19-07-2016, 04:40 PM
Drew Phipps Wrote:I certainly appreciate Alexander Dugin's acknowledgement of why the false flag theory is reasonable. What I do not agree with is that post-"coup" events constitute proof of pre-"coup" involvement, the same way that the Warren Commission Report did not "prove" the lone nut theory. There are too many opportunistic motives and opportunities to advance a particular agenda, after an event, to declare that those events constitute proof of sponsorship before the event. I believe that the writer of that article concedes the point.
Public statements (cited by the writer) condemning the US for housing Gulen strike me as precisely on point: Gulen was housed here before. Erdogan condemned the US for that before. Now, Gulen is housed here, and Erdogan (and/or his ministers) condemns the US. What changed? Nothing. Now, if Gulen had suddenly appeared in Turkey during the coup, that would be convincing evidence of US involvement.
The isolation of the US base by Erdogan is not proof of US involvement in the coup. Perhaps the writer is correct, that this event signals a wider change in Erdogan's foreign policies; but, if true, then that suggests to me that Erdogan simply had more in mind than purging his military when the "coup" began. In fact, declaring the "coup" is a casis belli for a dramatic change in policy could be more evidence that Erdogan stage managed the whole thing (with the careful proviso that comparing "pre-" and "post-" statements and actions is fraught with the danger of inaccuracy - see my first paragraph).
Last I note that the writer of that article is listed as "Andrew Korybko" not Alexander Dugin, but I don't know enough about either to compare pen names.
The problem with deep politics is that proof takes quite awhile to manifest and the coup only occurred a few days ago. So no, I don't expect proof that would be able to presented in an academic study or in a court of law.
What Dugin, Pepe Escobar, Bill Engdahl, Sibel Edmonds and other deep political watchers are basing their analysis on are accounts from sources they presumably know and trust. Pepe Escobar has made it abundantly clear in his Facebook posts that the US hypothesis or green-light for the coup has been coming from sources. For her part, Sibel Edmonds is part Turkish and still has family there and, again presumably also excellent sources. I can't say anything about the sources used by William Engdahl on this story, but know from personal experience that he does have truly excellent access because at a time when the Bilderberg Conferences remained jealously guarded and secret - and absolutely no documents from them were available anywhere in the public domain - he was generous enough to give me a copy of the 1973 Bilderberg meeting notes covering the US engineered 400% hike in global petroleum prices - as "deep" a political event as you're ever likely to come across.
I also can't speak for Dugin other than to opine that is said to have sources inside Russian military (but I don't regard him as a pleasant person at all and would not normally quote him due to his fascist leanings and end times beliefs - but these unpleasantries aside do not make his analysis ignorable).
The observer I much value for his insights into matters middle eastern (and elsewhere), Thierry Meyssan, is I think now on his annual holiday (?), because he has announced that Voltaire will be back on the 14th August 2016 (I'm sure he'll be kicking himself now for such poor timing).
However, I note in passing that Meyssan did publish on 13th August a short piece stating that a number of players were in secret negotiations "with Syria with a view to withdraw from the war." These included members of the EU and the Commonwealth. On the back of Erdogan's realignment away from the US towards Russia and Israel (plus Israel's own closer relationship to Russia and less close relationship to the US) this is of utmost significant to the Neocon plans. For me, it is another sign that the grand strategy of the US for the 21st century is crumbling before their very eyes and that time is running out for them.
Not a moment too soon, I think.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14