Atlantic Council minion Elizabeth Braw, on the rewards of European conscription. Almost Marx scoffs!

Were else would the Financial Times turn to for advocacy/support for European wide ‘conscription’, another name for the ‘press gang’, than the Atlantic Council, the propaganda arm of NATO?

Be sure of two things Ms. Braw, nor her children, will be among those ‘chosen’ to serve the cause of the imminent war with Russia. The public intellectuals, who war monger as a condition of their employment, as think tank minions, and apologists for the American National Security State, are the low level apologists for the Mandarin Technocrats of the American War Machine. America is now mired on eight fronts in The Clash Of Civilizations, The War on Terror, or Our 30 Years War, take your pick!

The Apartheid State of Israel is a model to be rejected except by Neo-Conservative’s like David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, Bret Stephens,  or the ‘Liberal’ Roger Cohn, all at The Paper of Record, The New York Times. Or any American politician, who all quake at the power that AIPAC wields: one deviation from the Party Line of Israeli Exceptionalism, and your career is over. Even Sen. Sanders was admonished when he dared to utter the truism that Israel is not always right.

The American/EU backed Ukrainian Coup was just the opening gambit of the Neo-Conservative political cabal at the State Dept., whose aim is that War with Russia e.g. Victoria Nuland, Jeffrey Pyatt and Susan Rice. (Not to forget the tacit support of Obama nor Mrs Clinton’s unslakable bellicosity: tougher that any man in the room!) These political zealots will employ NATO forces as its front line soldiers. As this political operation grows, so will the opposition in the European States, who don’t want their children sacrificed to the bellicose nihilism of American Fascists.

Almost Marx


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.