Elite figures promoting war

Here are are several looks at elite groups who are, directly or indirectly, promoting war

"Why should we take seriously those responsible for some of the bloodiest, stupidest national security decisions in recent memory?

Efforts to bolster the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris by the D.C. foreign policy establishment kicked into overdrive over the course of the past week with 

the near simultaneous release of two open letters signed by hundreds of former U.S. national security officials."

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/national-security-endorse-harris

The second letter mentioned in the above, the one from National Security Leaders 4 America,

is discussed in the below.

"It’s alarming yet expected that the National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A), 

a group of 741 security leaders, have proudly endorsed the pretender Kamala Harris for President. 

This endorsement includes a remarkable lineup of retired neocons, including 

15 four-star generals and admirals, 230 generals, ten cabinet secretaries, 148 ambassadors, 37 CIA directors and leadership, and 17 Homeland Security officers."

https://sonar21.com/war-pigs-gaslight-the-public-by-endorsing-kamala-harris/

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

A personal comment:

Just who is pushing for aid to Ukraine, 

permitting Ukraine to use the weapons that it is given to attack targets inside Russia, 

and the highly increased risk of World War III that that incurs?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/europe/putin-nuclear-warns-west-missile-strikes-ukraine-intl-latam/index.html

I am quite sure the American people would not be in favor of that.

It is the elite that is pushing this, despite the manifest high risk it entails.

----------

What Joe Biden says;

" "Russia will not prevail. Ukraine will prevail, and we'll continue to stand by you every step of the way," Biden said as he hosted Zelensky in the Oval Office, after thanking him for presenting the so-called victory plan."

https://www.cbs19news.com/zelensky-meets-biden-after-us-unveils-ukraine-military-aid-surge/article_7dda12d2-a2b9-5cb6-975b-79d285c5b0e7.html

God damn it, Biden is pushing us right into World War III

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

What Kamala Harris says:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/07/politics/takeaways-kamala-harris-60-minutes/index.html

"No one-on-one meeting with Putin

Harris said she would not meet bilaterally with Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate a solution to end the war in Ukraine.

“Ukraine must have a say in the future of Ukraine,” she said.

Harris said that there “will be no success in ending that war without Ukraine and the UN charter participating in what that success looks like.”

The vice president avoided answering whether she would support the effort to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, to include Ukraine, saying she would “deal with if and when it arrives at that point.”

“Those are all issues that we will deal with if and when it arrives at that point. Right now, we are supporting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russia’s unprovoked aggression,” Harris said.

She said if Trump were president, “Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now,” referring to the Ukrainian capital.

“He talks about, oh, he can end it on day one. You know what that is? It’s about surrender,” Harris said.

Harris met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House last month, where she reiterated her unwavering support for the country.

“As I have made clear on our six previous meetings and throughout Putin’s brutal aggression and war against Ukraine, my support to the people of Ukraine is unwavering,” Harris said. “I’ve been proud to stand with Ukraine – I will continue to stand with Ukraine, and I will work to ensure Ukraine prevails in this war, to be safe, secure and prosperous.”. "

Just why is it the job of the United States to make Ukraine prosperous?

Her love for Ukraine is literally obscene.

Remember, the money spent on Ukraine is just 

1. Raising our level of debt, with money that could be better spent on AMERICA'S needs, not Ukraine's

2. Dramatically increasing the risk of a nuclear catastrophy.

-----------

For a 12 minute instructive look at what nuclear war would mean, see

https://youtu.be/dZ6WRSZXns8

See also 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/washingtons-nuclear-delusions/

And 

“Media Urge Expansion of Ukraine War—

Nuclear Risk Be Damned”

https://fair.org/home/media-urge-expansion-of-ukraine-war-nuclear-risk-be-damned/

The promotion of war

The view of a retired Foreign Service Officer:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/03/18/iraq-war-lesson-the-seduction-may-be-sweet-but-hangover-is-hell/

"the war-fevered press corps hammer at the administration to talk more hawkishly 

and the chattering class demands that dissenters be investigated as foreign agents

...

As with Iraq, 

there seems to be a coordinated mainstream media effort to drag America into a new war."

Russia's Samson option

What is the original meaning of "the Samson option"? See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

That was specific to Israel.

But I think it clearly applies to other nuclear-armed states as well,

in particular, Russia.

Those who are considering allowing Ukraine to cause more and more damage to Russia 

should think very carefully about this question:

"At what point will so much damage have been done to Russia, with the certainty of yet more damage being done in the future,

that Russia will execute its own Samson option?

I have read that the intelligence agencies are telling their clients that, for one reason or another, Russia would never execute the Samson option.

And many figures in the media ignore or downplay the likelihood of this happening.

But these are the same entities who either lied or erred, take your pick, that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to America.

Why did they do that?

Because some in America wanted Saddam's threat to Israel eliminated.

Now, today, I think we are seeing the same dynamic.

The intelligence agencies are telling their clients what they want to hear.

It is certainly significant that many of the same people and organizations (e.g. the Washington Post) that called for war with Iraq are now demanding support for Ukraine.

Which, if carried too far, is highly likely to have far greater negative consequences for America.

How far is too far?

I suggest prudence on that.

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

Here are some samples of what Russians are saying:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/europe/putin-nuclear-warns-west-missile-strikes-ukraine-intl-latam/index.html

"MOSCOW

Reuters

 — 

President Vladimir Putin warned the West on Wednesday that Russia could use nuclear weapons if it was struck with conventional missiles, 

and that Moscow would consider any assault on it supported by a nuclear power to be a joint attack.

The decision to change Russia’s official nuclear doctrine is the Kremlin’s answer to deliberations in the United States and Britain about whether or not to give Ukraine permission to fire conventional Western missiles into Russia."

"Lebanon, Syria, Iran are not states", says an Israeli minister

See

https://news.antiwar.com/2024/09/22/israeli-diaspora-minister-says-lebanon-isnt-a-state-advocates-taking-south/

"Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli is the latest voicing pro-war rhetoric, declaring overnight in comments on X.com that Lebanon does not, in his opinion, fit the definition of a state

...

Chikli said that southern Lebanon is essentially under the control of “a hostile Shi’ite population.” He added that he believes neither Syria nor Iran counts as states, and so don’t merit protection for their status as sovereign nations."

Wow.

This seems to me the height of arrogance.

It expresses contempt toward those states:

they are not even states.

Movies and books about the results of nuclear war

Videos:

A 12 minute video:

https://youtu.be/dZ6WRSZXns8

Movies:

Threads

https://youtu.be/BvFu7Z5cc88

The Day After 

On the Beach 

Book:

Nuclear War: A Scenario

by Annie Jacobsen

https://g.co/kgs/B8JSg9Z

an interview with Annie Jacobson:

https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/an-interview-with-annie-jacobsen-author-of-nuclear-war-a-scenario/

-------

For how close we are to nuclear war, read

SCOTT RITTER: 72 Minutes

September 19, 2024

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/19/scott-ritter-72-hours/

"Russia has long made it clear that it would view 

any nation which authorized the use of its weapons to strike Russia 

as a direct party to the conflict. 

...

Russian ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov ... 

said he was surprised that many American officials believed that 

“if there is a conflict, it will not spread to the territory of the United States of America. 

I am constantly trying to convey to them one thesis, 

that the Americans will not be able to sit it out behind the waters of this ocean. 

This war will affect everyone, so we constantly say – 

do not play with this rhetoric.” "

Goodbye to the interconnected world

And also the idea of free trade.

Remember: 

The idea that trade between nations would lead to benefits for all.

But now, we have all kinds of items, bought on the international marketplace, exploding in Lebanon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions

What is that going to do to the international marketplace?

Now, there were evidently very specific motivations for this act of terrorism.

But the point is that it, for the first time, demonstrated a technique that could be used by any party desiring to conduct terrorism.

Not good.

That genie should never have been let out of its bottle.

Pushing Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea into a de facto alliance

That is exactly what U S. foreign policy has done.

Perhaps the most determinative thing is U.S. support for Ukraine.

That clearly pushes Russia away from the U.S., into an alliance with those other countries.

This clearly, IMO, a terrible policy.

There is such a thing as having too many enemies.

Making Russia an enemy was, and is, clearly a big mistake.

Endless European wars

David Ignatius writes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/09/15/ukraine-strike-strategy-biden-help/

"If Putin prevails, it will harm the interests of America and Europe for decades."

Who gives a shit?

Who cares whether Ukraine is independent or a part of Russia?

I don't.

Apparently for some Americans that is a significant issue.

I disagree.

That is an issue strictly within Europe.

Time for America to stay out of these conflicts within Europe.

And, though some will disagree, 

I think we should make friends with Russia.

Ignatius concludes his piece with:

"But it’s not sentimentality that underlies deeper American support for Ukraine, 

but U.S. national interest."

What bullshit!

Ignatius doesn't know the American national interest from a hole in the ground.

The American national interest is not to get involved in, or promote, such irrelevant-to-America wars.

For example, look at how much damage this war has done, one way or the other, to the German manufacturing sector.

Did that promote America's national interest?

Was destroying Germany's industrial strength in America's interest?

Ignatius can write as many novels and columns as he likes,

 but he clearly doesn't understand the American national interest.

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

How close did the world come on September 14 to nuclear war?

Scott Ritter thinks, Very Close:

https://youtu.be/YM53jpa205k

Ritter is speaking specifically about when UK PM Starmer came to Washington to discuss with Biden's team whether to escalate attacks on Russia.

The murder of white girls

Are white girls being murdered?

Just see this:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/southport-more-protests-planned-as-pm-launches-national-response-to-disorder/ar-BB1r3jkr

See the photos of the young white girls who were murdered.

Women and World War III

How many women have prioritized the issue of women's access to abortion over 

avoiding World War III?

I am not taking a stand on abortion rights, one way or the other.

That is a very difficult question.

But what I do take a stand on is the issue of preventing World War III

It should be clear to all that the paramount issue should be preventing World War III.

We hear that "Women want a choice".

Well, here is one choice you have.

Which is more important to you:

Your access to abortion, or

avoiding World War III?

It is most unfortunate that you have to make that choice.

but Kamela Harris having placed herself with those who are promoting World War III

unfortunately forces you to make that choice.

A vote for Kamela is a vote for totally unnecessary wars.

Women have to make this decision: 

which is more important to them:

their access to abortion, or

preventing World War III?

It is most unfortunate that Kamala Harris is forcing them to make that decision.

Democrats: stooges of Ukraine

See 

"Pressure builds on Biden from within his own party to ease Ukraine strike restrictions"

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/11/politics/ukraine-strike-restrictions-biden-blinken/index.html

"Pressure is building on President Joe Biden, including from within his own party, to loosen the restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US-provided weapons to strike deep inside Russia."

See how the Ukraine-loving scum is trying to get us into WWIII.

Which is more important: abortion rights or avoiding World War III?

This is an issue that is implicit in the 2024 election choice.

That abortion rights are of great importance to many voters is clear.

I note the media keeps hyping this issue, keeping it at the front of people's minds.

OTOH, there is the issue of 

which presidential candidate is more likely to get U.S. into World War III.

There really can be no doubt on that issue:

Based on her statements

https://youtu.be/071AJxJ9pHM , 

Kamala Harris is far more likely to get the U.S. into World War III 

than Donald Trump.

The media pays far less attention to this issue than it does to abortion.

But which is more significant?

Again, I think the answer is clear.

As to her remarks in the video cited above,

Her assertion of what Putin's goals are, 

beyond ensuring that Ukraine is not a military threat to Russia, 

is challenged by many,

who aren't so eager to get the U.S. into conflict with Russia.

See, e.g., John Mearsheimer at 

https://youtu.be/UOQCOiCpY0o

------

Harris is big on looking to the future.

Well, there is a policy that was stated in 1824 she might heed:

"[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. 

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. 

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. 

She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. 

She well knows that 

by once enlisting under other banners than her own, 

<B>were they even the banners of foreign Independence</b>, 

she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, 

in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, 

which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom." 

https://jqas.org/jqas-monsters-to-destroy-speech-full-text/

"beyond the power of extrication"

Boy, ain't that the truth, of what the risk is of war with Russia.

My view:

Harris is a pawn of the warmongers in America.

In sharp contrast to what Harris said about Ukraine, 

here is what Trump said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/11/trump-ukraine-foreign-policy-approach-00178595

I fully agree with what Trump said about Ukraine.

“I think it’s in the U.S. best interest to get this war finished and just get it done. ...

Negotiate a deal. 

Because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed.”

I would have added 

"And not bring on World War III."

When it comes to Ukraine, 

Trump is head and shoulders above Harris.

Just read what Trump says in the Politico article.

To put it another way, 

support for Ukraine is a high risk/low reward policy for the U.S.

The Politico article ends with this:

"And for all of Harris and Biden’s public support for Ukraine, 

Trump is saying loudly something that at least some members of the current administration say softly: 

that a negotiated end to the war may ultimately be in all sides’ interest."

Something the U.S. pointedly ignored, back in December 2021, 

when the war could have been averted through a compromise, 

as John Mearsheimer points out:

https://youtu.be/kfdR3zA8KME

A number of people worrying about the threat of nuclear war with Russia appear on Judge Napolitano's YouTube channel.

Search YouTube for Judge Napolitano.

Meanwhile, that well-known expert on the risk of World War III, Taylor Swift, has made her preference known:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/10/taylor-swift-kamala-harris-endorsement-00178544

Does the threat of WWIII not concern her?

Or does it, and she can't see any difference between the two presidential candidates on that issue?

Sundance is a Marxist

(Sundance is the proprietor of a prominent blog

"The Conservative Treehouse"

theconservativetreehouse.com )

In what way is the assertion in the subject line true?

Because he constantly pushes the idea that powerful people (descriptors he uses include "the Davos set", the WEF, and in America, "the Sea Island crowd", 

use the control over society they undeniably have

for strictly economic reasons, 

to improve and protect their economic status.

What does this have to do with Karl Marx?

Sundance's theory may be described as <I>economic determinism</I>.

You can read about it at

https://study.com/academy/lesson/economic-determinism-and-karl-marx-definition-history.html

"Economic determinism is the social and economic idea that 

all parts of a society or culture 

are created as a result of economic processes and systems. 

This political, social, and economic theory 

was developed by Karl Marx as he and Fredrich Engels developed the central tenets of Marxism."

See also 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_determinism

Sundance probably doesn't fit all the characteristics of being a Marxist, 

but he does share the economic determinism one.

"DHS doesn't give a damn about Americans being killed."

Who said that?

Congressman Tim Burchett:

https://x.com/RepTimBurchett/status/1832077434054717468

Indeed.

Vdare.com tried to put a spotlight on this, 

and the New York AG promptly trumped up excuses to drive them off the Internet 

https://vdare.com/

What was the problem with Vdare?

See

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/vdare

Dick Cheney: A dirty warmonger

See

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/dick-cheney-kamala-harris-president/index.html

We know Dick Cheney:

A man who supported totally unnecessary wars, which have cost the U.S. dearly.

He has zero understanding of the U.S. national interest.

Specifically, to not get the U.S. into totally unnecessary wars which cost the U.S. dearly.

So now does he wants to get the U.S. into a totally unnecessary conflict with Russia over, God help us, Ukraine?

Who is he stooging for?

What I think should be clear from his track record:

He doesn't know **** about the U.S. national interest.

And what do I mean by the U.S. national interest?

Not getting the U.S. into wars which have zero relevance to the U.S., but cost the U.S. dearly.

A concept which Cheney has clearly never acknowledged.

A moral issue

There are those who want the U.S. to continue funding U.S. support for Ukraine.

Where do those funds come from?

The USG currently runs a very sizable deficit.

That means the USG has to sell bonds to finance its activities.

And on whom falls the obligation to repay the bondholders?

By and large, not the current generation, but later generations.

I.e., we are putting future generations deeper and deeper in debt.

Should we put future generations in debt to finance Ukraine's resistance to Russia?

I think absolutely not.

That is the correct way to think about U.S. support for Ukraine, IMO.

The important point is:

what are the country's vital needs?

("The country" being the USA.)

Surely support for Ukraine is not one of them.

 

Who Joe Biden speaks to

"The White House said he spoke with Goldberg-Polin’s parents and offered condolences."

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-hostages-hersh-netanyahu-29496f50a9b1740bd3905035ffd23052

Apparently he has never spoken to the mother of Rachel Morin.

Rachel Morin's family slams Biden-Harris for silence over her murder allegedly committed by illegal migrant

https://www.foxnews.com/us/rachel-morins-family-slams-biden-harris-silence-over-her-murder-allegedly-committed-illegal-migrant

"The Morin family is deeply disappointed by the lack of acknowledgment and compassion from President Biden and his administration"

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/1-year-ago-maryland-mom-rachel-morin-was-murdered-heres-what-happened-since-baltimore-ma-and-pa/

Shows who matters to Joe Biden.

Not white Americans.

The promotion of sterilization

"In 1939, he published pamphlets as "chairman of the American Federation of Peace" that argued 

that Americans should be sterilized so that their children will no longer have to fight in foreign wars.

In 1941, he wrote and published "Germany Must Perish!" which called for 

the sterilization of the German people"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_N._Kaufman

Now of course now sterilization is being promoted using 

the euphemisms "gender affirmation" and "health care."

Team DEI versus success

By my measure, SpaceX is a very successful company.

Indeed, NASA is now entrusting SpaceX to bring its astronauts back to earth

https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-9-astronauts-cuts-boeing-starliner-return

https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/30/boeing-astronauts-return-spacex

But SpaceX is not good enough for Team DEI.

It is not living up to their standards.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-spacex-discriminating-against-asylees-and-refugees-hiring

Successful you are?

Serving and benefiting America you are?

Not good enough for us.

You are not doing it in the right way (according to team DEI).

So much for the importance of success.

----

Oh, and by the way, about Boeing, you might read

https://christopherrufo.com/p/its-an-empty-executive-suite

 "a story of elite dysfunction, financial abstraction, and a DEI bureaucracy that has poisoned the culture"

The Ukraine lovers

How to identify them?

They don't care how much the policies that they advocate bring the world closer to World War III.

Their approach:

Let us punish Russia enough and Russia will give in, abandon its totally legitimate security needs, and accept a missile-equipped threatening state in Ukraine.

The alternative that they ignore:

If Russia is punished enough, 

it will respond not by giving in, but by responding with World War III.

And if so, who started it?

IMO, Ukraine and the U.S., 

by refusing to accept Russia's totally legitimate security concerns.