Mr. S.D.H. sent this article along, and I simply have to include it in this week's blogs, not only for the inherent interest of its contents, but because of who is saying it, for it is being said on the cyber-pages of RT, and being said by a British gentleman from northern Ireland:

Handle with care: American psycho system a 'co-worker of God'

Mr. Cunningham gets American foreign policy correct: it is being driven by a psychopathic, delusional narcissism almost without any rationality, and invoking St. Paul's expression "co-workers with God" in the process:

As usual, Obama delivered another one of his soaring rhetorical pirouettes. The American Conjurer-in-Chief presented a sweeping vista of history that was a travesty of reality. Sweeping American global crimes under a carpet of lies. “I say all this not to whitewash the challenges we face,” he declared at one point, without a trace of irony that that was exactly what he was doing. What is nauseating about an American president standing up in front of the world’s nations at the opening of the UN annual assembly is not merely having to tolerate listening to such venal verbiage. It is an insult to common human intelligence to witness such brazen falsification of world conflicts – and specifically the sickening self-exoneration of American responsibility. With patronizing, syrupy cant, Obama urged nations and world leaders to “work together” in order to resolve conflicts by “our commitment to international cooperation rooted in the rights and responsibilities of nations.” Obama even had the gall to quote Martin Luther King by calling on nations to join with the United States as “co-workers of God”.

Well, as noted, Dr. King's reference was originally to St. Paul, and Dr. King's objectives were not those of supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East, importing them via "refugees" in the service of a domestic destablization agenda, and St. Paul, as I recall, was not using the phrase in reference to any political agenda, foreign or domestic. But that's another issue for another time.

And of course, there was the usual nonsense from B.O. about the evil Mr. Putin and his neo-Stalinist goal of reconstituting the Soviet Union by "invading" the Ukraine and other places:

In front of the world, Obama had the audacity to blame Russia of “attempting to recover lost glory through force” by purportedly threatening Ukraine, the Baltic region and Europe. “After all, the people of Ukraine did not take to the streets because of some plot imposed from abroad,” claimed Obama, in a breathtaking denial of how the US and European Union actually destabilized the country in 2013-2014, leading to a CIA-backed coup d’état and an ongoing war in eastern Ukraine.

Uh huh.

Quite frankly, I don't know how anyone with a shred of common sense or even the most basic knowledge of military history or Russian military operations can say such nonsense with a straight face, but then again, he's not the brightest bulb in the box. When Russia threatens someone by force, or invades a country, it threatens them with force, and invades the country: tanks are moved, artillery (lots of it) is deployed, airfields are bombed and command and control points are interdicted, and then and only then does the "fun" begin. When Russia decided to put an end to Mr. Brzezinski's little scheme in South Ossetia in 2008, it did so quickly, efficiently, with lots of tanks and troops and aircraft. There was no doubt about it whatsoever. To say that Russia has destabilized the Ukraine and imposed a neo-fascist government in Kiev, or threatened Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, is nonsense. Indeed, it would take the most scatter-brained analysis to assume that Russia would want the headache of trying to run those countries again. It has enough problems of its own, and has been doing well enough without them, thank you very much.

Then there's the high numbers of the Lunacy Index of America's foreign policy and its self-evident hypocrisy:

Obama deplores “fundamentalism” and the rise of “medieval” ISIL terrorism without a hint of shame that seven decades of US strategic collusion with the medieval fundamentalist Saudi dictatorship has spawned ISIL and other Islamist terror networks. The mentality of extremism and sectarian intolerance that Obama rhetorically condemns is a major plank in US foreign policy to destabilize the Middle East for its own hegemonic needs. And this week as the head-chopping Saudi regime’s air force slaughtered 20 civilians in the Yemeni port city of Hodeida, the Wahhabi monarch in Riyadh was rewarded with yet another US arms deal worth $1.15 billion – one of over 40 such arms deals under Obama administrations worth a total of $115 billion.

And then there was the bow to the "rule of law":

Obama solemnly exalts the “rule of law” and “multilateral constraints” and yet in the same breath the mendacious, contradictory Commander-in-Spiel declares Washington’s unilateral prerogative to pursue its “core interests”. That is the kernel of the problem. American power sees itself as above international law. It is only bound by the interests of its ruling class of Wall Street and corporate oligarchs. And, as history shows, that power is prepared to wage war, destroy other nations and exterminate millions of human beings in order to gratify its interests.

Rule of law? This from the leader of a country whose FBI director all but indicted his party's nominee for President in a nearly hour-long harangue and then refused to indict (which isn't his job anyway)? Others have been thrown in jail for far less.

The disturbing thing is that Mr. Cunningham, and by implication, RT, have come up to the precipice, but left the last conclusion only implied and unstated: that the US government is a criminal enterprise, not representing its people, but only a narrow group of corporate interests. It's an oligarchy, not a republic. And with American allies increasingly threatened - remember only B.O.'s threat to the United Kingdom if it voted for the BREXIT, or former Defense Secretary Gates' threats to Japan prior to Fukushima - by American "exceptionalism" (an exceptionalism that turns out in practice to mean only there is one set of rules for its oligarchs, and another for everyone else, including its own people), the USA is fast approaching the same moment in history that another oligarchy, operating behind the superficial veneer of a Republic, faced. That moment was what I call the "League of Cambrai" moment, when all of Europe, had had enough.

It didn't work in the case of that Republic, at least, not immediately. But the fact of the matter was, its oligarchy new the jig was up, and eventually, the Serenissima Republica Venetia passed into history.

Consider it a cautionary tale.

See you on the flip side...