American Resistance To Empire


[SEE: Jacob Rothschild is Guilty for the Conspiracy Against Humankind ]


Karl Marx and Jewish Power” (Guyénot):

“Marx redefines Jewish religion as the cult of money: “Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist.” He does the same for Jewish nationality, in one short sentence: “The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.” It follows naturally, according to Marx, that if you abolish money you will solve the Jewish question:

“Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society.”

Jews will be emancipated when all men will be emancipated, for there is no other emancipation than emancipation from money.

Marx makes the radical claim that love of money and economic alienation came to the world from the Jews. He equates economic alienation to Jewish influence:

“the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. … The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails. … The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world”

And so, “In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” That sounds terribly anti-Semitic, from today’s standards. Because of these essays on the Jewish Question, Marx’s biographers have been more concerned by the question, “Was Marx an anti-Semite?” (see Edmund Silberner’s 1949 book of that title) than by the issue of his Jewish background, environment, and mindset. This is best illustrated by this article by Michael Ezra, “Karl Marx’s Radical Antisemitism.”

But in the context of the time, Marx’s view of the Jews as money worshippers was rather banal. It was almost unanimously shared among socialists, as Hal Draper reminds us in “Marx and the Economic-Jew Stereotype.”[18] It was especially common among revolutionary Jews as well as among Zionists who were generally socialists. Moses Hess himself, for instance, wrote in “The Essence of Money”: “The Jews, who in the natural history of the social animal-world had the world-historic mission of developing the beast of prey out of humanity have now finally completed their mission’s work.”

What Marx did was to push the stereotype to its limit: he made the love of money not just an attribute of some Jews, but the very essence of the Jews. But by doing so, he was in effect dissolving the Jewish question into a socio-economic question: the Jew becomes the archetypal bourgeois. By this sleight of hand, Marx eliminated the Jewish question once and for all. He would never come back to it.[19]

In fact, never again would Marx target specifically Jewish financiers. Nesta Webster draws attention to that anomaly in her World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization (1921):

“The period of 1820 onwards became, as Sombart [Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, 1911)] calls it, ‘the age of the Rothschilds,’ so that by the middle of the century it was a common dictum, ‘There is only one power in Europe, and that is Rothschild.’ Now how is it conceivable that a man who set out honestly to denounce Capitalism should have avoided all reference to its principal authors? Yet even in the section of his book dealing with the origins of Industrial Capitalism, where Marx refers to the great financiers, the stock-jobbing and speculation in shares, and what he describes as ‘the modern sovereignty of finance,’ he never once indicates the Jews as the leading financiers, or the Rothschilds as the super-capitalists of the world.”[20]

and (my emphasis in red):

Jewish movements seem to be working history through dialectical antagonisms that ultimately advance the Big Project. The capacity of the Jewish community to present itself either as a religion or as a nationality, depending on the circumstances, is the prime example. After gaining political emancipation in the name of religious freedom in the first part of the 19th century, European Jews were in the position to reclaim their special nationhood. For a few decades, reformed rabbis would ostensibly oppose Jewish nationalism, proclaiming in the 1885 Pittsburgh Conference: “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religion community.”[25] Yet the same Pittsburgh Conference saw no contradiction in adopting the theory of German rabbi Kaufman Kohler, that “Israel, the suffering Messiah of the centuries, shall at the end of days become the triumphant Messiah of the nations,”[26] which amounts to say that Israel is not an ordinary nation, but the super-nation. In the 20th century, any trace of a contradiction between Reformed Judaism and Zionism was removed.
The early collaboration between Marx and Hess and the late encounter between Marx and Graetz both prefigure another dialectical opposition between Communism (the International revolution aimed at destroying Christian nations) and Zionism (the national project aimed at building the Jewish nation). Both movements developed in the same milieu. Chaim Weizmann recounts in his autobiography (Trial and Error, 1949) that in early twentieth-century Russia, revolutionary communists and revolutionary Zionists belonged to the same milieu. Weizmann’s brother Schmuel was a communist, and that was not a source of family discord. These divisions were relative and changeable; many Zionists were Marxists, and vice versa. The borderline was all the more vague that the Communist Bund, born the same year as Zionism (1897), inscribed in its revolutionary agenda the right of the Jews to found a secular Yiddish-speaking nation. As Gilad Atzmon recently wrote, the Bund was “also an attempt to prevent Jews from joining the ‘Hellenic’ route by offering Jews a tribal path within the context of a future Soviet revolution.”

But the most important thing to note is that, from the early days, Jewish revolutionary activity provided Zionists with a diplomatic argument in favor of their alternative program for the Jews. Herzl mentions in his diary (June 4, 1900) that “intensifying Jewish Socialist activities” was a way to “stir up the desire among the European governments to exert pressure on Turkey to take in the Jews” (Palestine was then under Ottoman control). He hawked Zionism as a solution to the problem of Jewish revolutionary subversion when meeting Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1898, and again when meeting Russian ministers in St. Petersburg in 1903.[27] The next generation of Zionists continued the stratagem.

Churchill, who spoke with one voice with Chaim Weizmann,[28]dramatized the opposition between the “good Jews” (Zionists) and the “bad Jews” (communists) in his 1920 article “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.” He referred to Bolshevism as “this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization” and to Zionism as the solution “especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.” (Churchill’s later alliance with Stalin proves that his Zionism was stronger than his anti-communism.)
In the aftermath of World War II, the rivalry between the Communist and the Capitalist worlds remained the indispensable context for the creation and expansion of Israel. That explains why Roosevelt’s administration, largely controlled by Jews, helped Stalin conquer half of Europe and thwarted all attempts to stop him. Curtis Dall, Roosevelt’s son-in-law, has revealed a secret diplomatic channel demonstrating that the White House went out of its way to give the USSR all the time and the armament necessary to invade Central Europe.[29] Thus the Second World War was completed with the determined aim of laying the foundations for the Cold War, that is, a highly explosive polarization of the world that would prove crucial for Project Zion. In fact, during this whole period, it is almost impossible to distinguish, among the Jewish advisors of Roosevelt and Truman on foreign policy, the pro-Communists from the pro-Zionists, as David Martin remarks in The Assassination of James ForrestalA case in point is David Niles (Neyhus), who was guilty of spying for the Soviets while advising Roosevelt, but then played a key role in Truman’s support of the U.N. Partition Plan and the recognition of Israel.[30]
The Cold War proved instrumental when Nasser, Israel’s most formidable enemy, was pushed into the communist camp in 1955, setting off an intense Zionist campaign to present him as a danger to the stability of the Middle East, and to present Israel, by contrast, as the only reliable ally in the region. The Cold War was also the crucial context for Israel’s defeat of Egypt in 1967 and Israel’s annexation of territories stolen to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

Hindu Racism Is Alive and Thriving In Modern, “Democratic India”

[(The world has forgotten the extreme, bloody violence of Hindu racism…Remember Gujarat Riots)

SEE:  31 Convicted In Gujarat Riots Case for Burning 33 Muslims Alive]

Don’t Blame Victims Burning in Delhi’s Violence, Again

Anti-Muslim violence in India reaches alarming proportions

Worst riots after 1992 Babri demolition stains Delhi

Editorial: The BJP Has Wilfully Let Delhi Burn

Nobody should be under any illusion that the Delhi communal riots of 2020 are not a product of deliberate attempts by the BJP to polarise the country on religious grounds.

For three days, northeast Delhi has been in the grip of armed vigilantes mobilised by Hindutva politicians to attack and terrorise those protesting the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. Given the nature of the mobs and their leaders, the violence quickly lost any pretence of a ‘political’ motive and descended into crude, generalised communal violence against Muslims.

The utter chaos and lawlessness which reigned unchecked on the watch of the Narendra Modi government at the Centre – which controls law and order in the national capital – has left at least 21 people dead, including a policeman, and several hundred injured. Ordinary working people – both Hindus and Muslims – have died in the orchestrated mayhem.


There can be no doubt that the ultimatum issued by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kapil Mishra on Sunday for the anti-CAA protestors to clear the streets of northeast Delhi or face dire consequences was the immediate trigger to the violence. But there are also deeper underlying factors – institutional and political – which helped push Delhi into the abyss.

The first and most obvious factor is the partisanship of the Delhi Police, encouraged and sustained in large part by the support of the ruling BJP at the Centre. From university campuses to the streets, it is now a matter of habit for the Delhi Police to stand by and watch mobs whose political agenda squares with the BJP run amok.

Ordinary citizens, particularly Muslims – the primary targets of the ruling party’s polarising politics around the question of citizenship – can expect no succour from such partisan law enforcers. As in other recent episodes of violence in Delhi, here too, instead of protecting the vulnerable, the police could be seen backing the Hindutva mobs in their attacks Muslims. The fact that the Delhi high court’s intervention was needed before the police agreed to ferry victims of the violence to safety tells its own appalling story.

The continued dereliction of duty without fear of punitive action has created a situation that is alarming for any civilised nation. The images flooding television screens for the past few nights, along with reports by journalists from numerous organisations who had all been subject to the mob’s vicious attacks, brought back stark memories of 1984 – the last time Delhi was in the throes of such organised communal violence – or 2002, when the state of Gujarat under Narendra Modi burned for weeks.

Second, the role of BJP and Sangh parivar leaders throughout this period has been reprehensible. Apart from Kapil Mishra, party legislators and functionaries have either openly inciting anti-Muslim hatred or helped demonise the anti-CAA protests – which have all been peaceful – as anti-national. While Union home minister Amit Shah has been missing in action, the junior home minister has now set his sights on the media – demanding action against news platforms whose reports of the violence have proved embarrassing for the government.

Regrettably, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which won a landslide against the BJP in Delhi’s assembly polls last month, has also miserably failed to rise to the occasion. Granted, law and order is not in the state government’s hands. But rather than mark their presence in the embattled parts of the city, AAP leaders appeared to vanish from the scene. It would have been befitting of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal to send out his legislators to the strife-torn areas where people were desperately seeking help.

The image of the chief minister alongside his deputy, Manish Sisodia, paying homage to Mahatma Gandhi at Rajghat added further insult to injury. Rather than take a proactive stance, the AAP chose to retreat into the shadows while Delhi was burning.

To be sure, AAP’s retreat pales in significance before the direct culpability of the BJP. Nobody should be under any illusion that the Delhi communal riots of 2020 are not a product of deliberate, attempts to polarise the country on religious grounds. The party leadership and its governments at the Centre and in states like Uttar Pradesh have, directly and indirectly, stoked hatred against Muslims. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who hosted US President Donald Trump while Delhi burned, finally tweeted a tepid appeal for “peace and harmony” on Wednesday.

Given Delhi’s history, and his own, Modi’s silence for three days tells its own story.

Democrats See Trump As the Devil, But Bernie Is Something Worse…A Socialist!

At a raucous debate, Bernie Sanders was the target, but who really got hurt?

Bernie Sanders defended his progressive agenda in the debate on Tuesday.
Credit…Damon Winter/The New York Times 

In case you were at all confused, Bernie Sanders is the apocalypse. Or something very close to it.

That was the message from his six rivals on Tuesday night at the latest and perhaps nastiest Democratic debate, which devolved at times into an oratorical melee of overlapping voices, overheated tempers and dire warnings about what would happen if Sanders, the current front-runner in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, becomes the party’s nominee. President Trump would get four more years. Several of the Democrats on the stage in Charleston, S.C., essentially guaranteed it.

And they scared the hell out of me. That’s only partly because I fear that they’re right about Sanders, whose past and even present are gold mines for material that Trump can use to portray him as an ideological fringe figure. It’s also because the candidates did it in an angry, panicked way that, if I were Trump, I’d edit into a campaign commercial and blanket the airwaves. Its tag line would be: “Even Democrats don’t trust Bernie Sanders. Why should you?”

Nomination contests often get ugly, with candidates in the same party — candidates with some of the same core values — belittling one another. But this felt different. This felt worse. This felt like a genuine freakout.

Sanders’s competitors weren’t just desperate to reverse his progress before Super Tuesday next week, when roughly a third of all delegates are awarded, so that one of them can overtake him. They seemed to be in the grip of some larger existential crisis, their understanding of their party’s dynamics challenged, their sense of its destiny upended and their dread of blowing an immeasurably consequential election profound.

Within the first 15 minutes, Mike Bloomberg attacked Sanders and then Elizabeth Warren did, and then Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden and Tom Steyer got in on the action. Amy Klobuchar joined the fray late but with no less exuberance. Together they pressed the case that Sanders’s proposals — for health care, education and more — were too uncompromising, too disruptive and too expensive, and that he had shown an inexplicable, suspicious softness toward authoritarian regimes around the world.

A few of them made clear that they don’t merely see Sanders as a less-than-ideal adversary for Trump. They see him as political suicide.

And as the candidates gave voice to that dark vision, they occasionally vaulted past fierce to feral. There were episodes when they spoke over one another, not just for a few sentences but for entire paragraphs, while the journalists moderating the debate watched helplessly. The worst of these involved Sanders and Buttigieg, who perhaps devoted the most energy to sounding the Sanders alarm.

After Bloomberg charged that Russians were interfering in the primary on Sanders’s behalf as a way of handing Trump his weakest opponent, Buttigieg chimed in: “They want chaos, and chaos is what is coming our way. I mean, look, if you think the last four years has been chaotic, divisive, toxic, exhausting, imagine spending the better part of 2020 with Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump. Think about what that will be like for this country.”

He later told Sanders that his nomination would jeopardize Democrats’ hard-won control of the House, saying that the scores of Democrats whose victories in 2018 gave the party its majority “are not running on your platform. They are running away from your platform as fast as they possibly can.”

Sanders, red-faced, shook his head. He did so much of that on Tuesday night it was as if he were a pioneer in neck aerobics.

But he also kept his cool and stood his ground, so that a night devoted in large part to wounding him probably left him with little more than a nick or two. He was able to say, correctly, that he beats Trump in polls that posit a hypothetical matchup of the two. He was able to cite, accurately, his impressive favorability ratings.

He was also able to step back during stretches of the debate when the ugliness didn’t focus on him — when the generally foul atmosphere pitted Biden against Steyer or Warren against Bloomberg, or Klobuchar against Biden.

Nobody really looked good, and that’s another big part of what spooked me. I was watching a political party devour itself. It was all so unpleasant — and so unflattering — that candidates took to commenting on how unpleasant and unflattering it was.

“I guess the only way you do this is to jump in and speak twice as long as you should,” Biden groused, as he delivered yet another debate performance in which he was obsessed with the clock, the rules and whether he should follow them when others didn’t.Klobuchar cautioned: “If we spend the next four months tearing our party apart, we’re going to watch Donald Trump spend the next four years tearing our country apart.” But before I could cheer, she proceeded to tear Sanders down. That’s the bind that she and other moderate Democrats are in. To press for a nominee less divisive than Sanders, they’re forced to behave in a manner that’s, well, divisive. It’s a Catch-22. Make that a Catch-2020.

The debate wasn’t just scary but sad, because when the vitriol waned, there were glimpses of just how much more prudent and better prepared than Trump all of these candidates are. There were glimmers of just how much more serious than the Republican Party the Democratic Party is.

Asked about the threat of the coronavirus, the candidates spoke authoritatively and compellingly about the Trump administration’s missteps and America’s vulnerability. They discussed science, something with which Trump has barely any relationship. They mentioned international cooperation, something for which Trump has scant respect.

Bloomberg, so awful when he made his debate debut last week, answered a question about public health and then a subsequent one about the legalization of marijuana in a nuanced, knowledgeable fashion, demonstrating that Trump’s problem isn’t that he’s a plutocrat. It’s that he’s an ignorant one.

But do Democrats have the antidote to that ignorance? I fervently believe that the vigor and durability of our democracy depend on it, and the debate’s rancor and noise filled me with apprehension.

Maybe there’s solace in Sanders’s final remarks, when he quoted Nelson Mandela: “Everything is impossible until it happens.” He meant that as an answer to his candidacy’s detractors. But I’ll interpret it as an assertion that Democrats will find their way through this mess.

Israeli Murder By Caterpillar Dozer—continuing, long-running saga

[Notice in this Rachel Corrie death scene video at 1:25, you see the dozer driver celebrating the brutal smashing of the little blonde “object”, i.e., Ms. Corrie.–ed ]
[Remember Rachel Corrie? (SEE: Remember Rachel Corrie–March 16, 2003)]

Israel hangs dead Palestinian from bulldozer

Israeli forces shot dead a Palestinian near the Gaza-Israel fence yesterday then carried his body away on a bulldozer, a video that has sparked outrage shows.

Filmed by a photographer working with the West Bank-based news agency Al-Hadath, the video show the lifeless body of 27-year-old Mohammed Al-Naem hanging from the bulldozer after he was shot dead along the Gaza-Israeli fence.

Al-Naem was a member of the Gaza-based Al-Quds Brigades, an armed wing of the resistance faction Palestinian Islamic JihadSafa news agency reported yesterday.

The bulldozer approached the body as Palestinians tried to recover Al-Naem’s corpse to avoid it being detained by occupation forces.

They were forced to flee as the vehicle approached them at speed, picked up Al-Naem’s body by his clothing and carried him away, he lifeless body is clearly visible as a tank nears to protect the Israeli machinery.

A number of Palestinians were injured in the attack, with one seen hopping away after he was shot in the leg by occupation forces.

Israeli Defence Minister Naftali Bennett defended the military action stating that the military was trying to retrieve the body of “a terrorist”.

“This is how it should be done, and this is how it will be done,” he wrote.

“Israel intended to kill an unarmed young man, in front of the cameras of the whole world,” Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum said.

“The abuse of his body right before the eyes of the entire world is a heinous crime that can be added to the other crimes against our people.”

Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, has demanded a criminal investigation into the incident and sent a letter to the Israeli Chief Military Advocate General Sharon Afek, detailing that the actions “depicted in the video were viewed as war crimes and blatant violations of international criminal law, and international human rights and humanitarian law.”

WATCH: Israel bulldozes Palestinian protest in the West Bank

Turkish Brinkmanship Reaches A Dead End In Syria

It’s time to reclaim Syria’s road to recovery

Erdogan de facto supports al-Qaeda remnants while facing either humiliating retreat from or total war against Syria

<img class="i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; display: block !important;" role="presentation" src="data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />
Syria’s main transport artery, the M5 highway, links Damascus with Aleppo. Image: iStock

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, neo-Ottoman extraordinaire, is not exactly inclined to commit seppuku, the Japanese act of ritual suicide.

But if not through the perspective of neo-Ottomanism, how to explain the fact he is de facto supporting al-Qaeda remnants in Syria while facing two unsavory options – a humiliating retreat from or total war against the Syrian Arab Army?

Everything about the slowly evolving, messy chessboard in Idlib hinges on highways: the imperative for the government in Damascus to control both the M5 highway between Damascus and Aleppo and the M4 highway between Latakia and Aleppo. Fully reclaiming these two crucial axes will finally turbo-charge the ailing Syrian economy.

<img class="i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; display: block !important;" role="presentation" src="data:;base64,” alt=”” aria-hidden=”true” />

Very few players nowadays remember the all-important Sochi memorandum of understanding signed between Russia and Turkey in September 2018.

The Western spin was always about whether Damascus would comply. Nonsense. In the memorandum, Ankara guaranteed protection of civilian traffic on both highways. It’s Ankara that is not complying, not only in terms of ensuring that “radical terrorist groups” are out of the demilitarized zone, but especially on point number 8: “In the interests of ensuring free movement of local residents and goods, as well as restoring trade and economic ties, transit traffic along the routes M4 (Aleppo-Latakia) and M5 (Aleppo-Hama) will be restored before the end of 2018.”

Vast stretches of Idlib are in fact under the yoke of Hayat Tahrir al Shams (HTS), shorthand for al-Qaeda in Syria. Or “moderate rebels,” as they are known inside the Beltway – even though the United States government itself brands it as a terror organization.

For all practical purposes, the Erdogan system is supporting and weaponizing HTS in Idlib. When the SAA reacts against HTS’s attacks, Erdogan goes ballistic and threatens war.

The West uncritically buys Ankara propaganda. How dare the “Assad regime” take back the M5, which “had been under rebel control since 2012”? Erdogan is lauded for warning “Iran and Russia to end the support for the Assad regime.” NATO invariably condemns “attacks on Turkish troops.”

The official Ankara explanation for the Turkish presence in Idlib hinges on bringing reinforcements to “observation posts.” Nonsense. These posts are not meant to go away. On top of it, Ankara demands that the SAA should retreat to the positions it held months ago – away from Idlib.

There’s no way Damascus will “comply” because these Turkish troops are a de facto occupation body-protecting “moderate rebels” fighting for “democracy” who were decisively excluded by Moscow – and even Ankara – from the Sochi memorandum. One can’t make this stuff up.

Got airpower, will travel

Now let’s look at the facts on the ground – and in the skies. Moscow and Damascus control the airspace over Idlib. Su-34 jets patrol all of northwest Syrian territory. Moscow has warships – crammed with cruise missiles – deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The whole SAA offensive for these past few months to liberate national territory has been a graphic demonstration of top Russian intel – planning, execution, logistics.

What’s being set up is a classic cauldron – a Southwest Asia replica of the cauldron in Donbass in 2014 that destroyed Kiev’s army. The SAA is encircling the Turks from the north, east and south. There will be only one way out for the Turks: the border crossing at Bab al-Hawa. Back to Turkey.

Facing certified disaster, no wonder Erdogan had to talk “de-escalation” with Putin on Tuesday. The red lines, from Moscow’s side, are immutable: the highways will be liberated (according to the Sochi agreement). The neo-Ottoman sultan can’t afford a war with Russia. So, yes: he’s bluffing.

But why is he bluffing? There are three main possibilities. 1) Washington is forcing him to, pledging full support to “our NATO ally.”  2) The Turkish Armed Forces cannot afford to lose face. 3) The “moderate rebels” don’t give a damn about Ankara.

Option 1 seems the most plausible – even as Erdogan is being actually forced to directly confront a Moscow with which he has signed extremely important economic/energy contracts. Erdogan may not be a General Zhukov, but he knows that a bunch of jihadis and only 6,000 demoralized Turkish soldiers stand no chance against the SAA and Russian airpower.

It’s enlightening to compare the current Turkish predicament with the Turk/Free Syrian Army (FSA) proxy gang alliance when they were fighting the Kurds in Afrin.

Ankara then had control of the skies and enormous artillery advantage – from their side of the border. Now Syria/Russia rules the skies and Turkish artillery simply cannot get into Idlib. Not to mention that supply lines are dreadful.

Neo-Ottomanism, revisited

So what is Erdogan up to? What’s happening is Erdogan’s Muslim Brotherhood network is now managing Idlib on the ground – a fascinating repositioning gambit able to ensure that Erdogan remains a strongman with whom Bashar al-Assad will have to talk business when the right time comes.

Erdogan’s partial endgame will be to “sell” to Assad that ultimately he was responsible for getting rid of the HTS/FSA jihadi nebulae. Meanwhile, circus prevails – or, rather, a lousy opera, with Erdogan once again relishing playing the bad guy. He knows Damascus has all but won a vicious nine-year proxy war – and is reclaiming all of its sovereign territory. There’s no turning back.

And that brings us to the complex dynamics of the Turkish-Iranian puzzle. One should always remember that both are members of the  Astana peace process, alongside Russia. On Syria, Tehran supported Damascus from the start while Ankara bet on – and weaponized – the “democratic freedom fighter” jihadi nebulae.

From the 16th century to the 19th, Shi’ite Iran and the Sunni Ottoman empire were engaged in non-stop mutual containment. And under the banner of Islam, Turkey de facto ruled over the Arab world.

Jump cut, in the 21st century, to Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who codified neo-Ottomanism. Davutoglu came up with the idea that eastern Anatolia did not end with the borders with Armenia and Iran but extended to the western coast of the Caspian Sea. And he also came up with the idea that eastern Anatolia did not end at the borders with Iraq and Syria – but extended all the way to Mosul.

Essentially, Davutoglu argued that the Middle East had to be Turkey’s backyard. And Syria would be the golden gate through which Turkey would “recover” the Middle East.

All these elaborate plans now lie in dust. The Big Picture, of course, remains: the US determined by all means necessary to prevent Eurasian unity, and the Russia-China strategic partnership from having access to maritime routes, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean through Syria via Iran.

The micro-picture is way more prosaic. It comes down to Erdogan making sure his occupying troops do not get routed by Assad’s army. How the mighty (neo-Ottoman) have fallen.

Trump Reinforces Republican Anti-Cannabis Bias…Look For Inevitable “Witch Hunt” To Eliminate Medical Marijuana

Donald Trump previously supported states considering marijuana legalization, but that could be changing.
Donald Trump previously supported states considering marijuana legalization, but that could be changing. (Alex Wong/Staff/Getty Images)

Analysts previously predicted Donald Trump might support marijuana legalization to boost his chances of re-election this year. Instead, the opposite has happened. The Trump Administration has proposed removing medical marijuana protections in the 2021 fiscal budget and leaked audio revealed the President’s belief that smoking weed makes you dumb.

Trump has done little to reverse this appearance of an anti-marijuana sentiment building in the White House. Rather, a top Trump campaign spokesman doubled down and said marijuana should remain illegal at the federal level. During an interview with Las Vegas CBS affiliate KLAS-TV, Marc Lotter, who serves as director of strategic communications for Trump’s 2020 campaign, was asked about the President’s stance on changing federal cannabis laws.

“I think the president is looking at this from a standpoint of a parent—a parent of a young person—to make sure we keep our kids away from drugs,” Lotter said. “They need to be kept illegal. That is the federal policy.”

This complicates what Trump stated during his 2016 campaign and time in the White House. Previously, Trump supported leaving marijuana legalization to the states and voiced support for the STATES Act, bipartisan legislation that would prohibit federal prosecution for those living in states with legal cannabis.

“I think the president has been pretty clear on his views on marijuana at the federal level. I know many states have taken a different path,” Lotter said.

It could also signal a change in political strategy from the president in the upcoming election. Outside candidates Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg, the Democratic presidential nominee will support legalizing cannabis at the federal level. Trump could see it as an advantage to position himself opposite of his eventual opponent. For now, Trump appears comfortable allowing himself being seen as someone who will uphold federal cannabis prohibition.

Said Lotter, “If he changes that, obviously that would be something I wouldn’t want to get out in front of him on that.”

The Fresh Toast is a daily lifestyle platform with a side of cannabis. For more information, visit

Copyright: © 2020 The Fresh Toast.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency.

Turkey Asks U.S. For 2 Patriot Missile Batteries, To Block Russian Air Support To Syrian Troops

US official confirms Turkey asked for Patriot missiles

Anonymous official says request was made ‘recently’
Kasim Ileri   |21.02.2020
US official confirms Turkey asked for Patriot missiles


The Turkish government recently asked the U.S. to deploy Patriot air defense systems on Turkey’s southern border, a U.S. official said Thursday.

“We’re aware of a request for Patriot systems but understand no decision has been made,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official said the request had been made “recently.”

Earlier in the day, citing a Turkish official in Ankara, Bloomberg reported that Turkey asked the U.S. to deploy two Patriot missile-defense batteries “to free it to punish any future attacks” by Syrian regime forces backed by Russia.

In the latest exchange between Turkish and Syrian regime forces Thursday, two Turkish soldiers were martyred and five injured in airstrikes on Turkish elements in Idlib, northwestern Syria, said Turkey’s National Defense Ministry.

In retaliation, Turkish forces neutralized more than 50 regime elements and destroyed five tanks, two armored personnel vehicles, two armed pickups and one howitzer, the ministry said on Twitter.

Responding to Turkish soldiers being martyred by Assad regime forces in recent weeks, Turkey has swiftly retaliated, neutralizing hundreds of Syrian troops and warning that it will not tolerate any Turkish soldiers coming to harm.

*Servet Gunerigok contributed to this story