The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party

13 March 2018

>In a three-part series[ ] published last week, the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.

Attached: san niku.jpg (666x1000, 220.8K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Patrick Martin

Attached: gemsweat.jpg (370x297, 26.32K)

Murder Inc. was a jewish mob group from the 20'S to the 40's.

Attached: Louis_Buchalter_sentencing.jpg (2817x2265, 524.55K)

Run from a candyshop. #candygate #pizzagate

Attached: comet_podesta.jpg (620x412, 285.77K)

so what exactly is the plan here? The US escalates it's involvement in Syria which leads to what? War with Russia?

The American empire produces huge numbers of troops, cops, and spies, so it's only natural they'll find their way into politics.
Furthermore these people have security clearances and relatively generous pensions that other state employees like teachers lack. Their patrons will use them to consolidate power in the military/security complex to keep it away from anyone who might change things. We're in the Marius/Sulla stage of the republic, militarized camps facing off against the people they're supposed to govern.

More weapons for neo nazis in Ukraine
Reigniting conflict in Syria should it die down to keep pressure on Assad/Iran
Sending surface ships into the Persian Gulf to manufacture an incident that "justifies" war with Iran, Gulf of Tonkin 2.0.

Domination of the Eurasian continent is their primary concern. The ultimate goal is the neutralization of any and all oppositional powers capable of opposing them, namely China and Russia, and places like Syria are just steps on the road toward that goal. They're particularly concerned with this New Silk Road that China is planning, because its completion would cement Chinese domination both of the continent itself, as well as all the countries it is currently planned to pass through, which are sitting on top of tremendous amounts of essential natural resources, which would inevitably be developed once they have access to the sort of high-speed, efficient infrastructure that the NSR is meant to provide.

Attached: China-Silk-Road-Map.jpg (1160x821, 295.2K)

Attached: ec1e5ab91ad8.png (1050x695, 105.65K)

Is this image available in other languages or just German fam?

The title reads something like: "One belt, One Road: With the Silk Road Initiative, China is building a global web of infrastructure. [orange part:] Finished and planned projects by November 2015." Red lines are economic corridors (massive infrastructure developments), black/grey lines are railroads, solid black lines are oil pipelines, green lines are gas, blue lines are shipping (obviously), and ships are harbours. All the pink countries receive money from China.
What I do wonder is how the hell they're gonna make the corridor through Iran and Turkey work.

The most key aspect of OBOR is that the planned goal is to ensure the developing world will be developed, this throws a spanner in American global policy which requires the developing world to be mired in poverty.

There is nothing the Americans hate more that nations from the developing world are able to afford cars, phones and computers at rates not controlled by their exorbitant prices

Attached: 2af35e27508532d325a27fa6d7b8295d--crossover-hetalia.jpg (221x240, 12.99K)

This sounds kinda like the pre-verse riff of BOC's "Let Go." Or not.

Also to note is that finishing even the initial stages of OBOR makes the previous strategic dominance of the ocean worthless since most of the world would then be connected via the OBOR

Attached: China_central_asia_infrastructure_0.jpg (920x476, 217.27K)

This is wrong, for the following reasons:

1. The actual, real goal of this is to get countries away from making economic ties with India (not America) who is China's nuclear-armed regional rival and one which they have a border dispute with. America is not a going concern here at all because America doesn't care about India's border problems.

2. If China wanted to develop the developing world they wouldn't have fucked over Zimbabwe by demanding their loans be repaid in USD. This has caused a massive budget crisis there which lead to massive reductions of Zim's state healthcare and education monopolies, causing younger people to be stupider than ever before while old people die off. It's also touched upon the state food bank, reductions in which has caused rioting in their capital Harare which prompted a military curfew.

3. China won't develop central asia using land-based railroads alone. America did that in Iraq in 2004, by gifting Iraq a GPS-based train signalling system that allowed for train functionality without taxis (train operators had to communicate via courier). Most of this was destroyed in the recent civil war, as ISIS saw little need in railroads. What's needed is security and funding commitments, things China has not provided and in fact inhibited (see Zimbabwe above).

4. Even if the plan worked, half of their railroads go through Russia who isn't their friend while the other western route has to go through Turkey and Greece, both of whom have much greater American and Russian sympathies than Chinese ones. The two railroads that really work in that plan are the ones through Pakistan and Myanmar, as they create a literal ring around India. Again this highlights the true purpose: to deal with India, not America. But even then the Pakistani railroad doesn't even connect to China's main network.

Again this is an Indian-Chinese fight not an American-Chinese one. This fight is more immediate (see their ongoing border conflict) and more practical to solve. America is only involved because America is an ally of India, but a low priority one hence why China can still have a border conflict with them without it escalating.

Attached: India-China-relations-960x576.jpg (960x576, 44.63K)

why are japanese thighs so perfect

Japanese women are so hideous, god it’s not even funny. Like I can’t even right now.

India actually goes between fighting and working with China, they rely quite abit on China to help their green India plans aswell

As for Zimbabwe , I'll go on a hunch it may be to a push for regime change to a more pragmatic leader.

But yes, you are right that China has not projected it's power enough, which they are building up, and while I wouldn't call turkey and Greece friends of China, Greece has received much investment and support from China:

And turkey while not so approving of China's moves on Xinjiang, has mentioned cooperation on OBOR:

Lastly, as for Russia, China is their main importer of gas, they along with Venezuela and Iran are banking on the petro-yuan to alleviate the crushing weight of the petrodollar.

Attached: 21119731991_c27478b18d_o.jpg (1500x997, 202.03K)

That doesn't change the fact that India and China cannot agree on the most basic of things: a boundary. And if China wanted to push out Mugabe starving innocent Zimbabweans is not the way to do it. All they've done is forced a coup, because the military was not going to accept furloughing or deferred payments. Zim's military may be more pragmatic, but that works both ways as they can also choose to simply not pay and let the population starve. A situation where China gets no money while Zimbabwe's population is off worse than it was before China got involved in money lending (which is a capitalist activity, by the way).

As for Greece, they are bankrupt. China showed up to a liquidation sale run by Germany. This will only end in disaster as Greeks begin to starve too, forcing a crisis that will lead to another military coup. And if Greece's Junta is any indication of how a new coup would go down, it would be allied with the US or Russia, not China. It's a similar situation to Zimbabwe except there are more interested bidders Greece's military can find.

This is a retarded idea because their state oil company just went bankrupt because it could not fend off Saudi price dumping. All they've done is let the Saudis destroy one of their largest state enterprises, triggering perhaps the largest corporate bankruptcy in capitalist history. China was made the bitch of Saudi Arabia, who didn't have to fire a shot. It's partially why Beijing is trying to wean itself off gas cars, because it'd cut down on Saudi influence in their economy.

Well they`d better get a move on with their engagement plans for Zimbabwe and Greece.

As for CEFC I think their going under government investigation now, so some changes to company policy are up ahead but I doubt it's a total collapse in the long run

Lastly China is just getting into their role in OBOR, they never could have predicted Donald trump would act so irresponsibly which would force them into a leadership position, I think they will iron out these issues going into the future.

The boundary issue usually flares around election or politics periods in India, it's a problem with varying levels of importance but for now I have not seen a point where it would result in the severing of all ties between India and China

Some more proofs to my claims:

for China to invest more in Zimbabwe there was need for policy clarity which was a hindering factor under President Robert Mugabe's rule.

Forbes article on the China Europe rail

This is entirely irrelevant, besides the fact that China always led the BRICS and know what competent leadership is they chose not to do it because that would mean less profits. China could have chosen not to starve out Zimbabwe, they chose money. When they try starving out Greece they'll find Greeks spitting it back into their face, and they will be boxed into the same corner as Germany when Greeks drop the Euro. They will then cry crocodile tears and try to sanction Greece, only to find them supported by either America or Russia.

Bullshit. Utter, complete, total bullshit. If Chinese banks did not have enough "policy clarity" they should not have issued the loans. They did anyways because like all capitalists they wanted to gamble and speculate. And the article you listed proves my intuition correct: Zimbabwe's new military leadership is now completely mercenary since the population is already starving and soldiers are already shooting at them. Total incompetence on China's part because now they're probably not going to get paid back if they don't accept higher taxes on the mining operations they own.

At every point China's regime sought to emulate capitalists rather than learn from them. The result is the same for them: failure.

By the way, the rail link itself isn't actually continuous because of the Black Sea. This is where Russia's trans-siberian railway still holds the cards because it can actually move cargo from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean without stopping. Which is why Russia is so keen to hold onto the caucuses, and Crimea.

I think Greece and Zimbabwe are in fundamentally different positions too, their investment into Greece has been less fraught than theirs into Zimbabwe, are you saying that the moneg they put into Zimbabwe didn't get bled out by corruption and they don't have a right to be angry at this?

I'd rather wait to see if the crocodile can turn things around

No, I'm saying they shouldn't have starved people, which is what they did. They starved them because they were angry and wanted their money back. Just like every other capitalist, and is why China's plans are totally melting apart there because the new regime they've forced knows they don't have to feed people to maintain control. There is no reason for them to pay back now, or at least not charge China higher taxes for the businesses they own.

It is complete and utter failure, with nothing but death and famine in it's wake. As one would expect of a capitalist regime.

Turn what around? Zimbabwe has no domestic food industry and is fully reliant upon imports and aid. Hospitals serve no medicine and are closed, teachers do not show up for work as the state cannot pay them. Their military is aware that they are the only source of food and healthcare in the country, this gives them a huge amount of leverage to do whatever they want. Without any free and fair elections (a process China conveniently avoided while Mugabe was in power), there is no reason for them to not just starve everyone by not paying back their loans. They have nothing to loose.

Are you telling me their military doesn't want to fix their own country?

Of course they don't. At this point they are operating a fascist regime, which they have to because starving people rioting in the capital would otherwise overthrow them. The capital is already locked down through checkpoints, residents subject to curfew. Nothing can feasibly oppose them, and the only opposition is malnourished and slowly starving to death if they haven't tried escaping to South Africa already. Hospitals and schools are now rare outside the capital, so the country is also completely screwed long-term as citizens get no education.

China has overseen every step of this fall, facilitating it through their demands for debt repayment. As all capitalists do.

I don't see any ethnic cleansing, how is it facists?

To be honest, America would never allow a grassroots leftist (left of neoliberalism in America, so not really saying much) party to have power. Even Sanders is too much for them, so they had to reel it in and run the spooks covertly to wrestle back control from the populist movements. Just more COINTEL shit, same as it ever was.

Geopolitical boundaries are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the face of global dominance by corporate influence. Borders matter to national bourgeoisie that rely on state governments to secure resources and markets. When a corporation can just buy rights to this or that area regardless of the technical political affiliation of the region, de jure political ownership is made increasingly superfluous.

From the 19th century until WW2, for a company to access resources or markets, they had to have governmental control of the region. The end of WW2 lead to the predominance of international-bourgeois alliances in the form of multi-national corporations. Instead of British colonies exploited by British companies, nominal control was given to local/native governments, who then had to rely on participation with these multinationals to not be completely economically bankrupt from the start.

Border considerations are only important to governments, but as long as governments rely on international corporations to exist, they will remain a secondary consideration at best.