The United States on Thursday expelled 35 Russian diplomats and closed two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland in response to a campaign of harassment by Russia against American diplomats in Moscow, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday. The U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the Russian diplomats would be given 72 hours to leave the United States. Access to the two compounds will be denied to all Russian officials as of noon on Friday, the official added.
“These actions were taken to respond to Russian harassment of American diplomats and actions by the diplomats that we have assessed to be not consistent with diplomatic practice,” the official told Reuters.
(Reporting by Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Yara Bayoumy)
Without any real evidence of Russia influencing the election, the Obama administration continues to provoke Russia into war. The goal is to set Russia up as the aggressor so that Obama can justify it as a necessary war of defense. If he gets what he wants, the stated war aims will be similar to what they always are. We’ll be defending ourselves, and most importantly, our democratic way of life, against an evil enemy aggressor.
If Russia doesn’t act on their own, look for the powers that be to carry out a false flag in the near future.
I’m not saying Russia is a good guy. Sometimes there are lots of bad guys and just as many grey areas. The one thing that’s clear however is that the campaign to demonize Russia has been in the works for a long time.
The patterns of history are repeating themselves again. Demonize an enemy. Mobilize hatred against that evil enemy aggressor. Create a pretext for war. Then lie to the public and tell them that we must fight for some glittering generality, one that evokes enough collective emotion to whip the country up into a pro-war fervor.
Nobel Peace Prize winning President, Barack Obama, wants war. And he wants it now.
From Harold Lasswell’s, Propaganda Technique In World War;
“When the public believes that the enemy began the War and blocks a permanent, profitable and godly peace, the propagandist has achieved his purpose. But to make assurance doubly sure, it is safe to fortify the mind of the nation with examples of the insolence and depravity of the enemy. Any nation who began the War and blocks the peace is incorrigible, wicked and perverse.”
“To mobilize the hatred of the people against the enemy, represent the opposing nation as a menacing, murderous aggressor. Represent the enemy as an obstacle to the realization of the cherished ideals and dreams of the nation as a whole, and of each constituent unit….Represent the opposing nation as Satanic; it violates all the moral standards of the group, and insults its self-esteem.”
I would peel the onion one more layer and suggest that Russia is in on it. They would benefit from a big war as much as we would in that it would change the international monetary system and likely usher in a True World Authority at the top of which Russia as well as the United State would hold a prominent place. I also see Obama’s provocations of Israel and Russia at this time as teeing up what will appear to be unavoidable conflict for Trump from his first day in office. Obama and Kerry are clearly setting up an Action-Reaction dialectical scenario for the next administration so Trump can appear to merely be reacting instead of too-obviously carrying out the purpose for which he was placed in his position.
Also, I don’t think a war is actually necessary, though that would benefit the military-industrial-complex nicely, but a truly plausible near-war might be enough for our emasculated and now mesmerized populace to consent to “an end to international anarchy,” i.e. World Government.
We could see some aspects of a new type of technological war.
I’ll pose the same question I did on Twitter. Suspend all disbelief for a moment, and assume Trump has the best of intentions in mind. Is there anyway he can succeed, or come out not looking bad, given the present and arising circumstances? Is any power he might have had nullified? Would this be a lose/lose for even someone like Ron Paul if he were about to inherent the Presidency?
No. Ron Paul’s principled stance of defending the bill of rights, respecting the sovereignty of other nations, allowing American citizens to trade freely as they see fit, and focusing our defense resources (which approach a trillion dollars annually) on protecting the United States of America (rather than our “our interests abroad”) would result in a wildly prosperous and safe America. Let the rest of the world kill themselves and each other or better yet become even safer and more prosperous than we are either by following our example or in any other way. Imagine the awesome defensive possibilities of stopping our own aggression while at the same time rededicating our resources to actual defense–we would not have to bother ourselves with foreign affairs.
Yes….but I mean inheriting these circumstances, with these influences, with these limited amount of choices. He’d be placed in a situation where he couldn’t instantly implement those things because his power is nullified by the situation he’s thrust into. Just like the voter, his options are decided for him. The real power is taken out of his hands. What he wants to do isn’t even on the table if he’s forced into a war by someone else. He can’t just pull the chord if prior to his arrival a massive web of conflicting interests are entangled that require a decision of him, a decision between a small number of undesirable choices. They would no doubt put Ron Paul in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
Cass Sunstein calls it Decision Architecture in his book, “Nudge.” Decision architects construct choices for others that result in their benefitting regardless of which choice is made. In the book, its explained as nudging the public to making better decisions by only providing them with choices that lead to better outcomes.
Nudge
http://amzn.to/2iJYC2f