Google+ Badge

Friday, September 22, 2017

Why Is The USA in Afghanistan? An Answer To The Big Question

And just how many TRILLION U.S. taxpayer dollars have gone to support the luxury lifestyles of Afghan warlords?

NEW EASTERN OUTLOOK
By Caleb Maupin
09/18/2017

The USA has been occupying Afghanistan since 2001. Why? Both supporters and opponents of US Afghan policy give murky answers. 


As of October 18th, 2016, there have been 2,386 
U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan;
1,834 of these deaths have been the result of
hostile action; 20,049American servicemembers
have also been wounded in action during the war
Supporters of US efforts say they are in the country to fight terrorism and help the country rebuild and move toward democracy. Opponents of the occupation say the USA is seeking to control its rare minerals such as neodymium, indium, gallium, and lanthanum which are essential in making computer chips. These answers are insufficient. As for terrorism, since 2001, the presence and strength of terrorist groups in Afghanistan has vastly increased. 

Al-Queda, ISIS, various warlords, Jundallah, and many terrorist groups, most of which had minimal presence under the Taliban government, are now all across the country. 


Even the Taliban itself, the government the USA toppled in the 2001 invasion, has not vanished, and still controls a large portion of the country. If the USA is in Afghanistan to fight terrorism, its efforts have not only completely failed, and but had the opposite of their intended affect.

So, is it all about the minerals? Is the USA seeking to get control of these vital rare earth elements which are key in making modern computer chips? Well, perhaps this is a factor for seeking to control the country, but its worth noting that in the entire 16 years of the occupation, the USA and its allied Afghan government have never moved forward with any plan for mineral extraction. Michael Silver, the CEO of American Elements wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on August 30th, essentially begging the US government to go ahead and “help Afghans exploit their mineral riches.”

If the occupation of the country were motivated purely out of desire to plunder the rare earth minerals, wouldn’t it have been done by now? 16 years is a long time to put off something, if indeed, it is the entire basis of the military operations. It is also unlikely that a CEO would publicly beg the President to do something, if it was secretly the entire basis for the operation.

In fact, talk of Afghanistan’s mineral resources and the untapped trillions to be made from them, didn’t show up in the media until 2010, nine years after the US invaded and toppled the Taliban. It was only long after the invasion that geologists were able to determine that such minerals were even in the country.


Afghan President Hamid Karzai (right) welcoming US Secretary of State John Kerry

The rare earth minerals and the potential of extracting them, could certainly serve as an incentive for the continued occupation, but are not the primary cause. Neither is fighting terrorism.

A Strategic Epicenter For Chaos

A recent article in the New York Times noted the funeral of two CIA officers who had been killed in Afghanistan as the CIA has been moving “too the front lines.” According to the New York Times, the two CIA operatives had “advised a small army of Afghan militants,” essentially the CIA men were embedded into non-governmental armed groups. According to the NYT piece, this strategy had been used by the Obama administration “who embraced covert operations because of their small footprint and deniability.” 

The article also noted that the factions covertly directed and armed by the CIA “were at times accused by Afghan officials and others as a law unto themselves, running roughshod over civilians and killing innocents.”




While press reports give the impression that the USA is working only with the internationally recognized Afghan government to stabilize the country, the New York Times seems to point out the contrary. So, the question must be asked, as the country remains a mess of violence, with terrorists, drug cartels, and warlords slaughtering each other, which of the many armed groups have CIA agents directing them? The answer cannot be found in the New York Times article, and most likely is not public information. It should seem obvious, however, that covertly directing non-government militias of Afghans to kill other Afghans, is not a strategy for stabilizing a country.

In the analysis of this writer, the US occupation of Afghanistan is really about one thing: spreading chaos and antagonizing the surrounding countries.

But why would the USA want to keep Afghanistan unstable?

Look at a map. Afghanistan is located in central Asia. It is an impoverished, underdeveloped country that is landlocked. 




It borders the three top opponents of US power on the global stage, Russia, China, and Iran. Since 2001, not only has Afghanistan been a mess of terrorism, drug trafficking, and societal chaos, but this chaos has spilled over into the three neighboring countries.

Menacing The Russians

US operations in Afghanistan have almost always been related to Russia. At the time of the Russian Revolution, Central Asia was dominated by the British Empire. The British had largely de-forested Afghanistan, and had already introduced the scourge of heroin. The Bolsheviks happily embraced the government of Habbibula Khan, the Emir of Afghanistan who had stood up to the British, and kept the country neutral in the First World War. In 1919 the Afghan ambassador told Lenin “I proffer you a friendly hand and hope that you will help the whole of the East to free itself from the yoke of European imperialism.”

The Soviet Union saw bringing stability and development to Central Asia as a way to secure itself. In 1920, the Soviet Union famously sponsored the “Baku Conference” or the “Congress of the Peoples of the East” to offer their support to people in Central Asia and the Middle East who sought to break free from western domination.

After Afghanistan’s 1978 Saur Revolution, the Soviet Union immediately began pouring in aid. The Soviet Union sent soldiers into the Afghan countryside to help establish farms. Literacy campaigns were conducted as well, with Soviet volunteers teaching impoverished Afghans how to read. Democratic Youth Leagues worked to restore the forests, in the hopes that Afghanistan’s unique timber could be exported on the world market.

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, which existed from 1978 to 1992 sought to lift the country from poverty with Soviet assistance. Democratic Afghanistan established universities, built hospitals, and tried to modernize the country. Despite their Marxist-Leninist ideology, the ruling Peoples Democratic Party had no illusions that Afghanistan could become a socialist country at that time. They felt it was too poor. Their goal was simply to raise the standard of living with Soviet assistance.

Brzezinski bragged in an interview that by establishing an Islamist insurgency against the Democratic government, with the help of a young Saudi named Osama Bin Laden, he had “given the USSR its Vietnam.” The CIA worked with the Pakistani secret police to enable terrorists in Afghanistan to cultivate heroin.

The CIA strategy of Islamic terrorism and heroin in Afghanistan mirrored policy in Chechnya, where the USA and Saudi Arabia had already been supporting Islamic extremists who were involved in selling heroin and committing acts of terrorism intended to harm the Soviet government.

While the Taliban was internationally recognized for its efforts to destroy poppy fields and exterminate traffickers, the 2001 invasion marked a key moment for restoring Afghanistan’s position as the world’s supplier of heroin. Poppy fields went up like wildfire, and cheap heroin flooded the world market.

Since the US invaded in 2001, heroin has grown all across Afghanistan. Huge amounts of it are flowing into Russia. Furthermore, the terrorist groups that have long waged a campaign of violence in Chechnya, have cooperated with the terrorists in Afghanistan. Russian aligned governments in Central Asia face a growing problem of Wahabbi extremism.

Keeping Afghanistan unstable is certainly causing lots of problems for Russia.

Drugs And Terrorism Against Iran

Iran’s revolutionary guards are constantly working to stop narcotics from flowing over from the Afghan border. The poppy fields of Afghanistan, now booming and flooding the world drug market since the Taliban was toppled, have destroyed the lives of literally millions of Iranians. A report in 2006 estimated that 8% of adults in Iran are addicted to drugs. Another report suggested that 130,000 Iranians become addicted to drugs every year.

The majority of the people in Iran are youth, born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Heroin from Afghanistan is a mechanism used to feed into the cynicism and political confusion of this new generation that did not see Khomeni’s rise. The USA works to manipulate the alienation and confusion of young Iranians, much as it did with the artistic and intellectual circles in Eastern Europe in order to foment color revolutions during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The devastation of drugs accompanies satellite TV broadcasts, anti-government movies, and numerous efforts to confuse, demoralize, and manipulate the generation that will soon inherit the helm of Iran’s anti-capitalist government.

Furthermore, Afghanistan borders a region of Iran that has a history of religious differences with the Islamic Republic. The clerics who lead the Iranian government are Shia Muslims, and while Sunnis are allowed to practice their faith, they are not permitted to establish independent Mosques that could foment unrest or work to discredit the Supreme Leader.

Jundallah, a Sunni terrorist organization based in Afghanistan, has established as its mission, the overthrow of the Shia government in Iran. Jundallah works on the Afghan border, and has bombed and killed people across Iran. It is also involved in the heroin trade. In 2014, it was revealed that a Port Authority Police Officer from the United States had been working inside the Jundallah terrorist group, crossing the border into Iran from Afghanistan.

Spreading Chaos Into China

The 20th century in China has largely been a story of struggling to break free from foreign domination, drug addiction, and poverty, and restore itself as global power. The first US military intervention in China, in 1900, was against the Boxer Rebellion, a nationalist uprising that lynched drug dealers and sought to promote traditional Chinese culture. Prior to that, the British had waged two “Opium Wars” in which they militarily forced China not to erect tariffs or block the importation of narcotics.

The Chinese government works relentlessly to make sure that heroin is never imported into the country. The majority of those who receive the death penalty in China are somehow related to drug smuggling.

China’s historically Islamic region, Xianjing, has been the site of anti-government terrorism in recent decades. Not surprisingly, this region also borders Afghanistan. Members of China’s Islamic Uiygir minority have sworn allegiance to ISIS and gone to Syria to fight the Baathist government.

Chinese leaders have expressed deep concern about their Afghan border, and the dangers associated with Afghanistan.

China, Russia, Iran: Stable Governments Facing Attack

Why does the US continue to target Iran, Russia, and China? Is it because they are unstable? No. It is because they are stable.

The Islamic Revolution of Iran involved a mass uprisings of the people. The government established in 1979 has nationalized Iran’s oil resources and used the proceeds to develop the country, and build up the domestic economy. While the bordering countries of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are quite dangerous, since the end of the war with Iraq, Iran has been one of the safest countries in the region. The life expectancy has increased. The economy is centrally planned.

Since 1949, China has brought 700 million people out of poverty. It has responded to terrorism and instability in the Autonomous Regions of Xianjing and Tibet by pouring in investment and infrastructure, providing the people with economic opportunity. Before the 1949 revolution, when Republicans said the USA “lost China,” it was a very unstable place. Now it is far more stable than ever before, and the second largest economy in the world.

Russia recovered from the financial and humanitarian disaster following the collapse of the USSR. Starting in 2000 with the rise of Putin, Gazprom and Rosneft, state controlled natural gas and oil companies, have been used to centralize and plan the economy.

China’s Alternative Strategy

These three Eurasian countries serve as bastions of stability, and more than that, they are competitors with Wall Street. Russia sells oil and natural gas on the international markets. Every barrel of oil sold by Russia, is a barrel of oil that could have been sold by a US or British oil company. Iran is also an oil exporter, and it has recently joined the natural gas trade.

While China does not have very much domestic oil, it is starting to innovate natural gas extraction, and it produces steel, copper, and aluminum more than any other country on earth. Cell phones produced by Huwai, the state controlled telecommunications manufacturer, are sold across the world. A stable China is also a competitor.

Michael Silver wrote “The Chinese aren’t evil, they are merely smart” in his op-ed, begging the Trump administration to extract Afghan minerals. As the USA sends in anonymous CIA operatives to work inside non-government militias, and conducts drone strikes that often kill civilians, China indeed has a completely different strategy for Afghanistan.

While China has not conducted any drone strikes in Afghanistan, many voices around the world are deeply impressed with its medical aid programs. China’s Red Cross Society has recently opened up its “Belt and Road Fraternity Fund” and is using the money to provide desperately needed surgeries to Afghan children under the age of 14.

Over 100 children have already traveled over the border in order to be treated in hospitals in the Xianjing Medical University in the Chinese city of Urumqi. China has also worked with the Pakistan Red Crescent Society to establish similar programs to help Afghans by providing much needed medical care.

China and Iran have laid out a plan for Afghanistan called “Trade and Transport” at the United Nations. They have called for railway to built across Afghanistan in order to give the country port access. The hope is that textile factories and other industries can be established in Afghanistan, providing an alternative to terrorism and drug cartels.

It is very possible that Michael Silver’s pleas of the Trump administration, regarding the rare earth elements, will be ignored. He is correct that “exploiting” the mineral resources may help to stabilize the country, but the forces that push the USA to continue occupying Afghanistan, at great expense, seem to have other goals.



This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Whatever Happened To America?

CNN, MSM, "Deep State" attempted coup on the present administration fails: Accountability is as assured as death and taxes  

STRATEGIC CULTURE FOUNDATION
09/20/2017

Over the course of my lifetime America has become an infantile country.


Too late
When I was born America was a nation. Today it is a diversity country in which various segments divided by race, gender, and sexual preference, preach hate toward other segments. Currently white heterosexual males are losing in the hate game, but once hate is unleashed it can turn on any and every one. Working class white males understand that they are the new underclass in a diversity country in which everyone has privileges except them. Many of the university educated group of heterosexual white males are too brainwashed to understand what is happening to them. 


Indeed, some of them are so successfully brainwashed that they think it is their just punishment as a white male to be downtrodden.

Donald Trump’s presidency has been wrecked by hate groups, i.e., the liberal/progressive/left who hate the “racist, misogynist, homophobic, gun nut working class” that elected Trump (see Eric Draitser, “Why He Won,” in CounterPunch, vol. 23, No. 1, 2017). For the liberal/progressive/left Trump is an illegitimate president because he was elected by illegitimate voters.

Today the American left hates the working class with such intensity that the left is comfortable with the left’s alliance with the One Percent and the military/security complex against Trump.




America, the melting pot that produced a nation was destroyed by Identity Politics. Identity Politics divides a population into hate groups. This group hates that one and so on. In the US the most hated group is a southern white heterosexual male.

To rule America Identity Politics is competing with a more powerful group—the military/security complex supported by the neoconservative ideology of American world hegemony.

Currently, Identity Politics and the military/security complex are working hand-in-hand to destroy President Trump. Trump is hated by the powerful military/security complex because Trump wanted to “normalize relations with Russia,” that is, remove the “Russian threat” that is essential to the power and budget of the military/security complex. Trump is hated by Identity Politics because the imbeciles think no one voted for him but racist, misogynists, homophobic gun-nuts.




The fact that Trump intended to unwind the dangerous tensions that the Obama regime has created with Russia became his hangman’s noose. Designated as “Putin’s agent,” President Trump is possibly in the process of being framed by a Special Prosecutor, none other than member of the Shadow Government and former FBI director Robert Mueller. Mueller knows that whatever lie he tells will be accepted by the media presstitutes as the Holy Truth.

However, as Trump, seeking self-preservation, moves into the war camp, it might not be necessary for the shadow government to eliminate him.

So the Great American Democracy, The Morally Pure Country, is actually a cover for the profits and power of the military/security complex. What is exceptional about America is the size of the corruption and evil in the government and in the private interest groups that control the government.




It wasn’t always this way. In 1958 at the height of the Cold War a young Texan, Van Cliburn, 23 years of age, ventured to show up at the International Tchaikovsky Piano Competition in Moscow. Given the rivalry between the military powers, what chance did an American have of walking away with the prize? The cold warriors of the time would, if asked, had said none.

But Van Cliburn electrified the audience, the Moscow Symphony, and the famous conductor. His reception by the Soviet audience was extraordinary. The judges went to Khrushchev and asked, “Can we give the prize to the American?” Khrushchev asked, “Was he the best.” The answer, “Yes.” “Well, then give him the prize.”

The Cold War should have ended right there, but the military/security complex would not allow it.


In other words, the Soviet Union, unlike America today, did not need to prevail over the truth. The Soviets gave what has perhaps become the most famous of all prizes of musical competition to an American. The Soviets were able to see and recognize truth, something few Americans any longer can do.

The supporters of this website are supporters because, unlike their brainwashed fellows who are tightly locked within The Matrix, they can tell the difference between truth and propaganda. 


The supporters of this website comprise the few who, if it is possible, will save America and the world from the evil that prevails in Washington.

Van Cliburn came home to America a hero. He went on to a grand concert career. If Van Cliburn had been judged in his day, as Donald Trump is today for wanting to defuse the dangerously high level of tensions with Russia, Van Cliburn would have been greeted on his return with a Soviet prize as a traitor. The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, NPR and the rest of the presstitutes would have denounced him up one street and down another. How dare Van Cliburn legitimize the Soviet Union by participating in a music competition and accepting a Soviet prize!

Did you know that Van Cliburn, after his talented mother had provided all the music instruction she could, studied under a RUSSIAN woman? What more proof do you need that Van Cliburn was a traitor to America? Imagine, he studied under a RUSSIAN! I mean, really! Isn’t this a RUSSIAN connection?!

How can we avoid the fact that all those music critics at the New York Times and Washington Post were also RUSSIAN agents. I mean, gosh, they actually praised Van Cliburn for playing RUSSIAN music in MOSCOW so well.

Makes a person wonder if Ronald Reagan wasn’t also a RUSSIAN agent. Reagan, actually convinced Van Cliburn to come out of retirement and to play in the White House for Soviet leader Gorbachev, with whom Reagan was trying to end the Cold War.

I am making fun of what passes for reasoning today. Reason has been displaced by denunciation. If someone, anyone, says something, that can be misconstrued and denounced, it will be, the meaning of what was said not withstanding. Consider the recent statement by the Deputy Prime Minister of Japan, Taro Aso, in an address to members of his ruling political party. He said: “I don’t question your motives to be a politician. But the results are important. Hitler, who killed millions of people, was no good, even if his motives were right.”

To anyone capable of reason, it is perfectly clear that Aso is saying that the ends don’t justify the means. “Even if” is conditional. Aso is saying that even if Hitler acted in behalf of a just cause, his means were impermissible.

Aso, a man of principle, is instructing his party’s politicians to be moral beings and not to sacrifice morality to a cause, much less an American cause of Japanese rearmament so as to amplify Washington’s aggression toward China.

The response to a simple and straight forward statement that not even in politics do the ends justify the means was instant denunciation of the Deputy Prime Minister for “shameful” and “dangerous” remarks suggesting that Hitler “had the right motives.”

Arrgh! screamed the Simon Wiesenthal Center which saw a new holocaust in the making. Reuters reported that Aso had put his foot in his mouth by making remarks that “could be interpreted as a defense of Adolf Hitler’s motive for genocide during World War Two.” Even RT, to which we normally look for real as opposed to fake news, joined in the misreporting. The chairman of the Japanese opposition party joined in, terming Aso’s statement that the ends don’t justify the means “a serious gaffe.”

Of course the South Koreans and the Chinese, who have WWII resentments against Japan, could not let the opportunity pass that the Western media created, and also unloaded on Japan, condemning the Deputy Prime Minister as a modern advocate of Hitlerism. The Chinese and South Koreans were too busy settling old scores to realize that by jumping on Aso they were undermining the Japanese opposition to the re-militarization of Japan, which will be at their expense.

Aso is astonished by the misrepresentation of his words. He said, “I used Hitler as an example of a bad politician. It is regrettable that my comment was misinterpreted and caused misunderstanding.”

It seems that hardly anyone was capable of comprehending what Aso said. He clearly denounced Hitler, declaring Hitler “no good,” but no one cared. He used the word, “Hitler,” which was sufficient to set off the explosion of denunciation. Aso responded by withdrawing Hitler as his example of a “bad politician.” And this is a victory?

The media, even RT alas, was quick to point out that Aso was already suspect. In 2013 Aso opposed the overturning of Japan’s pacifist constitution that Washington was pushing in order to recruit Japan in a new war front against China. Aso, in the indirect way that the Japanese approach dissent, said “Germany’s Weimar Constitution was changed [by the Nazis] before anyone knew. It was changed before anyone else noticed. Why don’t we learn from the technique?” Aso’s remarks were instantly misrepresented as his endorsement of surreptitiously changing Japan’s constitution, which was Washington’s aim, whereas Aso was defending its pacifist constraint, pointing out that Japan’s pacificist Contitution was being changed without voters’ consent.

An explanation of Aso’s words, something that never would have needed doing prior to our illiterate times, has its own risks. Many Americans confuse an explanation with a defense. Thus, an explanation can bring denunciation for “defending a Japanese nazi.” Considering the number of intellectually-challenged Americans, I expect to read many such denunciations.

This is the problem with being a truthful writer in these times. More people want someone to denounce than want truth. Truth-tellers are persona non grata to the ruling establishment and to proponents of Identity Politics. It is unclear how much longer truth will be permitted to be expressed. Already it is much safer and more remunerative to tell the official lies than to tell the truth.

More people want their inculcated biases and beliefs affirmed by what they read than want to reconsider what they think, expecially if changing their view puts them at odds with their peers. Most people believe what is convenient for them and what they want to believe. Facts are not important to them. Indeed, Americans deny the facts before their eyes each and every day. How can America be a superpower when the population for the most part is completely ignorant and brainwashed?

When truth-tellers are no more, it is unlikely they will be missed. No one will even know that they are gone. Already, gobs of people are unable to follow a reasoned argument based on undisputed facts.

Take something simple and clear, such as the conflict over several decades between North and South leading to the breakup of the union. The conflict was economic. It was over tariffs. The North wanted them in order to protect northern industry from lower priced British manufactures. Without tariffs, northern industry was hemmed in by British goods and could not develop.

The South did not want the tariffs because it meant higher prices for the South and likely retaliation against the South’s export of cotton. The South saw the conflict in terms of lower income forced on southerners so that northern manufacturers could have higher incomes. The argument over the division of new states carved from former Indian territories was about keeping the voting balance equal in Congress so that a stiff tariff could not be passed. It is what the debates show. So many historians have written about these documented facts.

Slavery was not the issue, because as Lincoln said in his inaugural address, he had no inclination and no power to abolish slavery. Slavery was a states rights issue reserved to the states by the US Constitution.

The issue, Lincoln said in his inaugural address, was the collection of the tariff. There was no need, he said, for invasion or bloodshed. The South just needed to permit the federal government to collect the duties on imports. The northern states actually passed an amendment to the Constitution that prohibited slavery from ever being abolished by the federal government, and Lincoln gave his support.

For the South the problem was not slavery. The legality of slavery was clear and accepted by Lincoln in his inaugural address as a states right. However, a tariff was one of the powers given by the Constitution to the federal government. Under the Constitution the South was required to accept a tariff if it passed Congress and was signed by the President. A tariff had passed two days prior to Lincoln’s inaugeration.

The South couldn’t point at the real reason it was leaving the union—the tariff—if the South wanted to blame the north for its secession. In order to blame the North for the breakup of the union (the British are leaving the European Union without a war), the South turned to the nullification by some northern states of the federal law and US Constitutional provision (Article 4, Section 2) that required the return of runaway slaves. South Carolina’s secession document said that some Northern states by not returning slaves had broken the contract on which the union was formed. South Carolina’s argument became the basis for the secession documents of other states.

In other words, slavery became an issue in the secession because some Northern states—but not the federal government—refused to comply with the constitutional obligation to return property as required by the US Constitution.

South Carolina was correct, but the northern states were acting as individual states, not as the federal government. It wasn’t Lincoln who nullified the Fugative Slave Act, and states were not allowed to nulify constitutional provisions or federal law within the powers assigned to the federal government by the Constitution. Lincoln upheld the Fugative Slave Act. In effect, what the South did was to nullify the power that the Constitution gives to the federal government to levy a tariff. Apologists for the South ignore this fact. The South had no more power under the Constitution to nullify a tariff than northern states had to nullify the Fugative Slave Act.

Slavery was not, under the Constitution, a federal issue, but the tariff was. It was the South’s refusal of the tariff that caused Lincoln to invade the Confederacy.

You need to undersand that in those days people thought of themselves as citizens of the individual states, not as citizens of the United States, just as today people in Europe think of themselves as citizens of France, Germany, Italy, etc., and not as citizens of the European Union. In was in the states that most government power resided. Robert E. Lee refused the offer of the command of the Union Army on the grounds that it would be treasonous for him to attack his own country of Virginia.

Having explained history as it was understood prior to its rewrite by Identity Politics, which has thrown history down the Orwellian Memory Hole, I was accused of “lying about the motivations of the South” by a reason-impaired reader.

In this reader we see not only the uninformed modern American but also the rudness of the uninformed modern American. I could understand a reader writing that perhaps I had misunderstood the secession documents, but “lying about the motivations of the South”? It is extraordinary to be called a liar by a reader incapable of understanding the issues. President Lincoln and the northern states gave the South complete and unequivable assurances about slavery, but not about tariffs.

The reader sees a defense of slavery in the secession documents but is unable to grasp the wider picture that the South is making a states rights argument that some northern states, in the words of the South Carolina secession document, “have denied the rights of property . . . recognized by the Constitution.” The reader saw that the documents mentioned slavery but not tariffs, and concluded that slavery was the reason that the South seceded.

It did not occur to the reason-impaired reader to wonder why the South would secede over slavery when the federal government was not threatening slavery. In his inaugural address Lincoln said that he had neither the power nor the inclination to forbid slavery. The North gave the South more assurances about slavery by passing the Corwin Amendment that added to the existing constitutional protection of slavery by putting in a special constitutional amendment upholding slavery. As slavery was under no threat, why would the South secede over slavery?

The tariff was a threat, and it was a tariff, not a bill outlawing slavery, that had just passed. Unlike slavery, which the Constitution left to the discretion of individual states, tariffs were a federal issue. Under the Constitution states had no rights to nullify tariffs. Therefore, the South wanted out.

It also does not occur to the reason-impaired reader that if the war was over slavery why have historians, even court historians, been unable to find evidence of that in the letters and diaries of the soldiers on both sides?

In other words, we have a very full context here, and none of it supports that the war was fought over slavery. But the reader sees some words about slavery in the secession documents and his reasoning ability cannot get beyond those words.

This is the same absence of reasoning ability that led to the false conclusion that the Deputy Prime Minister of Japan was an admirer of Hitler.

Now for an example of an emotionally-impaired reader, one so emotional that he is unable to comprehend the meaning of his own words. This reader read Thomas DiLorenzo’s article and my article as an “absolution of the South” and as “whitewashing of the South.” Of what he doesn’t say. Slavery? Secession? All that I and DiLorenzo offer are explanations. DiLorenzo is a Pennsylvanian. I grew up in the South but lived my life outside it. Neither of us are trying to resurrect the Confederacy. As I understand DiLorenzo, his main point is that the so- called “civil war” destroyed the original US Constitution and centralized power in Washington in the interest of Empire. I am pointing out that ignorance has spawned a false history that is causing a lot of orchestrated hate. Neither of us thinks that the country needs the hate and the division hate causes. We need to be united against the centralized power in Washington that is turning on the people.

Carried away by emotion, the reader dashed off an article to refute us. My interest is not to ridicule the reader but to use him as an example of the emotionally-impaired American. Therefore, I am protecting him from personal ridicule by not naming him or linking to his nonsensical article. My only interest is to illustrate how for too many Americans emotion precludes reason.

First, the reader in his article calls DiLorenzo and I names and then projects his sin upon us, accusing us of “name-calling,” which he says is “a poor substitute for proving points.”

Here is his second mistake. DiLorenzo and I are not “proving points.” We are stating long established known facts and asking how a new history has been created that is removed from the known facts.

So how does the emotionally-disturbed reader refute us in his article? He doesn’t. He proves our point.

First he acknowledges “what American history textbooks for decades have acknowledged: The North did not go to War to stop slavery. Lincoln went to war to save the Union.”

How does he get rid of the Corwin Amendment. He doesn’t. He says everyone, even “the most ardent Lincoln-worshipping court historian,” knows that the North and Lincoln gave the South assurances that the federal government would not involve itself in the slavery issue.

In other words, the reader says that there is nothing original in my article or DiLorenzo’s and that it is just the standard history, so why is he taking exception to it?

The answer seems to be that after agreeing with us that Lincoln did not go to war over slavery and gave the South no reason to go to war over slavery, the reader says that the South did go to war over slavery. He says that the war was fought over the issue of expanding slavery into new states created from Indian territories.

This is an extremely problematic claim for two indisputable reasons.

First, the South went to war because Lincoln invaded the South.

Second, the South had seceded and no longer had any interest in the status of new territories.

As I reported in my article, it is established historical record that the conflict over the expansion of slavery as new states were added to the Union was a fight over the tariff vote in Congress. The South was trying to keep enough representation to block the passage of a tariff, and the North was trying to gain enough representation to enact protectionism over the free trade South.

It is so emotionally important to the reader that the war was over slavery that he alleges that the reason the South was not seduced by the Corwin Amendment is that it did not guarantee the expansion of slavery into new states, but only protected slavery in those states in which it existed. In other words, the reader asserts that the South fought for an hegemonic ideology of slavery in the Union. But the South had left the Union, so clearly it wasn’t fighting to expand slavery outside its borders. Moreover, the North gave the South no assurances over the South’s real concern—its economic exploitation by the North. The same day the North passed the Corwin Amendment the North passed the tariff. Clearly, it was not assurances over slavery that mattered to the South. Slavery was protected by states rights. It was the tariff that was important to the South.

Whereas the tariff was the issue that brought the conflict to a head, correspondence between Lord Acton and Robert E. Lee shows that the deeper issue was liberty and its protection from centralized power. On November 4, 1866, Lord Acton wrote to Robert E. Lee: “I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy.” Acton saw in the US Constitution defects that could lead to the rise of despotism. Acton regarded the Confederate Constitution as “expressly and wisely calculated to remedy” the defects in the US Constitution. The Confederate Constitution, Acton said, was a “great Reform [that] would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics.”

Lee replied: “I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

A present day American unfamiliar with the 18th and 19th century efforts to create a government that could not degenerate into despotism will see hypocrisy in this correspondence and misread it. How, the present day American will ask, could Acton and Lee be talking about establishing true freedom when slavery existed? The answer is that Acton and Lee, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, understood that there were more ways of being enslaved than being bought and sold. If the battle is lost over the character of government and power becomes centralized, then all are enslaved.

Lee’s prediction of a government “aggressive abroad and despotic at home” has come true. What is despotism if not indefinite detention on suspicion alone without evidence or conviction, if not execution on suspicion alone without due process of law, if not universal spying and searches without warrants?




This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANDREW KREIG: EXPERTS REJECT FIRE AS CAUSE FOR 9/11 WTC COLLAPSES

The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

 photo
Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

 photo
STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak

UPDATED 01/07/2015 : FOX NEWS CORPORATE PHARMA SHILL MEGAN KELLY AND FOX NEWS QUACK DOCTOR NOW PUSHING TAMIFLU FOR PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN;

 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg
THE 5TH ESTATE UNEQUIVOCALLY WARNS THE PUBLIC NOT TO TAKE OR GIVE THIS PROVEN DANGEROUS, INEFFECTIVE DRUG TO ANYONE

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.

READ MORE >>