and al Foua, in Idlib countryside. In mid-August, the Syrians of these villages had been the beneficiaries of more than 1,500 missile attacks — from moderate rebel mass murderers — that have destroyed 60% of their houses. …

The punishment of the Syrian people for refusing the Obama plan of regime change cannot be missed in this organized ongoing assault by NATO and stooges for the past 4.5 years. …

The punishment of the Syrian people for refusing the Obama plan of regime change cannot be missed in this organized ongoing assault by NATO and stooges for the past 4.5 years. …

On 28 February 2018, Syria News bannered “Deep State Hyenas Flaunt [Flout] Law, Ravenous for More Syrian Blood” and opened:

The globalist deep state hyenas have reached a new low in delirious frenzy against Syria. While screaming international law! they flaunt [flout] it, and flaunt their insatiable lust for Syrian blood. The mania of the terrorists in suits is so out of control that they appear to have abandoned their chemical conspiracy planned for Idlib. Instead, they scream in unison for the preservation of serial killers occupying eastern Ghouta.  Savages they would call by rightful names in western countries are converted to innocent women and children [in Western media]. These hyenas ignore more than 1,000 terrorist mortars and missiles fired by Ghouta terrorists into Damascus. They hold the Goebbels Big Lie proudly over their heads, knowing their elite club is one of destruction, that none of its members will speak the truth. …

The deep state hyenas introduced the foreign-armed, foreign-paid, and foreign takfiri [jihadists] of al Ghouta onto the world stage in August 2013. The stupid, inbred, savages accidentally slaughtered many of their own, and thus ratted out having been given chemical weapons by Prince Bandar, because he neglected to give them proper instruction on their use. The admission was of no matter to the perpetual warriors, including Nobel Peace Laureate cum war criminal, POTUS Obama. Nor was concern voiced by the humanitarian bastards that several of the dead Syrians were recognized as having been kidnapped in Latakia countryside (similarly, the hyenas were too sedated to report on the moment long awaited, when 58 Syrian women and their children abductees were released in exchange for imprisoned terrorists of al Qaeda).

On 21 February, UN High Commissioner on Human Rights [sic] Zeid Ra’ad al Husseini frothed at the mouth over the “monstrous annihilation” in Eastern Ghouta.  He tossed words like international humanitarian law, and war crimes about [against the Government].

That article has a lengthy section which opens:


Animals running in packs require leadership.  Who is better qualified to lead beasts known to take advantage of other animals’ kills for easy prey, devouring every part including bones, than the well-manicured and polished diplomats of the United Nations?

All of that is true, and it even understates the reality. For example, though the article documents that Jordan, next door to Syria, is a key part of America’s effort to overthrow Assad, it fails to note that Zeid Ra’ad al Husseini, that cited high U.N. official on Syria, is a Jordanian Prince. He’s doing what the royal family of Jordan do. Otherwise, that article is an excellent description of the U.N. Administration’s extreme prejudices in favor of the U.S. game-plans for conquest, especially for their conquest of Syria.

However, on 3 March 2018, Syria News revealed that an even more important U.N. official on Syria has also been working secretly with the U.S. to assist overthrow of Syria’s Government. Headlining “Rotten, Secret Diplomatic Meeting that Launched UN Frenzy against Syria”, they reported that,

In possession of a diplomatic telegram [TD], Pan Arabic al Akhbar gave a detailed report 24 February on the nefarious, colonialist plot:

In a somewhat familiar but precise English, Benjamin Norman – a diplomat in charge of the Middle East at the British Embassy in Washington – reports in a confidential diplomatic telegram of the first meeting of the “Small American Group on Syria” (United States, Great Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Jordan), held in Washington on January 11, 2018.

In this five-page TD, he reveals the details of the “Western strategy” in Syria: partition of the country, sabotage of Sochi, framing of Turkey and instructions to the UN Special Representative Staffan de Mistura who leads the negotiations of Geneva. A Non Paper (8 pages) accompanies this TD in anticipation of the second meeting of the “Small Group”. It was held in Paris on January 23, mainly devoted to the use of chemical weapons and the “instructions” sent by the “Small American Group” to Staffan de Mistura.

In fact, Trump is now protecting both Al Qaeda and ISIS in order to conquer Syria. And he has the U.N.’s backing in this. On Friday, 7 September 2018, America’s Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty headlined “UN Syria Envoy Warns of ‘Perfect Storm’ for Disaster in Idlib” and reported that:

The U.N. envoy for Syria warned Friday that all the ingredients exist for a “perfect storm” of a humanitarian catastrophe if the Syrian government, backed by Russia, carries out a large-scale military offensive on the northwestern province of Idlib.

“The dangers are profound that any battle for Idlib could be — would be — a horrific and bloody battle,” Staffan de Mistura told U.N. Security Council members via videoconference. “Civilians are its potential victims.”

As I have documented at the link here:

Idlib has consistently been showing as being, by far, the most-pro-jihadist of all of Syria’s Governates, in the annual polls that the British polling organization, Orb International, has taken since 2014, throughout Syria. Idlib has been showing there as being over 90% in favor of jihadists and of jihadism — and specifically in favor of organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Staffan de Mistura and Prince Husseini refer to this matter as instead a “humanitarian catastrophe” if Syria, Russia, and Hezbollah, do what they will need to do in order to end the invasion of Syria by U.S., Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, Kuwait, and Israel (and the jihadists they hire). The U.N. officials are treating this matter not as a thoroughly illegal invasion and military occupation of the sovereign nation of Syria, but instead as what will be a “humanitarian catastrophe” if Syria and its allies attack the area of Syria whose current residents are over 90% jihadists and supporters of jihadists. Syria and its allies are to be blamed for invading that jihadist cauldron, while U.S. and its allies are to be held immune from prosecution for their having used those jihadists, during the past 7 years — used them to invade and occupy not only Idlib but other parts of Syria.

Thus, the U.N. is not only holding U.S. Presidents and other international invaders above international law, but it is now positively assisting them under the fake rubric of “humanitarian” concerns, so as to support the U.S. alliance’s invasions and military occupations. The U.N., which was supposed to have been opposing international aggression is now assisting it when ‘the right leaders’ do it. This is no organization supporting democracy — it is the opposite: an international scheme to back the U.S. alliance’s invasions and military occupations. War is ugly. Apparently, the U.N. has become even uglier than that — supporting the invaders and military occupiers of a sovereign nation.

This is the reason why Syria and its allies have placed on-hold their planned elimination of the jihadists in Idlib and will create a DMZ between Idlib and the adjoining areas of Syria. Further details and context on that can be seen here. Perhaps now, the high U.N. officials who have been claiming that the elimination of those jihadists would produce a “humanitarian catastrophe” will change their tunes and publicly acknowledge that it would instead be a practical necessity.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv – Apostasy and Possible Holy War in E Europe


**The views expressed don’t necessary reflect those of Washingtonsblog. We don’t condone violence in any form.***

On its surface, the debacle gripping the Orthodox Christian world between the Patriarchate in Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia seems to be a territorial dispute over who has control over the Orthodox faithful in Ukraine.

In reality, the Moscow Patriarchate is standing against Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople giving millions of Ukrainian Orthodox faithful over to an unrecognized and out of communion apostate political church. Not just any old apostate church mind you, but shortly after its founding this one blessed and consecrated its members that committed the worst atrocities of WWII and all the way through the 1950’s until the OUN was finally defeated in Ukraine.

Now, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv (UOC-Kyiv) wants to control the religious life of the same people it condemned to torture, starvation, and murder every chance it could from 1915-17, the early 1920’s, and when the 3rd Reich ravaged what would become Ukraine. Let that sink in and consider the facts.

Continue reading

Posted in General, Politics / World News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Brookings Institution a Leading Propagandist for U.S. Invasions

Eric Zuesse

On September 17th, the neoconservative-neoliberal Brookings institution held a propaganda-event to pump increased sales of weapons by U.S. weapons-manufacturing firms. The event’s main speaker was Robert Kagan, who is one of the many Brookings propagandists for invasions by the United States.

Robert Kagan (he’s one of an entire family of extremist supporters of U.S. invasions, and they’re all identical in this) was one of the leading propagandists for “regime-change in Iraq.” As a principal in the far-right Project for a New American Century, he recommended an “increase of $75 billion to $100 billion” in ‘defense’-spending, so that the U.S. Government could increase the “spread of American principles of liberty and democracy” to Iraq, and ultimately to the entire world. More invasions, please! he urges.

His wife, Victoria Nuland, was President Barack Obama’s top agent overseeing the operation to plan and organize the ultimate February 2014 U.S. coup overthrowing Ukraine’s democratically elected President and replacing him by a rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascist whose Hitlerite regime promptly carried out ethnic cleansings to eliminate residents of the regions that had voted over 75% for the man whom Mrs. Kagan had just overthrown, so as to lock-in a nazi (i.e., racist-fascist) regime on Russia’s border, for the future of Ukraine, in order for the U.S. to become enabled ultimately to place its nuclear missiles right on Russia’s border. Mrs. Kagan had appointed that man, “Yats,” to rule; she ordered the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine to get that done, and he did it. She also ran Obama’s regime-change-in-Syria policy. (Obama even overrode her nominal boss Secretary of State John Kerry in order to impose continuation of regime-change-in-Syria.) To call this Kagan couple “bloodthirsty” would be entirely appropriate, just as was Hitler bloodthirsty. The only difference was that Hitler never pretended to favor democracy, and he hated especially Jews and their supporters, while America’s nazis spout ‘democracy’ and hate especially Russians and their supporters. It’s just a different racism, and more skillful propaganda (since it favors ‘democracy’).

Here is the event’s announcement that was posted by the Brookings Institution:

“UPCOMING EVENT: Will democracy win? The recurring battle between liberalism and its adversaries”

Monday, Sep 17th: A discussion with Brookings authors Robert Kagan and Norman Eisen

The past century has been marked by repeated proclamations of the triumph of democracy. However, they have proved premature. Today, illiberal actors have once more gained footholds on both sides of the Atlantic and across the globe. Institutions in nations regarded as pillars of democracy find themselves under siege, or worse. Two new books by Brookings scholars elucidate the past, present and future of the ongoing struggle between democracy and its opponents.

In “The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World,” Robert Kagan argues for America’s role as an enforcer of peace and order throughout the world — and what is likely to happen if we withdraw and focus our attention inward. Like a jungle that keeps growing back after being cut down, the world has always been full of dangerous actors who, left unchecked, possess the desire and ability to make things worse. Kagan makes clear the essential role America has played for decades in keeping the world’s worst instability in check. He explains that the historical norm has always been toward chaos — that the jungle will grow back, if we let it, and we must not let it.

In “The Last Palace: Europe’s Turbulent Century in Five Lives and One Legendary House,” Eisen chronicles a century of the battle for democracy in Europe. He does so through the lives of the previous residents of the historic home where he lived as U.S. ambassador in Prague: its Jewish builder, its Wehrmacht occupier, the American envoy who fought the Cold War and the movie-star ambassador who ended it. He weaves together those lives with a fifth, his Czech-Jewish mother, a survivor of the Holocaust and Communism who was his best advisor as he fought today’s illiberals as ambassador.

On Sept. 17, Governance Studies at Brookings will host Kagan and Eisen in a conversation, moderated by NPR’s Steve Inskeep, about their books and about the cycles of democracy and illiberalism — including the current rise of illiberalism in the United States and Europe — what that means, and how to fight it. Afterward, Brookings’ Bill Galston will provide additional remarks. On a second panel, the direct descendants of Eisen’s four predecessors in the ambassador’s residence will gather for the first time ever to speak about the human costs of these cycles.

A fuller documentation of the Brookings Institution as being a PR-front for America’s weapons-makers can be found here.

The sheer evilness of Brookings was highlighted by me in a 3 February 2015 article, “Brookings Wants More Villages Firebombed In Ukraine’s ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’”.

Brookings was established by the U.S. aristocracy during World War I as a seemingly ‘patriotic’ think-tank, which after the 1929 crash opposed strongly the policies propounded by the progressive U.S. Presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Typical of that operation was the following:

In 1934, FDR appointed Marriner Eccles to run the Fed. A “Draft of Eccles’ remarks in Boston on February 16, 1935” was titled “Can Capitalism Be Saved.” He said there: “The doctrine of the divine right of kings did not save Charles the First’s head nor will the doctrine of the sacred rights of property save capitalism. … Private enterprise today is on trial solely because it is not producing the goods it has the capacity to produce and because it is not providing a more equitable distribution of the goods it is producing.” He proposed “a three point program. First I suggest use by the government of its taxing power to lessen the inequalities of income, since I believe that maldistribution of incomes increases our susceptibility to booms and collapses. … In a recent study by the Brookings’ institution, entitled ‘America’s Capacity to Consume,’ it is stated that in 1929 one-tenth of one per cent of the families at the top received as much as 42 per cent of the families at the bottom.” He noted, this maldistribution depressed the purchasing-power with which to buy outputs of firms owned by America’s aristocrats. “The consequence is an increase in unemployment and reduction in incomes,” a downward spiral for everyone. Subsequently, Eccles’s 14-page “Memorandum for Richmond meeting-May 19, 1938,” defended his theory in detail, against “the Brookings Institution in their studies.” He referred especially to two studies in 1935, by economist Harold Glenn Moulton (the actual founder of Brookings and a Rockefeller man); and, Eccles’s closing 3 pages asserted that Moulton’s analyses erred because their proposed solution was based upon Say’s law, which Eccles noted had already proven to be false. Eccles said that, “It is, of course, essential that the economy have at all times an adequate supply of private capital,” but that Moulton’s proposal for more “private capital” simply could not work during such an era. (Brookings’ website in 2006 headlined about the Institution’s history, “The Depression: Voice of Opposition,” and explained summarily: “Moulton and his staff believed New Deal legislation was designed ‘to substitute centralized authority for what is left of free enterprise.’” They worshipped at the “free enterprise” altar.) But unlike Keynes, Eccles focused on wealth and maldistribution, rather than on income and savings. He was actually the greatest macroeconomist, a “post-Keynesian” even before Keynes. FDR gradually became a “Keynesian,” after the super-“Keynesian” Eccles invented, not just “Keynesianism,” but the New Deal itself, which FDR endorsed, at first gradually, then fully (starting in 1938).

But, actually, the first super-“Keynesian” wasn’t even Eccles; it was FDR himself, who said, in his campaign speech for the Presidency, his commencement address at Oglethorpe University, his “Address at Oglethorpe University,” May 22, 1932:

“…our basic trouble was not an insufficiency of capital. It was an insufficient distribution of buying power coupled with an over-sufficient speculation in production. While wages rose in many of our industries, they did not as a whole rise proportionately to the reward to capital, and at the same time the purchasing power of other great groups of our population was permitted to shrink. We accumulated such a superabundance of capital that our great bankers were vying with each other, some of them employing questionable methods, in their efforts to lend this capital at home and abroad. I believe that we are at the threshold of a fundamental change in our popular economic thought, that in the future we are going to think less about the producer and more about the consumer. Do what we may have to do to inject life into our ailing economic order, we cannot make it endure for long unless we can bring about a wiser, more equitable distribution of the national income.”

Perhaps Eccles got it from that speech.

The Brookings Institution was established in 1916 by a ‘philanthropist’, Robert S. Brookings, as a way to avoid taxes, but he didn’t much care about what it would do; and so his pro-U.S.-empire friends selected the scholars who would be funded by it. As was stated in the 1 August 2009 article, “Robert S. Brookings: The Man, the Vision and the Institution”:

As the nation’s oldest and most prestigious “think tank,” the Brookings Institution played a multidimensional role in the public policy process. Robert S. Brookings, the capitalist who founded the institution in the aftermath of World War I, played little role in the subsequent history of the institution. Instead, the less reform-minded professional social scientists who staffed the organization shaped the character of the institution. In their defense of the market economy, Brookings economists emerged as leading opponents of the new liberal state.     

Liberalism at that time thus included imperialism — American imperialism. They do it not only for the weapons-manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, but for the mining and other resource-extraction firms such as Exxon/Mobil in order to provide them lower prices to pay for the resources they extract from the conquered countries. Ever since the time of U.S. President Truman, U.S. foreign policies have been fully controlled by America’s aristocracy, not at all by the U.S. public.

This is how America’s top think-tank came to include not only neoliberalism but neoconservatism, even before the popular media (owned by the same aristocracy) had the words “neoliberalism” and “neoconservatism” in their vocabularies.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. — A ‘Democracy Where ‘Both’ Sides Represent ONLY the Aristocracy

Eric Zuesse

The most comprehensive scientific study ever done of the subject has shown that America is ruled only by its few richest, not by the public. How can this be the case if its Government is run by two Parties — Democrats and Republicans? Those are merely competing factions within the aristocracy. America is a two-Party dictatorship. A dictatorship can have any number of parties. An aristocracy can have any number of factions.

The aristocracy are the country’s richest people, and they sometimes influence their government directly by their political donations, but usually they do it indirectly via their corporations — both the profit and the non-profit ones — which they control (and which lobby the government heavily, and which also advertise in the media and so control whatever media that the government and non-profits don’t control). During the prior, agrarian, era, when most property was land or “real property” instead of corporations, the richest people were formally titled as ‘nobles’, but the U.S. Constitution outlawed that, and so by now almost all aristocrats have only corporate titles (CEO, Chairman, Director, etc.), no official titles from the state (other than elected governmental positions, and the appointees of same).

Aristocrats are taught, from childhood, to compete fiercely against others of their class, but not with people ‘below’ them (who are always required simply to obey them). Duels between them, thus, were common — sometimes to the death. The aristocratic way is constant war, against everyone who resists them, even against their own peers, their competitors — sometimes to the death.

A typical example of such aristocratic control of a nation is occurring right now between America’s Republican Party aristocrats versus its Democratic Party aristocrats, and this contest concerns whether or not to impeach and replace the current Republican President of the United States, Donald Trump, by his Republican Vice President Mike Pence. Not all of the participants are local aristocrats. Foreign aristocrats also have clout in such contests. For example: the world’s wealthiest person, and the only clear-cut trillionaire, is the King of Saudi Arabia. (Jeff Bezos is a piker by comparison, around one-tenth as wealthy.) That’s the country which buys far more U.S.-manufactured weapons, such as from Lockheed Martin, than any other nation does, and these American companies (military contractors) depend 100% on sales to governments — to the U.S. and its allied countries (such as Saudi Arabia).

Furthermore, after the U.S. dollar went off the gold standard and onto the oil-standard, in the 1970s, King Saud has largely controlled the value of the U.S. dollar in the foreign-exchange markets. He, in conjunction with the needs of the U.S. Treasury, controls the oil-spigot, so as to serve the goals of both aristocracies.

The U.S. aristocracy — both Republican and Democratic — thus depend heavily on King Saud’s decisions, especially since he’s the main foreign buyer of U.S. weapons. Ever since Trump was elected, Trump has done whatever he can to win the Sauds’ support. But he has competitors in this; he always knows that he might not be doing enough, and that the Sauds could drop him at any time and support a competitor to Trump. Here’s why he must worry about this:

A Saudi agent, Robert Mueller, had worked with James Comey and Louis Freeh in 2001, to rig the investigation of Al Qaeda’s 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, in order to concoct the story (which had been pushed by Saudi Prince Bandar) that Iran had done it, and they alleged that Iran-supporting Shiites and not Saud-supporting Sunnis were to blame for it, and so Iran is officially ‘the leading state sponsor of terrorism’. As Gareth Porter reported, on 26 June 2009, “Freeh Became ‘Defence Lawyer’ for Saudis on Khobar”.

Freeh, when leaving the FBI, recommended Mueller to head the FBI, who then recommended Comey to be his own successor. Furthermore, according to Ryan Girdusky, “New York-based lawyer Jim Kreindler, representing the families of the Sept. 11 victims, said in an interview with me that Mueller and his successor, James Comey, engaged in a systematic cover-up of evidence that the Saudi government aided the terrorists who committed the Sept. 11 attacks.” Furthermore, in October 2017, Andrew Cockburn wrote, “Bob Graham, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told me recently that Robert Mueller, then the FBI director (and now the special counsel investigating connections between Russia and the Trump campaign) made ‘the strongest objections’ to Jacobson and his colleagues visiting San Diego. Graham and his team defied Mueller’s efforts, and Jacobson flew west. There he discovered that his hunch was correct. The FBI files in California were replete with extraordinary and damning details,” of money coming from the Saudi Government to the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11.

Mueller was, himself, raised as the proud son of a leading agent of the DuPont family, and he knew the way the world works. As Marc Fisher and Sari Horwitz headlined on 23 February 2018, when the impeach-Trump operation finally got into high gear, “Mueller and Trump: Born to wealth, raised to lead. Then, sharply different choices.” This was a typical good-guy versus bad-guy story they were telling. (The myth is that this is democracy functioning.) They wrote: “One turned away from the path to greater wealth, while the other spent half a century exploring every possible avenue to add to his assets.” Here is an important part of their description of the background of the ‘good guy’:

Mueller’s father was an executive at DuPont, part of a family firmly planted in the country’s plutocracy. Mueller, who grew up in Princeton, N.J., and the Philadelphia Main Line, was sent to St. Paul’s School in New Hampshire, where the Astor, Vanderbilt and Mellon families educated their boys. At the Episcopal school, Mueller became captain of the soccer, hockey and lacrosse teams. He played hockey with classmate John F. Kerry, a future secretary of state and one of three St. Paul’s alumni who would run for president.

On 30 May 2013, Garret M. Graff had headlined “Forged Under Fire — Bob Mueller and Jim Comey’s Unusual Friendship” and he wrote admiringly of both Mueller and Comey:

Now, after years apart — during which Jim Comey worked at Lockheed Martin and the hedge fund Bridgewater before leaving this spring to teach law in New York — the two men appear destined to reunite this summer as the torch passes on the seventh floor of the hulking J. Edgar Hoover Building on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mueller’s term as director has been seen as largely successful — even amid criticism in recent weeks over the FBI’s handling of the ricin letters sent to government leaders and its investigation of the men responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings — and the Obama White House has been eager for someone who will continue the path Mueller has laid out, transforming the FBI from a 20th century domestic law enforcement agency to a 21st century international intelligence agency. To find that person, the Obama administration evidently didn’t have to travel far — choosing one of Mueller’s most trusted allies as his replacement.

At Comey’s recommendation, the Republican Mueller now represents the Democratic Party’s effort to force Trump out of office, so as to (as the Democrats hope) leave Mike Pence for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nominee to confront before America’s voters. Amongst the aristocracy, even many Republicans have despised Trump as being low class, and so donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Their agents, who run Wall Street, were especially anti-Trump. And these aristocrats, and their agents, especially hate Russia, and were infuriated that Trump seemed not to.

Though Pence has the support of evangelicals like Trump does, Trump’s support is far stronger than Pence’s among non-evangelicals; and so Democratic Party strategists think that in 2020, the incumbent President ought to be Pence, not Trump. Furthermore, every disclosure which comes out during the impeach-Trump campaign will reduce the opposition to the Democratic nominee in 2020, regardless of whom the Republican nominee might be, and thus will be a campaign booster for that Democratic nominee.

The aristocracy, in a ‘democracy’, controls all parties. For almost all aristocrats, political parties aren’t for ideology as much as they’re for business — always private investments. The media, which they also control, refuse to report this key fact about American ‘democracy’ — that the aristocracy control both Parties — but it’s true, nonetheless.

On August 21st, the Democratic Party’s MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow headlined “Cohen more than happy to tell Mueller all that he knows: attorney”, and presented a Democratic attorney, Lanny Davis, saying that, “It’s the truth that so threatens the President of the United States. … Not just about the obvious possibility of a conspiracy to collude and corrupt the American democracy system in the 2016 election, which the Trump Tower meeting was all about, but also knowledge about the computer crime of hacking, and whether Mr. Trump knew ahead of time about that crime and cheered it on.”

Mr. Davis is a neoconservative who, since all neocons do, supported a coup in Honduras when Barack Obama came into office; and the coup-regime hired him to win the support of the coup first by Davis’s buddy Hillary Clinton, and then by Barack Obama himself, and Davis also lobbied Democrats in Congress, while other lobbyists worked the Republican side, which were already passionate supporters of the coup anyway, even without whatever bribing might have been on order, regardless of how it was done. The coup overthrew Honduras’s democratically elected and popular progressive President Manuel Zelaya and replaced him by a succession of stooges of the coup’s financial backers, who were Honduras’s aristocracy, the paymasters for the entire operation. Promptly, Honduras surged to the number-one spot as the world’s murder-capital, #1 murder-rate, because the country’s aristocrats were now given carte blanche to hire murderers to get rid of anyone who openly resisted them. But, after a number of years, the murder-rate headed back down again, because the public had become terrified, and leading resisters had been killed. Thousands of poor Hondurans simply escaped to the United States as refugees, because they knew that they were on the local death-lists. But now, under Trump, they’re all being sent back ‘home’, and so the corpse-processing might increase back up, once again. America’s media report about the narcotics traffic as being a cause of Honduras’s record-high murder-rates, but Honduras’s aristocrats are actually skimming heavily from that trade, and they live in heavily guarded compounds, where to kill them would require an army, and those aristocrats control Honduras’s Government; so, they have nothing to worry about. Honduras has become a libertarian paradise (as is described at that last link).

In America, both sides of the aristocracy serve King Saud and hate Vladimir Putin. For some odd reason, nobody is talking about “Saudi infiltration into the American Government” or “Trump’s collusion with the Sauds.”  None of the aristocracy’s media is even asking the question: why aren’t they investigtigating the Sauds instead of Russia’s Government? But perhaps the answer is: Russia doesn’t buy any American weapons, and it doesn’t largely control the value of the U.S. dollar. So, Russia is, for the aristocrats who control the U.S., just a target against which to sell weapons to America’s allies, no friend, at all — and certainly no ally. Instead (and this is bipartisan), the U.S. Government even supports Al Qaeda against Russia.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is psychopathy needed to reach the top in America?

Eric Zuesse

Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court is just another tip being displayed of America’s top-level-psychopathy iceberg.

On September 16th, the Washington Post headlined “California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault”, and the news-story opened:

Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.

Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Despite the headline’s usage of the lesser phrase “sexual assault” to refer to the alleged incident, the article itself makes clear that Mrs. Ford says that she had viewed it at the time as an attempted “rape,” and the article reports that there is extensive record in the files on the case, indicating that it traumatized her, and that for many years afterwards, it harmed her ability to trust any man, and adversely affected her career.

For example:

Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” …

Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.

In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

So: two boys at “an elitist boys’ school” (Georgetown Prep) had traumatized this girl; and, when she escaped, she told no one:

She said she recalled thinking: “I’m not ever telling anyone this. This is nothing, it didn’t happen, and he didn’t rape me.”

Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.

“I think it derailed me substantially for four or five years,” she said. She said she struggled academically and socially and was unable to have healthy relationships with men. …

She married her husband in 2002. Early in their relationship, she told him she had been a victim of physical abuse, he said. A decade later, he learned the details of that alleged abuse when the therapist asked her to tell the story, he said.

The superbly written article in the Washington Post, by Emma Brown, portrays a prep-school culture that has been widely reported elsewhere, in which a lifetime of high society produces privileged people who treat the poor or the weak as objects to be used and thrown away, as waste, not regarded as being centers of importance equal to themselves, but instead their mere property, to use in any way they please. It encourages the growing wealth-disparity in this country, because it devalues the poor as the property of the rich. It devalues women as property of men. As the dominant culture, it encourages oppression and victimization. Victims are viewed as if they were victimizers’ property. This news-story exemplifies that culture — the culture that reigns in America. Supremacist culture.

According to the records from 2012 and from 2002, the other boy, the one who had helped Kavanaugh in the attempted rape, Mark Judge, has also had a nationally prominent career:

Judge is a filmmaker and author who has written for the Daily Caller, The Weekly Standard and The Washington Post. He chronicled his recovery from alcoholism in “Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk,” which described his own blackout drinking and a culture of partying among students at his high school, renamed in the book “Loyola Prep.” Kavanaugh is not mentioned in the book, but a passage about partying at the beach one summer makes glancing reference to a “Bart O’Kavanaugh,” who “puked in someone’s car the other night” and “passed out on his way back from a party.”

There have been so many men who have been nationally prominent in America who have later been outed as attempted rapists, if not as rapists, if not as serial rapists, but who were, like Kavanaugh and like Judge, publicly endorsed by others of their class, and only extremely few of them become incarcerated in our prisons, which are instead overflowing with the lower classes, who get imprisoned for lesser crimes. Anyone who would say of the United States, that it’s a country of “Equal Justice Under Law” — a real democracy — is either a liar, an ignoramus, or a fool, because it’s so clearly false.

This is not to say that other countries are better. This problem, of top-class psychopathy, seems to be the norm everywhere. However, not every nation calls itself a ‘democracy’, but America does; and so America’s example of pervasive rot at the top, is especially important. As regards the social-sciences evidence concerning whether the U.S. actually is a democracy, that evidence is now extensive, and it is consistent: America is a dictatorship. The Washington Post would never report that fact, however, because it’s at the top and it is owned by and serves the purposes of America’s richest person, Jeff Bezos; it’s one of America’s leading news-media; but the scientific evidence is clear and consistent on this: America is a dictatorship, by the richest.

Regarding the other social-sciences evidence on psychopathy, that also is rather clear and consistent, and it shows that in American society, the more psychopathic one is, the more successful one is likely to be, and psychopathy is more normal at the top of American society than it is at the bottom. Furthermore, the luckier a person is, the worse he or she becomes. So: contrary to the social-science theoreticians who have hypothesized that the causal relationship between psychopathy and success is uni-directional, it’s actually bi-directional and therefore actually a vicious circle, self-reinforcing, which leaves at the top of society a class of extremely rich extremely evil individuals. I call them “the aristocracy.”

Competency is almost a pre-requisite to extreme success, but so too is psychopathy. One without the other won’t get a person to anywhere near the top, except as freak occurrences, which might exist.

Though this WP news-report contains more than mere hints of that broader social-science reality, that broader reality itself is prohibited from being published in America’s major news-media (including the aristocracy’s think-tanks and foundations), because it implicates themselves. So you read about it here instead (in the last three links above). It’s the news behind the news. Unfortunately, not many people are interested in that. The public’s unconcern, with what causes the phenomena they learn of in the news, assists that vicious circle to continue. Perhaps nothing can change it. Anyway, it’s the reality. And this news-report in WP well reports a typical example of it.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment