The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law

Deep state does not mean: core of power.
It means: involvement in power too real to compare to the principles of the culture.
Deep state is thus essentially that which lies beyond the veil that clothes power, so for it to not be naked, and terrible.

Trump reveals some of the beauty in this terribleness, much like Putin was already doing.

Fixed Cross wrote:

About the trumped up WMD claims - I wouldnt  quite read it that way.

Quote :

As Pence made clear in his remarks, he was referring to the discovery of two (2) munitions by U.S. soldiers that were found to contain sarin and mustard gas. In Pence’s estimation, those two weapons validated the administration’s arguments for war. “‘Where are the WMDs?’ We’ve been asked that again and again,” Pence said. “They are where they’ve always been: hidden in Iraq, within the reach of terrorists, a threat to the Iraqi people, U.S. soldiers and the world.”

Here’s what actually happened. Pence, in claiming that WMDs had been found, was way out ahead of the Bush administration itself, which was unwilling to wave around the discovery of these munitions as validation of its rationale for war. The reason the administration held back was simple: they weren’t the weapons Bush and his top officials had warned about. They were old munitions from the weapons program Saddam Hussein had discontinued in 1991. The Bush administration’s argument for the war was that the Iraqi dictator had restarted chemical weapons production and stockpiled new WMDs.

Sarin and mustard gas were found, and these are WMD's.
He didnt lie. But he supported a narrative that was concocted.

On the other hand, we now see that not tackling Assad, Saddams best buddy, is even worse of an option than tackling Saddam was.
I supported the war in Iraq in the outset because it was the US that put Saddam there, not because of WMD's.  I was still a bit naive then, and didnt know how incompetent military leaders can be.
Rumsfeld was a deception.

Iran had already surrendered, but Rumsfeld just tossed that gesture back in their face. That is how Iraq was lost.
The war was actually won first. Thats the unwritten part.

The few chemical weapons that were found after the 2003 invasion were old leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war, some of which were simply misplaced and others that were actually formerly sealed by UN weapons inspectors and then after Saddam's government fell those sites were left unsecured by the US forces and subsequently raided by insurgents. Saddam was not hiding or developing any WMD, and in fact he ordered his military to cooperate fully with inspection and make sure no old WMD were laying around to be found, because he knew that would be used as an excuse by the US to invade.

Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the US. Here is what happened: the US helped Saddam develop these weapons previously, although he didn't use them against Iran apparently, and then after the Gulf War Saddam agreed to surrender them all and have them disarmed/destroyed, which most of them were. A small number of old equipment were misplaced (happens all the time, the US misplaced over a billion dollars of military equipment after invading in 2003) and more was left undestroyed but sealed in bunkers by inspectors. And in fact the US withdraw its inspectors, and then consider the Bush admin and CIA never produced any evidence of Saddam having any arsenal or pursuing any WMD capacity.

Basically the whole situation was set up. Yeah the US put Saddam in there, but the pretext to war was a false one. Actually the true objective, one of several, was to create a shift in the public policy regarding when it is acceptable to invade another nation: now the preemptive use of military force is justified so long as another leader or nation can be said to simply possess something like WMD. It doesn't matter if said leader or nation is actually a threat, or even if they actually do have an arsenal or capacity to attack. So it's just a load of BS basically justifying more US military imperialism whenever that would serve some other agenda... again these things are well documented in Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Remember that Saddam tried to switch to the petroeuro, which was a serious problem. In the book CEH he shows how there are several layers of control used to pacify foreign leaders: 1) bribes and sex, 2) economic hardship such as sanctions, and 3) if all that fails then you use military force (the US military is the last step brought in to ensure compliance, although now we have unaccountable private militias too).

This is important, although he was sidelined by the DFL and the media:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4003785/dennis-kucinich-opposition-iraq-war

Kucinich predicted that invading Iraq would further destabilize the ME and would cost the US its international support, ironically making it harder to fight against terrorism. He was right, of course.

In that speech he reads the resolution for war against Iraq and goes line by line, destroying the rationale of the resolution. There are so many logical flaws and fallacies in the resolution, Kucinich does a good job showing them. But again, he was sidelined and the war agenda was allowed ro move forward despite the truth.

This is all basically about the military industrial complex and globalized economics-- in this case the oil supply and prices. We tolerated Saddam up to the point he tried to abandon the dollar as the currency for his oil sales. Hell, we didn't even do a regime change after what he did to Kuwait.

Oh he used them alright, Ive seen years of piling choked corpses in ditches as I grew up.... he just had some left. Which is what I mean - Pence didnt lie about that, technically. Thats not a defense, just a correction - he supported a narrative that only served to invade - Trump was against the war by the way.

I certainly disagree that setting precedent was the issue - before Iraq the US had already invaded Vietnam and Germany and a lot of other places, and put military dictatorships in place all over south America. Not to mention, the US is a country established by invasion. As Trump says: "You think our country's so innocent?"

Of course Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US - I couldn't give a fuck about that nonsense - I just knew intimately what Saddam was doing to women and children on a daily basis, so I wanted him out no matter the cost, and I didn't much care what they had to tell the masses.

I wanted them to properly subject Iraq to a rational interim regime. If the SD had responded to Irans overtures, we'd likely have a stable Iraq now -
but the problem is that Iran is Shia and all US interests are Sunni.
Russia invariably backs Shia powers, the US Sunni ones.
The rift within Islam is the truest cause of the ongoing violence. Interfering powers basically succumb to this rift and are then pitted against each other.

One consequence of the Iraq fiasco is ISIS. Baath party members lost their jbs but weren't captured or disarmed. The leaders of ISIS that were identified were also identified as former Baath operatives.

What the US did is create a cheap proxy state, namely a state of chaos, that prevents any power from solidifying there - the aim of which looks to simply be to maintain a powervacuum in a region where it can not itself fill that vacuum; 'if we dont rule no one rules.'

Im betting Trump has better tactics up his sleeve - bolder, less sneaky and shrouded ones, potentially involving the gigantic leverage that Israel represents.

Right, so the point is basically that law no longer matters, that might will make right whenever might's interests are at stake. That principle runs counter to the principle of law. As you know I do not accept might makes right, in part because "might" is a vague and simplified concept that actually begs the question. Because law too is a "might", there are many types and qualifications of might. I believe in reason, logic, law and philosophy, in the mind and in basic enlightenment values of equality before the law. Therefore any Machiavellian deceptions meant to enforce a particular "might makes right" iteration outside of the rational logical principles such as those found in the US Constitution are something I cannot accept. It is true that if OPEC switches to Euros then the value of the dollar will fall 20-40% ---all the more reason for the US to divest itself of OPEC oil dependency. Which is what I hope Trump still plans on doing.

The US and Russia try to play Islam like a bitch, while these Muslim countries try to play right back. We are seeing human-historical truths painted out on ideological and geopolitical canvases. And there is the dynamic between truth and useful lie-- remember that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid all supported Bush's resolution of war against Iraq. Then those DFL clowns were rewarded a decade later, meanwhile Kucinich was thwarted and eventually quit.

Think of that: you have Clontin et al siding with Bush et al. Same old BS. Pence had high praise for Bush and the GOP leadership back in 2002, as well as high praise for the resolution of war against Iraq. What's interesting too is that these people are clearly smart enough to know that the resolution was full of lies, inaccuracies and irrational claims. So clearly integrity isn't high on their list of character traits.

Erm no, not very high at all. But once again I take a more cynical view to history.

I dont know of any time or instance where law played any part in international politics.

Then you have just identified the true problem. Law and what it stands for (philosophy, reason, the mind) is not yet allowed to rule over the lesser animal-man who still values more archaically and in more medieval terms.

And as the OP states, there is only one law that I see fit for this.

But the implementation begins with disbanding all overarching projects for the globe and the species, and to focus inward, on our actual power to make the world better, which is value-local, speaks to ones value environment first, and can radiate outward from there.

So for all nations now to embrace their "mighty right to exist" without the moral or legislative interference of non elected, non transparent, non philosophical and non VO-based entities supposedly representing "the peoples of the world", this is the first step.

The very worst sort of Might is Right is that of the now defeated globalists - the idea of top down government above national governments. This can not happen and will never happen. What is going to happen is a diplomatic counsel of superpowers, partially in the model of the permanent seats of the UN Security Counsel, but without the moral hogwash, just based on principles powerbrokers understand and appreciate, not on principles shown in Disney films.

The basic law that rules behaviors is the Will to Power, and this makes for an otherwise lawless environment -  but under VO, WtP becomes refined into: Love is the law, love under will.

The only constancy of ethics among average humans that I trust is "I want the best for my children".
This is self-valuing in time, valid altruism, and the agent of growth, courage.

Yes I like that also.

To Trump: you're going with Elliott Abrams (Iran Contra, CFR, neocon)? This only raises my suspicions even higher.

I want Trump to stop these insane drone strikes. Yemen cancelled Obama's right to drone strike there, but them resumed it; now Yemen cancelled US ground strikes there, after children and other civilians were killed during the recent US raid. But of course Sean Spicer is standing there right now and saying no one has a right to even question the success of the mission-- therefore we must conclude that Trump doesn't want to talk about the civilian casualties (including children) and in fact did a little Orwellian twist on the issue, through Spicer, stating that no one can even talk about the raid unless they're saying what a success it was (no reference to the bodies of murdered children of course).

I'm not enthused.

[Regardless which of these explanations hold, the raid surely will reignite an alarm bell about America's commitment to protecting civilian lives, incite allegations of hypocrisy (since America regularly criticizes the nearby regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for its attacks on civilians) and contribute to a new wave of anti-American sentiment.]


It's amusing that Obama has been killing civilians for eight years and all of a sudden everyone has a problem with causalities in war because this raid was Trump's. They didn't want to talk about causalities when it was Obama's war, so perhaps they should hold Trump to the same standard, by which his raid was comparatively a success, as we got more out of it and killed less civilians proportionately, compared to Obongo. Perhaps this is Spicer's meaning.

Obama's raids were about targeting supposedly high level terrorist operatives; he'd go in, bomb the entire area into dust, and leave. You can't recover anything afterward and it kills a lot of civilians. And these cretins are fucking retarded so "high level operative" doesn't really mean anything, they can just go get another high level operative. But he is not trying to get rid of terrorism, he's funding militant groups on the side that can help get rid of the old regime and install one better suited to cooperating with our globalist vision, at least before they turn all the training and military technology we've given them on us, at which point we start calling them terrorists.


Trump's raid was more focused on actually recovering information from the scene.

Trump made a campaign promise to annihilate not just ISIS but all of these terrorist groups "from the face of the earth." He's fulfilled his promises so far, I expect him to attempt that one as well.


Trump himself predicted the destabilizing results of the Iraq war, and even predicted that Osama was planning a big terrorist attack, which Trump claimed in 2000.

I disagree with Trump on the necessity for government surveillance, but I don't give a shit if some civilians get killed while we finally dust up these fucking desert rats, which is always going to happen in war. The question is, what is the gain out of the loss of life? For Obama it was steps toward a new regime over there better suited to working with his form of government. For Trump it is the annihilation of islamo-fascism in all its forms.

It's going to be bitter for people to finally see what their country has been involved in, and they'll try to blame it all on Trump and pretend they dont know that it has been going on for 30 years. But I am pretty happy with this arrangement, where we have a decisive leader and an utterly relentless critical apparatus - if only that apparatus could develop the capacity for neutrality and argument...
What Trump does is the opposite of what the others did - they went in to create a chaos of indiscriminate pain that spawns rebels, which destabilize the region so that no properly human order can occur.
Trump is likely going to target precisely the opposite, namely already formed cells, the very type of entities the previous ones bombed into being by targeting schools and hospitals.
The psychological effect of a well executed campaign, that is to say one where the enemy can be prevented from time to time from using human shields (as this is invariably their tactic, they always flank mortars with children, so as to get enough people angry when they are attacked), is discouragement and loss of motivation for these ... whatevers.

Previous US administrations weren't content with just killing human shields, they went out of their way to target civilians, as this serves the purpose of chaos, which was traditionally held as a noble antiRussian tactic.

I further have a tip for Trump on his press secretary - he should hire a comedian, who just enacts Obama, just answers all questions with "wouldnt you like to know, Fred! ah ah ah. But no everything is going alright! Dont worry about it Fred, Fred, Fred - o, - ah ah ah!

Or whatever, Im bad at that. But he should just appease the hysterics by catering to their appetite for aloof disinterested superiority that eliminates any curiosity about what has been done or decided.

It worked very well for Obama and them, never relaying a fact and just laughing expertly at questions about illegal killing.

Ah ah ah.
Right?

Ah ah ah!
Uh.

Thankyoou!

I do care a lot about killing civilians, but there is no scenario in the ME where death is going to pack up its sickle and leave anytime soon - the harvest of death sown by Obama and his predecessors is 'rich', and there is nothing Trump can do to stop that -
So what he will try to do is, with all the death that is given, focus on bringing it at least also to the people we actually want taken out of the equation.

Im serious about the press sec. That is good strategy, play their game, just pretend everyone is on your side and be smug about it. Journalists love that.

Its a bitter time for those who never saw any consequences coming. For those that did, it is not as bitter as it could have been. It is sweet for many too - for me the bitterness set in at the inauguration, simply because the truth was about to dawn and I could sense the severity that would now be introduced to the world.

We've been living on levity that shrouded the death, now the puffy mask is withdrawn and we see the truth about the empire. Trump is "Jewish" enough to boldly take it all on him - but American enough to have it hurt him.

He needs a press strategist.

The irony of this all is, Trump is essentially a proletarian.
He has no feeling for the finesses of masks, he is not aristocratic enough to laugh it off.
But now that the proletarian class has finally produced a capitalist leader, a whole new game is opened.

A Style has to be invented. Something that surpasses mere Trumpianism and adapts to the absence of real threats to the Republic now -
an aristocracy can be born, an aristocracy of intent. Arrogance is quintessentially the pacifier for the masses. It is why they wanted Knolton, which was arrogant.
But Trump is merely boastful. He does not have the withdrawnness of an arrogant person- he just doesnt give a shit for anyones opinion except if it's genius.

But he should fist of all get a black press secretary, not immediately a woman, that's for later -
he should get the press confused.
This secretary might for all I know be gay but they can conveniently ignore that.

I think he should get a black military trained academic who does the briefings in very swanky clothes and in uniform on Tuesday.

A dangerous suggestion:
California to merge with Mexico?

The wall would be redundant -
it's a narrative that could be pushed. To what end I don't know -
first of all it's a pleasing joke, as it cuts on both sides.
Secondly the hypothesis itself - such a merger would create a new kind of superstate, but I fear it is only in a Spawn or Punisher comic that such a mix of powers and tastes could deliberately and permanently self-causate...

"but he should just appease the hysterics"...



Trump knows what he is doing with the media. This hysterical anti-Trumpism is something Trump intends.

Fixed Cross wrote:

I do care a lot about killing civilians, but there is no scenario in the ME where death is going to pack up its sickle and leave anytime soon - the harvest of death sown by Obama and his predecessors is 'rich', and there is nothing Trump can do to stop that -
So what he will try to do is, with all the death that is given, focus on bringing it at least also to the people we actually want taken out of the equation.

Im serious about the press sec. That is good strategy, play their game, just pretend everyone is on your side and be smug about it. Journalists love that.

This entire narrative, about how Trump killed civilians and what a horror, when the fuck who just left office did nothing but kill civilians for eight years with not one comment from anyone in mainstream media, is fucking despicable.


We haven't been fighting ISIS. Bush and Obama had no intention of winning or even waging a "war against terror." The civilians that died under past administrations died under the pretense that we were combating terrorism, as opposed to merely conducting our geopolitics. So the civilians died for nothing plus they lied about the reason for it, I care about that part. The reality that Obama had no intention of defeating these terrorist groups, and never made any effort to get rid of them, is demonstrated in how he conducted attacks. Just bomb the whole area where a supposedly high level operative is located with a drone and then fuck it; it's good show and makes it look like you're serious about defeating ISIS or whatever, but it's just a game with a lot of civilian collateral that also doesn't cost you much of anything because nobody on our side is dying when it's just a bunch of robots dropping loads all over the place. There are no real high level operatives with these people, a fucking baboon could match their higher up strategists and their organizational prowess. Taking out one of them doesn't mean shit, they just replace the fuck with some other fuck and we keep going in circles. And that is exactly what Obama counted on, a great cover for our continued presence and manipulations in the Middle East.


Trump's drone strike was only the first part in an attack that used a lot of actual humans on the site, so that computers and information could be recovered. Because Trump isn't plotting regime change and the like. He actually just wants to destroy all of these terrorist groups, which is comparatively a very simple objective though one which will still incur causalities.


There is no way that Trump could just stop all of our military offenses. Deciding not to conduct geopolitics and regime change and globalization over there as Trump has done, leaves two options; we can either let these anti-Western terrorist groups continue to propagate, solidify control in the region, and fester like a rotting tumor, or destroy them and their hopes for anything approaching a Caliphate. Destroying them is the better choice, for these groups pose threats not just to the US but to the whole western world and even to the very Muslim population over which they intend to reign, and is quite an easy thing to do at least compared to the complexities of what we were trying to accomplish over there in the past:

Our past administrations wanted a regime change over there which they could successfully engage in globalized trade deals- they want, in other words, yet another populace upon whose back they could grow rich upon. So they find what they call "rebels", those segments of the populace that are working in various militias, who have already somewhat organized an armed resistance against the state. Then they- we, further arm and train them, in order to facilitate the resistance against the government over there. And then, once the current state authority is dispossessed, or whenever these "rebels" just get bored I guess, they inevitably end up using those weapons and that training against us, because they're radical Muslim extremists and fucking despise us. At that point- we call them terrorists instead of rebels, while they call themselves al-quaeda, or isis, or isil, doesn't matter, they're all the same people.



But in order to move from geopolitical bullshit to actually combating ISIS, Trump must realign the whole deep state apparatus. Some parts of that system are willing to work with him, some are not. When his 7 nation ban was enacted, a whole bunch of protests at airports across the country took place immediately. Airports have the tightest security out of anywhere in the US; the only way that protest shit could have been organized and happened without any impediment is if people higher up in the government gave it the OK, namely deep state elements opposed to Trump. But some segments of the deep state willing to perform an internal coup on Trump's behalf must have leaked the Wikileaks documents that were partially responsible for electing Trump, it wasn't Russia.

I was reading that eye witness accounts of the battle claim no US soldiers even entered the house, so aren't sure what sort of information or computers could have been gathered. But that wasn't my point, obviously you or I have no way to verify if any meaningful intel or equipment was obtained by the raid-- the real point I was making was how Spicer handled the situation yesterday. I watched his press conference and I can say that it was indeed Orwellian. He claimed angrily that no one has a right to question the success of the raid because that would be an insult to the dead SEAL officer... what the fuck? So now no one can even ask questions about what happened, and more significantly Trump or Spicer have no obligation to actually demonstrate and prove, or even just make a case for, to the American people that the raid was a success; we are told that we simply have to accept it was a success and we aren't allowed to question because that would be "mean" to a dead soldier. Wow.

Hypothetical 1: the raid was a botched failure, US soldiers approached the house and started shooting when asked who they were (as eyewitness account says), US soldiers came under heavy fire and called in air support, the home and surrounding area were air-bombed resulting in about 24-28 casualties many of which were nearby civilians including children sheltering in neighboring homes, and US soldiers never even entered the home to collect computers and whatever else they were there for.

Hypothetical 2: the raid was a huge success, US soldiers fought terrorists and managed to suppress them with air power, the terrorists used women and children as shields and thus those people became casualties which is entirely the terrorists' fault; US soldiers obtained very useful information and equipment from the home.

Now which scenario is closer to the truth? What I'm saying is that we (you and I) have no idea, we have no way of knowing what really happened. Unless you have some information and sources you can cite here. Bottom line is this: there are competing narratives going on, but no way to really know what happened, and on top of that we have Spicer pulling this Orwellian shit that no one has a right to even question or demand evidence that the raise was successful. Of course Spicer makes no extended arguments and presents no further rationale or evidence for his claim that the raid was a success, we are expected to just believe him. But more importantly he admonished us for even asking questions about it. That is seriously fucked up.

At least he doesnt kill them. The "whistleblowers" like Obama called journalists reporting on facts.