Hungary is considering constructing a fence, like the US and Israel, to keep out the undesirables. Everywhere in the Western media there are reports deploring the influx of migrants; yet nowhere is there any reference to the cause of the problem.
The European governments and their insouciant populations are themselves responsible for their immigrant problems. For 14 years, Europe has supported Washington’s aggressive militarism that has murdered and dislocated millions of peoples who never lifted a finger against Washington. The destruction of entire countries, such as Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and now Syria and Yemen, as well as the continuing US slaughter of Pakistani civilians with the full complicity of the corrupt and traitorous Pakistani government, produced a refugee problem that the moronic Europeans brought upon themselves.
Europe deserves the problem, but it is not enough punishment for their crimes against humanity in supporting Washington’s world hegemony.
In the Western world, insouciance rules governments as well as people, and most likely everywhere else in the world, as well. It remains to be seen whether Russia and China have any clearer grasp of the reality that confronts them.
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency until his retirement in August 2014, has confirmed that the Obama regime disregarded his advice and made a willful decision to support the jihadists who now comprise ISIS. Here we have an American government so insouciant, and with nothing but tunnel vision, empowering the various elements that comprise Washington’s excuse for the "war on terror" and the destruction of several countries. Just as the idiot Europeans produce their own refugee problems, the idiot Americans produce their own terrorist problems. It is mindless. And there is no end to it.
Consider the insanity of the Obama regime’s policy toward the Soviet Union. Kissinger and Brzezinski, two of the left-wing’s most hated bogymen, are astonished at Washington and the EU’s total unawareness of the consequences of their aggression and false accusations toward Russia. Kissinger says that America’s foreign policy is in the hands of "ahistorical people," who do not comprehend that "we should not engage in international conflicts if, at the beginning, we cannot describe an end." Kissinger criticizes Washington and the EU for their misconception that the West could act in Ukraine in ways inconsistent with Russian interests and receive a pass from the Russian government.
As for the Idiotic claim that Putin is responsible for the Ukrainian tragedy, Kissinger says:
"It is not conceivable that Putin spends sixty billion euros on turning a summer resort into a winter Olympic village in order to start a military crisis the week after a concluding Olympic ceremony that depicted Russia as a part of Western civilization."
Don’t expect the low-grade morons who comprise the Western media to notice anything as obvious as the meaning of Kissinger’s observation.
Brzezinski has joined Kissinger in stating unequivocally that "Russia must be reassured that Ukraine will never become a NATO member."
Kissinger is correct that Americans and their leaders are ahistorical. The US operates on the basis of a priori theories that justify American preconceptions and desires. This is a prescription for war, disaster, and the demise of humanity.
Even American commentators whom one would consider to be intelligent are ahistorical. Writing on OpEdNews (8-18-15), William Bike says that Ronald Reagan advocated the destruction of the Soviet Union. Reagan did no such thing. Reagan was respectful of the Soviet leadership and worked with Gorbachev to end the Cold War. Reagan never spoke about winning the Cold War, only about bringing it to an end. The Soviet Union collapsed as a consequence of Gorbachev being arrested by hardline communists, opposed to Gorbachev’s policies, who launched a coup. The coup failed, but it took down the Soviet government. Reagan had nothing to do with it and was no longer in office.
Some ahistorical Americans cannot tell the difference between the war criminals Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and even Jimmy Carter, who spent his life doing, and trying to do, good deeds. No sooner do we hear that the 90-year old former president has cancer than Matt Peppe regales us on CounterPunch about "Jimmy Carter’s Blood-Drenched Legacy" (8-18-15). Peppe describes Carter as just another hypocrite who professed human rights but had a "penchant for bloodshed." What Peppe means is that Carter did not stop bloodshed initiated by foreigners abroad. In other words Carter failed as a global policeman. Peppe’s criticism of Carter, of course, is the stale and false neoconservative criticism of Carter.
Peppe, like so many others, shows an astonishing ignorance of the constraints of existing policies institutionalized in government exercise over presidents. In American politics, interest groups are more powerful than the elected politicians. Look around you. The federal agencies created to oversee the well-being of the national forests, public lands, air and water are all staffed with the executives of the very polluting and clear-cutting industries which the agencies are supposed to be regulating. Read CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair’s book, Born Under A Bad Sky, to understand that those who are supposed to be regulated are in fact doing the regulating, and in their interests. The public interest is nowhere in the picture.
Look away from the environment to economic policy. The same financial executives who caused the ongoing financial crisis which resulted in enormous ongoing public subsidies to the private banking system, now into the eighth year, are the ones who run the US Treasury and Federal Reserve.
Without a strong movement behind him, from whose ranks a president can staff an administration committed to major changes, the president is, in effect, a captive of the private interests who finance political campaigns. Reagan is the only president of our time who had even a semblance of a movement behind him, and the "Reaganites" in his administration were counterbalanced by the Bush Establishment Republicans.
During the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had a movement behind him consisting of New Dealers. Consequently, Roosevelt was able to achieve a number of overdue reforms, such as Social Security.
Nevertheless, Roosevelt did not see himself as being in charge. In "The Age of Acquiescence" (2015), Steve Fraser quotes President Roosevelt as telling Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau at the end of 1934 that "the people I have called the 'money changers in the Temple' are still in absolute control. It will take many years and possibly several revolutions to eliminate them."
Eight decades later, as Nomi Prins has made clear in "All The Presidents’ Bankers" (2014), the money changers are still in control. Nothing less than fire and the sword can dislodge them.
Yet, and it will forever be the case, America has commentators who really believe that a president can change things, but refuses to do so because he prefers the way that they are.
Unless there is a major disaster, such as the Great Depression, or a lessor challenge, such as stagflation for which solutions were scarce, a president without a movement is outgunned by powerful private interest groups, and sometimes even if he has a movement.
Private interests were empowered by the Republican Supreme Court’s decision that the purchase of the US government by corporate money is the constitutionally protected exercise of free speech.
To be completely clear, the US Supreme Court has ruled that organized interest groups have the right to control the US government.
Under this Supreme Court ruling, how can the United States pretend to be a democracy?
How can Washington justify its genocidal murders as "bringing democracy" to the decimated?
Unless the world wakes up and realizes that total evil has the reins in the West, humanity has no future.
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.