• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

woensdag 23 augustus 2017

Zionist Fascism

Margaret Mulheran Have you noticed that the more atrocities committed by the Israeli government against Palestinians and the more rapid expansion of settlements on stolen Palestinian land the greater the increase in anti Semitism worldwide? Could there be a link?
LikeShow more reactions
2 hrs

U.S. Death Cult

US nuclear might rests on civil reactors

Experts say there can be no US nuclear might without a large civil atomic industry to prop up the military.
By Paul Brown

LONDON, 23 August, 2017
 – American experts say that US nuclear might depends  crucially on the civilian use of atomic energy, and believe the country will lose its place as the world’s nuclear superpower if it does not support its nuclear industry.
The link between the civil nuclear industry and the military’s ability to maintain its nuclear weapons capability is spelt out in a report by experts close to the Pentagon.
It states openly that tritium, an essential component of nuclear weapons, is manufactured in civilian reactors for military use. It also says that civilian reactors are needed to produce highly enriched uranium.
The Washington-based Energy Futures Initiative report, says that Russia and China, which are both building civil nuclear stations outside their national borders, will overtake America both in influence and ability to deliver a nuclear threat unless steps are taken to prop up the civil nuclear programme at home.

False claim

This is the first time that the dependence of nuclear weapons states on their civil nuclear programmes has been so clearly spelt out. Governments, particularly the United Kingdom’s, have repeatedly claimed there is no connection between the civil and military nuclear industries, but this report makes clear that is not the case.
It says: “The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is comprised of military and civilian personnel who design, build, operate, maintain and manage the nearly one hundred reactors that power US aircraft carriers and submarines and provide training and research services. 
“The program is operated jointly by the Department of Energy and the US Navy. Nuclear reactors provide the Navy with the mobility, flexibility and endurance required to carry out its global mission. More powerful reactors are beginning to be employed on the new Ford class aircraft carriers and will enable the new Columbia class of submarines in the next decades. 
“A strong domestic supply chain is needed to provide for nuclear Navy requirements.

Clear dependence

“This supply chain has an inherent and very strong overlap with the commercial nuclear energy sector.
“This supply chain for meeting the critical national security need for design and operation of Navy reactors includes a workforce trained in science and engineering, comprised of US citizens who qualify for security clearances.
“The Navy will (also) eventually need additional highly enriched uranium (HEU) to fuel its reactors for long intervals between refueling. Because of the national security use and the sensitivity of HEU production, the entire supply chain from uranium feed to the enrichment technology must be of United States origin.
“There is currently no such domestic capability in the supply chain. The relatively lengthy time period required to stand up such a capability raises serious, near-term concerns about the US capacity to meet this critical national security need.

Non-stop demand

“The nuclear weapons stockpile requires a constant source of tritium (half life about 12.5 years), provided by irradiating special fuel rods in one or two commercial power reactors. As with the Navy HEU requirements, the tritium must be supplied from US-origin reactors using domestically produced LEU reactor fuel. 
“Once again, we do not have the long-term capability to meet this need because of the absence of an enrichment facility using US-origin technology. This is a glaring hole in the domestic nuclear supply chain, since the only enrichment facility in the United States today uses Urenco (European) technology to supply power reactor fuel.”
The report also spells out that the companies that supply the shrinking civil nuclear reactor programme are the same firms that provide the components and enriched uranium to keep the Navy’s nuclear-propelled vessels in full operational order.
The report says: “A shrinking commercial enterprise will have long term spillover effects on the Navy supply chain, including by lessened enthusiasm among American citizens to pursue nuclear technology careers.”

Unappealing option

The report goes on to detail how the number of American citizens taking higher education nuclear energy qualifications is becoming too small to sustain the industry. If only military nuclear options were available for a career path, this might prove even less attractive to the younger generation. It fears there would not be enough qualified American people with security clearance to support the military.
“The picture is clear: a stabilized existing reactor fleet and new builds, perhaps incentivized by the favorable emissions characteristics of nuclear power, will be needed to rebuild a supply chain that will underpin both clean energy and national security success,” the report concludes.
Britain decided in 2002 after an objective inquiry by the government’s Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) that nuclear was becoming too expensive and renewables were a better alternative for generating electricity. 
However, quite unexpectedly, in 2005, after a secretive review under the premiership of Tony Blair, the policy was reversed and the UK government announced a revival of the nuclear industry.

“With renewable costs tumbling and the international nuclear industry in growing crisis, it is becoming ever more difficult to carry on concealing this key underlying military reason for attachment to civil nuclear power”

Corresponding with this unprecedented U-turn on civil nuclear power was an equally unprecedented intensification in efforts to preserve nuclear skills for the military sector. Many millions of pounds have been given in government grants since that time to set up nuclear training programmes.
The Oxford Research Group  (ORG), a UK think tank, published a two-part report, entitled Sustainable Security. Both parts examined the prospects of the UK's Trident nuclear programme influencing its energy policy
The ORG concluded that the government realised it could not sustain its own nuclear weapons programme, or more particularly its nuclear-propelled submarine fleet, without a large and complementary civilian nuclear industry.
Commenting on the release of the American report on the military crisis being caused by the lack of civilian power projects, Andrew Stirling, professor of science and technology policy at the School of Business, University of Sussex, UK, said: “With renewable costs tumbling and the international nuclear industry in growing crisis, it is becoming ever more difficult to carry on concealing this key underlying military reason for attachment to civil nuclear power.”

Strange similarity

In the last year the UK government has been trying to generate interest in an alternative civilian nuclear programme. It has encouraged a competition to develop small modular reactors.
These reactors are supposed to be dotted around the countryside to power small towns. There are a number of designs, but some are remarkably similar to the power generators for nuclear submarines, particularly those that will be needed for the UK’s so-called independent nuclear deterrent – the Trident programme.
It is no coincidence that the frontline developer of both these kinds of reactors is Rolls-Royce, which has a workforce that seamlessly crosses over between military and civilian developments.
Despite the fact that these reactors might create considerable public opposition if they were placed anywhere near homes, no public consultation has been carried out, and none of these matters has ever been debated in the UK Parliament. – Climate News Network
You are receiving this email because you have shown an interest in the Climate News Network
and the issues we report.
Our mailing address is:
Climate News Network
28 Prince Edward's Rd Lewes,
East Sussex
United Kingdom


The US military project for the world


The US military project for the world

While all experts agree that the events in Venezuela are following the same model as those in Syria, some writers have contested the article by Thierry Meyssan which highlights their differences from the interpretation in the anti-imperialist camp. Here, our author responds. This is not a quarrel between specialists, but an important debate about the historic change we are experiencing since 11 September 2001, and which is influencing all our lives.
JPEG - 55.7 kb
This article is the continuation of
- « The anti-imperialist camp: splintered in thought », by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 15 August 2017.
In the first part of this article, I pointed out the fact that currently, President Bachar el-Assad is the only personality who has adapted to the new « grand US strategy » - all the others continue to think as if the present conflicts were simply a continuation of those we have been experiencing since the end of the Second World War. They persist in interpreting these events as tentatives by the United States to hog natural ressources for themselves by organising the overthrow of the pertinent governments.
As I intend to demonstrate, I believe that they are wrong, and that their error could hasten humanity down the road to hell.

US strategic thought

For the last 70 years, the obsession of US strategists has not been to defend their people, but to maintain their military superiority over the rest of the world. During the decade between the dissolution of the USSR and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they searched for ways to intimidate those who resisted them.
Harlan K. Ullman developed the idea of terrorising populations by dealing them a horrifying blow to the head (Shock and awe) [1]. This was the idea behind the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese and the bombing of Baghdad with a storm of cruise missiles.
The Straussians (meaning the disciples of philosopher Leo Strauss) dreamed of waging and winning several wars at once (Full-spectrum dominance). This led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, placed under a common command [2].
Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski suggested reorganising the armies in order to facilitate the treament and sharing of a wealth of data simultaneously. In this way, robots would one day be able to indicate the best tactics instantaneously [3]. As we shall see, the major reforms he initiated were soon to produce poisonous fruit.

US neo-imperialist thought

These ideas and fantasies first of all led President Bush and the Navy to organise the world’s most wide-ranging network for international kidnapping and torture, which created 80,000 victims. Then President Obama set up an assassination programme mainly using drones, but also commandos, which operates in 80 countries, and enjoys an annual budget of 14 billion dollars [4].
As from 9/11, Admiral Cebrowski’s assistant, Thomas P. M. Barnett, has given numerous conferences at the Pentagon and in military academies in order to announce the shape of the new map of the world according to the Pentagon [5]. This project was made possible by the structural reforms of US armies – these reforms are the source of this new vision of the world. At first, it seemed so crazy that foreign observers too quickly considered it as one more piece of rhetoric aimed at striking fear into the people they wanted to dominate.
Barnett declared that in order to maintain their hegemony over the world, the United States would have to « settle for less », in other words, to divide the world in two. On one side, the stable states (the members of the G8 and their allies), on the other, the rest of the world, considered only as a simple reservoir of natural resources. Contrary to his predecessors, Barnett no longer considered access to these resources as vital for Washington, but claimed that they would only be accessible to the stable states by transit via the services of the US army. From now on, it was necessary to systematically destroy all state structures in the reservoir of resources, so that one day, no-one would be able to oppose the will of Washington, nor deal directly with the stable states.
During his State of the Union speech in January 1980, President Carter announced his doctrine - Washington considered that the supply of its economy with oil from the Gulf was a question of national security [6]. Following that, the Pentagon created CentCom in order to control the region. But today, Washington takes less oil from Iraq and Libya than it exploited before those wars – and it doesn’t care !
Destroying the state structures is to operate a plunge into chaos, a concept borrowed from Leo Strauss, but to which Barnett gives new meaning. For the Jewish philosopher, the Jewish people can no longer trust democracies after the failure of the Weimar Republic and the Shoah. The only way to protect itself from a new form of Nazism, is to establish its own world dictatorship – in the name of Good, of course. It would therefore be necessary to destroy certain resistant states, drag them into chaos and rebuild them according to different laws [7]. This is what Condoleezza Rice said during the first days of the 2006 war against Lebanon, when Israël still seemed victorious - « I do not see the point of diplomacy if it’s purpose is to return to the status quo ante between Israël and Lebanon. I think that would be a mistake. What we are seeing here, in a way, is the beginning, the contractions of the birth of a new Middle East, and whatever we do, we have to be sure that we are pushing towards the new Middle East and that we are not returning to the old ». On the contrary, for Barnett, not only the few resistant people should be forced into chaos, but all those who have not attained a certain standard of life - and once they are reduced to chaos, they must be kept there.
In fact, the influence of the Straussians has diminished at the Pentagon since the death of Andrew Marshall, who created the idea of the « pivot to Asia » [8].
One of the great differences between the thinking of Barnett and that of his predecessors is that war should not be waged against specific states for political reason, but against regions of the world because they are not integrated into the global economic system. Of course, we will start with one country or another, but we will favour contagion until everything is destroyed, just as we are seeing in the Greater Middle East. Today, tank warfare is raging in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt (Sinaï), Palestine, Lebanon (Ain al-Hilweh and Ras Baalbeck), Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (Qatif), Bahreïn, Yemen, Turkey (Diyarbakır), and Afghanistan.
This is why Barnett’s neo-imperialist strategy will necessarily be based on elements of the rhetoric of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, the « war of civilisations » [9]. Since it is impossible to justify our indifference to the fate of the people from the reservoir of natural resources, we can always persuade ourselves that our civilisations are incompatible.
JPEG - 37.9 kb
According to this map, taken from one of Thomas P. M. Barnett’s power point slides, presented at a conference held at the Pentagon in 2003, every state in the pink zone must be destroyed. This project has nothing to with the struggle between classes at the national level nor with exploiting natural resources. Once they are done with the expanded Middle East, the US strategists are preparing to reduce the North West of Latin America to ruins.

The implementation of US neo-imperialism

This is precisely the policy which has been in operation since 9/11. None of the wars which were started have yet come to an end. For 16 years, on a daily basis, the living conditions of the Afghan people have become increasingly more terrible and more dangerous. The reconstruction of their state, which was touted to be planned on the model of Germany and Japan after the Second World War, has not yet begun. The presence of NATO troops has not improved the life of the Afghan people, but on the countrary, has made it worse. We are obliged to note the fact that it is today the cause of the problem. Despite the feel-good speeches on international aid, these troops are there only to deepen and maintain the chaos.
Never once, when NATO troops intervened, have the official reasons for the war been shown to be true - neither against Afghanistan (the responsibility of the Taliban in the attacks of 9/11), nor Iraq (President Hussein’s support for the 9/11 terrorists and the preparation of weapons of mass destruction to attack the USA), nor Libya (the bombing of its own people by the army), nor in Syria (the dictatorship of President Assad and the Alaouite cult). And never once has the overthrow of a government ever put an end to these wars. They all continue without interruption, no matter who is in power.
The « Arab Springs », which were born of an idea from MI6 and directly inspired by the « Arab Revolt of 1916 » and the exploits of Lawrence of Arabia, were included in the same US strategy. Tunisia has become ungovernable. Luckily, Egypt was taken back by its army and is today making efforts to heal. Libya has become a battlefield, not since the Security Council resolution aimed at protecting the population, but since the assassination of Mouamar Kadhafi and the victory of NATO. Syria is an exception, because the state never fell into the hanads of the Muslim Brotherhood, which prevented them from dragging the country into chaos. But numerous jihadist groups, born of the Brotherhood, have controlled – and still control – parts of the territory, where they have indeed sown chaos. Neither the Daesh Caliphate, nor Idleb under Al-Qaïda, are states where Islam may flourish, but zones of terror without schools or hospitals.
It is probable that, thanks to its people, its army and its Russian, Lebanese and Iranian allies, Syria will manage to escape the destiny planned for it by Washington, but the Greater Near East will continue to burn until the people there understand their enemies’ plans for them. We now see that the same process of destruction has begun in the North-West of Latin America. The Western medias speak with disdain about the troubles in Venezuela, but the war that is beginning there will not be limited to that country – it will spread throughout the whole region, although the economic and political conditions of the states which compose it are very different.

The limits of US neo-imperialism

The US strategists like to compare their power to that of the Roman Empire. But that empire brought security and opulence to the peoples they conquered and integrated. It built monuments and rationalised their societies. On the contrary, US neo-imperialism does not intend to offer anything to the people of the stable states, nor to the people of the reservoirs of natural resources. It plans to racket the former and to destroy the social connections which bind the latter together. Above all, it does not want to exterminate the people of the reservoirs, but needs for them to suffer so that the chaos in which they live will prevent the stable states from going to them for natural ressources without the protection of the US armies.
Until now, the imperialist project ran on the principle that « you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs ». It admitted that it had committed collateral massacres in order to extend its domination. From now on, it is planning generalised massacres in order to impose its authority - definitively.
US neo-imperialism supposes that the other states of the G8 and their allies will agree to allow their overseas interests to be « protected » by US armies. That should pose no problem with the European Union, which has already been emasculated for a long time, but will have to be negotiated with the United Kingdom, and will be impossible with Russia and China.
Recalling its « special relationship » with Washington, London has already asked to be associated with the US project for governing the world. That was the point of Theresa May’s visit to the United States in January 2017, but she has so far received no answer [10].
Apart from that, it is inconceivable that the US armies will ensure the security of the « Silk Roads » as they do today with their British opposite numbers for the sea and air routes. Similarly, it is unthinkable for them to force Russia to genuflect, which has just been excluded from the G8 because of its engagement in Syria and Crimea.
Pete Kimberley
[1Shock and awe: achieving rapid dominance, Harlan K. Ullman & al., ACT Center for Advanced Concepts and Technology, 1996.
[2Full Spectrum Dominance. U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond, Rahul Mahajan, Seven Stories Press, 2003.
[3Network Centric Warfare : Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority, David S. Alberts, John J. Garstka & Frederick P. Stein, CCRP, 1999.
[4Predator empire : drone warfare and full spectrum dominance, Ian G. R. Shaw, University of Minnesota Press, 2016.
[5The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas P. M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004.
[6] “State of the Union Address 1980”, by Jimmy Carter, Voltaire Network, 23 January 1980.
[7] Certain specialists of the political thinking of Leo Strauss interpret this in a completely different way. As far as I am concerned, I am not interested in what the philosopher thought, but what is being said by those who, rightly or wrongly, speak to the Pentagon in his name. Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Shadia B. Drury, Palgrave Macmillan, 1988. Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, Anne Norton, Yale University Press, 2005. Leo Strauss and the conservative movement in America : a critical appraisal, Paul Edward Gottfried, Cambridge University Press, 2011. Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians Against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers, Peter Minowitz, Lexington Books, 2016.
[8The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy, Chapter 9, Andrew F. Krepinevich & Barry D. Watts, Basic Books, 2015.
[9] « The Clash of Civilizations ? » & « The West Unique, Not Universal », Foreign Affairs, 1993 & 1996 ; The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington, Simon & Schuster, 1996.
[10] “Theresa May addresses US Republican leaders”, by Theresa May, Voltaire Network, 27 January 2017.

Zionistische Intimidatie

Sonja heeft een nieuwe reactie op je bericht "Former Mossad chief Halevy admits Israel supported..." achtergelaten: 

Journalist David Sheen aangeklaagd voor onthulling over Israëlische generaal (die niet eens van hem komt)

Journalist aangeklaagd voor onthulling over Israëlische generaal (die niet eens van hem komt)

De onafhankelijke Israëlisch-Canadese journalist David Sheen wordt aangeklaagd wegens smaad door de prominente generaal Israel Ziv. Dat is opvallend omdat de kritiek waarvoor hij aangeklaagd wordt ook door verschillende andere media uitgesproken werd. Zij worden niet aangeklaagd.

Foto: Libera TV (CC BY 3.0)

‘Ik werk onafhankelijk en heb geen leger van advocaten achter mij staan zoals Channel 2, dat het verhaal oorspronkelijk bracht. Misschien denkt Ziv daarom dat ik makkelijk te intimideren ben via de rechtbank’, vertelt Sheen aan MO*.
David Sheen werkte als freelance reporter voor verschillende Israëlische en buitenlandse media, waaronder Al Jazeera en Haaretz. Hij bericht voornamelijk over ras en religie in de Israëlische maatschappij. Het is een artikel over het eerste onderwerp waarvoor hij nu aangeklaagd wordt.

Gelekte opnames

De Generaal Israel Ziv eist 750.000 Israëlische Shekel—ruim €175.000—van Sheen wegens smaad. Ziv is een voormalig topofficier van het Israëlisch leger en staat nu aan het hoofd van Global CST, een consultancybedrijf in de veiligheidssector.
Alles draait om een artikel dat Sheen schreef in januari van dit jaar, waarin hij 10 invloedrijke Israëli’s oplijst die volgens hem ‘kopstukken zijn in Israëls oorlog tegen Afrika’.
Alles draait om een artikel dat Sheen schreef in januari van dit jaar, waarin hij 10 invloedrijke Israëli’s oplijst die volgens hem ‘kopstukken zijn in Israëls oorlog tegen Afrika’. De voormalige legerofficier staat op nummer 9. Hij verdient die bedenkelijke eer volgens Sheen omdat hij met zijn bedrijf de Zuid-Soedanese president Salva Kiir Mayardit adviseerde. Volgens gelekte tapes hielp Global CST Salva Kiir om diens bedenkelijke reputatie op te poetsen.
De president van het pas sinds 2011 onafhankelijke Zuid-Soedan kwam namelijk in opspraak nadat uit een VN-rapport bleek dat hij zijn soldaten massaal vrouwen liet verkrachten tijdens de burgeroorlog in 2015. Dit bij gebrek aan soldij. Tijdens een vergadering van Israel Ziv en enkele van zijn partners werd er gebrainstormd over hoe dat schandaal best aangepakt kan worden. Een speech van de Zuid-Soedanese president aan de Verenigde Naties, geflankeerd door een slachtoffer van verkrachting is een van “de oplossingen” die geopperd werden.
Opnames van die vergadering werden gelekt aan het Israëlische Channel 2, dat er een videoverslag van maakte. Al wat Sheen deed in zijn artikel was verwijzen naar die videoreportage.


Reden genoeg voor generaal Ziv om een rechtszaak aan te spannen en een bedrag te eisen dat de onafhankelijke journalist zou ruïneren. Dat een individuele journalist aangeklaagd wordt en niet het netwerk dat de oorspronkelijke reportage uitzond doet vermoeden dat het om een SLAPP-proces gaat, wat staat voor Strategic lawsuit against public participation. Dat zijn rechtszaken bedoeld om critici te censureren en de intimideren door hen tot hoge gerechtskosten te dwingen in de hoop zo hun kritische stem te smoren.
‘Ik hoop dat de rechtszaak mij niet zal weerhouden van de harde waarheden bloot te leggen. Ik vrees echter dat het mij nu al beïnvloedt.’
‘Mr. Ziv is een publiek figuur in Israël en heeft voldoende mogelijkheden om mijn gegronde commentaren te weerleggen in de openbare arena. Het is een schande dat rechtbanken misbruikt worden om journalisten onder druk te zetten om goed onderbouwde verslaggeving terug te trekken’, vindt David Sheen.
De Internationale Federatie van Journalisten, een overkoepelende organisatie van persvakbonden in 120 landen, is een wereldwijde solidariteitsactie gestart. Collega-journalisten kunnen hier de petitie tekenen.
Vorige week nog schreef MO* dat de persvrijheid in Israël onder druk komt te staan, dit voorval lijkt te passen in die trend. Gevraagd of dit zijn berichtgeving zal beïnvloeden antwoord David Sheen het volgende:
‘Ik hoop dat de rechtszaak mij niet zal weerhouden van de harde waarheden bloot te leggen. Ik vrees echter dat het mij nu al beïnvloedt. Ik word gedwongen om mezelf te verdedigen in de rechtbank. Dat vreet tijd en energie die ik anders kon spenderen aan het maken van belangrijke stukken.’
Israel Ziv was niet bereikbaar voor commentaar. 

dinsdag 22 augustus 2017

Dark Legacy (George Bush)

Dark Legacy (George Bush)

Cees Hamelink Over Journalisten

Cees Hamelink over journalisten https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypVZNd_mqNo

Hasbara Pays

Whipping up fear and hatred of the Other

Beware the “The Cultural Civil War” Narrative: You’re Being Played

Remember the “Russians hacked our election!” hysteria–or have you already forgotten? That entire narrative collapsed under a deluge of factual evidence that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) data release was an insider job, and a compelling lack of evidence of any other Russian hacking.
That failed narrative has now been replaced with a new mass hysteria: “a new cultural Civil War is inevitable.” In this narrative, America has succumbed to us-versus-them divisions divided by all-or-nothing ideological bright lines.
Snap out of it, America: you’re being played, just as you were played by the absurd “Russia hacked the election” mania.
The core strategy here is the destruction of any common ground: once the delusion that there is no common ground left has been cemented by relentless mainstream and social media hysteria/ propaganda, the populace fragments into echo-chamber fiefdoms of ideological conformity that are easily manipulated by the political-financial power structure.
Once the populace has been fragmented into ideologically divisive camps, controlling the resulting mass of warring mobs is easy. Rather than recognize the commonality of their powerlessness and impoverishment, the fragmented fiefdoms are easily turned on each other:
From the point of view of each fragmented fiefdom, the problem isn’t structural, i.e. the dominance of extreme concentrations of wealth and power; the “problem” is the other cultural-ideological fiefdoms.
Once the masses accept this false division and the destruction of common ground, their power to reverse the extreme concentrations of wealth and power is shattered. The play is as old as civilization itself: conjure up extremists (paying them when necessary), goad the formation of opposing extremists, then convince the populace that these extremists have been normalized, i.e. your friends and neighbors already belong to one or the other.
This normalization then sets up the relentless demands to choose a side– the classic techniques of misdirection and false choice.
Just as you’re sold a triple-bacon cheeseburger or a hybrid auto, you’re being sold a completely fabricated cultural civil war. There have always been extremists on every edge of the ideological spectrum, just as there have always been religious zealots.
In a healthy society, these fringe pools of self-reinforcing fanaticism are given their proper place: they are outliers, representing self-reinforcing black holes of confirmation bias of a few.
In times of social, political and financial stress, such groups pop up like mushrooms. In times of media saturation, a relative handful can gain enormous exposure and importance because the danger they pose sells adverts and attracts eyeballs/viewers.
Add a little fragmentation, virtue-signaling, demands for ideological conformity and voila, you get a deeply fragmented and deranged populace that is incapable of recognizing the dire straits it is in or recognizing the structural sources of its impoverishment and powerlessness.
In other words, you get an easily mallable populace at false war with itself.
There is always common ground for those who dare to seek it. The Powers That Be are blowing up the bridges as fast as they can, whipping up fear and hatred of the Other, fanning the flames of extremism and claiming extremists are now normalized and everywhere.
All of this is false. Would you buy an entirely manipulated cultural civil war if it was advertised as such? If not, then don’t buy into the false (but oh so useful to the ruling elites) narrative of an “inevitable cultural Civil War.”
If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.



With Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, it’s unlikely Trump will be impeached or thrown out of office on grounds of mental impairment. At least any time soon.    
Yet there’s another way Trump can be effectively removed. He can be made irrelevant.
It’s already starting to happen. The howling manchild who occupies the Oval Office is being cut off and contained.
Trump no longer has a working majority in the Senate because several Senate Republicans have decided, the hell with him.
Three Republican Senators voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act, dooming his effort. Almost all voted to restrict his authority over Russian sanctions.
They’re also pushing forward with their own inquiry into Trump’s Russian connections. Republican senators Thom Tillis and Lindsay Graham have even joined Democrats in introducing legislation to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being fired.
Republicans in the House won’t fund his wall. Many refuse to increase the national debt in order to pay for his promised tax cuts.
GettyImages-831982426Donald Trump at Trump Tower, August 15, 2017 in New York City. DREW ANGERER/GETTY 
After Charlottesville, many more are willing to criticize him publicly. Last week Tennessee’s Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, even questioned Trump’s  “stability” and “competence,” saying Trump hasn’t shown he understands “the character of this nation” and that without that understanding, “Our nation is going to go through great peril.”
The Washington Post’s Dan Balz reports that GOP leaders are “personally wrestling with the trade-offs of making a cleaner separation with the president.”
It helps that Republican patrons in big business are deserting Trump in droves. Last week, CEOs bolted his advisory councils. Many issued sharp rebukes of Trump.
These are the people who raise big bucks for the GOP. Their dumping Trump makes it easier for elected Republicans to do so, too.
Even James Murdoch, the 21st Century Fox CEO whose media outlets include Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and The New York Post – among the loudest mouthpieces for Trump – is ditching him.
Last Thursday Murdoch wrote, “What we watched last week in Charlottesville and the reaction to it by the president of the United States concern all of us as Americans and free people,” and pledged $1 million to the Anti-Defamation League.
This doesn’t mean Fox News or the Wall Street Journal will call for Trump’s ouster. It does mean their commentators and editorial writers now have clear license to criticize him.
Hey, America as a whole is abandoning him. Trump’s approval hit an all-time low of 34 percent last week.
Even parts of his base are dropping him. A new News/Marist poll shows his approvals have fallen below 40 percent in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – three states that were key to his election, which he won by a whisker.
Inside the administration, there are moves to contain and isolate the manchild.
On foreign policy, the Axis of Adults – Chief of staff General John Kelly, national security advisor General H.R. McMaster, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – are asserting tighter control, especially after Trump’s tweetstorm over North Korea.
Reportedly, daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner are stepping up attempts to constrain him as well.
“You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill,” another White House aide told Axios’s Mike Allen.
Plus, Stephen Bannon is gone.
All this means that, although Trump will still hold the title of President, he’s on the way to being effectively removed from the presidency. Neutered. Defanged.
We’re not out of danger. Trump will continue to rant and fume. He’ll insult. He’ll stoke racial tensions. He could still start a nuclear war.
But, hopefully, he won’t be able to exercise much presidential power from here on. He’s being ostracized like a obnoxious adolescent who’s been grounded.  
When the media stop reporting his tweets, his isolation and irrelevance will be complete.
Robert Reich is the chancellor’s professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley , and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, and Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective Cabinet secretaries of the 20th century. He has written 14 books, including the best-sellers Aftershock , The Work of Nations and Beyond Outrage and, most recently, Saving Capitalism . He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and co-creator of the award-winning documentary Inequality for All .