Watching the Anti-Freedom Actions of Francois Hollande
By Anthony Wile - November 28, 2015

Francois Hollande has come into his own. After nearly bankrupting France and raising taxes so aggressively that he has driven many of France's best and brightest abroad, Hollande has found his voice as a wartime president. He is leading the charge against "terrorists" around the world.

US president Harry Truman admitted to failing at numerous professions before discovering his calling in politics and eventually being elevated to the highest office in the land after FDR's untimely death. Truman immediately gave the order to murder hundreds of thousands of Japanese by dropping two horrible bombs on them and never looked back.

Today, the US mainstream media and its court historians deem Truman a heroic figure. So it may be with Hollande. France is drenched in blood and Hollande is determined to spill more. Not content with imposing an open-ended state of emergency on France, Hollande is now appealing to British Labour MPs to support bombing in Syria.

According to The Times, President Hollande "issued a dramatic appeal to British Labour MPs … to allow the UK to join the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Syria, further isolating Jeremy Corbyn, the party's leader."

An elaboration:

France's Socialist leader said that action was needed "to defend our vision of mankind". "I do hope that the House of Commons will be able to meet the request of the prime minister," he told a news conference in Malta.

Later he made clear that he was addressing all MPs, and asked them to "show solidarity with France". Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader, joined a growing mutiny against Mr Corbyn's refusal to allow a free vote on the issue, saying that he believed that "there is an imminent terrorist threat being directed from Syria".

It is ironic that Jeremy Corbin is being attacked for wanting to keep Britain from escalating its involvement in the Syrian quagmire. British citizens are furious with Tony Blair for lying about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," and hauling Britain into a terrible, futile war that killed or wounded so many British troops.

But now Britain is getting ready to do it again – at the behest of France this time instead of the US. But it amounts to the same thing. Those who speak out against escalation are being excoriated as naïve and worse. Corbyn is apparently about to suffer this fate.

In addition to agitating for his version of an anti-Syrian "coalition of the willing," Hollande is suspending civil rights in France. The well-respected (admittedly leftist) magazine Mother Jones points out, "France has embraced and even surpassed some of America's most draconian responses to terror. In the name of security, the French public has been more willing than Americans ever were to let their government spy on citizens, conduct warrantless raids, and restrict rights of free speech and assembly."

Mother Jones quotes Jonah Levy, a France expert "who teaches comparative politics at the University of California-Berkeley," as observing that "the differences boil down to governing philosophies."

Levy points out that the US has checks and balances to maintain a system where the government does little or no harm. France, he says, has built a system that centralizes power in the presidency. The French generally have a more "positive view of the state," and the French president acts as a kind of elected monarch.

I'm a little puzzled by Levy's statement because truthfully I don't see much difference between systems at this point. The US is basically run by unelected bankers, businesspeople and military leaders who seek additional globalization and are constantly implementing policies to move the country in that direction.

Part of the process involves constant interference in the sociopolitical and economic affairs of other countries. The US has hundreds of military bases around the world and, together with the other "four eyes," the US implements violent regime change on behalf of shadowy power brokers.

This is just what Hollande is trying to do. Bombing Syria is not going to forestall further violence in France. In fact, such actions will surely increase the chaos and over time add to the bloodletting.

The US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to avenge 9/11. Today, the US cannot extricate itself from Afghanistan even though it is a bloody morass that has cost the lives and limbs of thousands of servicemen and women. Iraq meanwhile has been poisoned by depleted uranium weapons to the point where doctors advise women in parts of the country not to have babies because so many infants are born with birth defects.

But Hollande has found his voice! He bays for blood and lobbies Britain to join him in bombing Syria. The Middle East mistakes of the past decade are about to be repeated. And actually, after a point one cannot call them "mistakes." These are, in my view, predetermined programs. The idea was always to apply the necessary amount of force to remove Assad – and Hollande is just taking advantage of what he can to move his country and the West in that direction.

Hollande has had much to say about liberty and the superiority of Western values but in removing his citizens' civil rights, he is making France no better a place to live and work than various authoritarian countries, including some in the Middle East.

I recently appeared on a Canadian television program and was asked my opinion of what's going on in France and how the West ought to respond. I pointed out that violence breeds violence and that Hollande was leading France down a path that would certainly result in even more terrorists attacks. The best thing that Hollande could do would be to de-escalate and march French troops home again.

Of course, libertarian politician and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has suggested the same remedy for the US. Famously, Ron Paul speaks of "blowback," the idea that by attacking countries and populations, the US creates enemies that will try to do the same in return.

In fact, the US is far down this bloody road. The military is increasingly idolized – at least in public – and polls show a significant number of US citizens believe a military government might be preferable to the current civilian one.

Meanwhile, politicians at both the local and federal level in the US suggest that people become more "aware" of the domestic terrorist threat and alert authorities to any activities they consider suspicious. Such suggestions, if insisted upon, turn whole populations into a kind of sullen surveillance mechanism. Nothing much ever gets exposed but the paranoia climbs steadily.

What kind of society is subject to such psychological flim-flammery? Mass surveillance removes freedoms but does little else. One is tempted to ask in this regard, "Who are the real terrorists?" I'll leave you to your own conclusions …

Personally, I don't want to live in such a society. Or if I have to do so, I'll take action to provide myself and my family with alternatives, with what we call "lifestyle insurance" – second homes, additional passports and alternative financial arrangements that are effectively internationalized … All these are solutions that provide additional options at a time when they are increasingly necessary.

History may eventually portray Francois Holland and other Western politicians as heroes taking action against "radical Islam." But I'm living through this particular era and I know the truth is a great deal more complicated than what the mainstream media pretends it is.

I'm not satisfied with living in an environment where my freedoms are gradually erased while civil society around me is poisoned by irrational security demands that make life more difficult without increasing my personal safety.

I'll do what's necessary to give myself and my family more and better options. We don't need to look to politicians to help keep us "safe." If we open our eyes, we can see for ourselves.

James Altucher: “Do NOT Buy Bitcoin Until You See This!”
I repeat… Do NOT buy Bitcoin before you see what I’m revealing here.

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    “The US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to avenge 9/11.” – I hope there is agreement that the “real terrorists” are not and never were in Iraq or Afghanistan. 9/11 may never be avenged because of the depth of that rabbit hole.

    Outstanding article! Thanks.

  • After a terrorist attack, a majority of people expect strong action from their government, and because politicians like to be reelected, they are likely to do so.

    • They expected a state of emergency, curfews and censorship?

      • Anyway, Bush was reelected. People could have voted him out of office but they didn’t. This supports my point.

        • Blank Reg

          “9/11, 24/7” Was the GOP rallying cry in 2004. Swiftboat was simply a postscript.

          • Isn’t it still the rallying cry of both parties in the US?

          • Blank Reg

            Yes. Absolutely. But as always with those two, it’s a race between “fear” and “hunger”. I think “fear” is going to win this time around.

        • And Tony Blair reelected too. Maybe it is Stockholm Syndromic? There were over a million people out in the London streets protesting against going to war on Iraq before it even became totally clear the WMD threat was utterly fabricated. Stopping the warmongering politicians is not the solution, it is the utter stupidity of the vast majority of the public lapping up the ‘threat’ and wanting ‘action’ without understanding the reality of what is happening because they just watch TV, read corporate media and talk amongst themselves. If the majority switched on to what is going on the politicians would have to stop.

      • Injun Holbrook

        Yes DB, that’s exactly what they expected….and wanted.

  • FauxScienceSlayer

    The humanitarian case for Harry and the Hiroshima bombing has been suppressed by US orders that all Pacific War Theater war crime material be “Classified for 50 Years”. When it was due to be released, US Army historian Douglas Dietrich was ordered to destroy the original source material at the Presido base in San Francisco during the final year of the Big Bush reign.

    “The Rape of Nanking” by Iris Chang documents the 20 million Chinese massacred by the Japanese between 1937 and 1945, including over a million killed by Japanese biological weapons which included “Japanese aviators spraying fleas carrying plague germs over Shanghai, Ninpo, Changteh and flasks of cholera, dysentery, typhoid and anthrax”. US War Crimes trials revealed over 200,000 cases of cannibalism by the Japanese army. US POWs in Germany had a one in 25 death rate, in Japanese POW camps there was a one in three death rate, and all survivors were starved to skeleton state. Of the million Chinese POWs there was only ONE survivor.

    The Japanese homeland was to be protected with thousands of Kamikaze bombers with just enough fuel reserved to attack US landings, as hundreds of B-29s flew unmolested to firebomb 60% of the housing in every major city. Five thousand, one man Kamikaze torpedoes were ready for US landing efforts. The Japanese had bombed the west coast with over 9000 Hydrogen balloon bombs, see “Wiki/Fire_Ballons” including some with plague fleas over all of 1944 and until April of 1945. Japan was to take delivery of 550 kg of Uranium U-235 to distribute in five submarine aircraft carriers to drop dirty bombs on LA, SF, DC, NYC and the Panama Canal, see “Overthrowing the Kit and Kaboodle” at FSS site. The wicked emperor Hirohito distributed leaflets “We Eat Grasshoppers” to rally the homeland as food was disappearing. Had the US NOT bombed Japan with nukes, million of US and tens of million Japanese deaths would have occurred in the brutal winter of 1945-1946.

    Our evil ruling elite have repeatedly stage set, directed and profited from WAR, and have attempted to lure Putin into WW Three in Georgia during the Beijing Olympics, in Libya, in Ukraine and with ISIS in Syria. Educate yourself on the real history of warlord plutocracy.

    • “It’s challenging to look back at events, 70 years later, and understand the logic of using an atomic bomb without allowing one scrap of knowledge learned since 1945 to creep into our decision making. All of this being said, it’s still possible to come to the conclusion that using this weapon was wrong.”

      – William D. Leahy –the Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief (precursor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) came to that conclusion:

      “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons . . . in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages (William D. Leahy, pg. 441).”


      • FauxScienceSlayer

        Thank you so much for posting my comment and your thoughtful reply. The case could also be made that once the nuclear genie was out of the bottle, it would soon be used in combat. The 15 kiloton toys dropped on Japan were soon dwarfed by the megatons Hydrogen bombs that followed. The Operation Starfish high altitude blast in the Pacific knocked out electricity in Hawaii two thousand miles from the explosion, and led to limits on above ground tests, while underground tests continued, will provide 10 minute video of +2000 nuke tests in next reply.

        Japanese submarine I-52 was sunk June 16, 1944 leaving Lorient, France with 800 kg of UrO2 that would have been loaded on to two !-300 submarine aircraft carriers with three folding wing bombers and on to two I-400 submarines with four aircraft. The dirty bombs were called the “Bomb For Now” as the Japanese fission bombs were still under development in North Korea. Had this delivery made it to Japan, they certainly would have nuked the US first. I in NO way advocate use of Uranium or Plutonium on this planet, but perhaps the Hiroshima/Nagasaki events did serve to caution our warlords, who by 1952 had 16″ nuke artillery shells for battleships and by 1963 had 155 mm for tanks.

      • FauxScienceSlayer

        The 2153 nuclear tests since 1945, a ten min time lapse video at > vimeo.com/135580602

        “America’s Nuclear Radiation Coverup, 1946 > 1958, Barbaric Racism” at Veterans Today on CFR puppet Eisenhower

  • Danny B

    “UK Announces 178 Billion Military Spending While Dragging Britain into Bloody War”

    ” Cash crisis ‘could close 50% of UK care homes”

    The bankers love to fund wars but, not so much old people; http://marketsanity.com/27052-2/

  • Barney Biggs

    I am having conflicting thoughts on this.

    First comes the “never let a good crisis go to waste” and as such it is probable that the elite are manipulating the sheeple to a position of their choosing both in the media and political scene. This feeds into my usual thinking of “who benefits and how” in any crisis situation like the Turkish/ Russian tiff.
    The second thought is once the sheeple have been manipulated by the media into a position (logical or not) then the pressure is on the politicians to jump on that band wagon and move that position along until such time as the Elite determine it is no longer in their best interest.

    Freedom is an outdated concept that no longer applies and has not for many many decades if not centuries. I look back to the 16th, 17th, 18th and so on and when viewed from the freedom position (your definition of freedom is a key factor) there has been a steady and incremental erosion of so called freedom for this entire length of time.

    Perhaps I have just become jaundice in my thinking but I do see little evidence of freedom and this will become less and less when the environmental elite get into full gear. I have been told I am a neanderthal and probably true as that is about the last time we had true freedom.
    We the sheeple are on this earth to be fleeced and the elite are doing a good job of it and I suspect there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

  • Ernie Hopkins

    Great piece!!!! Good seeing you back Anthony!!!!

  • Steven Hotho

    I always read, but frequently disagree with what is written here, but find nothing but truth in this article. The only item which I might question is the reality of “lifestyle insurance”, but I certainly understand the impulse.

  • oneteam

    You lost me when you characterized Truman’s order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, as “murder.” It’s people like you that give rise to the notion that all sides of a war or skirmish is equally at fault or is equally as evil and that is simply not true. That kind of mindset is what will allow evil to go unchecked on this planet.

      • oneteam

        Appreciate that. But I don’t have much interest in seeing Tom, Dick and Harry argue a point of history from their own (most likely uneducated) prejudices. The first comment I read on that page was:

        “US is the only country using weapons of mass destruction on civilian population!”

        Just… ugh!

        I’d rather let the actual facts of history color my opinion and not the ramblings of politically charged ideologues 70 years later.

        I actually agree that we should disengage from most of the armed conflicts in the world. But I certainly don’t think the US is “basically run by unelected bankers, businesspeople and military leaders who seek additional globalization and are constantly implementing policies to move the country in that direction.” That’s simply a leftist worldview of a society that is flawed but doesn’t work much better under other guises. I was part of the military and I can assure you that leaders of the military are not warmongers. They would prefer that we stay out of conflicts and the best way to do that is to show that we can stomp anyone that wants us to enter one. So yes, they advocate for a strong military, as anyone that loves peace rightfully would.

        • “I was part of the military and I can assure you that leaders of the military are not warmongers.”

          Really? Then there is this:

          The US is now involved in 134 wars or none, depending on your definition of ‘war’ … The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word “war” was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State … US Secretary of State John Kerry was at first reluctant: … “We’re engaged in a major counterterrorism operation,” he told CBS News on Sept. 11. … By the next day, the Obama administration appeared more comfortable with the word war, yet hardly offered any more clarity. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, “The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

          The problem is that our traditional definition of “war” is outdated, and so is our imagination of what war means.


    • OK let us call it something else: an act of holocaust in the truest sense of the word.

      • oneteam

        Conflating the two is absolutely insane. I mean that quite literally.

        “in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.”

        • So … dropping atomic bombs on Japanese civilians was not an act of murder and it was not an act of holocaust. What do you call it, then? And you’re not interested in reading information about the acts at the link given because the first comment there happened to be ridiculous, and prefer to base your opinion on “history.” Pray tell, what’s your source for the “actual facts of history” of the US dropping atomic bombs on Japan?

          • oneteam

            It was an act of war against an aggressor nation. That is a HUGE difference. Conflating that with the systematic slaughter of Jewish people that were not at war with Germany (it was their own countryman in most cases), is just asinine and inflammatory.

            The whole point of war is to win it. It’s not to win but ONLY if we can win it with some caveats. That was why we didn’t come away victorious in the Vietnam conflict. It’s also why we had no clear win in Afghanistan or Iraq. If you’re not in it to win, why would you even fight it? Just surrender to the whims of the aggressor and be done with it.

            Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki… Yes, it was tragic beyond the imagination. Yes, it was absolutely atrocious. But what part of WWII wasn’t tragic and atrocious? What part was acceptable to you? Wasn’t the half million POWs that were killed by Japanese captors atrocious? How about the 5 millions plus civilians that Japanese soldiers killed in Korea, Indochina, China, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Pacific Islands and Burma. Wasn’t that all atrocious?

            The blood of the innocent Japanese people that were killed in Aug of ’45 was directly on the hands of the Emperor and his advisers from Dec 7th, 1941 to Aug 9th, 1945. As for the final 5 days of that war, Japan was given ample opportunity to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

            I’m not interested in reading the general public’s assessment of something that happened 70 years ago. Yes, there might be the off chance that someone that knows what they’re talking about will chime in, but you have to wade through all the ideologues to get to that nugget. I would prefer to read history books that strive to put together a narrative that is supported with sources and annotated…etc.

          • Interesting that you conflate the use of the word holocaust with “the systematic slaughter of Jewish people” and call use of the word “asinine and inflammatory.”

            From Merriam-Webster:
            Full Definition of HOLOCAUST

            1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
            2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire
            3a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the
            b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide

          • oneteam

            I’m talking about the implied inference that the culpability of the two are the same. They aren’t. One was at war with their aggressor and one wasn’t. I’m not sure why we have to argue that point.

          • “One was at war with their aggressor and one wasn’t.”

            You sure about that? See this:

            “How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor”


          • oneteam

            That article (which I have read in the past) is so full of falsehoods, I wouldn’t even know where to start.

            I’m well aware of the Japanese economic strangulation that was going on. But it was chiefly due to the fact that they were a cruel aggressor in the pacific theater and if it wasn’t for the US trying to fight that hegemony (which technically is an act of war… I agree), there’s no telling where the world would be right now.

            The claim that the US knew about the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened is utter tripe. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

            But we’ve gotten off the topic of this discussion. Comparing Hitler’s extermination of Jews and other castoffs to the bombing of an enemy’s cities. They are not the same. I only wish Roosevelt would have had the nuclear bomb earlier, so we could have saved countless more lives than what died in Japan on the 3rd and 6th of Aug.

          • Again, no one here compared bombing Japan to Hitler killing Jews. You smirkingly dismiss all that you prefer not to or can’t refute. It is clear you’ve made your points and this conversation is finished.

          • natural human

            I would be willing to wager that the coffee tables in your home are littered with thick illustrative books commemorating all manner of death by way of WAR.

          • natural human

            Now that’s the Anthony Wile I remember from days of old. Excellent article. I shall resume reading the DB regularly once again.

          • natural human

            “The whole point of war is to win it.”
            LOL — I guess you haven’t been paying attention.

          • Alan

            “It was their own countryman in most cases”. What do you mean?

        • I set you up and you took my bait! I surmise: you clearly do not even know what the first and proper definition of the word ‘holocaust’ actually is. (I can only suppose you presume it is just the genocidal killing of Jews by the German national socialists). In going down the wrong track you clearly illustrate your limited knowledge and limited ability to ponder such matters before you react.

          I thank you for your kind provision of a definition of the word ‘insane’. Not necessary; the word is in regular use here in the UK when discussing matters of US foreign policy. The first meaning of ‘holocaust’ is ‘destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war: a nuclear holocaust’ so you see, my use of the word is quite correct, undeniable in any rational, intellectual, valuable, meaningful, truthful, hoist way. (I let you off though, you just lack comprehension).

          I set you up because I had an inclining you would fall for it (I even gave you a clue to think about the word’s definition). Why. Because I judged you, correctly, from the revealing candor of your original ‘murder’ comment. I wanted to reveal the likely wisdom behind your opinion or, more to the point, let you do my work for me, which you have done well and I thank you for the amusement.

          • oneteam

            Context is everything in discussions. In the context of war, comparing the murder of Jews by the Nazis to the deaths of Japanese innocents during a war with their nation, is the context in which I was operating. Yes, I know the definition of the word “holocaust”. But if you weren’t relating the two, within the comments of the article in question, then why did you even comment? If it was just to label something a definition, that doesn’t add much to the conversation. So you can get as “technical” as you want, the fact remains that the atrocities against the Jewish people were THE HOLOCAUST and the deaths of the Japanese who died at the hands of two nuclear bombs were A HOLOCAUST.

            But you and I both know that the use of that term = one event in history. Even though technically it can describe many events in human history.

          • James Clander

            It’s just frightening (your little family hologram) to think that someone with your thought process & inability to look at facts is bringing up children to think the same way. Horrible thought.

          • Bruce C.

            I have to agree with “oneteam”: Increasing casualties and capital damage until surrender is not the same as genocide, unless “they” don’t surrender.

          • Not in this case. It was avoidable. They could have used the bomb on an uninhabited island or why not a military target – surrender would have been the same result. The targets were chosen in advance, not bombed or fire bombed, and left to use as targets for the atomic bombs to study the effect. The idea has been sold endlessly as the only way the war could have ended and it is not true – that is propaganda. There was a need to end the war quickly however and that was the Russians wanted to become involved with the fight against Japan – and the victory no doubt too. With defeated German already a clear example there was no way the US was going to let that happen in Japan – the prize was for the US alone.

    • In your opinion, who is responsible for “checking the evil” perpetrated by the US (or in this case, France)? Whose responsibility is it to stop nations from decimating, say, hospitals or schools and slaughtering hundreds of civilians in such cases?

      • Bruce C.

        It is those who instigate it. They are the ones who are directly responsible in either case.

    • MetaCynic

      It was not only murder, it was militarily unnecessary. For months before the bombs were dropped, the Japanese were desperately trying to surrender. But, Truman would have none of that until he had the chance to play with his new toys. He could have chosen to drop one in Tokyo Bay so that millions could witness its power. Instead, so that its destructive power could be accurately measured, he chose to drop the bomb on two cities untouched by the American fire bombing campaign.

      One wonders about the mindset of the American people who have proudly, even righteously, voted to repeatedly put politicians into office – their public servants – who have waged war almost nonstop on the rest of the world since the end of WW2. Who will check that evil?

  • Bruce C.

    A few thoughts:

    It’s a little scary that Levy thinks the US government has “checks and balances to maintain a system where the government does little or no harm.” If he thinks that then maybe a lot of others do as well. We shall see if the French people still have “a much more positive view of the State” if their President gets to implement all of his fanatical plans, though so far they seem to welcome them. Fools and wimps.

    Another way to look at all this is as a manifestation of “Darwin’s” Natural Selection process. Those stupid enough to get mired in warfare get killed or weakened and their gene lines end.

    One way to shut Hollande up may be to challenge him to lead the charge into Syria, like a modern day Napoleon. Force him to explain why that’s a “bad” idea.

    I think one reason Americans would prefer a “military government” is because they think such a government would fight to win. Overwhelming force. Carpet bombing writ large, etc.. I’m amazed how clean and “affluent” the Syrian refugees look. If “we” or anyone else were serious about taking out ISIS those refugees would look like charred wet rats, if they survived at all. The fact that they’re not is evidence that something else is going on.

  • Jim Kluttz

    Anthony Wile – “I’ll do what’s necessary to give myself and my family more and better options. We don’t need to look to politicians to help keep us “safe.” If we open our eyes, we can see for ourselves.”

    You are one of the rare ones who have seen for yourself. We are security driven animals. Let’s say that it takes one year for a man and woman to meet and get married in many cultures. Then it takes a year to have a child. After that it takes ten years or so at a bare minimum to raise that child to be able to survive on his or her own. Then add in more children and consider that most children are probably raised for more than ten years. Adding all these years shows why we are programmed for security above all else. In addition, we are weak physically and needed others for security in the early years.

    Knowing these facts, each of us can either do as you have done and see to our own security as best we can or become a “leader” and easily manipulate those who are unaware. Until and unless our security programming is updated or until most of us understand the problem, we will continue to be manipulated without limit. Unhappily, as technology advances manipulations become more and more dangerous.

    • But thanks to technology, Insight into the REAL situation becomes more available as well …

  • Richard B

    It is your privilege to man a post and protect your familily, your friends, your neighbors, and your countrymen but I seriously doubt you would ever do so. You conveniently dismiss the fact that in Truman’s day as in our day, today, those who were killed by ‘the bomb’ and those who are being targeted for responsive attacks today had / have killed, were / are planning to kill our countrymen and other innocents around the world, yet you seem unconcerned and unmoved by that fact. Pity the poor terrorists. I personally find it more honorable that our elected officials would take steps to kill our enemies to preclude the murder of our citizens than in lamenting the deaths of those who have pledged to kill us. There seems to be a lesson here in the sense of priorities relative to the realities of life and you don’t get it.

    • “Pity the poor terrorists. I personally find it more honorable that our elected officials would take steps to kill our enemies to preclude the murder of our citizens than in lamenting the deaths of those who have pledged to kill us.”

      You conflate Western elected officials with “honor?” Honestly, you need to educate yourself. There is a reason the public’s trust in the US Congress is in the single digits. See this from the UK Guardian:

      Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq … The sectarian terror group won’t be defeated by the western states that incubated it in the first place … The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting … The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.


    • WoodsWoman

      Who do you think you are, Richard B?!! You come into another man’s (virtual) home and challenge his courage and integrity? I’m sure there’s a recruiting station near you open right now … Please, go sign up so you can hunt the terrorists who you’re sure want to kill your children and your grandmother. Perhaps you’ll have the privilege of fighting side-by-side with some of your honorable elected officials. … Oh, wait a minute … Almost forgot – They don’t fight! They scream their neocon warmongering from the comfort of privileged safety while other people’s children die. Hurry … There’s probably a sign-on bonus you’re missing while you armchair terrorist-hunt.

    • robt

      Precluding the murder of civilians is not only not possible, it results in the oppression of ordinary citizens by the State for no particular reason except to exercise control over the docile public that would accept it. There is no better example than the abuse and humiliation of ordinary passengers on domestic airlines, which to date has not resulted in the prevention of any ‘terrorist’ activity, or even the discovery of any such threat, but regularly reveals, in studies that demonstrate that weapons are undetected by by the inspectors hired en masse to discover them that these measures are completely ineffective. Much like the battles that are fought by armies, preventative measures against ‘terrorism’ are fought against the methods last used by the opponent. The next attack is always a surprise.
      Studying the reasons for entering previous wars reveals that most of them seem to originate because leaders are either manipulated into entering these wars, or do so because they wish to aggrandize their image in the history books, or perhaps just wish to raise their opinion polls, and they can do so only by much preparation of the public by propaganda and outright lies and the creation of a culture of fear. Just the examples of WWI, WWII and the Vietnam wars should be sufficient to demonstrate this, but the formula never changes and the result is never-ending: death, destruction, and lessons never learned. In the USA, the Constitution was designed to prevent this, but we see how that has turned out – there seems to be no Constitution in force simply by the method of using every method of trickery to circumvent it, a process that has been going on for more than a hundred years. We must always be mindful of the fact that the greatest hindrance that a leader must overcome is the law of the land, and all these laws were originally designed to prevent the rule of despots and to protect the rights of citizens.
      The real tragedy of today is that we are watching, in real time, the purposeful demonization of former friends, e.g. Russia, and apparently China, strictly for the purpose of creating WW III, and the sideshow of ‘Wars on Terror’ is simply a way to achieve this by destroying legitimate governments (however much they might not be to our taste), murdering their leaders, stealing their gold, looting the country, and leaving formerly stable countries in chaos while we creep closer to the borders of the selected victim, in spite of assurances given to the contrary.

    • James Clander

      ” I personally find it more honorable that our elected officials would take steps to kill our enemies to preclude the murder of our citizens than in lamenting the deaths of those who have pledged to kill us ”
      You seem able to conveniently ignore (like a large section of the USA) that there would be few enemies to kill if the Neo Cons running all your Govts hadn’t blatantly done the invading & killing in the FIRST place. Millions of civilians dead & injured & brushed off as just collateral damage ! You’re an apologist for that ?

      It should be apparent that it is the USA that has led the Coalition of the willing into the madness of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria etc – leading to the death & injury of millions and for what end results? There is also the American puppet Govt in Kiev which has spilled the blood of ethnic Russian inhabitants of Ukraine, not to forget the Palestinian blood spilled by Israel using US supplied weapons.

      Various US Govts have made it extremely risky to travel to many parts of the World worth visiting if you’re from a country involved in the bloodshed. It wasn’t necessary !

    • MetaCynic

      The reason Americans have so many enemies wishing to kill us is that our government has labored mightily to create these enemies by needlessly wrecking other people’s countries and destroying millions of lives while at it. And now the government will labor mightily to eradicate this latest crop of enemies while simultaneously sowing the seeds of future enemies. The madness will continue until the American people finally tire of the carnage abroad and loss of liberty at home and demand no more foreign intervention.

  • WoodsWoman

    In the US, shortly after passage of the Patriot Act, significant efforts were made by alarmed activists to inform their neighbors that our Bill of Rights was being decimated. Those efforts continue to this day from the likes of John Whitehead, the Center for Constitutional Rights, alternative media like the DB, etc. Among those activists were many who had escaped Nazi Germany and begged America to heed Martin Niemoller’s words to no avail but for a small number who did not “choose a little temporary safety over essential liberty” … The UK and Australia have experienced much the same series of events over the last decade+.

    Today, the people of France have these very recent historical examples from which they should be drawing alarming parallels but it appears they are not, if reports of silent acquiescence or outright demands for “temporary safety” are true. Where are the throngs protesting in the streets and assailing their politicians with pleas to reason, to “save the republic”? It was stunning in immediately post-9/11 America and, to me, even more inexplicable now in France! Human nature, molded by mainstream media, is beyond puzzling.

    • Bruce C.

      A manifestation of narcissism.

    • esqualido

      There is never any shortage of documentaries and drama dealing with the horrors of WWII- France, in particular drank in its new-found freedom with the parched lips of a man in the desert- how on earth could they so quickly let themselves decend into another totalitarian police state, with Jacobin spies on every corner?

  • Let us not neglect to, with care, consider the proper meaning of specific important words and then reflect upon present events with the assisting illumination this revision work allows. As with regard to the French people an important word that help define the national characteristic is ‘chauvinism’. As with so many words today, the modern meaning, (sexist), has so greatly usurped the word’s usage as to cause one to neglect its origins, but this word’s original, proper, meaning is very significant for allowing an accurate comprehension of the way modern France thinks, because this is the way the great propensity of the French people think. No criticism of them for this, this is a core part of the quality of their individual and national characteristic.

    Beyond the idea of blind nationalistic patriotism, the way the French are chauvinists is within their own stoic self-confident resolute able qualities. It is from their confidence in themselves, as individuals, that they have a wider belief in their resolute qualities as France, as a nation.

    Whilst this quality does make the French a people able to endure much apparent hardship, with a ‘can-do’ resolve, it is also the character that would cause the French to not be concerned by, vulnerable to, their state employing extremely tough security measures, because they would feel confident they were employing pragmatic French solutions directed at a common enemy of themselves and of France (and not against themselves). This perhaps is why France has become targeted as a place where FF attacks can manufacture nationally acceptable security measurers which then will get rolled-out across the wider EU member states.

    • Bruce C.

      Well that’s very chivalrous of you to suggest this but I would submit instead that the modern French are now so wedded to socialist ideals that they have become wimps. Protection at all costs (‘because I’m afraid to die’). Why do you think the attacks were at the most liberal of establishments, full of “Hillary Clinton supporter” equivalents?

      • I speak as I find having visited France at least once a year for half a century. As regards to being ‘wimps’ if they are they have not become much more ‘whimpy’ over the last fifty years. As far as I am concerned all statists are socialist the only question is to what degree. The French – the ones who produce more than they consume – are more wed to their local socialism than their national socialism and I do not have great issue with such cooperative-like organisations but clearly would rather they be voluntary. I do not think the attacks were targeted at specifically ‘liberal’ establishments, it would be hard in France for targets not to generally be rather ‘socialist’.

        • Bruce C.

          Strictly speaking, “socialist” is not the same as “liberal.” Islam is “socialist” to the extreme. “Liberalism” is unfettered, ironically almost the opposite. That is why those establishments were attacked. They may not have been utterly unique in Paris, but they didn’t attack hotels or hospitals or airports either.

          Neither socialism nor liberalism values the individual even though it may seem to to one within it. That is why it is wimpy because individuals don’t think or act individually. They think collectively and look to the State. You may be right that France will set the standard for other countries, but I sure hope that others don’t think that’s chivalrous.

          • I did not say it was ‘chivalrous’ nor do I think accepting a ramping-up of 1984 control is a quality. I am saying the French ‘chauvinistic’ characteristic makes them vulnerable to accepting this imposition. You need to define your terms, I have no idea what you think French ‘liberalism’ is or why you describe the targets as being such. The true meaning of ‘liberal’ has been lost to the freedom seeker for a long time now.

          • Bruce C.

            Your main point that the French have a “chauvinistic” character that predisposes them to self-imposed restrictions is interesting, but the chivalric code was primarily a ritualized class system. The knights and the aristocracy assumed the role of protectors which included a special respect for women, etc. It did originate primarily in mediaeval France but spread throughout Europe. How it mutated through the centuries to today is an interesting question. Basically what your saying is that the entire French population still shares an atavistic connection with it. Maybe so, and I’ll defer to your personal experience about that. However, in other terms I would say the French are primarily socialized to think as a group rather than individually.

            Requesting a definition of “liberal” is a good question. I don’t really have one off hand. One problem is that it’s hard to objectify it, at least depending upon one’s definition. Some say it is a relative concept – what’s liberal to one may not be to another (For example homosexual marriage was once considered a liberal concept, but now the marriage to pets may be the next vista.) Others say that liberalism is a mental disorder (“Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” by Dr. Michael Savage) which implies that it is objective. Others might also argue that the results of “liberalism” are objective and consistent (and tragic) which also suggests something definable. I tend to think of it as any concepts that fail to recognize boundaries. One reason most liberals are never satisfied is because they always have a moving target.

            Anyway, when I used the word liberal above I was thinking about how Islam sees things. France has allowed more Muslims emigrants than any other European country and there are myriad neighborhoods in which the French police won’t go. That’s one reason France was attacked (maybe riots could be provoked.) There were a few explosions around a soccer stadium because the one suicide bomber was caught before he could enter, and some high ranking French officials were in the stadium. The Bataclan venue was featuring a band called “Eagles of Death Metal” which was considered “the capital of abominations and perversions” and held over 1,000 drug-addled spectators. The Bataclan was previously used as a charity for Israeli border police.

          • Before we take this thread any further it needs to be clarified that the words chauvinistic and chivalrous have quite different meanings and roots. Chauvinism meaning self-centred motivation and taken from a famous soldier’s name and Chivalry meaning a noble selflessness and taken from the French for a knight and that a horse.

          • Bruce C.

            Now that I actually looked up the two words you’re right. Personally I never conflated the two before but since you’re argument was based upon early (12th century) French culture and the distortion of the modern meaning I mistakenly assumed you meant chivalry. One of the topics in “womens’ studies” is to compare and contrast chauvinism and chivarly and concludes that chivarly is chauvinistic, so when you said that the modern meaning of chauvinism was usurped by sexist thinking I again thought you were referring to chivalry.

            So, much ado about nothing on my part. Sorry. We can end this thread if you want.

          • Until next time

  • Marc de Piolenc

    What happens to freedom in France if the Muslims win?

    • Q46

      ‘The Muslims’…is an abstract.

      Muslims are not a collective with the same attributes, they are a variety of different races, nationalities, sects of Islam, degrees of observance of Islam, different educational standards, ages, occupations, wealth, income, ambitions, likes, dislikes, etc.

      Talking about ‘The Muslims’ is as informed or sensible as saying ‘The Christians’ or ‘The Jews’ or ‘The motoring public’…. it conveys no detail or useful information.

      • sneckedagin


  • Coyote44

    Agree with security issue for the family –Who are the Barbarians at the gate ?-will the world leaders never learn that EMOTION has no place in crisis solving —appears VIGRA could be at play …

  • sneckedagin

    Come to live in Scotland and help us to escape from barbarous insanity

  • esqualido

    In this entire discussion there has been almost no consideration of the vast fortunes being made by the merchants of death in the various “democracies.” It is almost ghoulish to see that arms makers are half the “sponsors” for the Public Broadcasting System, watching, for example a warplane doing a slow roll (this is their version of the money shot) as a voice in the background lovingly describes it as “the Freedom Fighter,” the latest version of which, costing $250 million apiece literally steals the food from hungry children. Try thinking “resource war” when you hear about Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Libya, for example; France, like the rest, with its own military-industrial complex has some very hard-headed goals in the Mideast quite divorced from any notion of liberte. Sneckedagin made a good point two days ago; when England extended blandishments during the late independence campaign, what did they offer- jobs building a huge new multibillion aircraft carrier. Just what the Scots needed.

  • Doc

    DB, why can’t you offer a voluntary paid subscription? I would pay and reckon others would too. I read a lot and suffered when AW wasn’t involved for a while. How can we support your efforts and make sure this format lives on?

    • Thanks for being a faithful reader and for the suggestion too.

      • James Corbett has a good subscriber policy with open access and optional subscription but then a monthly subscriber only news letter and video – and then people like him, like the quality of material and want to support. I contribute a few YEN a month but it is a low bar $€£ value that makes it easy to commit to a PayPal direct debit. Just needs a club-like feel though I think it also works at a personal/personality level with him – he is a good fellow – and he gives subscribers little insights into his life and outlooks. If that aspect is necessary I am sure AW offers enough charm to match (my wife thinks so anyway 😉 Have a look at his model. I recommend it 100% (because I first suggested it to him!)