A Little History On The Purveyors Of Death

Two offerings from the net looking into the history of death squads deployed around the world and their sponsors, the ultimate purveyors of death, the international anglo/zionist regime.

The first is a net interview with Dan Welch (h/t McJ). I first saw him on an RT Crosstalk show and was struck by his logic, his grasp of historical facts and how to use them. He also has an engaging manner that communicates the absurdity of the talk of the psychopaths in power and those that carry water for them.

Dan clearly identifies the perps in power as psychopaths. He talks about the genesis of the death squads in Latin America and how they were trained by the US at places like The School of the Americas. He points out that Al Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups in Syria and elsewhere are in fact the continuation of the death squads trained by the US and deployed in Latin and South America in decades gone by. Same same in every way.

One point especially pleased me, I must say. I have been saying for some time that the factor that stopped the military bombardment of Syria was the Russian Navy's downing of the two missiles fired at Damascus by the US Navy. Dan Welch makes a point of this and is the only media commentator that I have come across who calls it and emphasises the point that the only thing these psychopaths respond to is a credible military deterent. All the nonsense about Obama being reasonable or facing a potential revolt from Congress etc is just that; nonsense. Psychopaths cannot be reasoned with. There is no conscience, no compassion and no ultruism there to appeal to. They only know what they want and only think about how to get it.

It is an excellent interview. It links a lot of things together historically and covers a lot of ground including that the US will fail in Ukraine whether it takes 6 months or 6 years. He also maintains that the US already knows this but is now intent on causing as much harm and destruction as it can (Plan B) just as it is doing in Syria.


I have a couple of nitpicking points, though. One is that the death squads and the psychopathy behind them did not start with the School of Americas' training of South and Central American thugs. There was the sponsorship of the Indonesian massacre in the 1960's of anyone in positions of influence throughout Indonesian that was in anyway 'left of Ghengis Khan'. Approximately one million deaths resulted.

I was a little too nitpicky, I think. I missed Dan's point that the School of the Americas systemisized the whole 'death squad' thing even down to writing and publishing an instruction manual. They then went about deploying this system first throughout Latin America and now Europe, Ukraine being the latest example.

It has become almost like taking out a McDonalds franchise in the way the destabilization of a country is formulized and marketed and managed. This 'franchise' approach which Dan Welch outlines was based on previous historical practices just like any business and any franchise is. That historical practice includes Indonesia, the Philipines and the Americas as I've noted below.

Before Indonesia was the Philipines in the previous century and countless deaths there for people who thought they should be free not only of the Spanish but their American usurpers.

And, of course, in the US itself there is the history of the Indian Wars and indigenous deaths going back to the very first years. I remember seeing an video with Vladimir Putin where he reminded the audience that Russia and the US have different cultures and one of the differences was because America was built on genocide and slavery.

The US has the darkest of histories. Clearly from the beginning, the US has been dominated by psychopaths bent on destruction and plunder. Nothing has changed!

Regardless of when you perceive the death squad phenomenon starting, Dan Welch's valuable point remains; what is going on in Ukraine now is very definitely not new. It is the continuum of a long held strategy; it's business as usual, in other words.

Dan Welch mentioned Putin and Medvedev making a mistake in abstaining from the UN Security Council vote on the 'No-Fly Zone' for Libya. Clearly the abstention was a mistake but Putin is often wrongfully blamed for this and the resulting destruction of Libya. Putin was Prime Minister of Russia at that time and so had no authority over Russia's foreign policy. It was Medvedev's call. This is a minor point in the panorama of destruction that Dan summarises but I think it is important in understanding Putin's actions and non-actions in the light of the present crisis in Ukraine.

Medvedev and Putin head up two different power blocks in Russia and they have needed each other to rule. Medvedev (a former bureaucrat and businessman who has dealt extensively with the West - ex head of Gazprom, for instance) represents a group that is heavily influenced by naive middleclass Russians (aparatchiks, academics and businessmen) who aspire to become the Europeans as presented by the Western political elite and to be accepted by them.

This representation is an illusion of course. The group was heavily influenced as well by powerful jewish interests in Russia. Putin took back much economic power from the jewish oligarchs in the early 2000's but there remained an entrenched jewish network within govt, media and business. The presence of this network can explain many odd things especially during Medvedev's presidency such as the cancelling of the S300 missile contract with Iran and, of course, influencing the decision on Libya.

The illusion that inspired and led the Medvedev group largely evapourated with the destruction of Libya in 2011 leaving Putin clearly as the moral leader of Russia. The Libyan destruction and Medvedev's poor decision brought Putin back to power at the end of that year after only one term of Medvedev's presidency. It was this same Medvedev group that wanted to join the World Trade Organization and was very offended by Russia's exclusion up till then. This very likely played a role in the abstention in the Security Council vote. Here's a little timeline for you-

March 9th 2011 Georgia had been holding up Russia's accession to the WTO (Georgia does nothing on the international scene without the US approval/order)
Georgia is set to return to the negotiating table with Russia over Moscow's efforts to join the WTO. The talks will be held in the Swiss capital, Bern on 9-10 March.

March 17th Russia abstains from the UN SC vote on the Libyan 'No-Fly Zone'
Understanding the Russian Response to the Intervention in Libya
The above report from the Center for American Progress (there's an oxymoron for you) is a mixture of naivete to match Medvedev's and propaganda. I include it to establish the date (March 17th) and the picture is handy. The caption under the photo mentions "no-fly zone" and was probably lifted from another article because, other than in the caption, the words 'no-fly zone' are not mentioned at all in the article and the vote is misrepresented as authorization for military intervention which it was not.

March 19th Libya is bombed by the US and NATO
US leads 'Odyssey Dawn' initial attack on Libya
I love the opening sentence with its twisted meaning -
The first major attack of "Odyssey Dawn" came as 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck surface-to-air missiles, early warning sites, and key communication modes. It's the first step in enforcing a no-fly zone."
Enforcing a no-fly zone is not the same as destroying a country's defence system. You only need to do that if your plan is to bomb a country into oblivion (which the US and NATO promptly did)

28th October 2011 Then, after an appropriate pause, we find this article announcing Russia's acceptance into the WTO.

Georgia has withdrawn its objection to Russia joining the WTO and using this reasoning-
""From now on, from [the] Georgian perspective, the Russian Federation can become a member of the WTO provided that it also agrees to the proposal," the Georgian government said. Referring to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it added that it was "fully aware that these talks were not the appropriate forum to reverse the ongoing illegal occupation of 20% of the Georgian territory by the Russian military".

That reasoning is simply not credible. Saakashvili being reasonable regarding Russia? I don't think so. There was obviously some other reason (dictated by the US) and they do not want to state what it is. The article places Putin's picture at the head of it when he had little to nothing to do with it. It may go some way towards understanding why Putin is often associated with this move into the WTO. Of course, the negotiations started during his first presidency but he did not do the deal that saw Russia included into the WTO.

The above timeline doesn't prove anything, of course, but I find it interesting just the same.

After the blunder that was Libyan abstention, Putin may well have been able to do without Medvedev and his faction but he obviously chose not to. To me this reflects Putin's approach to all conflicts. He offered peace and a continuing partnership to Medvedev's faction instead of dominance. Putin now has a willing partner and Russia is the stronger for it. Vladimir Putin is extending that same co-operative approach to the rest of the world if they want it. It is a winning strategy and needs no deceit or covertness to succeed. And I firmly believe it will be successful. Putin's Russia is a breath of fresh air to a world so used to having to make agreements under some form of duress that it is accepted as normal. In short, we do not know that a non-psychopathic world order could even exist let alone what it might look and feel like.

Ok, this is getting long winded which was not my intention. This was just going to be a short post to bring to your attention two valuable pieces from the net!

The second piece is an article I first read at Penny's. It is written by Andrew Korybko and comes from Voltaire net
Korybko lays out some of the reasons for the First World War starting and who was behind it. He goes on to say why this is pertinent today for the world. It is because it is the same group of people doing the same things, causing the same mayhem and for the same reasons. I thoroughly recommend it to you.

History repeats itself especially if we do not know it.

Lessons and Consequences of World War I: Back to the Future?
by Andrew Korybko

The centennial anniversary of the First World War is a time for sober reflection and deep thought about the causes and consequences of this human tragedy. It has been quipped that hindsight is 20/20, but being so far removed from the actual event itself nowadays, it appears as though hindsight through today’s polarized polemics is nearsighted. History is being reinterpreted for short-term political points, forgetting that the British intent of the original conflict was for a long-term and farsighted transformation of the European (at the time, recognized as “global”) power arrangement. Of course, not everything turned out as intended, and dark horses emerged to offset these carefully crafted plans and/or reap undeserved dividends. No matter that one hundred years has already passed, the same geostrategic objective is the same – the seafaring powers must utilize all methods (including intrigue and massive bloodletting) to prevent the continental powers from colluding against them. The continuum of history eerily shows that shadows of the past still hang over the head of the future, and the thematic lessons leading up to and following World War I still dangerously ring true today.

Read the rest here


Arevordi's latest

From "Heralding The Rise of Russia" blog-
" Today, relations between Moscow and Beijing has never been this good, and there remains a lot of room for further growth. This is exactly what many Eurasian strategists in the Kremlin have been waiting to see for many years. But Moscow was torn because many in Russia also wanted closer relations with Europe. The east-leaning Eurasianists in Moscow were recently presented with an unexpected gift, in the form of Western sanctions and aggression. The Western world's bloody designs for the Middle East and its Russophobic overreaction to the crisis in Ukraine has left Moscow no choice in the matter. As west-leaning Russians have become marginalized, east-leaning Russians have grown emboldened. And now Russia is plotting an eastern course.

Is a strategic alliance between Moscow and Beijing what the political West wanted? Hardly. Such a thing is in fact what the West precisely feared. But due to the Western world's blinding arrogance and greed - not to mention the ominous fact that political power in Western nations rest in the hands of special interest groups - the evolution of a Sino-Russian alliance is exactly what Western powers are confronting today. And they have no one but themselves to blame for it. President Vladimir Putin is confidently looking east. Moscow is seeking to tap into China's massive energy hungry economy and rapidly growing middle class. China desperately needs Russian commodities as well as expertise in certain sectors. It's a symbiotic relationship that is also quite strategic in character. And there is no turning back now. The proverbial genii is out of the bottle. The massive $400 billion, 30 year - US Dollar free - natural gas deal Moscow struck with Beijing is much more than a symbolic gesture for it's actually the beginning of the end of the US Dollar's global domination."

Read the rest here

McJ's picture

Reply from Dan Welch

Hi James,

I linked your post on Dan Welch's interview on a friends Face Book wall. I quoted the first few paragraphs (up to to video embed). I got this reply back from Dan, to which I replied. I thought you would like to read it. smiling

Dan Welch: Thank you, Joy, for that excellent endorsement. It is hard to keep focus, and to shed laserlike light on the problem at hand. It is and always has been the same foe, from the days of Roddy McCorley to the Nazi onslaught of Krasny Liman... there is nothing new under the sun. As long as we keep that in mind, we can do our bit to assure that the truth will set us free
Yesterday at 6:43pm · Like · 1

My reply to him:
You are welcome Dan! You deserve an excellent endorsement. I can't take credit for writing it. It was written by my friend and fellow blogger, James, at the Winter Patriot Community Blog site. I linked his post on your interview in my comment above. When I passed on your link to him, I commented that you two must have been talking because you share similar points of view. I agree it is hard to keep focus, especially with the overwhelming amount of information we must wade through - sorting out truth from the lies, spin and other nonsense. Commentary from yourself and others of like mind helps a lot. So, thanks again and keep up the great work. It is appreciated. Btw love your commentary on CrossTalk.
3 mins · Edited · Like

Thanks McJ

Thanks for linking my article and it was nice to get a response from Dan. I'd like to link to more if his stuff in the future. He goes straight to the heart of the problem.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.