…by Jonas E. Alexis
Stephen Kinzer, a journalist and a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, argued last April that the promiscuous argument which NATO and the U.S. are propounding against Russia simply does not add up at all. In that sense, Kinzer crushed Zionist outlets Business Insider and as Newsweek. Over the past few months alone, those two magazines have produced countless articles demonizing Russia and Putin and mischaracterizing the fundamental issues.
For example, Peter Dickinson of Newsweek has recently advanced the perverse, pathetic, and now boring idea that Russia has actually “invaded” Crimea and has used that lie to beat his readers over the head with a Neoconservative stick. Dickinson has even implicitly blamed Russia for the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 incident. We can ignore Dickinson because the evidence is completely against him.
We all know by now that it is pretty hard for NATO to convince reasonable people that Turkey, which is part of NATO, can deliberately attack a Russian warplane and still consider Russia an aggressor. It is pretty hard to convince reasonable people that Russia is actually evil when NATO is moving its forces (14,000 troops!) “in several countries that border Russia.” Even Business Insider reported two days ago that “NATO is sending troops to Poland to stare down Russia.” But again it is Russia, not NATO, that is actually the aggressor here!
Well, people of reason everywhere are actually discovering that NATO has no moral and political leg to stand on. “Rather than feed the cycle of tension between Russia and the United States,” Kinzer proposed in the Boston Globe, “we should step back from confrontation. The United States no longer needs to militarily dominate Europe.”
The United States, continues Kinzer, cannot afford to “dominate NATO” any longer, and the “improvement of US-Russian relations” would eventually “strengthen our security.” Kinzer writes:
“Last year, the United States and Russia worked together on a major diplomatic project, the nuclear deal with Iran. Returning to that kind of cooperation would benefit both countries, especially considering our shared sense of urgency on terror-related matters.
“Russia, which is merely a shadow of the US economically and militarily, does not benefit from long-term confrontation and could be open to a deal. We cannot expect the Russians to trust us, however, while we rattle our NATO sword on their borders and off their coasts. Russia will not help us in some areas while we confront it in others.
“When the United States decided to expand NATO, we believed Russia would smile gratefully while we pushed a stick in its eye. That was part of a larger delusion. Americans see our projection of power into other parts of the world as inherently benign and are shocked when others consider it hostile.”
Kinzer is doing well so far, and we should always welcome him because he is saying some sensible things. But he doesn’t seem to understand that people who refuse to submit their political and ideological appetite to practical reason always end up defeating their own purposes.
For over sixty years or so, the Neoconservatives, along with their puppets in Washington and elsewhere, have deliberately dismissed practical reason in the political arena as a relic of the past and expect reasonable people to love them. They apply one standard for themselves and a completely different standard for every other country.
For example, how can writers at Business Insider and Newsweek not see that Russia’s concerns are legitimate and that no country on earth will allow at least 14,000 foreign troops on its back door? How can the U.S. say that Russia cannot “invade” Crimea while the U.S. is invading one country after another? How can they expect people to love them when they are deliberately creating trouble in places like the South China Sea? Why do they continue to demonize Russia, unless they are doing this for ideological reasons? Listen to Newsweek here:
“NATO is expected to finalize several landmark projects in Eastern Europe during July’s summit in Poland and announce details of a rotational, multinational force that will travel in between states. The Czech Republic has already announced it and three of its neighbors are willing to commit 600 troops to reinforce the Baltics and currently 10,000 allied troops are engaged in a joint U.S.-led drill across Eastern Europe.”
And that’s not a problem at all? Why can’t people with an ounce of two brain cells knocking together see that this is a logical disconnect? Well, these issues bring us back to practical reason once again.
Any movement that deprives itself of practical reason—the metaphysical substratum upon which the political and moral universe is based—will eventually end up committing moral and intellectual suicide. And this is one reason why people across the planet are resisting the New World Order.
Practical reason, as Kant would have put it, is the powerful force that binds us all together as human beings. Dialogues and international relations are possible because as rational creatures we all have to interact with each other, and human interactions mean that we have to abide by principles that forbid contradiction, dishonesty, double standard, and blatant and implicit lies.
The New World Order is incoherent because it is implicitly and practically based on the principle that double standard and contradiction are logical. In a rational universe, A cannot be a non-A at the same time and in the same respect. But in the minds of New World Order agents, contradictory things are possible.
So, the New World Order violates the law of non-contradiction, which is foundational to all reasonable interactions. Terrorism, in the New World Order, can be non-terrorism at the same time and in the same respect.
For example, New World Order agents supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, but they later declared that bin Laden was a terrorist and therefore needed to be deposed. Why? Because bin stopped working for them.
In a similar vein, George W. Bush declared ad nauseam that he was fighting terrorism in the Middle East, but George W. Bush trained terrorist organizations such as the MEK in Nevada. NWO agents declare that they are spreading democracy in the Middle East, but they want to remove democratically elected officials such as Assad from power.
That indeed is a contradiction, and no reasonable person will stand for this. What we are seeing again and again is that NWO agents seem to embrace John Milton’s Satan, who says “Evil, be thou my good.”
In other words, NWO agents replace good with evil and evil with good. This principle is essentially diabolical and Talmudic. In short, NWO agents are replacing practical reason with Satanism and are desperately spreading this poison across the Middle East.
Let us supposed that NWO agents are right, that they are spreading democracy and freedom in the Middle East. What has been the result of this ideology since the past thirteen years or so? Peace and harmony in the Middle East? Or isn’t it more terrorism and death virtually every month or so? Well, let’s just see. June 3, 2015:
“The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
“The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defense argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an ‘affront to justice’ when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing ‘extensive support’ to the armed Syrian opposition.
“That didn’t only include the ‘non-lethal assistance’ boasted of by the government (including body armor and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of ‘arms on a massive scale.’ Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a ‘rat line’ of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.
“Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases.”
What we are saying here is that the officials who supported the so-called Syrian rebels ought to go to jail as well. Last year, Obama rightly declared that “ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences.” Obama has even admitted that Libya a “shit show.” In a similar vein, former UK foreign secretary David Miliband conceded that
“It’s clearly the case that the invasion of Iraq, or more importantly what happened afterwards, is a significant factor in understanding the current [terrorist] situation in the country. I regret it because I made a decision on the basis of upholding the norms of respect to weapons of mass destruction, and there were none.”
In contrast to the Neoconservatives who have not admitted that the war in Iraq was a complete disaster, Miliband declared, “you have to take responsibility. You can’t press the rewind button.”
Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, Research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law, did an exhaustive study on the war in Iraq and its impact on the Middle East. Their conclusion?
The war “has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide.” Quoting George W. Bush’s own National Intelligence Estimate, Bergen and Cruickshank reported, “the Iraq War has become the ’cause celebre’ for jihadists…and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.”
So, the plot thickens: John McCain and the entire Neoconservative establishment ought to be placed in padded cells for the rest of their natural lives because they are dangerous to society and almost the entire world. Their mendacious and duplicitous nature is beyond comprehension. They think that everyone is stupid and ought to accept their essentially diabolical plan. But if they really believe that we’re going to stop exposing them, they ain’t seen nothing yet.
 Peter Dickinson, “Europe Is in Denial About Putin’s Threat of War,” Newsweek, June 2, 2016.
 Conn Hallinan, “Baiting the Bear: Russia and NATO,” Counter Punch, May 4, 2016.
 Alex Lockie, “NATO is sending troops to Poland to stare down Russia,” Business Insider, June 1, 2016.
 Stephen Kinzer, “Handle the Bear with care,” Boston Globe, April 28, 2016.
 I have just finished reading his book All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. I will address its content this summer.
 For a recent development, see “US ‘provocations’ may force China to declare air defense zone in S. China Sea – report,” Russia Today, June 1, 2016.
 Damien Sharkov, “Russia Warns NATO It Will Neutralize Any Threat from Black Sea,” Newsweek, May 31, 2016.
 Seymour Hersh, “Our Men in Iran?,” New Yorker, April 5, 2012; Glenn Greenwald, “Report: U.S. trained terror group,” Salon, April 6, 2012; for similar reports, see Souad Mekhennet, “The terrorists fighting us now? We just finished training them,” Washington Post, August 18, 2014.
 Nabih Bulos, “Syria’s Assad wins third term as president in landslide victory,” LA Times, June 4, 2014; “Landslide Win for Assad in Syria’s Presidential Elections,” Haaretz, June 4, 2014; “Bashar al-Assad wins re-election in Syria as uprising against him rages on,” Guardian, June 4, 2014; f Bashar Assad wins Syria presidential election with 88.7% of vote,” Russia Today, June 4, 2014; or similar reports, see Ian Black, “Bashar al-Assad is west’s ally against Isis extremists, says Syria,” Guardian, July 14, 2014.
 John Milton, Paradise Lost (New York: Dover Publications, 2005), 71.
 Seumas Milne, “Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq,” Guardian, June 3, 2015.
 Quoted in Dilly Hussain, “ISIS: The ‘unintended consequences’ of the US-led war on Iraq,” Foreign Policy Journal, March 23, 2015.
 Quoted in Post-Gaddafi Libya’s ‘kind of a mess’: Obama regrets counting on allies too much,” Russia Today, June 2, 2016.
 Quoted in Tom Porter, “Iraq War Created Isis, Concedes David Miliband,” International Business Times, August 10, 2014.
 Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, “The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide,” Mother Jones, March 1, 2007.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.