Never Was a March on Washington More Needed
The world is more nervous about the
drift toward nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia than at any time since
1962's Cuban Missile Crisis. When French President Francois Hollande urgently
side-tracked his return-flight from a diplomatic mission recently, in order to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at
Moscow's Vnukovo Airport, at a private room that had been scoured
ahead of time to eliminate any possible bugging devices, there was speculation
as to what had caused Hollande's sudden detour, and there were even rumors of a
possible cause being an American "false-flag" event in the works to be blamed
on Russia as a pretext for going to war against Russia, just as Russia had been
falsely blamed for the Ukrainian military's downing of
Malaysia's airliner MH17 on July 17th. All that was publicly
released about the two-hour meeting were platitudes, hardly anything that would
have justified side-tracking Hollande's flight so as to surprise intelligence
agencies and be able to meet the Russian leader in an untapped room.
The level of fear is certainly rising on both sides. On the U.S. side, the CBS News Poll in summer 2007 found 6% of Americans calling Russia an "enemy"; seven years later, that same figure was 22%. However, what is not rumor nor fear, but proven fact, by Obama's own actions as will be documented here, is that he wants a war against Russia and is trying hard to get Europe (including Hollande) onboard with this goal in order to win it; and that America's Republican Party want this at least as much as he does, though the American public do not.
The Democratic Party (in the House and Senate) are staying as quiet as possible about a 'Democratic' President pushing them toward World War III, which is a goal that Republicans have always been far more eager for than Democrats. (Republicans are famous for "Speak softly but carry a big stick," and for swinging it as hard as they can, especially against Russians.) In fact, one of the reasons why Obama won the Presidency is that he criticized his 2012 Republican opponent Mitt Romney for saying of Russia, "This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe."
That dissent by Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama appealed to the U.S. public at the time, but not to America's aristocracy, who are a mix of people some of whom hate Russians and others of whom don't care about Russians, but none of whom are passionate opponents of nuclear war (a diverse group that they lump contemptuously with "peaceniks").
For example, one major mouthpiece of Democratic Party aristocrats has always been The New Republic, and on 17 September 2014 they headlined "Obama Can't Admit That Romney Was Right: Russia Is Our 'Top Geopolitical Threat'." Another one is the National Journal, the aristocracy's version of its companion propaganda-operation (owned by the same aristocrat as) The Atlantic. On 7 May 2014 (just five days after Obama's people had massacred pro-Russians in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa and thereby started the extermination-campaign against them, or "civil war" that's still raging), the National Journal headlined "Mitt Romney Was Right: Russia Is Our Biggest Geopolitical Foe." Conservative 'Democrats' are just Republicans spelled with a "D"; but, when it's an aristocrat, they know how to spell, and are just trying to deceive the ones who don't. This is why 'liberal' magazines are prized possessions of the aristocracy -- to deceive the ones who don't know the difference and who think that it's fine in a democracy for politics to be merely a choice between two conservative parties, one of which is called by a meaningless adjective 'liberal.'
The people who fund both political Parties are virtually united in that fascist belief: they don't even mind backing racist facists or "nazis"; many of them are precisely that themselves.
Obama is with them (and with Wall Street, and with Big Ag, and Big Oil, and Big Military), against the public. But he's smart enough a politician to pretend otherwise, and his aristocratic funders respect this. (There were no hard feelings for his exploiting Romney's politically stupid public assertion; they knew that it was an Obama pose: he's a 'Democrat,' after all.)
For America's elite, the Cold War never ended, because it was never really about communism versus capitalism -- not for them. They are fascists, and they want global dominance. Capitalism, shmapitalism; all they really care about is dominating the world, destroying enemies, which means anyone who refuses to be controlled by them.
Aristocracy hasn't changed since, well, long before the Bible began. Domination is the big thing, for the aristocracy. Russia threatens the vaunted global control by America's aristocracy, their dominance over all other aristocracies, because Russia is the second-most-powerful military nation. Russia is the only nation that can say no to U.S. aristocrats and (maybe) get away with it. That's what this conflict is all about. It's why they ratcheted up the "enemy" figure for Russia from 6% to 22% in just the past seven years.
As President Obama's speech at West Point, on 28 May 2014, propagandized for (i.e., rationalized) this conquer-Russia view on the part of America's aristocracy: "Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us." So, Obama made clear to the graduating West Point cadets that the BRIC countries are the enemy (Russia and its leading supporters of international independence, the enemies against a mono-polar or "hegemonic" world), from the standpoint of America's aristocracy, whom the U.S. military now serves to the exclusion of any public interest. Ours want to crush the aristocrats in Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Though it's alright for those other countries to produce more, that's true only if American aristocrats control the local ones there, like in any other international empire -- not if the local nation's aristocrats control the country. That's not the way aristocrats in banana republics are supposed to behave. They're not supposed to be independent countries. Not really.
The President who had invaded Libya and Syria, and re-invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and who perpetrated a violent overthrow and installed racist fascists (nazis) in control of Ukraine, is lecturing the world against "Russia's aggression," for its having accepted back into Russia's traditional fold little Crimea, which craved to return to Russia.
He's got some gall to do that, but in order to be a cadet at West Point (and thus be there hearing his speech) one needed to be either a sucker or else a cravenous tool of the aristocracy, as the military has traditionally served; so, Obama played them for being both, and they evidently liked it.
Obama knows how to speak down to an audience and fool them into thinking he respects them. But, to aristocrats, his respect is no mere act at all; he not only respects them, he lies for them, and he protects them, because he self-identifies with them, and not with the public (who just provide his voters, the people that are forced to choose between him versus Romney, or else to go for a mere token protest-vote or non-vote, such as American 'democracy' has degenerated into being).
Obama was enemy-izing (turning into enemies) nations that don't want to serve as America's banana republics. Similarly, for example, the British Empire didn't wish for local aristocrats in India to be in control, but only for those client aristocrats to be of use. That's what it means to be a client nation (or, in the American case, a banana republic).