Tulsi Gabbard Has Not Changed — Her Critics Have

Tulsi Gabbard had just returned from a 4 month tour of duty in Africa when asked by Tucker Carlson to comment on the situation in Afghanistan. Among other things Tulsi said that Islamists are still a big threat, and that it was better to fight them using surgical operations than what had happened in Afghanistan. Afghanistan had shown that invasion, war, and occupation was a bad idea. Nation building by occupation was a bad idea since it always leads to failure and chaos.

Tulsi Gabbard speaking on Afghanistan

Even though she had been saying those exact things for a long time, all of a sudden it was an unforgivable sin in the eyes of many of her most vocal past supporters. What were their arguments? Why are they upset? Some are claiming that Islamists are not a problem, that it is “Islamophobic,” whatever that means, for Tulsi to say otherwise. Some said that because Hillary Clinton and her associates support the same kind of use of surgical warfare, Tulsi is somehow just like Hillary and the pro-war establishment. They said that Tulsi was being a war hawk, that she is supporting the hegemonic ambition of US elites and Israel, others said that she has become a right-winger.

The idea that the pro-war establishment and Tulsi are on the same page is based solely on Tulsi being for the use of military action to counter jihadist insurgency. That is not what the military industrial complex is all about. They are about world hegemony — not simply the fighting of jihadists. The military industrial establishment serves the political agenda of the power elite in their quest for a unipolar hegemonic empire. Just because they also believe in fighting jihadists some times — that doesn’t equate to Tulsi also supporting world domination by the power elite. That argument is a false equivalence. It is like saying if your friend grows a mustache — therefore he is the same as anyone else with a mustache.

What if Biden had OK’d a drone strike on Saudi forces in Yemen? Would they be upset if Tulsi supported that use of drones? I doubt it. Progressives hate what the Saudis are doing in Yemen — for years and years they have been killing and causing starvation and mass suffering. But since Tulsi supported military action against a supposed “non-existent Islamist threat,” she is seen as being either irrationally hawkish, pro-war, and or Islamophobic. But to me it doesn’t look like their real gripe with Tulsi is about drones or military action, I am sure they would support drones if used against the Saudis in Yemen. I believe what their real problem with Tulsi is, is with Tulsi speaking against Islamists.

The truth is that there are many powerful Muslim organizations in the left and liberal establishment in America. Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, Pakistan, and the Saudis — each pour lots of money for positive publicity into America. Lots of journalists, think tanks, politicians, universities, and retired big shots from the military — are being payed off. All of that pressure from lobbyists leads to leftists and liberals willing to go along with them when they act outraged. Since Tulsi sometimes criticizes Islamism and jihadists, many people automatically react in a knee-jerk way because they know that if they can perform for those big money sources who are sensitive about any criticism at all involving Islam — money may come their way. We always see many people angrily claim Tulsi is Islamophobic even though she only criticizes violent jihadists and tyranny.

Why didn’t they criticize Tulsi over her opinions 6 months ago, or a year ago, or 2 years ago? She hasn’t changed her opinion on those things. So I think it comes down to timing, and the ignorance or confusion of the critics. The journalist and vlogger Kim Iversen, for example, she used to be a strong supporter of Tulsi but recently admitted it was probably her own ignorance for not realizing that Tulsi had always said what she said recently, that she has not changed her message.

Kim Iversen also, interestingly, makes the same argument in a video criticizing Tulsi, as Obama did on what causes people to become jihadists. After ISIS first began, Obama said that in order to stop those people from “turning to God,” we need to understand that the reason they become so religious is because . Kim Iversen said the same thing. She said, as did Obama, that America should somehow or other make sure that the many countries where jihadists are active, America should help build their society, get their economies built-up in order to provide jobs — which will then give the poor something to do — and therefore they won’t become jihadists. That is a facile and ignorant idea based on a gut instinct. It is not based upon anything resembling reality. Didn’t we just see that exact agenda fail in Afghanistan? Yes, yes we did.

What Kim maybe doesn’t know, is that after ISIS first started to gain a reputation in the Muslim world by calling for the creation of a new caliphate, tens of thousands of men and women from around the world were inspired to travel to the Middle East to join their cause. ISIS and Al Qaeda are not simply made up of local poor people with nothing better to do. Jihadism is an international issue which attracts people from all walks of life. Studies on the backgrounds of jihadists, including doing interviews with ex-jihadists and with the families of jihadists, taught us that most of the foreign jihadists were not poor people with nothing better to do — that in fact most were average people who had become whowere then inspired to be part of what they see as something special. Studies have shown many reasons inspire people to jihad including some who do it for money and power. Revenge is another common motivation, and not just revenge towards America or some foreign cause, often it is revenge towards the local government or police.

Kim repeats a common misunderstanding of religion in the Muslim world, that it is poor people with nothing better to do who become inspired to fight for jihad. If that were true, then what about the 9–11 hijackers coming from middle and upper class backgrounds? Osama Bin Laden came from one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia. Doctors, lawyers, businessmen, all sorts of people heed the call of jihad. Religious fanaticism is often mistaken by non-religious people to only inspire poor people, they think it’s like: “Hey Abdul, I can’t stand being here in Cairo working low-wage jobs, let’s go join the jihad because murdering people and putting our lives on the line for a likely futile goal sounds better.” Most people are not like that, they know how dangerous it is to take up arms to fight the establishment. Most have a political/religious reason. Overthrowing the government of some country is often the motivation. That was a reason for many in Iraq to join ISIS. After Saddam and the Sunnis were thrown out of power, many of the Sunni ex-police and ex-military were motivated to get out from under the control of the Shia establishment by joining ISIS. Their reasons were a mix of religious and political.

Almost all Jihadists say they were originally motivated by radical preachers. They may have had other reasons also as mentioned above, but what caused them to quit their lives and join up was the religious messaging they received. The reality is that people from all walks of life heed the call of religious fanaticism. If thousands of Christian preachers or Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish preachers were to constantly preach about the importance of holy war to their flocks, I am sure we would see the same results as we see in the Muslim world. The fact is that many people are susceptible to religious mania if it is stoked by a good preacher. If the preacher pushes their followers in the direction of violence, then violence will often be the result. Which is why terrorist attacks in America have not been by poor people with nothing better to do. They were highly motivated by religion and revenge. They wanted to punish America for various reasons and believed that they were doing God’s work because preachers convinced them of that.

Kim Iversen also said that since 9–11 the jihadists have kept to themselves outside of Africa or the Middle East. In reality there have been 15 jihadist attacks in America since 9–11, and many more in Europe — and many many more outside of Europe. These are the attacks in America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand just since 2015.

9/3/2021: New Zealand, 6 stabbed, 1 killed.
11/2/2020: Austria, 15 shot, 4 killed
10/29/2020: France, 3 stabbed, 1 beheaded, 3 killed
10/16/2020: France, 1 beheaded
11/29/2019: England, 3 stabbed, 2 killed
5/24/2019: France, 13 injured from bomb
3/18/2019: Netherlands, 6 shot, 4 killed
11/9/2018: Australia, 3 stabbed, 1 killed
8/31/2018: Netherlands, 2 stabbed
5/12/2018: Belgium, shot and stabbed 4, killed 4
5/12/2018: France, 4 stabbed, 2 killed
3/23/2018: France 15 shot and stabbed, 5 killed
2/18/2018: Russia, 11 shot, killed 6
10/31/2017: America, truck injured 12, killed 8
9/15/2017: England, bomb injured 29
8/18/2017: Finland, 10 stabbed, 2 killed
8/17/2017: Spain, cars, bombs, knives, 120 injured, 20 killed
6/6/2017: France, 2 stabbed
6/3/2017: England, truck, knife, 48 injured, 11 killed
5/22/2017: England, bomb, 129 injured, 22 killed
4/20/2017: France, shooting, 3 injured, 2 killed
4/7/2017: Sweden, truck, 15 injured, 5 killed
4/3/2017: Russia, bomb 15 injured, 5 killed
3/22/2017: England, car, 49 injured, 6 killed
1/1/2017: Turkey, shooting, 70 injured, 39 killed
12/19/2016: Germany, truck 56 injured, 12 killed
11/28/2016: America, car, stabbing, 11 injured
9/17/2016: America, bombs, 31 injured
7/31/2016: France, knife 1 killed
7/24/2016: Germany, bomb, 15 injured
7/18/2016: Germany, knife, hatchet, 5 injured
7/14/2016: France, truck, 434 injured, 87 killed
6/28/2016: Turkey, bombs, shooting, 230 injured, 45 killed
6/4/2016: France, knife, 2 killed
6/12/2016: America, shooting, 53 injured, 49 killed
3/12/2016: Belgium, bombs 300+ injured, 35 killed
3/19/2016: Turkey, bombs, 36 injured, 5 killed
1/12/2016: Turkey, bombs, 15 injured, 11 killed
1/11/2016: France, machete, 1 injured
12/29/2015: Russia, shooting, 1 killed, 11 injured
12/2/2015: America, shooting, 14 killed, 22 injured
11/18/2015: Bosnia, shooting, 3 killed, 5 injured
11/13/2015: France, shooting, bombs, 137 killed, 368 injured
10/10/2015: Turkey, bombs, 102 killed, 400+ injured
10/2/2015: Australia, shooting, 1 killed
8/21/2015: France, shooting, stabbing, 5 injured
7/20/2015: Turkey, bomb, 33 killed, 104 injured
7/16/2015: America, shooting, 5 killed
6/26/2015: France, beheading, fire, 1 killed, 11 injured
6/5/2015: Turkey, bombs, 4 killed 100+ injured
5/3/2015: America, shooting, 1 injured
4/27/2015: Bosnia, shooting, 1 killed, 2 injured
2/14/2015: Denmark, shooting, 2 killed, 5 injured
2/3/2015: France, stabbing, 2 injured
1/7/2015: France, shooting, 12 killed, 11 injured

Kim also insisted that America is only in Africa fighting jihadists because of China. That because China is expanding their influence in Africa, America is there to counter them. That is wildly historically off. Saying America is only in Africa to counter China is like saying the only reason a person would pick up a bag of gold laying on the street is to stop other people from taking it. The American government has been in Africa for a very long time, longer than China, and has many economic and strategic reasons to be there. While there is certainly a rivalry between China and America in Africa, the jihadist problem in Africa is not about China. The reality is that African leaders have asked American and European nations for years to help them fight against Islamist insurgencies which have been growing year by year (see charts below). China doesn’t do that except for China’s contribution to UN peacekeeping forces. The only Chinese military presence in Africa (Djibouti) is for having a Chinese Naval presence near the Red Sea and Persian Gulf mainly for anti-piracy actions to protect Chinese shipping. Both America and China have had many economic interests in Africa for a long time, and both see Africa as a major economic arena of the world.

Tulsi was also criticized for making a tweet castigating a handful of “Islamist” governments over their mistreatment of religious minorities. Instead of agreeing with that sentiment, she was called an Islamophobe by many “progressive leftists” and liberals. What was their logic? What does it mean to be called an Islamophobe if you criticize governments for mistreating people — specifically based on those people not being followers of the government’s officially promoted brand of religion? When Iran discriminates and severely mistreats non-Muslims and non-Shi’a Muslims, like the Baha’i — if you criticize that mistreatment you are an Islamophobe? The Baha’i religion is not the only religious group discriminated against and viciously mistreated in Iran, but since so many of Tulsi’s critics were upset that she includes Iran in her critique, see the following:

See more how Iran treats minority faiths here.

When the Saudis or Pakistanis discriminate against Shia and Ahmadi Muslims, or against Hindus and Christians and others — if you criticize that mistreatment you are an Islamophobe? Can someone explain that rationale to me? Are you people saying you agree with Erdogan as he tries to establish a jihadist caliphate in Syria where everyone will be forced to follow the diktats of fanatical jihadists at the point of an AK-47? Why do you call Tulsi an Islamophobe if you agree with her that the behavior she is calling out is unacceptable?

Even though they are insisting Tulsi has changed into a right winger, in reality she is the same. It is they who have changed. It reminds me of how Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are constantly asked by people: “what happened to you guys, you used to be cool but now you act like nazi Trump supporters?”

They insist that Glenn and Matt are different then they used to be — when the facts show that they haven’t changed at all. It is the people asking that question who have changed. If your views on anything are aligned with Trump supporters on that topic — like being critical of liberal media — then those people see you as a nazi now. Those who say Glenn and Matt have changed into nazis have lost all sense of proportion and rationality. If you agree that the liberal media is not to be trusted — then because Trump and his supporters also say that — you are a nazi? Obviously not, but countless people believe exactly that. have changed into an imbecile if you think Glenn and Matt are nazis because they and Trump supporters don’t trust the liberal media.

Clearly the liberal media is comprised of mostly a bunch of liars. Their jobs rely on their selling the agenda of elites. If you say: “Don’t trust the Democratic party because they are sellouts to big money,” then because Trump and his supporters say the same thing, many liberals will call you a nazi.

Why? Because the liberal media constantly pushes propaganda which presents the agendas of the elites as inherently rational and principled — with the implication that to oppose them is to be irrational and unprincipled. Aka a nazi. People are being subconsciously conditioned to automatically support politically biased worldviews promoted by liberal media consensus. People get so worked up by media propaganda that they literally attack people who simply dissent from the liberal consensus. People are being conditioned into seeing themselves as heroic by fighting for the agenda of the elites.

Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi criticize the Democrats and the liberal media for supporting censorship and for the support of government diktats towards tech companies — threatening them directly or indirectly — to suppress the free speech of their political and cultural opponents. Glenn and Matt are not the ones who have changed. It is their past supporters who have changed into supporting tyranny in the name of “safety,” in the name of forced subservience to brain-warped politicians and bureaucrats who serve the interests of power grubbing big money donors. The only question now is: Is America an oligarchy or a fascist oligarchy due to the merger of government power and big business?

Now it is not uncommon for liberals to say “free speech is bad.” They say: “conservatives can use free speech to convince people to implement policies that are bad for you.” That is how irrational most liberals and even many so-called progressive leftists have become. They want a dictatorship in the name of liberalism and progressivism. They have gone nuts for tyranny. Or maybe they always were nuts, maybe they just covered it up really well, maybe now they feel they no longer have to hide their love of tyranny over “the common rabble.” Many believe a scientific dictatorship is better than allowing the common rabble to have say in their own lives.

Tulsi Gabbard supports using surgical military actions to fight vicious tyrannical jihadists who force people to submit to their theocratic rule by the sword. She has always spoken against their tyranny. But all of a sudden some of her bigger name progressive leftist supporters now believe they were wrong to support her? Are they now — for — jihadists? Do they now — support — fanatical violent religious extremists taking control over society? Do they now — support — enslaving girls and women? Do they now — support — torturing and killing all who challenge their tyranny? You guys don’t support that? So why are you saying Tulsi has changed into a right-winger because she also doesn’t support that? Because “Islamophobia” or some BS? That makes sense to you?

In fact, they tell us — Islamists are no longer really a threat at all. If they ever were. Even though right in front of their eyes a theocratic totalitarian ultra-violent tyrannical religious cult has completely taken over all of Afghanistan — and rule it as a violent religious dictatorship — Islamists are suddenly not a threat.

The Taliban in reality are not all that different from ISIS or Al-Qaeda in their beliefs and practices — yet those new critics of Tulsi tell us “Islamism is a false threat, to believe otherwise is Islamophobia.” The Islamist Taliban can shoot people in the face on the street for wearing the wrong clothes, they kill people right and left for not following their religious diktats, but YOU are the problem if you say it is wrong of them to do that.

YOU are a bigot if you disagree that God told them they can enslave women.

YOU are a bigot if you disagree that God told them they can torture and kill political opponents.

YOU are a bigot if you disagree that God told them they can torture and kill religious minorities.

YOU are an evil thing called “Islamophobe” if you disagree with brutal Islamists controlling your life.

The critics are also apparently ignorant of what has been going on in Africa ever since the rise of ISIS and the massive expansion of jihadist violence all over the continent. Thousands of people are killed by jihadists every year there. They threaten the stability of many tribes, nations, and cultures all the time — kidnappings of young girls are rampant. But apparently Islamism is not a threat? When the next mass shooting, suicide bomber, truck running over people, mass stabbing, happens — will you say it is not a problem? It’s a daily problem for millions of people in many parts of the world.

The maps above leave out terrorist attacks in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Tanzania etc. because there is disagreement in some international institutions on the nature of the Muslim terrorist groups in those areas. Some say they are more political or criminal regardless of their connections to ISIS or Al Qaeda. Others claim they are more serious about jihad than not.

How about saying that Tulsi supports evil drone warfare? You miss the context of drones or “surgical strikes” vs. invasion and occupation. Tulsi always argues within that context. Sure you can say that drones are often wrongly targeting innocents. But that is beside her point — which is that if you have to fight against an immanent threat, it’s better to put as few people as possible in harms way. Why didn’t Tulsi argue against the drone strike that killed an innocent family? Well, what did she actually say? She said that the leaders need to be held accountable and not the people taking orders. She didn’t say she agreed with what they did.

She was making a point about how and when to use military force — only when it is absolutely necessary, and only through a method that puts the least amount of people in danger. That doesn’t mean she supports wanton use of drones. Are you people so dumb that you think Tulsi supports wanton murder of innocents? WTF is wrong with you knuckleheads? She only means that drones are of better use than invading countries and killing with tanks and armies. Drones should only be authorized when you know for a fact that who you target is the one you want. And that they can’t be stopped by any non-violent method. And that there is sure to be no collateral damage. In the past the US military did not play by those rules, but that is the fault of the leaders. That doesn’t mean a drone in principle is worse than a tank or a shoulder fired rocket or a bomb dropped by a plane. In fact a drone is more able to stop collateral damage than other weapons because they are controlled by a person who is not in any danger and can stop the attack without fear if something goes wrong. The problem so far has been poor leadership. If you think drone=evil, while tanks=not evil, it is time to reevaluate. If you say that America should not be involved with trying to stop the jihadist take-over of various peoples, then just say that. Tulsi disagrees. She always has. She didn’t change.

Some are also up in arms because Tulsi has reaffirmed her belief that America should have a border. “People shouldn’t be able to pour across borders and move into a country.” That used to be the leftist position. It was supported by Bernie Sanders as well as Latino farm worker union leaders like Cesar Chavez. Unlimited migration was commonly accepted by the left as bad for workers because mass migration causes lower wages all around. They also put pressure on low-cost housing since they usually rent the lowest cost housing. With the big problem of a lack of low-cost housing, migrant workers will only increase the shortage thereby leading to an increase of homelessness. Homelessness is often blamed on drugs and alcohol, but the reality is that most homeless people start off homeless because of low-cost housing shortages, and lack of jobs that pay enough to afford the high cost of housing. California has the biggest homeless problem and also the largest migrant population and also a big problem of lacking low-cost housing. As more migrants continue to move there, homelessness has risen and will continue to do so. You may say that homelessness can be fixed but there is a lack of the political will to fix it, and that is true. But the cause of homelessness is hugely exacerbated by a continual influx of large numbers of migrants. California, Texas, Florida, and New York have the largest migrant populations and the largest homeless populations.

The left position since forever until wokeness took over, was that unlimited migration was very bad for the working class. We see that effect all over America. If you want to all of a sudden blame Tulsi for being a right winger because she holds to the same position as the long time leftist position on immigration, it is you who have changed. I saw some people saying that Biden had deported more people than Trump, so what is Tulsi talking about to criticize his border policy? First, I don’t believe anything the Biden people say since they lie so much. Second, even if their numbers are true with the deportation of some 600,000 — that still leaves at least that same amount who get in.

Tens of thousands of Haitians from South America were shipped to the border in buses by the Mexican government and then walked across the border — a thousand or so were then flown to Haiti and the rest were let into America to stay after Biden was accused of racism. His stated open door policy has reached the world, it is inspiring people from around the world to flood to America. During a time when people are being forced to quit their jobs because of government diktats, and with housing costs at all time highs, and with low-cost housing availability at all time lows, letting in massive numbers of migrants is the worst possible thing. But critics of Tulsi are aghast?

“Hey man, don’t be racist, get rid of borders and let the entire global south migrate into Nazi America you nazi.”

Meanwhile an explosion of homelessness continues to grow but at least you can’t be accused of racism because you say borders are for nazis. Homelessness also leads to a surge in crime, which then leads to a surge in the prison industrial complex. That in turn leads to more homelessness because someone with a record in America has many obstacles for jobs and for housing. Open border policy is a disaster for all, except for the corporations who see wages driven down.

I didn’t even mention the big problem with organized crime taking advantage of the open borders. Cartels in Mexico are destroying a once beautiful culture because of the wealth they generate. Open borders exacerbate the problems they cause. The only way to stop them is for Biden to legalize drugs. Also, once you take away the main source of their rivalry, the gangs in the inner cities will stop turning those cities into free-fire zones. We won’t hear of kids being shot every day in cities all over America. Most of that fighting is due to gang wars over turf. Those gangs are based almost entirely on drug sales. Legalizing drugs will end the cartels south of the border and end the incentive of gang wars in American cities. The prison population will then shrink and the minority community will get back fathers for their kids. The vicious cycle can be ended by legalization. It’s not like people can’t get drugs anyway. So why not put an end to so many problems instead of continuing down the failed path of the drug war. The drug war causes much more damage than it stops. This has been known for a long time, but politicians have been too afraid to do what needs to be done because so many make so much money by keeping drugs illegal.

Since 2016 the liberals of the world have been voicing more and more support towards a dictatorial and suppressive attitude towards any journalism or opinion they see as antithetical to mainstream liberal consensus. Their idea is that we need an all-powerful Big Brother to watch out for everyone by suppressing ideas and voices deemed harmful to society. If you do not agree with a widely held liberal consensus on some topic, you will find that there is a widely held belief that a dictatorial suppression of your voice or idea is “for the good of society as a whole.”

That worldview started to really ramp up among the wider liberal public in 2016 as a side-effect of elite animus towards Trump. It has continued to grow support ever since. How did so many liberals became supportive of a Big Brother Nanny-State type of social tyranny? A government propaganda bureaucracy was created in the 1980s during the Reagan years as a way to counter negative press towards their actions in Central America. That propaganda bureaucracy developed from there into something far more comprehensive. It would also develop into a tool to be used for convincing populations to be supportive of US led wars. After the Vietnam war caused the American people to develop negativity towards US involvement in more war, fear of how that would affect the foreign policy decisions of political leaders led to the development of a bureaucracy for “perception management.” It is used to control the desires of the population to be in agreement with the plans of the elites.

The details of how that propaganda bureau was created and then developed, was written by the famous Robert Parry: The Victory of ‘Perception Management’

We can see that propaganda bureaucracy in action when they were recently exposed by the details coming out on the origin of Russiagate:

After it seemed that Trump stood a chance to win the election in 2016, the pro-war propaganda bureau jumped into action to stop him. Trump had campaigned strongly on an anti-war message, he also berated the very idea of America as a hegemonic imperial state. The military industrial complex and the big banks and big investors, all make big money off of expanding and maintaining the political and economic hegemony of the US government. Getting the public to support the hegemonic status quo of the US government and the means to maintain it (war and massive support for its means), meant from 2016 onward to a section of elites the urgent need of driving as many people as possible into a state of abject paranoia towards Trump and his supporters.

The propagandists wanted people to believe that anything Trump supports is by definition irrational and stupid, and therefore dangerous. That was the plan because Trump said he was against war and against the military being used for out of control spending and profit. Russiagate was the answer to the Trump problem.

Why did Russia all of a sudden become such a big concern in liberal media when Trump started campaigning for president? 4 years earlier President Obama had scoffed at Mitt Romney when Mitt claimed that Russia was the biggest threat to America during their debates. What changed since then? Since that time Russia had become a big problem for the imperial agenda of US elites because Putin had resisted two big imperial agendas.

Ex-National Security Advisor and first president of the Rockefeller founded Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had been a leading member of the Deep State and a major foreign policy wonk for the Liberal Establishment since the early 1960s. His 1997 book ‘’ laid out the coming strategy for US imperial hegemony after the fall of the USSR and the communist bloc. It wasn’t a detailed plan meant for State Department wonks, it was a general plan meant for a general readership, e.g., for politicians and the general Liberal Establishment. It was also meant to educate the rest of the world on the plans of the US so they could choose to either get on board, or maybe become targeted for regime change. The plan, which was followed by the US foreign policy establishment up to and through the Obama years, said among other things — that some areas of the world are extremely important “pivot” nations to America because they could go either in alignment with Russia and China, or alignment with America and its allies. Those most important states included states in Central Asia because of their vast wealth in oil, gas, minerals, and location; also Ukraine because of its geostrategic location; and much of the Middle East for the same reasons. His idea was that in order for the US elites to maintain their power over the world, they need the US government to take actions to make sure those pivotal nations did not align with Russia and or China.

Just a few years after Obama had scoffed at Russia being a major threat, the US government led a coup against the Ukraine government. Their leaders had just rejected a major economic co-operative agenda offered by the EU, and instead accepted one by Russia. That was exactly what Zbigniew Brzezinski had warned against as a geopolitical problem for the US elites plan for world hegemony. After the US backed Ukraine coup and the installment of a US puppet government, Russia took back Crimea from Ukraine. In 1954 Crimea was made part of Ukraine by the USSR for various political reasons. Crimea was still though comprised of mostly Russians, and they happily went along with the Russian take over by voting to become part of Russia. That was because they had become fearful of the new Ukraine leadership which at that time was heavily influenced by western Ukrainian nationalists — who have a negative attitude towards Russians and Russian cultural influence. The nationalists from the far west of Ukraine are historically not part of Russian culture and resented the fact of Ukraine being forced into the USSR. Crimea also hosts a very important Russian Navy base which the US elites coveted because of its geostrategic pivotal location. After Russia took back Crimea and also aided in the secession of the mostly Russian population of south east Ukraine, US elites developed a very antagonistic attitude towards Putin. He had already been on the outs with the elites because of his military aid towards secessionists in Georgia aka The Russo-Georgian War of 2008. Then in 2015 Putin got involved in the Syrian civil war against the side of the US and its allies, changing that war from a sure loss for the Syrian government towards a sure loss for the US elites and its allies.

Because Trump campaigned on pulling back from war and not supporting US hegemony around the world, and also saying that being an enemy of Russia was stupid for the US — the US elites who had recently developed a really negative assessment of Putin because of the above — decided that Trump was definitely persona non grata, so they sicced the propaganda bureau on Trump and his followers.

Russiagate and the feverish “resistance” mania that accompanied it were not the result of organic political processes. They were the result of the propaganda bureaucracy in action. Many people aided in the plan without even knowing they were being used to maintain and expand the imperial hegemonic plans of US elites by “resisting.” A part of that plan was recently exposed when the entire Russiagate saga was proven to be a planned propaganda attack based on entirely made up “facts” that were used to guide the FBI and the mainstream media. The plan was to convince people that Trump’s political ideas should be rejected because he was a Russian plant. They feared his ability as president to change what they planned as laid out in ‘.’ General Wesley Clark stated that he was informed shortly after 9–11 that there were military plans to overthrow Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. Those nations had in common an elite who were not subservient to US elite hegemony, and were either geostrategically pivotal or had an ability to influence the world economy because of their abundant natural resources. Therefore according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, they were able to harmfully interfere with the hegemonic plans of US elites — if they were to come under Russian or Chinese influence. They feared Trump would allow that to happen. In reality though he didn’t accomplish what he campaigned on — even if he was serious and not just telling the people what they wanted to hear. Either way, the wholesale mismanagement by the Democrats is losing them a lot of support among their minority base who strongly dislike the diktats Biden is making on businesses, workers, and people’s freedom. The people who support his diktats are almost all middle and upper-class white liberals. Unless he and his people make a radical change of direction, it looks like we may see another Trump presidency in the future.