by GH Eliason
Could US Senator John McCain find North Vietnam on a map during or before the period he spent 5 years as a POW in Hanoi? Could you? The answer is no.
North Vietnam only existed in Public Law 86-90. Some of the other countries that we also recognize that are enshrined in the law did not exist concretely until 1991.
The Vietnam War and Ukrainian war are intrinsically and inseparably tied together by Public Law 86-90. Like Cossackia (the generic western geo-political term recognizing Donbas’ legitimacy), the problem with North Vietnam is it never existed! Even Wikipedia shallowly recognizes this. “The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV; Vietnamese : Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hòa), [a] generally known as North Vietnam…”
When we recognize North Vietnam as a country or North Vietnamese as the army we fought in Vietnam, we have no choice but to recognize “Cossackia” and the republics in Donbass. By extension, we must also recognize the right of the other regions (republics) inside Ukraine to break away like they were promised by the Ukrainian Nationalists.
Following up on the Public Law 86-90 story at www.globalresearch.ca entitled “US Congress and President Obama Officially Recognize Donbas’ Freedom! “Sputnik International interviewed Frank Costigliola, University of Connecticut Professor of History and editor of the Kennan Diaries.
The point of the interview was to ascertain the validity of the US recognizing Donbass on the basis of “Cossackia” according to the Captive Nations Proclamation of 1959.
During the interview professor Costigliola stated
“The 1959 US Captive Nations Resolution was meant to antagonize the Soviet Union and has no bearing on United States policy, editor of the diaries of the leading Cold War US diplomat George Kennan, Frank Costigliola, told Sputnik…He noted that the resolution does not reach the significance of a formal recognition of the listed countries by the State Department. A decision to recognize the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lughansk “is a huge, huge step beyond the passage of this Captive Nations Resolution,” Costigliola argued. Moreover, the State Department could not have acted on the Captive Nations Resolution,..”
Professor Costigliola has gone even further in a NY Times editorial giving president Obama sound foreign policy advice from the perspective of George Kennan. It’s worth the read. But is he correct to say that the Captive Nations Act has no impact on foreign policy?
If Public Law 86-90 has never had an effect on foreign policy, I am in respectful agreement with the professor. If Public Law 86-90 has been acted on, I am in respectful agreement with the professor that it should never have been able to happen. The law as Stepan Bandera had it written should not have been enacted.
But if it did happen, the genie is out of the bottle and I’m sure any court will agree once the precedent has been set, the law is applicable on all counts.
The problem with the Sputnik interview is it started with the presumption that the law was never acted on and Donbass would be setting a precedent. I respectfully request that professor Costigliola review the abridged history found in this article that he could not have known and comment based on what would have been the correct question.
If precedent had been set as early as the Vietnam War and can be shown in State Department policy affirmations, wouldn’t the same law apply to Donbass?
From his New York Times editorial, Costigliola notes “In 1946-47, Mr. Kennan laid out his containment policy, intending to limit its application to the major power centers of the world, particularly Western Europe and Japan. He grew horrified as containment exploded into a global venture miring the United States in areas of marginal strategic importance, such as Vietnam.”
Vietnam the pre-History of the war
In this short case study of the Vietnam War, the professor’s assumptions are proven wrong. Dead wrong, to the tune of 58,220 American soldiers dead wrong. Proven, it shows Law 86-90 has unquestionable authority or at least enough for Americans to die for.
In the professor’s defense, he wasn’t being disingenuous in the least. He was asked a question from the perspective of being a George Kennan scholar. Kennan stood against this happening. His “Containment” policies started being replaced by the policy of “Annihilation” as early as 1949.
The story of how America got involved in Vietnam starts in 1951 when Stepan Bandera took leadership over the world’s nationalist governments in exile. He had already consolidated Eastern Europe to the point that even Wikipedia makes the links between all the Eastern European and Baltic States to their SS Nazi origins in the Captive Nations article. By making it a world encompassing effort Bandera knew even his OUN would eventually gain support.
In 1951, Bandera set the agenda for what would eventually be “The Captive Nations.”
This was reported in the January 1952 Ukrainian Weekly. From the article- On November’30, 1951 the representatives of the peoples of Eastern Europe and Asia (comprising the countries of Azerbaijan, Byelorussia, Georgia, Idel-Ural Cossackia, Crimea, North Caucasus, Turkestan and Ukraine) gathered in Munich and issued a joint appeal to the free world asking for help and support for their liberation from Soviet Russian tyranny.- link from George Mazni, former UCCA Arizona president and Ukrainian Nationalist extraordinaire
Notice in the article even at that date “Russian” was interchangeable with Soviet and both had to be destroyed.
By this time in WDC, the émigrés had become the darlings of the cold war. They stood behind Joe McCarthy and the China Lobby. In America by the mid-1950s, if you didn’t agree with the China Lobby foreign policy, you were unelectable. Among the leadership of the China Lobby were Marv Liebman and Yaroslav Stetsko.
Causal Factors: Vietnam – Public Law 86-90 and the Foundation for War
In 1954 Ngo Dim Diem became South Vietnam’s 1st President. He, along with Chiang Kai Shek (Taiwan), and Syngman Rhee (South Korea) was among Stepan Bandera and Stetsko’s closest friends and supporters. Ngo Dim Diem, true nationalist that he was, killed over 12,000 people he found disagreeable in one year.
By 1958 Stetsko (Bandera’s émigré foreign minister) who had sworn allegiance to Hitler forever promised to deliver Nationalist (Nazi) states all over the world to guarantee the destruction of the Soviet Union for the United States. He was even able to make petulant threats to CIA director Dulles based on his relationship to Joseph McCarthy. Dulles didn’t want to meet with the nazi . In a letter petitioning Dulles for a meeting Stetsko closed with- “I am on and off in Washington, testifying before the House of Un-American Activities Committee and the House Committee for Foreign Affairs, and I feel assured that you, sir, will find the time to give me an audience.”
The combined émigré community proved to be the ultimate political foot soldiers for McCarthyism. They wrote the questions and provided the testimony for Senator Joe McCarthy’s Un-American Committee crusade. They were literally SS Nazis deciding who was a good American.
I wonder how much satisfaction the Ukrainian nationalists got out of labeling Jewish professionals “damn commies” and ruining countless lives just after World War II. Only a few short years before this they were murdering, raping, and throwing people into gas chambers at concentration camps. I guess they cooled their jets a bit to become more palatable in American society. These were the people America trusted to provide most of the intel (which was disastrous) for the Cold War.
In 1959 the Captive Nations Resolution described by Bandera in 1951 was passed by a unanimous vote in Congress. Stepan Bandera lived to see this, his crowning achievement before he was assassinated.
In July 1960, the nationalist émigré groups gained their first major victory in the fight to establish nationalism in America. New York City hosted the Stars and Stripes Gala Affair that punctuated the Captive Nations Week celebration. At the parade on the podium were every prominent Jewish leader, 87+ US Senators and US Congressman, New York’s mayor, the Governor, and the captive nations leaders, which included at least seven former Third Reich SS officers. The nationalist Ukrainians marching in the parade were from Banderas army in WW2.
By this time the China Lobby Congress was primed for war. The McCarthy years and the threat of an accusation for being a communist sympathizer had done its job. The threat of a threat across the world in addition to all the provocative and embellished intelligence Congress was supplied took America to the brink of an ultra-nationalism it had not known since the “Business Plot” of the 1930’s.
By 1960 this ultra-nationalism was so rampant in American politics that Nationalism (Nazism) was once again discussed as a virtue openly. It became the litmus test for electability.
“And we have also been brainwashed with another Communist basic tenet. They insist that love of country, the pride of a people in their history, their ideals and their accomplishments is wicked nationalism. Ever since the war, the Communist fronts, and the beatniks and the eggheads, have conducted a national chorus of denunciation of this wicked nationalism. Manifestly our religious organizations and our agencies for character-building in our youth are giving devoted service to halt this slump in morals. These agencies have need of every assistance.
But there is a latent force in American life which could be of vital help. The nation needs a rebirth of a great spiritual force, which has been impaired by cynicism and weakened by foreign infection. You can call it nationalism if you will.”-Former president Herbert Hoover 1960 Republican Convention
The Vietnam War Public Law 86-90 Its Use and Ramifications
In June 1954 Stetsko, Bandera’s second in command along with Marv Liebman founded the Asian People’s Anti-Communist League (APACL) in Taiwan. Its leadership was gleaned from Bandera supporters Chaing Kai Shek, Synman Rhee, and Ngo Dim Diem among others. Liebman and Stetsko set the ideology and agenda for the group. This is important because they are the direct connection between Public Law 86-90 and the Vietnam War!
In May 1964 the Asian Peoples Anti-Communist League (APACL) demanded help from the world to fight for Vietnam , for US help to bring the war to the communists: “He said this stand of the APACL represents the “unanimous wish of the Asian people… Every free nation should support the Republic of Vietnam, which is waging the war for the “freedom of the whole free world.” Its not surprising Ukraine is echoing these same words today. -Taiwan Today -May 17, 1964 article “APACL Leader Backing Up Vietnam’s Appeal For Help”
Three months later the United States of America went to war against North Vietnam on August 2nd 1964. From this point onward North Vietnam existed according to its recognition as a state pursuant to Public Law 86-90.
By 1968 Stetsko had increased the scope of setting up nationalist states worldwide under the umbrella of the World Anti-Communist League. The APACL was his crowning glory at this point in history. WACL’s second conference was held in Saigon, Vietnam in 1968.
Public Law 86-90 Unleashed!
Nestled inside the Captive Nations Proclamation is the only reference up to that point in history for the country of North Vietnam. It didn’t exist but was constantly referred to throughout the war and even today, 50 years later. This document is the only one of its kind. It recognizes a North Vietnam and a North Vietnamese people before the Vietnam War.
Who were the American military fighting in Vietnam? America fought the North Vietnamese as per Public Law 86-90 showing it in play for the duration of the war through our current days.
The United States Government Archives also refer to North Vietnam as a country where US soldiers died. The US Gov Archives confirm the validity of Public Law 86-90.
58,220 American soldiers fought and died fighting in a war against a country that first existed in the mind of Stepan Bandera and Yaroslav Stetsko.
Why did America Fight the Vietnam War? The Real Reason Confirmed
According to president Johnson who made these decisions: “I knew Harry Truman and Dean Acheson had lost their effectiveness from the day the Communists took over in China. I believed that the loss of China had played a large role in the rise of Joe McCarthy. And I knew that all these problems, taken together, were chickenshit compared with what might happen if we lost Vietnam.” Van Demark, Brian (1995). Into the Quagmire: Lyndon Johnson and the Escalation of the Vietnam War. Oxford University Press, p. 25
Against the backdrop of history, president Johnson’s reason for sending our troops to Vietnam was to protect Democracy. It wasn’t Vietnamese democracy, which didn’t exist in a fascist nationalist state. Our troops died in Vietnam to protect American democracy in the USA.
President Johnson’s gambit was to put off the takeover or complete makeover of the United States of America and give our country a chance to step back, reflect, and hopefully choose Democracy.
President Richard M. Nixon
President Nixon deserves a write up of his own. Nixon at the very beginning was one of the early supporters of the China Lobby and the émigré populations. He was a friend to Chiang Kai Shek and Yaroslav Stetsko. He personally made sure the social fabric of our nation would start to embrace nationalism. With over 20 years of glad-handing and friendships with nationalist’s world-wide, once he got into office Nixon backed America away from the nationalists and ended the Vietnam war in spite of his long history with the émigrés.
Nixon’s China policy infuriated them to the point he feared retribution from them. This is a sitting president of the United States fearing retribution from “anti-communist groups?!!” That alone should give you an idea of how large they have become. Over 100 countries were represented by this group led by Bandera’s Stetsko.
Nixon was afraid at the next election cycle they would destroy him by supporting his opponent. The president of the United States walked on eggshells around them after supporting them for over 20 years.
Cossackia
Its true! Cossackia and North Vietnam only exist in Public Law 86-90. Trouble in both countries threatened the peace and stability of the entire world. Our war dead from the Vietnam War are heroes. Soldiers always are.
Neither Cossackia nor North Vietnam should have been enshrined in our law for the past 56 years, but both are. Trouble in both countries was brought to our doorstep thanks to homegrown nationalists in the House and Senate listening to the émigré community. Neither country ever existed, but the people do. Because of the law both countries are recognized.
If America presses on with the Ukrainian lies we will be at war with a country that didn’t want war with us. The Ukrainian émigrés will get what they always wanted which is an American body count in a war with Russia. They openly state these things, its time you believed it.
The precedent has been shown in this one war. Does it need to be shown again in the one that preceded it? How about the ones that followed? It’s there. Research “the Middle East Solidarity Council.”
As sure as the legal precedent has been shown in Vietnam, Donbass has been recognized by the United States of America just like North Vietnam was. Should we dishonor 58,200 families in America by telling them their loved one died fighting in a fictitious country against a people that didn’t exist?
The most persuasive argument coming from the nationalists is that some people are critical of the law. The reason for this is the glass house argument. Ukraine is a country that didn’t exist before Stalin. They reject Stalin. Shown in the Global Research article, all the countries that make up Ukraine want their freedom as the payment they were promised by Bandera.
The final implosion of the Ukrainian nationalists is not worth American time, lives, or tax dollars. Taking part in their war crimes by supporting them will clearly be a very costly economic mistake for those personally involved. Those that hope to duck under lengthy International Criminal Court proceedings need to take notice.
The Glove Didn’t Fit
I don’t even need to say a word directly about what that sub-title references. You know already. When the glove didn’t fit the civil suits certainly did. But this time even the glove is a perfect match.
The ICC has no business inside American law proceedings, which is much faster and has a history of dealing with large-scale class action suits. This will undoubtedly be the proper venue given the list of Federal law that has been broken. Since members of both Houses of Congress are also citizens, they may figure out the legal and political fallout fairly quickly.
President Obama, it is the honor of your presidency at your own word to recognize the Cossack republics of DNR and LNR. It is as simple as honoring our war dead from Vietnam. US Public law intrinsically ties them both together. I know you didn’t have this information before this but now it’s in your hands. It’s time to stop the crimes of the Poroshenko regime and be the Americans we tell ourselves we are, once again.
The “Cossackia” argument brings up an interesting point often overlooked (or even unknown in the West).The area called Novorossia,and certainly the Donbass portion,never belonged to any “Ukrainian” state until the Communist USSR (yes,the USSR that today’s Ukraine denounces all the actions of) put the area into Ukraine.It was a “no man’s land” of nomadic peoples (non-Slavic) throughout the existence of ancient Rus.And even when Poland and Lithuania controlled the “Ukrainian” areas,that land was outside their rule.The Tatars and Turks controlled it.Using it as a point for attacking Russia,and Poland.Until, beginning in the 1600’s and ending in the 1700’s it was liberated from them by the Russian Tsars and united with Russia,not with a “Ukraine”. It was settled by numerous ethnic peoples,but all under Russian rule.Since the traditional “Ukrainian” (West Russian) regions were so close most of the settlers naturally were brought from those areas at first.But many as well came from all over the Russian Empire,also Jews,Germans,Serbs,Bulgarians,Greeks,Romanians,etc settled those lands.With a large part of the first settlers being loyal pro-Russian Cossacks.The land had no administrative connection with a “Ukraine” until the USSR granted the land to them.That it want’s to breakaway from the new “Bandera Ukrainian state” should be no surprise at all.
OT.
Is Putin getting ready to sell out Syria?Intense speculation going on. Another must-read by Mike Whitney.
The flaw in all the analysis by Whitney and others, some who doubt Putin’s resolve, is simple: the Syrian Army has fought and died for Assad and the organization of Syria under his design. It accommodated all groups. Christians, Kurds, Armenians, everyone.
So to keep his Army, the Army of unity, and throw away Assad, is ridiculous in design. He wants to stand for elections. That is the route that all his enemies abhor. Why?
Because he would win.
Putin understands this.
Putin will dust up clouds of ambiguity, as he moves to the solution that Assad stays and the others are marginalized. Iran wants it, Hezbollah wants it and the Syrian Army wants it. They are who are dying and fighting. That’s the key to stability.
If the Saudis balk, if the Opposition who are nearly all tools of foreign government balk, then more Iranians and more Russia assets will have to be used.
Since ISIS is Chechen Wahabbi commanded now (all communications are reportedly in Russian), then we can see Kadyrov’s troops go there to help liquidate ISIS.
One reason Ukraine is ongoing is to freeze the use of the RF’s Chechens.
Syria is strategic and Assad is crucial. People die to keep his government in place. A bunch of Opposition talking heads will never be a government in Syria. Syria will disappear before we see some coalition form to run Syria.
I sure hope you are right.
Red Ryder, the idea is to break Syria into pieces. The Israeli plan, the infamous Oded Yinon blueprint based on Ben-Gurion and Herzl’s ambitions, and reiterated often since, is to destroy the states of the region and fracture them into powerless fragments, along sectarian and ethnic lines. Syria is designed to have two mutually antagonistic Sunni states, one based on Aleppo, and one in Damascus, an Alawite canton, and a Kurd enclave. The hundreds of thousands of dead, as the Yesha Council of Rabbis and Torah Sages decreed, are mitzvot, or religiously sanctioned good deeds, sacrificed on the altar of Eretz Yisrael.
The article refers to selling out Assad, not Syria. In any case, there are lots of folks writing in the Anglo-American Empire who have this image that the US or NATO or Israel can achieve whatever they want without too much resistance. But the alternative take is that the West is losing power, and instead turning to using the Mighty Wurlitzer of the press to just lie all the time. They lie about all the hoaxed events these days, such as Sandy Hook, and they lie about just about everything in Syria.
And, practically speaking, Assad is the glue holding things together. Which is why the key demand of the enemies of Syria has been for him to go. Russia might be willing to see him retire in four or five years, but not soon.
The idea that the US war against Vietnam started in 1964 is wrong. It is a lie started by Republicans who seek, in the face of facts to the contrary, to blame all US wars on Democrats. In fact, the first US troops killed in Vietnam were Major Dale R. Buis and M/Sgt Charles Ovnand, both killed on July 8, 1959 in a Viet Cong attack. (Note – 18 months before Kennedy became President.) Their names are on The Wall. You can check.
It All Started With Eisenhower
Or rather, with Nixon. Eisenhower sent the first US troops to Vietnam in 1954. Nixon had been urging him to send troops to help prevent the nation-wide elections called for in the 1954 Geneva Accords, which were to have been held no later than July of 1956. Eisenhower knew that Ho Chi Minh, national hero and the George Washington of his country, was sure to win, but he was reluctant to get involved.
Nixon did an end-run around Ike, collecting several congressional leaders to his cause, who then helped pressure Ike into restarting hostilities almost immediately after the French colonialists were defeated by the Vietnamese and departed the country.
The Geneva Accords prohibited the introduction of outside troops or arms into the country “to disturb the agreement,” or any attempt to divide Vietnam into two countries. So Eisenhower’s actions were just the first of many violations of that agreement, by the US and by several other countries as well.
For a brutally honest description of the origins of our war against Vietnam, several books are recommended. Nell Sheehan’s book “A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam” is one, though Vann did not get there until 1962 (and, ultimately, died there as well.) Also “Betrayal,” by Marine L/Col William Corson, will sweep away a lot of the starry-eyed bullcrap that Americans (and some others) like to think about what we did there. Finally, “Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam,”
by Frances Fitzgerald will point up just about all the horrible ignorance, misunderstandings and mistakes that allowed the US to go there in the first place, and to create such a massive and profound tragedy by the time it was all over nearly 20 years later.
Of great importance as well is “Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia,” by the brilliant William Shawcross, who spells out in agonizing detail the deliberate, demonic and bloodthirsty destruction of Cambodia’s economy, infrastruture and population by the utterly evil mass murderer Henry Kissinger. All that destruction led directly to Pol Pot’s mass killings, as you will see if you read the final chapters of Shawcross’ book, and see what choices were forced onto Pol Pot by Kissinger’s genocidal devastations.
Jack,
Excellent source books on Vietnam.
The reason we went into full blown war was not at all to do with Democracy or protecting America.
It was oil and gas in the South China Sea.
Wars are for economic not ideological reasons. Border conflicts sometimes are for local or regional politics.
Big wars with 58,000 American dead and 2 million Vietnamese killed was for control of off-shore resources which later were “discovered” and now the Chinese claim most of it.
Early on, the Paracel Islands, not the Spratlys was the region of exploration. The oil companies knew what was there. The nations of the region didn’t know. The US knew. And until 1974 Vietnam held the Paracels. China took them.
Americans often are bewildered because they don’t read books, don’t think critically and don’t put two and two together.
“Vietnam” as a war zone had the warning from Eisenhower that the US should not fight a land war in Asia. Our greatest modern general told us all. No war in Asia. Then the “experts” and ideologues got it going, JFK fell for it initially until the Green Berets got their dicks cut off in a massacre and he decided to end the catastrophe. Oct. 1963 JFK signed an Executive Order. The US was going home. Then the warmongers assassinated JFK; and LBJ within ten days reversed the Executive Order. The rest is lies and history. Tonkin Gulf incident was a lie. Admitted by CIA forty years later (last year).
None of this was not in the news; It all was in the newspapers, in magazines, in books, on TV and radio.
But, dear fellow Americans, if you keep your head up your butt and refuse to see, hear or discuss the facts that abound, then you get senseless war.
The Gulf Wars went the same way. Then Libya. Now Syria and Yemen.
The only good action was the first 60 days of Afghanistan. We blew away the Taliban. Then George W.and Cheney and Rumsfeld pulled the effort and went to Iraq. We stayed in Afghanistan for 13 years now, our longest war and most fruitless. Why are we there? Natural gas from Central Asia, oil, pipelines, containment of China and Russia, hegemonic (economic) control.
Leadership have been wrong every time. And four generations of Americans have been Sheep all this time.
No excuses. No more lies.
Good stuff, Jack.
Jack, I am persuaded that it all started BEFORE Eisenhower.
In an interview in the 1990’s Col Fletcher Prouty says that he was an interlocutor in Okinawa, Sept 2, 1945 with the US Army harbormaster there, as artillery and other military equipment originally amassed for the invasion of the the main Japanese islands was being loaded on ships to be carried away from Japan.
“Is this stuff headed stateside?”, Prouty asked the US Army harbormaster.
“Hell, no!” the man reportedly answered. “Half of it is going to Seoul, Korea, and the other half is going to HANOI.” https://youtu.be/VwnRCQua-ao gives the full interview with this Sept 2, 1945 dialogue reported at 4 minutes 25 seconds in. Yeah, that’s the north, but maybe (besides war profiteering) the idea was to deny that oil in the South China Seas to the French?
You also don’t want to miss the 12 minute 56 second plane in 1944, leaving northern SYRIA, bound for the USA with several intelligence officers from Eastern European countries, PRO-NAZIs, being evacuated to safety in the US, ahead of the approaching Soviet troops.
Also the Kennedy assassination and the Bay of Pigs, and quite a bit more besides. You will not regret watching all of the interview. Col Prouty died in 2001 at the age of 84. He was the real life “Mr X” portrayed by Donald Sutherland in the movie JFK.
Hi Mind and Soul…this is the second time I’ve heard of Fletcher Prouty from you…so I’m watching it. Thanks.
This is a link to one of the many articles on the JFK assassination, but with an interesting section on the CIA tactic of ‘plausible deniability:’
http://www.wanttoknow.info/assassinations/kennedy/john-kennedy-assassination-facts-theories
I wonder how the ‘nationalist’ trope used by the Anti-Communist alliance is an extension of the same tactic?
Always follow the money.
The article certainly makes a good quasi-legal case for Donbass recognition by the US. But the Outlaw Empire isn’t concerned with rule of law – neither within nor without borders. Legalisms are merely manufactured as fig-leafs to lubricate actions already decided on.
Always follow the money.
An update will likely be found in JFK and the unspeakable – James W. Douglass
“We stayed in Afghanistan for 13 years now, our longest war and most fruitless. Why are we there? Natural gas from Central Asia, oil, pipelines, containment of China and Russia, hegemonic (economic) control.”
And let us not forget the real business: heroin!
A $ 1’000’000’000’000 per year business. All off the books. All for the CIA. Money enough to bribe, bully, train, torture, kill half the planet. Enough said.
No mention of French Indochina (French: Indochine française; Khmer: សហភាពឥណ្ឌូចិន; Vietnamese: Đông Dương thuộc Pháp, pronounced [ɗoŋm zɰəŋ tʰuə̀k fǎp], frequently abbreviated to Đông Pháp; Lao: ຝຣັ່ງແຫຼັມອິນດູຈີນ), officially known as the Indochinese Union (French: Union indochinoise)[1] after 1887 and the Indochinese Federation (French: Fédération indochinoise) after 1947, was a grouping of French colonial territories in southeast Asia?
Link to wikipedia
History is like a tree; if you only talk about leaves or individual branches, you’re still right…, but the true picture, the real one, is entirely different.
I’ve never seen the specific links mentioned elsewhere, but I can believe the activities of Bandera and Stetsko to promote the Asian People’s Anti-Communist League– forerunner of the World Anti-Communist League, whose members played a leading role in the assassination of John F Kennedy through Permandex, NASA, and a host of Mafia, fascist, and other global-fascist (Nazi) groups. However, the suggestion that Lyndon Johnson, who played a key role in the assassination of JFK, wanted to promote democracy in the U.S. or that Richard Nixon wanted to end the war rather than win it (until General Vo Nguyen Giap denied him that pleasure) flies in the face of the facts.
Some respect oaths and professional standards.
Some understand that Brennan’s restructuring re-affirms and reinforces practices towards the unspeakable.
Some understand that reliance on chutzpah and self-delusion is unsustainable.
“Some understand that reliance on chutzpah and self-delusion is unsustainable.”
The requirement is not nationalism, but rationalism.
Some perceive the purpose as the transcendence of exceptionalism into equal and different.
Transcendence is normally predicated on knowledge of that to be transcended, including its ideological underpinnings and reproductive mechanisms.
Exceptionalism takes may forms including nationalism whose exceptionalist/restrictive core is masked by various means including but not restricted to, conflation of culture with “nationality” and notions of inclusion – “mutual interest”.
Transcendence is a lateral process in which aspects have half-lives which may include notions of nationalities and nation states including rechtstaats, hence continual flexibility and rigour are required throughout the process of transcendence.
Transcendence requires a Socratic not a messianic approach.
Well, just came back from taking a coffee with a cake and I was reading in the Sunday supplement the story of certain Gordievsky, Russian KGB spy who sold himself to MI6, and now publishes a book on his adventures.
I found a little homespun the entire operating, which under the name “Pimlico”, was mounted to evacuate him from the USSR ( well, there was even a baby involved, which is no longer but shameful ). Needless to say that, despite that of the baby, MI6 agents involved and the same Gordievsky remain as smart-ass and KGB agents following them as clueless who needed more a coffee than me myself.
Apparently, Mr. Gordievsky, as he tells, during a stay in Denmark, found that there, literary, film and musical offer was much broader. And I say, would not be, rather, that he loved money and was offered a very reasonable amount, as everyone else?
It turns out that, at that time, the USSR was one of the places in the world where most books were published and were more accessible to the working classes …. I’m afraid it was not for reading why he became more English than the Queen Mother. Typical of any turncoat, trying to be more Catholic than the Pope…..
So, as I see it, extreme nationalism is undesirable, everything in excess is, but, come on, a little national sentiment is also advisable, if not, there would be no way to trust anybody…..
Elsi 13-04 hrs UTC- “but, come on, a little national sentiment is also advisable”
Anonymous 09-52 hrs UTC- “Transcendence is a lateral process in which aspects have half-lives which may include notions of nationalities and nation states including rechtstaats, hence continual flexibility and rigour are required throughout the process of transcendence.”
“Transcendence is normally predicated on knowledge of that to be transcended, including its ideological underpinnings and reproductive mechanisms.”
Elsi 13-04hrs UTC – “if not, there would be no way to trust anybody…..”
Anonymous – Nation states, national sentiment and extrapolations there-upon are relatively recent historical constructs, say 3 to 4 centuries old.
“History” or “ideas” are often re-interpreted by subsequent social formations using the categories of most advantage to subsequent formations.
This is used for various reasons including ideological underpinning, notions of pre-determination, for example history as the struggle towards greater “representative democracy”, or the US as the New Rome with the British relinquishing their former notion of being Rome to become the Greeks advising the new Romans, and other narratives of utility facilitating ideological immersion – the notion of “human nature” performs a similar function.
Opponents on the brink of transcendence also try to make use of “History” to pose “lack of reasonable alternatives” – the apres nous le deluge gambit.
Social interaction including trust predated nation states and national sentiment, and hence were not dependent on these mechanisms and ideologies although they were presented as such – the role of law, justice and rights – in rechtstaats – as pre-determinants and guarantees of “trust.”
Anonymous 09-52hrs UTC – “Some perceive the purpose as the transcendence of exceptionalism into equal and different.”
Anonymous 09-52 hrs UTC “Exceptionalism takes may forms including nationalism whose exceptionalist/restrictive core is masked by various means including but not restricted to, conflation of culture with “nationality” and notions of inclusion – “mutual interest”.”
Hence “national sentiment” may exist at different moments in the process of transcendence given “half-lives” of perceptions, but “national sentiment” will also be subject to the lateral process whereby “national sentiment” will be transcended.
You conflate “national sentiment” with other possible notions of practices and reasons for collectives, thereby obscuring alternatives and acting as a barrier to lateral challenge and change.
“I found a little homespun the entire operating, which under the name “Pimlico”, was mounted to evacuate him from the USSR ( well, there was even a baby involved, which is no longer but shameful ). Needless to say that, despite that of the baby, MI6 agents involved and the same Gordievsky remain as smart-ass and KGB agents following them as clueless who needed more a coffee than me myself. ”
You apprently have difficulty placing specifics in context and apparently “ignore” data previously broadcast.
Although the last time the text was “moderated”, perhaps pondering the export of Natan Scharansky may prove fruitful.
For those who live in areas that hold these truths to be self-evident, perhaps a self-inflicted blindness prevails?
For some fun, look, babies from the secret service:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQcVllWpwGs
I admit that I have difficulty to understand you, but I assure I am doing everything on my part.
May I understand here that really the USSR wanted to export these specimens, to get rid of them and this is why “they were not putting” many obstacles?
But they still make mischief around, hurting Russia directly or indirectly, and, in any case, examples such as this zionazi hardliner you show me now, hurt all mankind.
Interestingly, this also was given “Presidential Medal of Freedom” by George.W. Bush for his services, as was Robert Conquest (God created them and they collected the same awards from the same benefactors) The same George.W. who recommended one of his “short but essential” books. Now, I do not know if that George W. recommend a book of someone is highly recommended …..
The element, in his desire to write, he is also prone to rewrite history and say that the Arabs are the immigrants in Palestine, and they have a right to a state, but ……elsewhere.
A Democrat, an example in Human Rights for all…..It seems that compared to him, Ariel Sharon was a good guy, which is much to say….An element for taking care.
Then, there’s that they love to change everything, country, nationality, even name …. These are those who are so interested in destroying every vestige of history in places like Syria or Iraq…..
“But they still make mischief around, hurting Russia directly or indirectly, and, in any case, examples such as this zionazi hardliner you show me now, hurt all mankind.”
You appear to be wedded to notions of sole agency, and so the why questions tend to elude you.
You also appear to think that broadcasts are self-contained rather than having any connection – for example how/when does a useful fool become a useful fool, and what are the useful uses of a useful fool in lateral challenge and change.
When an opponent gives data, let us say recommends a book, read the book to ponder why the opponent releases such a datastream, remembering to include how and when amongst other considerations.
Your tendency is to ignore, thereby illustrating the proper definition of ignorance, re-inforcing your prejudgements/prejudices whilst remaining immersed in the prevailing ideologies, thereby precluding lateral challenge.
One of the useful uses of useful fools is to unconsciously contribute to facilitate lateral challenge and change as noted in your text
“The element, in his desire to write, he is also prone to rewrite history and say that the Arabs are the immigrants in Palestine”
without apparently posing the questions, why?, and what uses can be made of ensuing cognitive dissonance?
Perhaps you remember the relatively regular pontifications on this blog regarding the “expertise” of the opponents in propaganda, and the amateur nature of the efforts of others – including the “Russians” to a degree that some suggested that the “Russians” required the assistance of a US advisor/manager – despite the fact that they already had one – primarily for window-dressing, which illustrated many blindspots on the part of some on this blog including understanding the “Russian” experience from 1991 onwards, in this case in regard to NGO’s, whose useful foolery had declined in usefulness and consequently has recently been curtailed.
Fortunately the process of lateral change in perception of some appears to have been catalysed.
As to your comparison with Ariel Sharon
“It seems that compared to him, Ariel Sharon was a good guy, which is much to say”
that would depend on your evaluation criteria – evaluation being a function of purpose, although not all would agree –
” blue on August 18, 2015 · at 12:29 am UTC
Just the opposite, actually.
soliciting the response
” Anonymous on August 18, 2015 · at 7:58 am UTC
“Just the opposite, actually.”
It would appear that your key “difficulty” stems from use of linear binary logic rather than a conception of lateral transcendence.
This also applies to your “explanation” to “eimar” thereby encouraging and illustrating ideological integration.
The opponents are also so minded.”
This should also be tested in regard to your text
“hurting Russia directly or indirectly”.
Just as sole agency does not exist neither does omniscience, although some such as Gordievsky and Scharansky may wish to assert and propagate illusions. This technique is used to underpin the fiat economy, the fiat politics and the fiat “power”.
Some time ago a contributor to this blog commented on one of my contributions in the approximate form of – We are fortunate to live in times where things are becoming clearer.
Some could view this as a response illustrating a passive orientation based upon a subject/object binary.
The contributor never posed the question of why “things are becoming clearer.”
However it also showed amongst other things that the contributor acknowledged a change in perception.
“Transcendence requires a Socratic not a messianic approach.”
Two questions:
-Do you think I could improve if I read this book?
“Bargaininig with the Devil” by Robert H. Mnookin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMC-FxqPDWU
-Do you think I could find this book in The Kremlin´s bookshelves?
“Do you think I could improve if I read this book?”
Try to avoid conflating causation with correlation.
You would improve if you tested hypotheses – practiced in collaboration with others, always remembering that the dissonance between “expectations” and “results” is “a learning opportunity”.
Those folks Socrates, Machiavelli and Clausewitz didn’t do so badly in their uses of “learning opportunities” adter all.
The opponents call this “learning opportunity”, “failure”.
Generally the ensuing contingent knee-jerk response to “failure” is looking for someone to blame.
I don’t know where you would find a devil to negotiate or resolve conflicts with though, and hence testing Mr. Mnookin’s hypotheses may prove difficult.
Let us see if anyone is minded to sing the good/evil nursery rhyme with wagging finger and holding these truths to be self-evident accompanyment.
“Do you think I could find this book in The Kremlin´s bookshelves?”
I don’t know the book – never read it – I don’t know the man.
As to behind the mausoleum, you would likely be looking in the wrong place even if given access – try the Lenin library or somewhere nearer you and be monitored in exchange for minimising the “earning opportunity” of Mr. Mnookin, or increase his “earning opportunity” by buying the book, and still be monitored, unless you don’t need to order it and remember to pay in cash, whilst not availing yourself of “special offers” by giving your name and contact information.
The obstacles of choice, sometimes overcome by intoning to sales assistants – “You want to make this sale?”, whilst improving tradecraft.
All datastreams are interesting, particularly if you follow the hypotheses broadcast earlier.
Well, in the end I never hit.
I came to this book and this man through Natan Sharasky whom Mnookin uses as example of refusal to negotiate. I thought you wanted me to arrive there…..
I thought you have would read the book because many words in Mnookin´s speech are like yours, that about “uncertainties” and even also exemplified what you mentioned about Rumsfeld regarding “unknown knowns” ….
On the other hand, this way of negotiating ( even with “Devil” in order to avoid war ) explains quite well the attitude of Mr Putin in all the Ukrainian crisis and Minsk negotiations …..
Finally, I do not understand why I would be monitored if I buy the book or borrow it in a library ( even in Lenin Library) , it seems like a book curriculum in International Relations, Laws, Political Science and so on….eventhough mine is another branch of science….so to this branch I am only amateur….hence my vast ignorance…..
Speaking of political science and Machiavelli, his book “The Prince” I have already downloaded, because to my admired professor Juan Carlos Monedero, is a reference book. What I’ve not done is read, yet, for lack of time. I’m too long in the blog …..
Changing subject, tell me friend,
What do you think of explosions in Tianjin?
“Do you think I could improve if I read this book?”
If critical attention is not solely focused on content, but include questions of why and why now within context and hypotheses previously broadcast and all of these components are subject to tested, the following may have some utility.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/18/time-hold-military-boots-fire-70-years-military-mediocrity
http://fortruss.blogspot.ru/2015/08/does-russia-need-political-opposition_17.html
“Transcendence requires a Socratic not a messianic approach.”
@ Anonymous on August 17, 2015 · at 9:52 am
UTC
Interesting.
But what is the basis of differentials (‘equal but different’) outside of federal/nation-state formations?
I am currently trying to figure out the difference between internationalism and globalism.
So far, I only believe the first is (potentially) good, while the second is (actually) bad.
“But what is the basis of differentials (‘equal but different’) outside of federal/nation-state formations?”
It would appear that your key “difficulty” stems from use of linear binary logic rather than a conception of lateral transcendence.
Although terms of reference must always be defined, the statement above is further illustrated by:
“I am currently trying to figure out the difference between internationalism and globalism.”
whereby you posit binaries – “internationalism” and “globalism”, and then attempt evaluation there-upon.
Some may be attracted to “transcend” this apparent methodological lacuna by “second level binary”.
However “Some understand that reliance on chutzpah and self-delusion is unsustainable.” and that a blog is a broadcast medium.
There is a rumor about the increase of ‘BS post of the week’ at various blogs, but AFAIK there is nothing in the works here, so your post is either misplaced or at least premature.
I suggest the question itself can be seen in terms of cooperation vs monopoly or tyrannical empire. ‘International’ or ‘global’ both imply activity beyond national borders, but the type of activity is important, as well as the rules and normative values involved in the interactions.
We can see this, for instance, in the difference between Russia working for international expansion of trade and the iniversal rule of international law which it’s pursuing as opposed tot he accusation that it is engaged in revanchism and rebuild the Soviet empire — although it can be argued that the Soviet empire was not quite a predatory and exploitative empire of the sort that US and European empires were, or are now in the works, but more a defensive nature.
See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/globalism
If one places the interest of the world above that of individual nations then obviously the current US ‘globalism’ is not globalism but placing the interests of the US above that of the world. Yet even here one needs to define what legitimate interests are, much as one needs to see differences in tyrannical ‘socialism’ as in the ‘Borg Collective’ and various countries using the word socialism instead of imperialist tyranny (Nazis, e.g.) and a fair balance between the rights (or needs) of the many vs the rights (or needs) of the few or individual, which is always a balancing act when people live together in some organized way, and have some kind of ‘social contract’.
There is similar conflict with ‘freedom’ as meaning people are free to appropriate as opposed to some people are free to exploit, control, steal from, or kill whoever he wants, which is the dark side of ‘liberalism’.
@Blue
Thank you. Your post makes a lot of sense.
Two questions:
What does ‘AIFAK’ mean?
Why is my post ‘misplaced or premature’?
afaik… As Far As I Know
The premature/BS part of the comment was directed to Anonymous
“There is a rumor about the increase of ‘BS post of the week’ at various blogs, but AFAIK there is nothing in the works here, so your post is either misplaced or at least premature. ”
Evaluation is a function of purpose.
Just the opposite, actually.
“Just the opposite, actually.”
It would appear that your key “difficulty” stems from use of linear binary logic rather than a conception of lateral transcendence.
This also applies to your “explanation” to “eimar” thereby encouraging and illustrating ideological integration.
The opponents are also so minded.
Your ‘linear binary logic’ accusation, and your word salad, is ridiculous. I have no such difficulty. You appear to be just trolling with BS, and do not address the content of posts — or you have lost yourself in a morass of linguistic abstraction.
As for evaluation and purpose, it’s very direct: purpose flows from evaluation of a current situation with a judgement of dissatisfaction. Without going into the neurology or philosophy, a simple illustration is having a purpose of getting some food because one perceives hunger, which is an evaluation of perception. One evaluates the current situation, finds it lacking, and makes plans or has desire of some imagined other situation — but an action or purpose must begin with an evaluation of the current state.
Why does the US want to control the world? Because it thinks it lacks something by not controlling it, or has fear, or desire. But the ‘hunger’ of the imperialist can never be satisfied by conquest because the lack is within itself as an internal abstract perception which is projected onto the world. It is part of the schizoid psychosis and belief system (including the identity crisis it is immersed in while losing touch with reality — ‘indispensable nation’, indeed!). Hungry ghosts!
A reply was transmitted but apparently “moderated” on this blog.
However as you probably realise, broadcasts are made on transmission, whilst reception is a function of access.