Tensions Between US/NATO & Russia Are Flaring Dangerously

As if there weren’t enough crises to worry about in the world already, from shooting rampages to accelerating species loss, the US and NATO continue to ‘poke the bear’ and risk an outbreak of war with Russia.

I wish this were idle speculation. But if you haven’t been paying close attention, you'll probably be shocked at just how much direct military and diplomatic provocation has been going on between NATO/US and Russia over the past several years -- and in recent weeks, in particular.

Even more shocking is that no one in power can provide us with a compelling reason for exactly why these tensions are flaring. It seems that Russia’s main sin is in not entirely, completely and immediately giving the US/NATO anything and everything they request.

In other words, it’s imperial hubris and petulance that seems to be driving the ship of state. That’s a dangerous thing.

I’ve written extensively on the dangers of war with Russia as my concerns have mounted ever since the situation in Ukraine devolved in 2014.

There have been plenty of chances to dial down the rhetoric and mend fences, but they've all come and gone without healing. In fact, as we detail below, quite the opposite has happened. 

The bottom line is this: If you're not already mentally and physically prepared for the prospect of a NATO/US war with Russia, you really should be.

Perhaps the chances of outright war are still low on a relative scale, but the costs would be catastrophically high -- making this worthy of your attention. A low risk of a catastrophic outcome is the very reason we all buy insurance – life, auto, and home.  Not because we wish things to go wrong in our lives, but because they sometimes do nonetheless.

A Russian Warning

The list of aggressive provocations by NATO that have been received as belligerent acts by Russia is quite long. It stretches back several years and continues to grow rapidly, making the chance for an ‘accident’ or unplanned incident quite high.

I was impressed with a recent piece penned and signed by eight prominent writers and blogger with Russian heritage. Titled A Russian Warning, it ran on a wide variety of blogs knowledgeable about the Russian situation including Dmitry Orlov’s and The Saker’s. I encourage you to read the whole thing. Right now, if you've got the time. I can wait.

To cut to the chase, the harsh conclusion of the piece is this: If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead.”

Russia is, of course, a major nuclear power with a long history of surviving being attacked by outsiders. But for some reason, US/NATO military and diplomatic efforts have all been geared at further encroaching upon and/or isolating Russia.

They note:

The US leadership has done everything it could to push the situation to the brink of disaster. First, its anti-Russian policies have convinced the Russian leadership that making concessions or negotiating with the West is futile. It has become apparent that the West will always support any individual, movement or government that is anti-Russian, be it tax-cheating Russian oligarchs, convicted Ukrainian war criminals, Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists in Chechnya or cathedral-desecrating punks in Moscow.

Now that NATO, in violation of its previous promises, has expanded right up to the Russian border, with US forces deployed in the Baltic states, within artillery range of St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, the Russians have nowhere left to retreat. They will not attack; nor will they back down or surrender.

Imagine for a moment that Russia had positioned its military less than 100 miles from New York City and installed armored battalions with artillery. How would we in the US respond to that provocation? Probably with outrage, anger and defiance -- and rightly so. So why are we expecting Russia to act any differently?

The conclusion:

The sole reason why the USA and Russia have found themselves on a collision course, instead of defusing tensions and cooperating on a wide range of international problems, is the stubborn refusal by the US leadership to accept Russia as an equal partner: Washington is dead set on being the “world leader” and the “indispensable nation,” even as its influence steadily dwindles in the wake of a string of foreign policy and military disasters such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine.

Continued American global leadership is something that neither Russia, nor China, nor most of the other countries are willing to accept. This gradual but apparent loss of power and influence has caused the US leadership to become hysterical; and it is but a small step from hysterical to suicidal. America’s political leaders need to be placed under suicide watch.

The summary here is that Russia feels surrounded by an increasingly belligerent NATO/US military presence. It can find little common ground with diplomats from NATO generally and the US specifically. If fully backed into a corner, once it perceives it is out of other options, Russia will defend herself. I’m not sure how anybody could deny or begrudge her that right.

If the West, meaning the US and Europe, decide to further goad Russia, war is likely inevitable. (I'm leaning heavily here on the historically-dependable formula: Time + Shit Happens = Conflict).  Sooner or later, Russia will have to switch from response mode to reaction mode. I’ve written about that precition here, here and here.

The Provocations – Neocon Central

Here’s a very short and incomplete list of the provocations that have been undertaken against Russia. Again, just try to imagine what the reaction would be by the West were the roles reversed:



In return, Russia has been busy fighting its ‘isolation’ by inkling major energy deals, openly testing its nuclear weapons platforms, and railing against the double standards of the West:

You get the idea: both sides are settling into a pattern of escalating responses. The trajectory is alarming.

What's alarming is the above selection of headlines is a miniscule sampling of the possible ones I could have picked. The evidence is everywhere.

Now let’s fast forward to 2016 where things are really heating up.


The US and NATO have been putting increasing emphasis on placing more military hardware and training exercises in the Baltic and Black seas as well as the Mediterranean ocean.  In one incident, Russian jets flew within yards of a key US naval asset over and over again in a provocation that John Kerry said the US “would have been justified” in shooting those jets down.

U.S. issues formal protest to Russia over Baltic Sea incident

Apr 14, 2016

(CNN) White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest says the U.S. Embassy in Moscow has communicated formal concerns to the Russian government about the incident in the Baltic Sea this week in which fighter jets flew very close to the USS Donald Cook.

A U.S. official described the Russian maneuver as "strafing runs" without firing any weapons. The unarmed Russian aircraft swooped in over the deck in the same flight profile that would have been used if an attack was underway.


Here’s a video of that flyby:


And, no, the US would not have been justified in shooting down those Russian jets. Kerry is being clearly belligerent with that statement.

A more level response comes to us from a retired Navy commanding officer:

“Well, we’re not at war with Russia," Capt. Rick Hoffman said. "It would be one thing to be operating and have a threatening attack profile from someone who might not recognize me — that’s not the case here.”

If you have visual identification of the jet, can see it isn't carrying weapons, and don't detect any electronic emissions suggesting there was a missile lock on the ship, there's nothing to be done.

And ultimately, the rules of engagement allow the CO to take defensive action if they feel they safety of their vessel is in danger, according to U.S. European Command spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez told Navy Times. In this case the CO did not feel threatened, he added.

"You don’t get to kill people just because they’re being annoying," said Hoffman, who commanded frigate DeWert and cruiser Hue City.

(Source – Navy Times)

Thankfully there are saner minds in the military, even if the State Department is itching for a fight.

Which brings us to the most insane head scratcher of them all.

State Department Loses Its Cool

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (6/16/2016) came the bizarre revelation that 51 internal State Department officials signed a document protesting Obama’s lack of direct military engagement with Assad’s government forces in Syria:

U.S. State Department Officials Call for Strikes Against Syria’s Assad

Jun 16, 2016

BEIRUT—Dozens of State Department officials this week protested against U.S. policy in Syria, signing an internal document that calls for targeted military strikes against the Damascus government and urging regime change as the only way to defeat Islamic State.

The “dissent channel cable” was signed by 51 State Department officers involved with advising on Syria policy in various capacities, according to an official familiar with the document. The Wall Street Journal reviewed a copy of the cable, which repeatedly calls for “targeted military strikes” against the Syrian government in light of the near-collapse of the ceasefire brokered earlier this year.


Now just reflect on that a moment. But as you do, be sure to recall that Russia is fighting alongside Assad’s forces. In other words, these State Department officials are asking for military action to be taken against Syria's allied forces fighting to preserve the current government’s hold on power.

In other words, there are 51 insane people (a least) in the US State Department that think attacking Russia directly would be a swell idea. All in the interest of promoting a foreign policy of regime change that has not worked out well in the Mideast countries where we've recently tried it. Iraq and Libya are unmitigated disasters, especially for the citizens left living with the aftermath.

I would certainly love to know the names of those 52 individuals. I'd bet good money that the list is heavily stocked with neocons.

Also be sure to recall that Russia moved the s400 antiaircraft missile system into Syria last year. This battery is widely respected and feared by pilots due to its enormous reach:


So not only are these State Department folks agitating for direct military engagement with Russian forces by agitating for US airstrikes against Syrian targets, they are seemingly either unaware of or uncaring about the extreme risk US pilots would face in trying such a move.

Most likely the US would lose a fair number of planes if such action was attempted. I suspect, though, that would play to the hands of the neocons at State. Dead heroes would provide exactly the sort of justification they’d need to expand the war they’ve been itching for all along.

But just in case a regular shooting war doesn't break out, NATO is busy laying the groundwork to justify one along other channels.

Expanding the Definition of “War”

Recently, NATO has expanded the definition of "war". Let’s remember that NATO exists as a collective defense treaty organization. An attack on one member country is treated an attack on all.  NATO allies are obligated to come to each other’s defense.

Here’s the language:

Collective defence - Article 5

(Last updated Mar 2016)

The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

  • Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
  • The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
  • NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
  • NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, for instance in response to the situation in Syria and in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
  • NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.


Now you and I might think that, if one member nation were invaded, that would meet the definition of “war”. But NATO, clearly not happy with that limitation, has recently proposed expanding that to include – get this – cyberwarfare:

NATO adds cyber to operation areas

Jun 14, 2016

BRUSSELS (AP) — NATO agreed Tuesday to make cyber operations part of its war domain, along with air, sea and land operations, and to beef up the defense of its computer networks.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the decision to formally consider cyber operations a military domain is not aimed at any one country. He says the allies need to be able to better defend themselves and respond to attacks on their computer networks.

The decision has been long in coming, particularly amid rising tensions with Russia, which has proven its willingness to launch computer-based attacks against other nations.

Russian hackers have been blamed for a breach into an unclassified Pentagon computer network and for a breach of NATO's computer network two years ago.

In 2014, after years of debate, NATO finally agreed that a cyberattack could rise to the level of a military assault and could trigger the Article 5 protections, which allow the alliance to go to the collective defense of another member that has been attacked.


Got that?  Now a cyberattack could be used as justification to invoke Article V and bind everyone to engage the enemy in an actual 'boots on the ground' war.

Now that makes sense on some level. After all if a hostile nation took down your electrical grid by a cyberattack (which is entirely possible, by the way), that would be a threat to national security.

But in this world of electronic cat and mouse, creating a false-flag cyberattack that seems to originate from a hostile country could be initiated from anywhere, including the “attacked” country.  But the time all that had been sorted out, the bullets would likely have already been flying.


OK, that was a lot to read through. Thanks for persisting to this point. The punchline to it all is: War with Russia is a distinct possibility, and US and NATO are increasing that risk through escalating provocation.

Should a war break out, it could be along a variety of dimensions which are outlined in Part II below.

For now, it should be (hopefully) sufficient for you to take the threat seriously and to make whatever provisions seem prudent to you. To my European readers, such preparations seem even more necessary because you will be close to the front lines of any direct, conventional hostilities that break out.

In Part 2: How To Prepare For War, we explain how conflict can take many forms: trade wars, energy wars, financial wars, cyberwar, shooting wars, and nuclear war. We lay out in great detail the steps we, as individuals, can do to prepare for each.

And fortunately, this preparation comes with an upside: as many of these precautions will be life-enhancing steps even if -- hopefully, if -- tensions de-escalate from here.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/tensions-between-us-nato-russia-are-flaring-dangerously/

"There is too much loose talk nowadays about the danger of so much capital in the hands of a few men." -- Baron Alphonso Rothschild, 1892
Read more: www.whatreallyhappened.com http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php#ixzz4BsFuegMh

I heard this story while at the gym this afternoon, and just shook my head: "Vladimir Putin Says Russian Athletes’ Ban From Olympics Is Politically Motivated"

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia — Even before the announcement that Russia’s track and field team would be barred from the Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, President Vladimir V. Putin was incensed.

He said Friday that the allegations of doping against his country’s athletes were part of a politically motivated “anti-Russia policy” by the West.

The use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is a global problem, he said at an economic forum in St. Petersburg, and Russia has been unfairly singled out.

“This cannot be a foundation for building anti-Russia policy,” Mr. Putin said.

The Olympics ban, announced after the Russian president’s speech at the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Friday, is the latest setback to his efforts to shed Russia’s pariah status and win allies among European politicians.

After the announcement, Mr. Putin called the decision “unjust, of course,” saying that Russia was strengthening anti-doping controls and that athletes should bear personal responsibility for using performance-enhancing drugs. Punishing the whole team, he said, “doesn’t fit any norms of civilized behavior.”

Ultimately this comes down to a former KGB agent vs a former community organizer. In that scenario, I think the winner is obvious.

From Zerohedge - read a comment that maybe is was one of many brilliant chess moves.   I don't think I would want to attend the 2016 Olympics.   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-17/rio-declares-state-public-calamity-warns-total-collapse-security-health-and-transpor

 #Russia feels surrounded by an increasingly belligerent NATO/US military presence
  here is the problem . its all bs…
  Russiais big… 2d longest land borders in the world (after china).
  only problem is : ITS NOT  POSSIBLE TO ATTACK RUSSIA through land operation.
  you cant attack Russia on north borders (supply problems / climat)
  you cant  attack Russia from east, i dont think China will like it
  you cant  attack Russia through asian republics (former USSR parts), they are friendly to russia, ++ Kazachatan is too big too
  you cant attack Russia from south, Caucasus mountains between Black/ Caspian seas ++ Iran is pretty friendly
  you cant attack Russia through baltic states, supply issues ++ too small territory to make permanent base.
  only reasonable is western part, through ukraine/belaruss, but wait
  proud russian


And then everything imploded when none other than the Foreign Minister of NATO member Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, criticized NATO for having a bellicose policy towards Russia, describing it as "warmongering", the German daily Bild reported. And just like that, the entire ficitional narrative of "innocent" NATO merely reacting to evil Russian provcations has gone up in flames.

As AFP adds, Steinmeier merely highlighted all those things which rational persons have known about for a long time, namely the deployment of NATO troops near borders with Russia in the military alliance's Baltic and east European member states. However, since it comes from a NATO member, suddenly one can't accuse Russian propaganda. In fact, NATO has absolutely no planned response to just this contingency.

"What we should avoid today is inflaming the situation by warmongering and stomping boots," Steinmeier told Bild in an interview to be published Sunday.

Yes alexwest, that is all true.  But you CAN attack Russia from space.  Contrary to treaties and coming from someone who was inside NASA and saw every single project for 25 years (I can't name the position because it would give too much information), we are literally loaded for bear with space weaponry and certain parties are itching to try it out.  They're insane, of course, but that doesn't change the situation.
I don't post any more but I thought this was important enough to mention.  


The Trident D5 weapon system has a C.E.P. that makes it an anti-nuclear deterrent because it is capable of destroying hardened Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence installations (many of which are sited in centres of population) that the enemy would need to launch a retaliation.
In short, if war breaks out, expect it to go nuclear from the outset and to be extensive in its targetting. - And may your God go with you, whatever you conceive it to be.

There is but one positive factor: such a conflict would generate a nuclear winter, which is about the only thing that might stop the abrupt climate change we are now experiencing and has a long way to go. Whichever way it all pans out, one thing is certain: in a few short years the human species, if it is exceptionally lucky, will be severely curtailed in its numbers. If is not so lucky, it will be no more than a memory. 

Just maybe a universal law, given the vast expanse of spaces and times, is that no "intelligent" life is given enough time to develop advanced technologies such as fusion energy.  This is hinted at by Biologic Laws and E=M*C^2.  Therefore, if this holds it is unlikely that alien communication is possible.   

I can't find any mention of it online anymore, but if I remember correctly, a host of experienced state department officials resigned a few years ago and made a public statement about their concerns about the undiplomatic direction the department was taking. Does anyone remember this?

Chris, I cannot thank you enough for having the courage and presence of mind to post this, especially to the permaculture community. Let’s do a review; permaculture is about Awareness of Water, Climate & Culture.  We deepen our Awareness when we understand; the Concepts & Themes in Design, observe Patterns in Nature, and move on to take action via - a well thought out Design.
When we become serious about practicing permaculture/regenerative ag in its entirety, we have the opportunity to move beyond our cultural paradigm of repeating cute phrases or focusing on specific techniques in a disconnected way. We have found that even in the Pc community, individuals have a difficult time letting go of this American Industrial Revolution consumerist meme.

Your synopsis is the most comprehensive take on the impending situation we have seen so far, and again thank you for taking the time to hash this out. We cannot practice Pc in a bubble.  Culture, our culture may have far more profound influences on the outcome of our designs than we know and attempting to follow the principals of Pc, without paying equal attention to the other paradigm of design (Capitalism/endless growth/Unipolar superiority) we miss the mechanisms of how the end of cheap oil, increased debt, globalization and wage class war are playing themselves out in a fully connected centralized system.

I would like to think that more permaculturists are aware of this, than those who are not. Positivism plays an essential role in how we think about reducing our dependency on the centralized system and increasing our willingness to work with Nature, not against her. Being enthusiastic after learning about something ‘new’ (Pc) doesn’t make it complete without then turning a mature eye and sober recognition of the present intentions by Washington Neocons to pursue the Monroe Doctrine at all costs. We can be positive and mature at the same time. We have more than enough information (Dmitry Orlov 5 Stages of Collapse), The Saker, John Micheal Greer, Gail Tverburg, and others) to think about how we may respond through our designs. As Dmitry points out; don’t panic, take stock, and do the next logical thing and I might point out; pay very close attention to the big pictures.

If we have the enthusiasm to observe the patterns in Nature, we can also have the courage to observe the patterns in our culture and our culture’s leaders. We can achieve common sense notions that a large energy sucking self-organized dissipative structure like the US cannot go on pulling in the amount of energy required to support growth at the same rate it practiced 50 years ago. Relevant patterns are directly related to this predicament; systematically crying wolf!, invading and bombing oil & resource rich countries, intentional creation of chaos, Bubbles & Busts, encouragement of demographic infighting, and  deliberate deceptive language of safety, security, freedom & democracy.

Doing more with less isn’t just some trite saying and I hope that persons, who are engaged in Pc, don’t follow the path of many liberal Americans who clamor for Change, but don’t want to change those things in their own lives (lifestyles of consumption). We can’t have our Earth and eat it too. We can learn to do with less, find creative ways to downscale and position ourselves as best as possible for an outcome we may not be able to control.  We can only educate others if we educate ourselves first.  


I love it!

With some trepidation, I will make a pass at articulating my evolving impressions of the Soul of the Neocons.
Unfortunately, any attempt to discuss this topic is absolutely guaranteed to offend.  I don't know anyway around this.  Treasured identifications are threatened…  But the topic is SO important that it must be discussed.

I make no claims to understand everything correctly.  I am not a historian, political scientist, comparative religions scholar.  And I have not phrased everything correctly either.

I invite additional information.  (Please point to reading material so that I can learn more.)

The Neocon/Zionists are one faction in the competition for global dominance.  Ordinarily, world dominance is primarily an ORANGE Meme activity.  But the Neocons have found a very effective angle giving this faction great success:  weaving in the (RED/BLUE) tribal loyalties and religious mythology of Judaism into what is fundamentally a military/economic domination project.

The Neocon/Zionist group functions as a crime family, somewhat like the Mafia. 

The Neocon faction is centered in the economic/political /military project called “Zionism.”  It begins by focusing on Israel, and expands to include the ascendance of Jewish and Israeli power-block on the entire world stage.

The Neocons have only a peripheral associated with the religion of Judaism as a number of the most prominent Neocon’s are “secular Jews,” many are declared atheists and agnostics and some are of non-Jewish.  Two qualities of Judaism are harnessed:  1.  Fierce tribal loyalty, and, 2.  Biblical mythology.  (I believe that this is the secret sauce of the Neocon’s significant success.)

The Neocons nurture and rely upon fiercely held Jewish tribal affiliation and loyalty. The wagons of tribal solidarity are kept circled tightly by the beliefs 1. special-status-in-the-eyes-of-God and 2.  perpetual persecution (also called perma-victim status).  Furthermore, Jewish and Christian peoples enjoy thy mythology of being promised a special place in the end times when God’s Kingdom comes to earth.

Tribal loyalty and cooperation has proven to be a powerful source of economic advantage to insiders.  The Jewish 3% of the US population has risen to hold 40% of the Forbes Richest 400 list. 


Though the Neocons may not be religious, they have found the biblical mythology of the Jewish religion useful.  For example, the agnostic first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, believed that all Jews “must read the bible” and though he did not believe that God exists, he did believe that God had promised Israel to the Jews.

Isaiah 2:1-4 is taken as a biblically prophesy that in the last days the world would be united in a single world government in peace and prosperity and that this one world empire would be ruled from Jerusalem.  I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

The Old Testament story of Joshua invading (“reclaiming”) the already occupied Promised Land seems to be a template for the modern Zionist approach to the Palestinians:

Before they enter the land, the Jewish people send an envoy to the Canaanites with the message, “God, the Creator of the Universe has promised this land to our forefathers. We are now here to claim our inheritance, and we ask you to leave peacefully.”  Meanwhile, Joshua has clear instructions from God that if the Canaanites don’t get out, the Jews must wipe them out.



The cornerstone of Spiral Dynamics BLUE Meme mythic membership thinking is exaggerated closeness with in-group and antipathy to out-groups.   Though anti-Semitism is an often-mentioned form of bigotry, the other side of this coin, anti-goyism is just as real.   Many of actions of the Neocon/Zionists can only be understood if deep anti-goyism is assumed.

The Zionist/Neocons actors causing the greatest trouble hold an utter contempt for the lives of outsiders.  But they have learned how offensive and counter productive this attitude is when discussed publicly.  Anti-goyism is now held-close-to-the-chest and a liberal inclusive democratic face is worn in public.  Actions show the strength of the underlying attitude.  The practice of waging wars to “weaken” and fragment ME neighbor states has killed millions (including American soldiers.)  Yet the Neocons are not troubled by this and continue seeking greater and wider wars.

The apartheid social structures of the occupied regions of Palestine show the contempt for non-Jews.   Anna Baltzer interview of International Women’s Peace Studies:


Madeleine Albright demonstrates this attitude famously in her reply to the question posed by 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl about the effects of US sanctions against Iraq in May 1996.

“We have heard that a half million children have died [because of the sanctions],” stated Stahl. “I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

“I think this is a very hard choice,” replied Albright, “but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

In the same way that a farmer does not grieve when it is time to slaughter livestock, or a slave owner grieve when he has to execute a captured runaway slave, we do not empathize across powerfully held in-group / out-group boundaries.  They are “not like us.”  Ms. Albright did not give a rats-ass about the half million dead Iraqi children.  The Neocon/Zionists do not care about the lives or well being of non-Jewish neighbors in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or the American's killed in the Twin towers or on the battlefield of Iraq.

Deliberately creating a harsh in-group/out-group boundary and vilifying the out-group is routinely used to stifle empathy in soldiers being sent to war.  Atrocity stories and derogatory labels induce the belief that “the enemy” are sub-human and vile so that we to feel OK about killing them.  They are “not like us.”

Sometimes an observed lack of empathy is mistaken for psychopathology, the hard-wired neurologic defect where an individual is incapable of any empathy.  But this is different.  The capacity for empathy does exist within the in-group.  It is just not available to those “subhuman and vile” out-groups.  This is the mind set from which “ethnic cleansing” and deeply segregated societies can arise.


1.  The strategy of Entryism, where members of a smaller group are sent to infiltrate a larger opposing group and gain control of it from the inside.  When done covertly, the strategy is difficult to detect.  The Neocon/Zionist infiltration of the White House, cabinet, pentagon, homeland security, judiciary and state department is a stunning example of successful covert entryism.  The US military was taken into major wars by the Neocon/Zionists without the awareness of most people that they control of national policy had be hijacked by this group.  The wars were blamed on “The Americans” and the fabricated intelligence explained as “Bush lied.”

2.   Control of the media through ownership.  The owner of a newspaper can set editorial policy for that paper.   When a group that is covertly allied owns a majority of media outlets, themes can be disseminated or suppressed in public discussion.  Similarly, the control of internet search engine ranking algorithms (Google) gives great influence over public discussion.  Rupert Murdoch and others are most famous for insisting that his media outlets will be used to serve Israel.   Much more effective are the covertly coordinated efforts where ownership is not known and coordination is not realized. 

3.  Moral relativism.  One set of moral principles applies to the rest of the world, but our group has a special relationship with God and operates by a higher and different set of moral principles.  We advocate you all have an open societies, but act to keep OUR nation ethnically pure.

4.  The Shepherd.  The shepherd embraces his rightful role as the leader and decision maker without ethical concerns for the free-will or sovereignty of the sheep.  “They are not like us.”  We were intended to lead, they, to follow.  When this moral framework is combined with accomplished social scientist and computer modeling skills, great social reengineering projects are possible.

5.  Leading from the number 2 position.  A figurehead, non-Jewish leader, helps to conceal the covert leadership embedded beneath.

6.  No legitimate criticism if Judaism, Israel or the Neocons is possible.  They are above all reproach and analysis.  Any discussion of this group is irrational bigotry. 

Reading list

I have tried to keep this post brief – a summary of impressions.  These impressions are gathered from reading.

  • Spiral Dynamics by Beck and Cowan
  • Laurent Guyenot’s many articles and “50 Years of the Deep State.”
  • Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel
  • Ken O’Keefe’s many lectures and interviews on youtube
  • Christopher Bollyn’s books and lectures.
  • The Israeli Lobby
  • Understanding Jewish Influence
  • Grand Deceptions by Brandon Martinez
  • Anna Baltzers excellent interview on the conditions of the Palestinians [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIyJpW4F_1M ]
  • Alan Sabrosky’s talks and papers on 9/11 and Zionism
  • Kevin Barrett’s many lectures and commentary
  • Jim Lobe’s talks about the Neocons
  • Phillip Weiss’s website Mondoweiss.net
  • Tikkun Magazine
  • Articles by Kim Chernin published at Jewcy and Tikkun
  • Seymour Hersh, Glen Greenwald, etc., etc.








Bob Moriarty from 321Gold.com skewers the Neocons (the RED/BLUE Meme, Israel-first, war party whose agents who are tucked within controlling positions of western governments) and their role in creating the global chaos we are seeing.

In early summer of 2016 the world stands on a precipice looking down at a conflict that could easily lead to World War III. ...
In early 2014 the US sponsored a coup d’état in Ukraine replacing the legally elected government with their own specially selected thugs. US Assistant Secretary of State and Jewish Neocon Victoria Nuland... was quoted as saying, "Fuck the EU.”

Nuland went on later that year to brag about how the US had spent $5 billion to destabilize Ukraine…

… Nuland turned Ukraine into a Nazi run cesspool of corruption, blaming Putin the entire time.

A number of good and thoughtful writers have recently written convincing arguments that the US and NATO need to think about playing with fire lest they get burned. Those writers would include:
He talks about the Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to shatter Arab neighbors, the "Clean Break..." paper from the American/Israeli Neocons urging even more militant actions against Palestinians and Arab neighbors.
In America any person can be critical of Obama or Clinton, even the Pope or Buddha or Trump. You can say terrible things about Islam or Mormon or Catholics. You cannot be critical about Israel no matter how outrageous their behavior.
There is no actual prohibition against criticizing Israel except that which is within our own minds.  (To be sure, coordinated personal attacks by the Hasbara swarm can engender personal discomfort.)  But we are always free to speak the truth as we see it.

All of my Jewish friends and family are ORANGE Meme and GREEN and higher.  They actually already know that violence begets violence and that killing and beating down others is not effective at creating a stable better world.  They know that though deception (if believed) can offer short term advantage, eventually the lie is uncovered, creating a sense of betrayal and rage.  This approach just doesn't work.  (The conclusion that the Bibilcal RED/BLUE approach doesn't work marks the transition to the ORANGE paradigm and the emergence of an empathetic sense of being sickened at the slaughter of others for power and profit, the transition to GREEN.)

I pray that the ORANGE, GREEN and higher developmental paradigms will emerge into leadership roles in both Israel and in the US deep state, before it is too late.


Israel should be deeply disturbed by the Brexit vote (Mondoweiss)

[quote]Finally, it is worth noting that the trends underpinning the Brexit vote should disturb Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, just as they already are troubling the political class in Europe and the US.

Like the EU, Israel too is vital pillar of the old global order. A “Jewish homeland” emerged under British protection while Britain still ran an empire and saw the Middle East as its playground.

After the European colonial powers went into abeyance following the Second World War, the role of patron shifted to the new global hegemon in Washington. The US has endlessly indulged Israel, guarded its back at the United Nations, and heavily subsidised Israel’s powerful military industries.

Whereas the US has propped up Israel diplomatically and militarily, the EU has underwritten Israel’s economic success. It has violated its own constitution to give Israel special trading status and thereby turned Europe into Israel’s largest export market. It has taken decades for Europe to even acknowledge – let alone remedy – the problem that it is also trading with illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

If the EU starts to unravel, and US neoliberal hegemony weakens, Israel will be in trouble. It will be in desperate need of a new guarantor, one prepared to support a country that polls repeatedly show is mistrusted around the world.

But more immediately, Israel ought to fear the new climate of polarised, unpredictable politics that is becoming the norm.

In the US, in particular, a cross-party consensus about Israel is gradually breaking down. Concerns about local national interests – of the kind that exercised the Brexiters  – are gaining traction in the US too, as illustrated last year by the fallout over Israel’s stand-off with the White House over its Iran agreement.

Distrust of the political class is growing by the day, and Israel is an issue on which US politicians are supremely vulnerable. It is increasingly hard to defend Congress’ historic rock-solid support for Israel as truly in American interests.

In a world of diminishing resources, where the middle class is forever being required to belt-tighten, questions about why the US is planning to dramatically increase its aid to Israel – one of the few economies that has done well since the 2008 crash – are likely to prove ever-more discomfiting.

In the long term, none of this bodes well for Israel. Brexit is simply the warning siren.[/quote]


[quote=sand_puppy]I pray that the ORANGE, GREEN and higher developmental paradigms will emerge into leadership roles in both Israel and in the US deep state, before it is too late.[/quote]


This ^^^

Funglestrumpet is correct about the D5 missile system (he already knows this).  The system will be used because it can take out hard targets such as in-silo launch systems, C3I, etc.  No SLBM prior to Trident could do that reliably.

It will get used if things get sketchy enough.


Isaiah 2:1-4 is taken as a biblically prophesy that in the last days the world would be united in a single world government in peace and prosperity and that this one world empire would be ruled from Jerusalem.  I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.
I couldn't disagree more.  I believe you are overcomplicating things.  Israel is every Jewish person's go-to-hell plan.  If things turn to shit in their home country for Jews there, Israel will always accept them - even if they are not religious.  It is their one true port in the storm.  That's why there is so much support.

I imagine myself a Jew.  I check in with myself, and ask: "what part would Isaiah's prophecy play in my desire to support the state of Israel" I get only a small and very theoretical response.  If I asked, "this place is one country that would always accept me if anything got bad" (keeping in mind that, throughout history, things have tended to get bad for Jews - with the event 70 years ago being the biggest) I get a much, much larger internal emotional response.

The whole thing can be satisfactorily explained by doing "whatever it takes" to make sure the state of Israel survives.  Pre-WW2 there was a Zionist movement, but the whole movement gained a lot more urgency after Hitler tried killing all of them within reach.

I think if we keep it simple, we'll more closely approximate the truth.  Its about guilt, fear of persecution, and a strong desire that it not happen again.  That's quite enough to explain everything.

This looks like another WTC video.   What does it have to do with Isaiah and one world government?