The Disgraceful Arrest of Julian Assange

See my book on the New Cold War

The UK has no sovereignty! The UK must resist!

These were the words shouted by Wikileaks’ Julian Assange while being dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy by British police on Thursday. The cowardly Ecuadorian government invited the cops in to arrest him and take him away, betraying seven years of refuge they had provided him.

Assange’s fear that the British would extradite him to the US (directly or via Sweden) were he to set foot out of the embassy has been vindicated. A UN body classed him as a political refugee and he has received the support of millions around the world for his courageous exposure of Western imperialist machinations and atrocities.

Whatever Assange’s faults, the moral contrast between himself and his persecutors could not be more stark at this point. All those involved in his arrest and extradition to the US are debased cowards who unconscionably prostitute themselves to Washington. Where indeed is the UK’s sovereignty?

This event is a disgrace in modern legal history, and demonstrates multiple things. One, that elite politicians are amoral, unprincipled cowards who are willing to “kill any number of people to stay in power”, to quote Daniel Elsberg, the first modern Assange who exposed the lies that led to and dragged on the genocidal Vietnam war.

The judge branded Assange, a seven-year political refugee whose physical and mental health has clearly deteriorated for the crime of journalism, a “narcissist” driven by “selfish interests”. This “judge” is a coward.

Chelsea Manning refused to testify against her fellow cyber-insurgent, landing her in prison. Resistance of the kind she embodies entails the courage and conviction that her and Assange’s persecutors will never understand.

Chelsea Manning, Assange’s accomplice in cyber-op against US empire

Whatever Assange’s fate, he has made a massive contribution to the struggle for information, journalism and the right to know. Even if most Westerners are content not to know how much blood is shed in their name in far-off brown countries.

Assange’s arrest sets a dangerous precedent that highlights elite contempt for democracy and the subversive nature of journalism. May its practitioners persevere!

Syrian Missile Crisis: Will the Donald kill us all?

If this is really the end, the responsibility will go to Donald Trump and his European poodles beginning with Theresa “novichok” May, as well their accomplices.

This Western missile barrage (which Syria and Russia claim to have 70% intercepted, preventing any casualties minus three injured) follows a tweet by Trump goading Russia into acting on its threat to shoot down any missiles fired at Syria, announcing that American missiles were already on their way following fake news of a chemical attack by Syria’s Assad regime.


The White Helmets, a veritable Western proxy funded by Washington and London, has planted fake video and photographic evidence amounting to child snuff porn. On the verge of victory against the collapsing Western-backed jihadist insurgency, Damascus had no motive to conduct such an act.

What a US-Russia war would look like

Evil: The atomic bombing of Hiroshima (pictured) and Nagasaki marked the first military use of nuclear weapons

Trump’s predecessor Obama began this failed four-year regime change operation, responsible for hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced. Yet the worse may yet come as the horrors of Syria threaten to go global. Literally.

Let’s clarify what we are talking about here. It is the literal prospect of planetary annihilation. This is no joke.

Historically, the threat of nuclear apocalypse was most pronounced during the Cold War. During that period, it was an uncontroversial consensus that the combined mega-tonnage of US and Soviet nukes would potentially wipe out humanity multiple times over.

This prospect, and the possibility of it manifesting by accident rather than crude design (why, after all, would any power want to blow itself up?), was most pronounced during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

What we face right now is a Syrian Missile Crisis. And this time, it’s not the young, intelligent Kennedy in the White House Situation Room: it’s Donald fucking Trump.

The Geopolitics of Insanity


If Trump backs down because of Russia’s threat to shoot down any missiles fired at Syria, it will be huge geopolitical gain for Moscow. It would demonstrate to the world that America is no longer the dominant superpower in strict political/economic terms.

If, on the other hand, Putin backs down under the same threat of world war three, he will lose the prestige so crucial to his alpha ego. It would also mean ceding all foreign influence in the Middle East to Western imperialism: without Assad, Russia and Iran are isolated from the strategic energy-rich region: hence Western attempts to salvage its dominance over Middle East oil by enactingl, under the false guise of “humanitarian intervention”, regime change in both countries.

We thus find ourselves at a crossroad of reckless brinksmanship unseen since the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which neither Trump and Putin appear likely to back down. As Noam Chomsky has said, we escaped war in 1962 only because of the wisdom of a Soviet captain – Visal Arkhipov – who chose not to fire his nuclear torpedo in response to US warning depth charges…but we cannot rely on common sense every time humanity comes to the brink of annihilation.

The American masses must rise up and overthrow the capitalist system of war and profit for the 1%: their continued existence and that of the rest of the world may very well depend upon it.

The Real Factors That Have Driven RussiaGate

A manufactured ‘grand enemy’ that serves to unify a crisis-ridden and divided Western power structure

The manufactured RussiaGate scandal that has engulfed US politics since the election of President Donald Trump has been branded my some as the New McCarthyism. Despite memo after memo, the US Intelligence Committee recently concluded there was no proof of Russian interference in the 2016 election: the suspicion of all those with “a modicum of intelligence” (John Pilger).

It all started with the leakage of DNC emails to Wikileaks, a whistleblowing organisation whose courageous editor-in-chief Julian Assange, currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, denied that Moscow was the source, who was more likely a DNC employee disgruntled by the DNC’s replacement of Bernie Sanders with Hilary Clinton, effectively guaranteeing Trump’s victory.

Wikileaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange: Russian government is not the source for 2016 DNC email leak

Clinton, whose corruption and war crimes were laid bare by the emails’ contents, began to cite Russian President Vladimir Putin as the leak’s source, having “hacked” the DNC’s computer system. An evidently unhinged Hilary threatened (nuclear) war against Russia and China in response to their alleged cyberattacks.

Having previously threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran in response to a hypothetical Iranian missile strike on Israel, Clinton obviously does not extend this right to Iran, victim of cyberwarfare by the Obama administration and Mossad.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress that the RussiaGate story was the conclusion of a dozen agents he handpicked from America’s top three intelligence agencies, not all seventeen as Clinton had claimed during the election campaign. Clapper’s belief that Russians are genetically anti-Western may give an indication as to how random his handpicking was…

It is remarkable that no proof for RussiaGate emerged prior to the election, America being in possession of a global surveillance racket whose exposure by State Department whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 did not elicit a comparable response from the media and politicians. Oh, well. If saint Obama’s reputation can survive massacring hundreds of children by drone and arming Saudi and Israeli war crimes, it can surely survive an illegal spying program…

RussiaGate has been driven by both domestic and geopolitical factors:

1. Consolidate US elite and public support for the New Cold War

Since the 2014 Ukraine crisis, the world has effectively entered a New Cold War. Profitable as ever for the military industrial complex, the US establishment obviously wants US public opinion on board.

Significantly, even US elite opinion was divided as to whether Russia or China should be prioritised as the chief challenge to US global dominance. Since RussiaGate, however, it seems both nuclear rivals are in Washington’s crosshairs. This is perhaps the most dangerous period since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

2. Criminalize domestic dissent

The 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement reflected growing anti-capitalist sentiment among the American masses, sentiment bound to increase as police shootings, gun rampages and other social ills increase. As society breaks down, dissent must be silenced.

As Facebook and Google seek to censor real journalism under the guise of curbing “fake news”, the criminalization of dissent as treasonous collaboration with a foreign adversary has clear totalitarian implications. Fascism, said Lenin, is capitalism in crisis.

3. Scapegoat Trump and other societal ills

Trump capitalised on the anger created by neoliberal deindustrialization, a bipartisan policy the Democrats hope to distract from by blaming a foreign source for his election victory. This obviates critical analysis of the Trump phenomena and externalises the blame, as if it has no roots in American society. Estranged from the Democrats, many of Trump’s rustbelt voters were from former Obama strongholds, who suffered the brunt of job offshoring and infrastructure decay.

By the same token, US politicians are now blaming gun rampages – an expression of societal breakdown courtesy of bipartisan pro-corporatism – on fictional Russian Twitter trolls!

When it becomes increasingly obvious who is really responsible for America’s social ills, namely the ruling 1%, the latter are forced to resort to nonsense that only further reflects the reality they seek to obstruct.

US corporations and Wall Street are the ultimate meddlers in US politics: according to a congressional study, 93% of US elections have been won by the candidate that got the most funding. Millions of dollars are required to get on the ballot, guaranteeing the constant monopoly of the two main bought-and-paid-for parties: the Demopublicans and Republicrats.

Insofar as its economic/strategic interests determine both domestic and foreign policy, this elite also meddles in the blood of US citizens, not to mention that of millions of innocent civilians in the countries targeted by US wars. By the logic of RussiaGate, this is ample grounds for a domestic insurrection. For the American people, the real election meddlers are at home.

Seven Myths You’ve Been Told About Russia

A summary of New Cold War propaganda

1. Poisoned Alexander Litvivenko
The UK Inquiry was a farce: the evidence was classified and witnesses all anonymous. The conclusion was clearly a politically predetermined one. It was, however, the same poison by which Israel assassinated Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

2. Started the 2008 Georgia-South Ossetia conflict
An European Council investigation found that, despite excessive force by Russia during the course of the war, Georgia – led by a NATO-aspiring puppet of the Bush administration – had started it by attacking South Ossetia in an attempted Western-backed annexation. This contradicts the mass media narrative in the West and demonstrates the hypocrisy of the next lie.

3. Started the Ukraine crisis
For 200 years, the Crimean port of Sebastopol has been home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, which bears historical, cultural and strategic significance for Russia.

By treaty, Russia could keep a maximum of 25,000 troops at the naval base. The viciously anti-Russian regime in Kiev, brought to power by an illegal US-engineered coup the previous February, may well have canceled this lease and evicted the Russian fleet from Crimea, replacing it with a NATO base right on Russia’s doorstep. This prompted Putin’s “invasion”.

In a subsequent referendum overseen by international observers, the majority-Russian population of Crimea overwhelmingly voted for reunification with their Russian motherland, having previously sought to through earlier referendums without success.

4. Shot down MH17

The claim that Russia had supplied the eastern Ukraine rebels with the BUK missile system that ended up downing MH17 was never proven. It has not even been proven that the rebels did it: the Dutch Safety Board’s identification of the weapon as a Buk was flawed and witnesses interviewed by BBC Russia saw MH17 tailored by Ukrainian fighter jets (the real culprit according to analysis by a retired German commercial pilot) just minutes before it was downed. The Russian MoD corroborated this by disclosing radar data.

The Americans have never disclosed their alleged radar data proving separatist responsibility, while Kiev ATC’s decision to divert the low-flying jetliner over a war zone has never been adequately explained. Live Twitter feeds by ATCer “Carlos” say that Ukraine shot it down and subsequently took over the ATC tower.

There are many websites, blogs and Youtube videos forwarding both sides of the MH17 responsibility debate.

5. State-sponsored doping of Russian athletes
The ban was based solely on the McLaren report, whose flaws are outlined by Consortium News’ Rick Sterling:

-It relied primarily on the testimony of one person, the former Director of Moscow Laboratory Grigory Rodchenkov, who was implicated in extorting Russian athletes for money and was the chief culprit with strong interest in casting blame somewhere else.

-It accused Russian authorities without considering their defense and contrary information.

-It excluded a written submission and documents provided by a Russian authority.

-It failed to identify individual athletes who bemefited but instead cast suspicion on the entire team.

-It ignored the statistical data compiled by WADA which show Russian violations to be NOT exceptional.

-It failed to provide the source for quantitative measurements.

-It claimed to have evidence but failed to reveal it.

Sterling further observes that the “whistleblowing” Stepanovs were themselves involved in doping and therefore had bias in pushing blame higher up the ladder to the Russian state. They now live in the US, suggesting possible political bias too.

6. Interfered in the US presidential election
Perhaps the most outrageous allegation yet and the bogus pretext behind the so-called RussiaGate scandal, referred to by some as the New McCarthyism and whose realreal agenda is to solidify US elite and public opinion against Russia.

When it comes to hard evidence, the ludicrous claim that Putin put Trump in the White House is predictably lacking:
having reviewed one “bombshell” report after another, the House on US Intelligence finally concluded that there was no proof of Russian interference.

During the 2016 election campaign, Trump’s Democratic opponent Hilary Clinton claimed that all seventeen US intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia hacked into the DNC computer system. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper later clarified that this was only the conclusion of agents he had handpicked from the three umbrella agencies, not all seventeen. Clapper probably handpicked fellow Russiophobes: Russians, he believes, are “almost genetically” anti-Western!

For broader analysis debunking the RussiaGate story, go to

7. Poisoned the Skripals
The UK High Court ruled that “the [blood] samples tested positive for the presence of Novichok class nerve agent, or a closely related agent“. The latter phrase could refer to literally any nerve agent, of which most were developed in Germany and the UK, not Russia.

The formula for Novichok has been in the public domain since 2008 and the nerve agent has been successfully developed by Cuba and Iran. Since 1992, the Americans have been assisting Uzbekistan shut down the old Soviet plant that allegedly produced it. London’s claim that only the Russians had access to Novichok is therefore a demonstrable lie.

Why Russia would poison this man eight years since his pardoning, much less on the eve of its presidential election and three months before hosting the World Cup, is anyone’s guess. Why the West would want to poison this man in order to convince the UN to authorise a US invasion of Syria, where its regime change operation is collapsing rapidly, is every thinking person’s strong suspicion. Russia and Damascus had just uncovered a chemical weapons factory in East Ghouta, the last stronghold of a fledging Western-backed terrorist insurgency.

For more critical analysis of the Skripal case, go to

Why the West is against Russia and China

Purchase my ebook of the New Cold War at

Here’s more shit for your face.

Such is how former US President Bill Clinton recalled his relationship with Russia’s first post-Soviet President Boris Yeltsin, an unscrupulous drunk who oversaw his country’s shock transition to free market capitalism.

Yeltsin’s imposition of the IMF’s “shock therapy” measures, assisted by Clinton-sponsored academics led by Harvard’s Jeffrey Sachs, spelt disaster for the Russian people: 30% were plunged into poverty, most of their savings were wiped out by hyperinflation sparked by the removal of price controls, the GDP halved and crime and corruption soared. As Clinton preached the wonders of capitalism during a speech in Moscow, people froze to death in the streets: American beneficence at its finest.

The Western press praised Yeltsin as Russia’s first democrat. Putin, by contrast, is given pariah status by the same press today, which never extends its self-righteous hysteria against Russia – by now bordering on the psychotic – to Western ally Saudi Arabia for its stoning of gays, much less its largely unreported slaughter of Yemeni women and children with American and British supplied weaponry.

Where in the West do you hear that Putin has presided over a record reduction in Russian poverty? Yeltsin did the opposite and was praised. Putin’s unforgivable sin has been to pull Russia from the chaos of the Yeltsin era and restore the country’s sovereignty.

Eurasia: The Grand Imperial Prize

With its huge geographic size and strategic location, a powerful and sovereign Russia poses a direct challenge to America’s dominance over Eurasia, home to much of the world’s markets and resources: the ‘Grand Chessboard’ concept developed during the 1990s by the late godfather of global jihadism Zbniew Brzezinski.

From the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to the BRICS alliance to the Eurasian Economic Union, Russia has formed an eastern sphere of influence with China and Iran that undercuts America’s post-WWII hegemony. Like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, the aforementioned nations are poised to stop trading in the dollar. China has just announced the “petro-yuan”.

The US is determined to maintain its unipolar order and reverse the new multipolar dawn by a desperate gunpoint strategy: seizing on “Russian aggression” in Ukraine, NATO has carried out the biggest buildup on Russia’s borders since WWII, generating over sixty near-miss incidents with Russian forces. Any one of these incidents could have sparked a terminal nuclear war.

In response to China’s military and (enormous) economic rise, Washington’s “Pivot to Asia” has sought to redeploy 60% of US naval and air assets to the Asia Pacific by 2020. In the event of war, the Pentagon’s “AirSea Battle” plan envisages huge missile strikes on China and a naval blockade of her economic chokepoints in the South China Sea, where US incursions to challenge Beijing’s articial airstrips have raised the spectre of a devastating conflagration.

The Historic Crisis of Imperialism


Fifteen years ago last month, the Middle East was plunged into chaos by the illegal invasion of Iraq. Like the Nazi attack on Poland in 1939, “Shock and Awe” was a textbook case of the crime of aggression, described at Nuremberg as the worst of all crimes because it is responsible for, and hence encompasses, all the evil consequences that follow.

A million deaths later, we have seen a failed Western regime change operation in Syria, where Assad’s ouster would isolate growing Russian and Iranian influence in the Middle East. Having failed to transform Iraq and Afghanistan into strategic outposts and reassert its control over the energy markets of the Middle East and Central Asia, the West is desperate to salvage its declining hegemony.

Impunity has emboldened the war criminals: today, fabricated WMD lies are directed not against defenceless Iraq but nuclear-armed Russia. Washington’s determination to sustain a dying unipolar order portends an even greater, perhaps terminal, calamity for the great mass of humanity. Unless, for its own sake and that of its children, it finally awakens from its long slumber.

Skripal Poisoning: Russian Hit or Western False Flag?

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has sought to exploit the incident in Salisbury as a ‘Falklands moment’ to save her lame duck premiership. A Corbyn government is a very real prospect at the next election and, for the ruling elite, a terrifying one.

Cui Bono?

A Member of Parliament on the investigative committee, speaking anonymously, told America’s Newsweek: “One thing that makes me cautious is that it’s just an incredibly dumb thing to do right now. Russia is on its best behaviour before the World Cup…. This was done in such a public manner. For Putin, there’s nothing but damage from this”[].

Former UK ambassador to Russia Andrew Wood concurred to The Guardian: “it’s very hard to see what profit they can get from this”[].

The West, on the other hand, has much to gain from this event: not only to get the UN to authorise its plan to invade Syria[] and salvage what’s left of its seven-year campaign to topple the Assad regime (having just liberated what was the last remaining Western-backed terrorist stronghold, East Ghouta[], where both Assad and the Russian MoD uncovered a factory for an imminent false flag chemical operation to legitimate US intervention[]), but to (unsuccessfully) undermine Putin’s re-election and even engineer a boycott of the Russian-hosted World Cup in three months’ time: for the West, an intolerable opportunity for Russia to bolster its image on the international stage while it helps China and Iran counter the Anglo-American unipolar order ().

Finally, the incident serves to distract from and perhaps even reverse Brexit, a blow to imperialism and the potential cause of the UK Tory Party’s collapse. And of course, this incident happened to occur on the eve of Bill Browder’s “fake news” testimony before parliament[].

Skripal was pardoned by Russia in 2010 as part of a big spy swap with Britain. If Russia wanted to kill him, why has it taken them eight years to do so? Even if Russia had done this kind of thing before (Litvivenko doesn’t count – the recent UK Inquiry was an utter farce[]), that would only provide a template for false flag operatives.

Novichok: WMD Lies

The UK High Court ruling on March 22 confirmed that “the [blood] samples tested positive for the presence of a novichok class nerve agent or a closely related agent“[]. Porton Down’s head Gary Aitkenhead reiterated this to Sky News, emphasizing that the lab could not determine the precise source of the agent[].

The phrase “or a closely related agent” could literally refer to any nerve agent, most of which were originally developed in Germany and the UK, not Russia. As former UK ambassador to Russia Craig Murray has said, this is “irrefutable evidence” that the British government has been lying.

Murray provides the following intriguing account of the hitherto murky identification process:

I have now received confirmation from a well placed FCO source that Porton Down scientists are not able to identify the nerve gas as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation “of a type developed by Russia” after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed upon as a compromise formulation.

Novichok is said to be 3-8 times deadlier than VX, notes blogger MoonofAlabama, of which one drop alone will kill a person. Yet the Skripals are still fighting for their lives in hospital. It took nearly a week for Public Health to issue a safety advice – wash your hands and wet-wipe personal items – to those who visited the restaurant[]. Contrary to remarks by its scientific adviser Ian Boyd, Defra has declared Salisbury “safe for residents and visitors”[].

Even if it was novichok that was used, moreover, that still would not prove Russian responsibility:

*Last year, the Organisation for Prohibiting Chemical Weapons (OPCW) confirmed the destruction of Russia’s entire stockpile of chemical weapons[].

*UK weapons experts have told The New Scientist‘s Debora MacKenzie that, since the scientific publication of its formula in 1992, several countries have been capable of developing Novichok[]. The Soviet dissident who first disclosed the existence of novichok also reproduced its formula in his 2008 book State Secrets.

*According to a leaked WMD study by US private intelligence firm Stratfor, Cuba has successfully developed novichok[].

*In 2016, Iran successfully developed novichok, in full cooperation with the Organisation for Prohibiting Chemical Weapons (OPCW)[].

*The Americans have been assisting Uzbekistan in shutting down the very Soviet chemical plant that produced novichok[].

*In 1995, Russian banker Ivan Kivelidi was poisoned by Russian criminals using Novichok, having purchased it (complete with instructions) from Leonid Rink, head of the former Soviet lab that produced it. Rink’s stock, which he kept in his garage after the USSR dissolved, fell into the hands of other crime syndicates, the investigation learned[].

*In last November’s episode of a UK TV drama produced by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox, a Russian scientist poisons people using novichok: the obvious inspiration for May’s story[].

The government’s Porton Down laboratory, moreover, is just eight miles from Salisbury and is not unfamiliar with testing biochemical weapons on UK citizens: Gruinard Island (1942), Lyme Bay (1963-75) and postwar sarin gas testing on UK servicemen to name a few examples.

Vlad Pasechnik, a Soviet biowarfare expert who worked at Porton Down following his defection in 1989, died in Salisbury in 2001, a year after his retirement[]. Perhaps MI6 was worried about him leaking the fact that the lab had been secretly resuming its production of nerve gas, the cause of multiple fatal accidents among its employees[<, since its official end in 1989 (the year he began there, placing him in a good position to know)[].

Who is Sergei Skripal?

Skripal was a double agent for MI6, not a defector: he was sentenced by Russia in 2006 and pardoned in 2010.

The Daily Telegraph reports that he was a close associate of Salisbury-based Pablo Miller, a known MI6 recruiter of Russians and ongoing security consultant for Orbis Business Group, the firm behind the RussiaGate ‘Steele dossier’. The latter connection was suspiciously removed from his Linkedin account even before the Telegraph article was published[].

Based on the above link between Skripal and Miller, Consortium News’ James O’Neill has hypothesized that Skripal may have assisted the Steele dossier and was poisoned for threatening to talk amidst the current implosion of RussiaGate.

The unprecedented integration of the Deep State and the Democrats (see The CIA takeover of the Democrats, in response to Trump lends credence to O’Neill’s hypothesis, not to mention the CIA’s long and bloody history of covert terror and assassination[].


1. If Russia wanted revenge for Skripal’s treason, they would have killed him during his jail term or during the eight years since his pardoning.

2. Russia is hardly likely to have done this three months before it hosts the World Cup AND ten days before the presidential election. As the main beneficiary, this makes the West the prime suspect.

3. The identification of the substance used as novichok is murky and clearly based on last November’s episode of a UK TV drama. Even if true, it would not prove Russian responsibility in the least. It is not inconceivable that some ex-Soviet states, especially the ultra-Russiophobic ones like Poland and Ukraine (the latter, rather than Russia, may have been behind the MH17 shootdown), have retained novichok.

4. German newspaper Der Spiegel cites a senior German official as saying that the documents the UK has shared with German intelligence provide “no definitive proof that the Russian state was behind the attack”[].

5. Skripal may have been involved in drawing up the Steele dossier and was threatening to spill the beans amidst RussiaGate’s current implosion, providing a motive for the Deep State to bump him off.

For real news analysis of the Skripal poisoning, go to

Donald Trump and the Crisis of Imperial Decline

Above all, the Trump presidency expresses an entire US political and economic system in decline.

Mainstream commentary on Donald Trump invariably reduces him to an individual phenomenon. Be it a twitter comment or a public outburst, everything is about him.

The truth, of course, is that Trump is not some other-worldly demon that crossed into this dimension out of nowhere. Above all, his presidency expresses an entire US political and economic system in crisis.

In the early 20th century, the major economic centres of the world were Germany, the US and Japan. Europe as a whole was secondary; Britain had been in decline since the Victorian era.

Except for the US, these economies were left in tatters by the Second World War. This transformed America from a traditional hemispheric power (e.g. Monroe Doctrine) into the global dominant superpower virtually overnight: after 1945, the US alone accounted for some 50% of world economic output.

By the early 1940s, US policy planners had seen this coming, as Hitler’s defeat on the Eastern Front – where, the West forgets, the Soviets inflicted 75% of all German WWII casualties – seemed only a matter of time. Accordingly, these planners developed what they called a ‘Grand Area’ in which US corporations could plunder the planet’s markets and resources to satisfy an unfettered drive for profits.

Everything seemed great for the American empire, until the late 60s. The economies smashed in WWII – esp. West Germany, Japan and the new Asian ‘tiger’ economies – had rebuilt themselves and became viable competitors in the international market.

This meant that world power became multipolar, notwithstanding the considerable clout US imperialism managed to retain. But to reverse this trend entirely, the Reagan Administration initiated its neoliberal offensive of financial deregulation, union busting and austerity: all designed to sustain the massive postwar profit rates of Corporate America.

The Empire Strikes Back
The Bush I Administration saw the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 as an historic opportunity to reassert America’s political and strategic dominance in world affairs by brute military force, initiating a devastating air war against Iraq in order to tame a former ally, Saddam Hussein, after he disobeyed Washington’s diktats in the crucial oil-rich region.

Maintained by the Clinton and Bush II Administrations, the simultaneous economic embargo strengthened Saddam’s grip on the country rather than induce his overthrow. This strategic blunder was eventually recognised by the latter administration, whose solution became a war in 2003 with manufactured pretexts that proved even more futile: 1 million dead, 4 million displaced, and a Shia government friendly with Iran.

Then came the 2008 crash, sending the world capitalist economy into its biggest crisis since the Great Depression.

Since then, US decline has entered a heightened phase. China has now eclipsed America as the world’s biggest economy, prompting Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ military buildup. On the other side of the Atlantic, he subjected America’s other chief rival in Eurasia and the Middle East (Syria), Russia, with the biggest military buildup on its borders since the Nazi invasion.

“Make America Great Again”

Donald Trump expresses a psychology of denialism within the US elite. Unlike Reagan and Bush, he has come to power within the context of a much more existential phase of American decline. He personifies a ruling class with no solution for reversing the new reality: the US is no longer top dog.

Those who want rid of Trump need to go beyond the individual. Trump would never have emerged in the 1950s. He expresses the crises of American capitalism. The struggle against Trump is invariably bound up with the struggle for socialism.

The Colossal Hypocrisy of Liberal America

#MeToo vs state terrorism

Has anyone managed to avoid vomiting at the epic hypocrisy of Liberal America’s #MeToo campaign?

Self-proclaimed liberals have spearheaded a hysterical pitchfork hunt worthy of Witchfinder General. Their redefinition of sexual assault threatens to take on a legislative form that can only serve to strengthen the very trend of authoritarianism they purport to oppose.

Those who backed Hilary Clinton have no issue with the fact that she butchered thousands of innocent children and women in Libya. Liberal America, from the media pundits to the public at large, blissfully acquiesce to state terrorism. Such is the moral insanity engendered by generations of corporate media brainwashing and value manipulation.

Take Katy Perry, who actively campaigned for Hilary in the 2016 presidential election: appalled by Trump’s ban on Muslims, deafly silent on his (and Hilary’s) slaughter of same. Her feminist hero advocated the nuclear genocide of the entire population of Iran and knowingly voted for an imperialist war for oil based on verifiable lies that produced 700,000 widows. And defended a rapist in court.

Clintonian feminism is the kind that uses identity politics to distract from the issue of class/plutocracy. The constituents of such politics are the top 10%, whose political engagement can hardly be expected to prioritise the working class majority. With nothing to fight for, they resort to the nonsense that is identity.

What are the liberals’ vision for the American people? Obama resumed his predecessor’s bank bailouts and concurred with his opponent John McCain that “we need to start going after” social security, medicaid and pensions. His takeover of the auto industry meant a 50% wage cut for new autoworkers. 90% of jobs created under his presidency were part-time and casual. Yet Meryl Streep thanked him for bringing change.

The bankruptcy of American liberalism – a historical phenomena that, like its right-wing counterpart embodied in Trump, is a product of the debased stage of late American capitalism – is evident in the reactionary form that its ‘opposition’ to Trump is taking: half-crazed hysteria about a mythical Russian election theft, designed to shift public anger off the two-party capitalist system and onto a perceived foreign enemy attacking the great democracy. Soon all social ills will be blamed on those pesky Russians as the masses are rallied behind the flag rather than against the social order it cloaks.

With the NATO buildup on Russia’s borders, unprecedented since Hitler, the Democrats and Republicans alike are playing nuclear roulette with the entire human race: proof of the utter insanity not of ‘the world’, but of the capitalist-imperialist order and the need to overthrow it.

“We Were This Close to Nuclear War”

Excerpt from “Eurasian Tinderbox: The U.S. Buildup Against Russia and China”, Jimmy Colwill. To purchase the entire eBook for just $3.01, visit

Kennedy’s strategy to ‘reverse’ the gap – in reality, aggressively expand America’s strategic advantage over the Soviets even further than it had already been – included what became, according to the preeminent international relations theorist Kenneth Waltz, “the largest strategic and conventional peacetime build-up the world has yet seen…even as Khrushchev was trying at once to carry through a major reduction in the conventional forces and to follow a strategy of minimum deterrence, and…even though the balance of strategic weapons greatly favored the United States”[4].

This included the stationing of more than a hundred Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey, the latter within striking range of the Russian capital of Moscow. In May 1962, faced with CIA terrorist campaign Operation Mongoose and the threat of imminent US invasion (following an initial US invasion attempt the previous year i.e. the infamous Bay of Pigs fiasco), Cuba’s Fidel Castro requested the stationing of Soviet missiles on the island – just 90 miles away from Florida – as a nuclear deterrent against American aggression.

Recognising this opportunity to strike a deal with Kennedy, who had earlier spurned his offer of a mutual weapons reduction treaty, and get the US missiles out of neighbouring Turkey[5], Khrushchev granted Cuba’s request the following July.

The following month, while on holiday, Kennedy read Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August, a classic account of the build-up to World War One. Tuchman had argued that none of the key political figures welcomed war and that, given the chance, they would not have repeated their mistakes that led to conflict.

After the resumption of U2 reconnaissance flights over Cuba in October, pilot Major Richard Heyser took 928 photographs recording the recently station Soviet missiles on the island. The CIA identified the missiles thanks to intelligence provided by double agent Oleg Penkovsky[6], notifying the State Department on October 15 at 8:30pm.

Following an initial briefing he received from Bundy the following morning[7], President Kennedy convened his national security council and other key advisors at 6:30pm. Kennedy secretly tape recorded the meetings (the ‘Excomm meetings’), some of which have been subsequently transcribed by the Kennedy Library’s Sheldon Stern. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously recommended a military strike on Cuba to take out the missiles. An invasion was already scheduled, hence (partially) the stationing of the missiles on the island to begin with. But McNamara countered that, seeing as the US already had 5000 strategic warheads compared with the Russians’ 300, the balance of military power was still overwhelmingly in Washington’s favour[8].

In any event, the JSC’s apocalyptic recommendation held consensus, despite the fact that a diplomatic solution was the elephant in the room during the first Excomm meeting: answering Kennedy’s query about Khrushchev’s possible motive for stationing the missiles in Cuba, Dean Rusk pointed out that it may have something to do with the US Jupiter missiles in neighbouring Turkey, within striking range of Moscow.

On October 18, Kennedy met with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko in the Oval Office, the latter explaining the defensive nature of the missiles. Kennedy risked nuclear extinction by failing to offer US withdrawal of its Turkey missiles in exchange for a Soviet withdrawal of its Cuba missiles. The next day, Excomm agreed to a naval blockade of Cuba, to prevent any further Soviet missile shipments thereto.

In a televised address on the 22nd, Kennedy branded Soviet actions “a reckless and provocative threat to world peace”, stripping the crisis of its entire context: his missiles in Turkey, his brother Robert’s CIA terrorist campaign to raise “the terrors of the earth”[9] against the Castro regime, and (as it turns out, justified[10]) Soviet-Cuban fears of imminent US invasion of Cuba.

As Kennedy spoke, US forces were put on DEFCON 3. A quarter of a million US troops were on standby to invade Cuba. Nearly two hundred B47s, all armed with hydrogen bombs, dispersed to civilian airports across the United States. B52s on airborne alert increased more than fivefold, some 65 of them, each armed with thermonuclear warheads and 2-4 Hydrogen bombs, within striking range of the USSR[11]. On October 24, as the naval blockade began, Strategic Air Command was switched to DEFCON 2, the first time in its history.

On October 26, Kennedy received a letter from Khrushchev offering to withdraw the Soviet missiles from Cuba in exchange for US assurances that neither America nor its proxies would attack Cuba. Excomm agreed to the deal, but would respond the next morning after some shuteye. By radio, a frantic Khrushchev offered to publicly withdraw the missiles if the US publicly withdrew its Turkey missiles.

Naturally, the granting of both proposals would have guaranteed a definitive resolution to the most dangerous crisis in world history, pulling humanity back from the brink of nuclear annihilation. Within Excomm, the confusion caused by the second letter only intensified calls for an airstrike, which intensified even further after an American U2 was shot down (without Khrushchev’s authorisation) later that day.

Nonetheless, Kennedy only accepted the first offer (US pledge not to attack Cuba, quickly broken as Operation Mongoose resumed, lasting well into the 1970s at the cost of thousands of Cuban lives), insisting instead that the US secretly withdraw the missiles from Turkey, while Russia publicly withdraw its missiles.

Kennedy made this move despite his own guess that nuclear war was 33-50% probable, and having already ordered the withdrawal of the obsolete Jupiter missiles from Turkey for replacement by far more lethal Polaris submarines[12]. In other words, he risked nuclear extinction of humanity for sheer imperial prestige.

“It is hard to think”, says Noam Chomsky, “of a more horrendous decision in history – and for this, he is still highly praised for his cool courage and statesmanship”[12]. As it happens, Khrushchev had already ordered the missiles’ withdrawal while awaiting a reply from Kennedy, delighted by the latter concession[13].

Graham Allison’s judgement is even more damning[14]:

Although he appreciated the dangers of his predicament, Kennedy repeatedly made choices he knew actually increased the risk of war, including nuclear war. He chose to confront Khrushchev publicly (rather than try to resolve the issue privately through diplomatic channels); to draw an unambiguous red line requiring the removal of Soviet missiles (rather than leave himself more wiggle room); to threaten air strikes to destroy the missiles (knowing this could trigger Soviet retaliation against Berlin); and finally, on the penultimate day of the crisis, to give Khrushchev a time-limited ultimatum (that, if rejected, would have required the US to fire the first shot). In each of these choices, Kennedy understood that he was raising the risk that further events and choices by others beyond his control could lead to nuclear bombs destroying American cities, including Washington DC (where his family stayed throughout the ordeal.

By far the most dangerous moment in the entire crisis (and, arguably, human history) was when, on the day of Kennedy’s gamble, one of the Soviet Foxtrot submarines approaching Cuba received US warning depth charges, which one of the submarines misinterpreted as an attack. Six hours later, the three commanders, authorised by Soviet protocol to launch a torpedo, made the decision to do so, except one: Visal Arkhipov, “the man who saved the world”.

Thus, Kennedy’s gamble was more like an unwitting 99%. Indeed, without his knowledge, and on the same day as the U2 shoot-down, an Atlas long-range missile test was carried out from Vandenberg Air Force Base. The Soviets could have easily misinterpreted this as the first firing shot. Meanwhile, another U2 was tailed by Soviet pilots after straying into Siberian airspace before being safely escorted back to Alaska by atomic-armed US warplanes which, under DEFCON 3, were authorised to shoot down Soviet aircraft[13]. Even this barely scratches the surface of the additional dangers involved.

Investigative journalist Eric Schlosser observes[13]:

Although Khrushchev never planned to move against Berlin during the crisis, the Joint Chiefs had greatly underestimated the strength of the Soviet military force based in Cuba. In addition to strategic weapons, the Soviet Union had almost one hundred tactical nuclear weapons on the island that would have been used by local commanders to repel an American attack. Some were as powerful as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Had the likely targets of those weapons – the American fleet offshore the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo – been destroyed, an all-out nuclear war would have been hard to avoid.

At a Senate hearing following the merciful resolution of the crisis, McNamara adamantly denied that the Soviet missile withdrawal from Cuba was traded for the US missile withdrawal from Turkey: “Absolutely not…The Soviet government did raise the issue…[but the] President absolutely refused even to discuss it”. Off the record, officials even concocted that Kennedy had spurned a proposal by his UN ambassador to trade the Soviet missiles in Cuba for NATO missiles in Turkey, Italy and Britain[13].

Following the resolution of the crisis, a Moscow-Washington hotline was established, as well as the landmark Limited Test Ban Treaty, which prohibited nuclear detonations in the atmosphere, ocean and outer space. Nonetheless, over the next five years, US nukes would grow by more than 50% (as would tactical nukes deployed to Europe) from Eisenhower’s 19,000 to a total of 31,255[15]. And the progress in US-Soviet relations would be severely damaged by the reckless brinksmanship of the 1980s Reagan Administration, bringing us once again to the brink of catastrophe.