Category Archives: False Flag

An American Paradox: Pillorying Fake News while Promoting False Flags

The United States is a schizophrenic asylum of extreme paradoxes: While its internal politics reverberates with fake news-mediated recriminations, Americans yet find merit in the same disinformation machinery that facilitates false flags abroad.

The US is now threatening Syria over an imminent “chemical weapons attack” without offering a shred of proof to the international community. Then again, the last time the US resorted to due UNSC process had instead resulted in wars and mayhem that continue till today. The vial brandished by Colin Powell was found to contain nothing more than a concoction of fraudulent intelligence and mass-mediated hysteria over Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Nevertheless, fake news had come of age and forged an indispensable bond between elected US officials and the sheeple who voted them in.

Fake News: A Collective American Psychosis

No one epitomizes the fake news paradox better than the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, himself.

Trump’s tantrums against the fake news machinery, particularly CNN, reached a new nadir when the president thumped the imaginary daylights out of a wrestler who supposedly represented CNN.  It was a textbook demonstration of the Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) – a mental condition characterized by impulsive outbursts of anger, violence and rage that are usually disproportionate to the situation at hand.

IED is listed as a behavioural disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) but it can share co-morbidity with various forms of psychoses. This may explain how Trump could magically see CNN in a rehearsed wrestling segment he had acted in years earlier. When fake wrestling is blurred with reality TV show and politics, the result is Donald Trump!

Just how this juvenile video montage is going to roll back years of collective citizen addiction to fake news is open to question but the incident does confirm what the world has been suspecting for a long time: The US is run by lunatics for lunatics. The recent US presidential elections, after all, was a deep state-engineered Hobson’s choice between two psychopaths whose fanatical support base was evenly-split between 100 million adult Americans.

Trump’s electoral nemesis, Hillary Clinton, remains the catalyst for the fake news hydra but the president somehow lacks the courage to take her on. He is instead lashing out like a helpless child against institutions and personalities that are mere cogs in America’s disinformation complex.

In the meantime, the US public has meekly accepted a status quo where the IEDs of its elected officials regularly result in US troops being blown up by the IEDs of the combat variety.  Call it a poetic validation of the laws of “reaping what you sow.”

In any case, one in five Americans already suffer from mental illness and this crisis is expected to aggravate under the Trump presidency. Expect suicides, spree shootings and homelessness to skyrocket in the coming months. Perhaps, some genius in the White House had figured out that mentally-impaired citizens may be more receptive to fake news.

Fake News as an Instrument of War

Joseph de Maistre once noted: “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” This is particularly true in the case of the United States where Americans do not really vote for a president every four years but rather a messiah who can deliver them from the apocalyptic bogeys of the other deep state candidate. Forget the thinning bread; it is the ever-bloodying circus that counts!

After a while, fake news, lurid allegations and gutter politics are autonomously perpetuated through a zombified sheeple. Thereafter, the deep state only has to provide directions to the slaughter house.

This pathos was apparent when the latest WMD allegations were arrayed against Syria. The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, did not disappoint with her inimitable performance. Her repertoire was as forceful and convincing as the incongruous melange of a Bollywood tear-jerker, rampant American militarism and open defecation along the Attari-Wagah border. Deconstructing Haley’s argument for anything of factual merit is like studying the erupting contents of a burst sewer pipe for intellectual stimulation. But then, Haley is the populist product of the very society that earlier elected her as the governor of South Carolina. Haley’s supporters like this sort of stuff, fake or not, and they continue to rally behind her in the social media.

The US fake news hydra also relayed Haley’s WMD allegations without questioning the need for an urgent deliberation by the UN Security Council, as is the case with anything concerning WMDs. Perhaps they forgot a famous precedence set by the United States during the height of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis when US envoy Adlai Stevenson prevailed against the USSR’s Valerian Zorin. The John F. Kennedy administration even won the admiration of the Soviets after that episode, and both superpowers thereafter entered a period of détente that brought a tangible degree of stability to the world.

However, officials of Stevenson’s calibre who can resort to facts, evidence and logic are virtually extinct in the United Sates. Instead, we have the insensate antics of Sean Spicer and Heather Nauert who themselves embody walking-talking WMDs against basic human intelligence – reflecting the sure prospect of oblivion that awaits the United States!

Media’s Propaganda War on Syria in Full Flow

If you wish to understand the degree to which a supposedly free western media are constructing a world of half-truths and deceptions to manipulate their audiences, keeping us uninformed and docile, then there could hardly be a better case study than their treatment of Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

All of these highly competitive, for-profit, scoop-seeking media outlets separately took identical decisions: first to reject Hersh’s latest investigative report, and then to studiously ignore it once it was published in Germany last Sunday. They have continued to maintain an absolute radio silence on his revelations, even as over the past few days they have given a great deal of attention to two stories on the very issue Hersh’s investigation addresses.

These two stories, given such prominence in the western media, are clearly intended to serve as “spoilers” to his revelations, even though none of these publications have actually informed their readers of his original investigation. We are firmly in looking-glass territory.

So what did Hersh’s investigation reveal? His sources in the US intelligence establishment – people who have helped him break some of the most important stories of the past few decades, from the Mai Lai massacre by American soldiers during the Vietnam war to US abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in 2004 – told him the official narrative that Syria’s Bashar Assad had dropped deadly sarin gas on the town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 was incorrect. Instead, they said, a Syrian plane dropped a bomb on a meeting of jihadi fighters that triggered secondary explosions in a storage depot, releasing a toxic cloud of chemicals that killed civilians nearby.

It is an alternative narrative of these events that one might have assumed would be of intense interest to the media, given that Donald Trump approved a military strike on Syria based on the official narrative. Hersh’s version suggests that Trump acted against the intelligence advice he received from his own officials, in a highly dangerous move that not only grossly violated international law but might have dragged Assad’s main ally, Russia, into the fray. The Syrian arena has the potential to trigger a serious confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers.

But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered the journalist’s journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail. In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am Sonntag.

There are a couple of possible, even if highly improbable, reasons all English-language publications ignored Hersh’s story. Maybe they had evidence that his inside intelligence was wrong. If so, they have yet to provide it. A rebuttal would require acknowledging Hersh’s story, and none seem willing to do that.

Or maybe the media thought it was old news and would no longer interest their readers. It would be difficult to sustain such an interpretation, but at least it has an air of plausibility – except for everything that has happened since Hersh published last Sunday.

His story has spawned two clear “spoiler” responses from those desperate to uphold the official narrative. Hersh’s revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh’s investigation directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh’s alternative narrative and shore up the official one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed.

The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh’s story, were statements from the Pentagon and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so.

Here is how the Guardian reported the US threats:

The US said on Tuesday that it had observed preparations for a possible chemical weapons attack at a Syrian air base allegedly involved in a sarin attack in April following a warning from the White House that the Syrian regime would ‘pay a heavy price’ for further use of the weapons.

And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats “confirmed” that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like substances.

There are obvious reasons to be mightily suspicious of these stories. The findings of the OPCW were already known and had been discussed for some time – there was absolutely nothing newsworthy about them.

There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no “chain of custody” – neutral oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey. Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media.

Similarly, by going public with their threats against Assad, the Pentagon and White House did not increase the deterrence on Assad, making it less likely he would use gas in the future. That could have been achieved much more effectively with private warnings to the Russians, who have massive leverage over Assad. These new warnings were meant not for Assad but for western publics, to bolster the official narrative that Hersh’s investigation had thrown into doubt.

In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve.

But beyond this, there was something even more troubling about these two stories. That these official claims were published so unthinkingly in major outlets is bad enough. But what is unconscionable is the media’s continuing blackout of Hersh’s investigation when it speaks directly to the two latest news reports.

No serious journalist could write up either story, according to any accepted norms of journalistic practice, and not make reference to Hersh’s claims. They are absolutely relevant to these stories. In fact, more than that, the intelligence sources he cites are are not only relevant but are the sole reason these two stories have been suddenly propelled to the top of the news agenda.

Any publication that has covered either the White House-Pentagon threats or the rehashing of the OPCW report and has not mentioned Hersh’s revelations is writing nothing less than propaganda in service of a western foreign policy agenda trying to bring about the illegal overthrow the Syrian government. And so far that appears to include every single US and UK mainstream newspaper and TV station.

So Much Freedom to Spread: ICan’tBelieveIt’sNotWarCrimes!

Looks like Mordor-on-the-Potomac is psyching itself up to attack Russia and Iran.

All-purpose ignoramus Sean Spicer is quoted in the Washington Post as saying, “The United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children. The activities are similar to preparations the regime made before its April 4, 2017 chemical weapons attack. If Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

Never to be out-neoconned, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley (what difference does it make?) threatened Russia: “Any attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia and Iran who support him in killing his own people.” Haley and Spicer are giving the green light to al-Qaeda to stage a false flag attack to be blamed on the Syrian, Iranian and Russian governments.

The reason for the current brazen lies is to drown out Seymour Hersh’s June 25 Welt article where American military officials admit that Assad didn’t use chemical weapons on April 4. This has also been previously debunked by former scientific advisor to the Department of Defense (sic) Theodore Postel. The Trump administration’s concern about poison gas is as touching as their silence about America currently dropping white phosphorus in heavily populated Mosul and Raqqa and their silence about Airwars documenting that America kills more civilians in Syria than Russia does. America just permanently freed the shit out of 42 more Syrian civilians on Monday by bombing an ISIS-run jail in al-Mayadeen. Imagine that: one of the CIA’s greatest, most vicious creations, ISIS, chooses not to kill you outright but to put you in jail — and then the US dollar’s Air Force comes along and kills you anyway. So much freedom to spread — ICan’tBelieveIt’sNotWarCrimes!

Spicer presents no evidence for what he says and the Washington Post “reporters” see no reason to ask him for any. The Washington Post isn’t a newspaper and it doesn’t employ journalists. What it has are government propagandists who dispense our daily two minutes of “Syria hate” (and usually much more) a la Orwell’s 1984. (The only bigger walking conflict of interest than Trump is Washington Post and Amazon oligarch Jeff Bezos with his $600 million contract with the CIA.) The editors and stenographers for the Post do nothing but agitate for constant war. Like the New York Times and CNN, they are integral to US war-making, they are extensions of the US government. The proper way to look at them — and Thomas Friedman, Fareed Zakaria, Wolf Blitzer, every neocon commentator, etc. — is that they are pint-sized Julius Streichers. They are war criminals. When the US loses its reserve currency status and the people break free of the police and surveillance state, these people will face Nuremberg-like trials. Free speech shouldn’t include yelling “Attack Iran!” 24/7 in the crowded theatre of Southwest Asia. Anyone propagandizing for illegal unconstitutional wars should be arrested. This would take care of 98% of the US Senate and most of the House. “Free speech,” even now, doesn’t protect incitement to commit a crime. The law simply needs to be applied to John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

The people of Syria can expect more US and Israeli attacks as Syria, Russia, Iran and Turkey get closer to a political solution in Syria. Americans wouldn’t know it from reading the Washington Post but the majority of Syrians support the government, thousands of fighters have sought amnesty and re-joined the government’s armed forces, over 1,300 Syrian towns (as of March 2017) have reconciled with the government, thousands of square kilometers in southeast Syria have been liberated from ISIS in the past month and the US military base near the Jordanian border has been surrounded and neutralized by the Syrian army and Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units so it can’t wreak havoc against the Syrian government in Deir ez-Zor. Neocon dreams of partitioning Syria are slipping away.

The real action in Syria has never been ISIS or the “Free Syrian Army” — these are the two stalking horse CIA proxies for the Greater Kurdistan project which would border four countries that American and Israel wish to balkanize: Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. We in the West have been well-prepared for many years about the gay-positive and woman-liberating peaceable Kurds. Less well known is their ethnic cleansing of Sunni Arabs in the territories that they conquer, including threats, intimidation, murder, looting and the burning down of houses, partying like it’s 1948 Palestine. Turkey has been beautifully demonized — so easy to do with Gollum leading it — and any terrorism committed against it by Kurdish groups is either disputed, minimized or not recognized at all by the mainstream media. The Kurds need to reconcile with all governments in the region because they are fast approaching their insane umpteenth betrayal by the United States. And some Kurdish leaders are now turning against the partitioning of Syria.

Assad said he would take back every inch of Syria for a very good reason: Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Iraq and Turkey understand that if Syria is partitioned there will be American military bases in a Kurdistan or a Wahhabistan or both. And these bases will be used as terrorist havens to fuck over the people in the region every day of their lives for the benefit of the US and Israel. The Syrian people haven’t fought and died for that abomination to triumph. The one thing the destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria have demonstrated is that, no matter how lousy the present is, neocon “dreams” can make the future infinitely worse. Any reasonable person looking over the last 50 years of the devolution of Southwest Asia would conclude that the more Israel, Saudi Arabia and America get their way, the more horrendous the lives of the majority of inhabitants.

Are There any Limits to U.S. Hypocrisy?

Having ordered the attack on the al-Shayrat air field near the western Syrian city of Homs, U.S. President Donald Trump knew that the Syrian government hadn’t used any chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun. At the same time the current U.S. administration was making every effort to develop an information campaign against Damascus.

This was reported by Welt am Sonntag, a German Sunday newspaper. An American investigative journalist and political writer Seymour Hersh stressed that actually the Syrian Air Force had targeted a two-story building, where extremists from various terrorist groups held meetings. According to Hersh, a bomb, dropped by the Syrian aircraft in Khan Shaykhun, caused a number of detonations. The explosion led to the formation of a cloud of noxious vapour. Washington was knowledgeable about that.

The attack became an ideal occasion for the U.S. to make further accusations against Damascus. After a short time, the world media started to spread staged footage and photos from Khan Shaykhun. Those materials showed injured people, who were allegedly dying in a suspected sarin chemical attack.

Permanent representatives of a number of Western countries to the UN also made every effort to put all responsibility for the incident on the Syrian government, headed by President Bashar al-Assad. Thus, Nikki R. Haley, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, at a Security Council meeting even showed photos, allegedly proving the ‘crimes’ of the Syrian authorities against Syrians.

In addition, the U.S., France, Britain proposed the UN SC draft several resolutions on the Syrian gas attack. The documents were aimed to provide an international investigation with flight plans and logs, the names of all helicopter squadron commanders and to provide access to air bases where investigators believe attacks using chemicals were launched.

It also should be mentioned that despite Syria’s readiness to cooperate with the specialists from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an official investigation into the incident in Khan Shaykhun has not been launched yet. Moreover, Western countries continue to expand sanctions against Syria to escalate the economic situation in the country and drag it into an endless war.

Seymour Hersh, referring to information received from a senior adviser in the U.S. intelligence services, reported that Washington had no evidence that the Syrian Army used sarin gas. The CIA also informed the White House that no poisonous substances were found in the al-Shayrat air field, and al-Assad had no reason to commit political suicide.

According to many Syrian experts, it is possible that the world will soon become aware of the United States’ participation in other major scandals and incidents in Syria.

Britain Ponders (Again) the Benefits of Concentration Camps

So in the Libyan fable, it is told,
That once an eagle, stricken with a dart,
Said, when he saw the fashion of the shaft,
“With our own feathers, not by others’ hands,
Are we now smitten.”1

Sometimes it’s quite breathtaking to see just how far to the right British political opinion has been led. We really are just inches away from becoming a totalitarian fascist state – a situation that millions of our parents and grandparents fought and died trying to prevent in World War Two. And here we are, on the brink of sleepwalking into it.

A recent report revealed that senior figures in both the police and army are pressing to have internment camps built in Britain where thousands of people could be locked-up indefinitely without charge or trial. In addition to losing their freedom indefinitely, inmates “would be made to go through a deradicalisation programme”.

We already have the most draconian secrecy, censorship and libel laws in Europe, where so-called “D notices” can prevent the media reporting anything the state wants to keep secret. We already have secret courts, where people can be tried behind closed doors, and where they and their lawyers can be refused access to information about the alleged crimes they allegedly committed. Even Winston Churchill, who no one could rightfully accuse of harbouring left-wing sympathies, wrote that:

The power of the executive to cast a man into prison, without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government.2

Mass internment camps would just about complete the creeping conversion into totalitarian government.

The given reason for this institutionalised paranoia is, of course, “national security”, an excuse the 99% are far too quick to buy. Like the now routine destruction of distant countries, supposedly to save those countries, we are now supposed to meekly relinquish our right to liberty – habeas corpus – so that we may be free. It’s very easy to cite appalling terrorist incidents as justification for whittling away yet more of the freedoms that our forefathers and foremothers shed blood trying to win. But those appalling incidents are sometimes not what they appear to be, because all too often in the past the terrorists concerned have been agents for the state.

I used to wonder why the IRA would often claim responsibility for carrying out some particular act of terror. I mean, why would anyone freely admit to being a terrorist? I still don’t know the answer to that, but I wonder if it’s because the IRA knew that Britain’s so-called “special forces” were sometimes causing the terrorist acts the IRA were accused of perpetrating. So if you quickly claim responsibility for the crimes you do commit, does it leave open the question of liability for the ones you don’t admit to? For example, the bombing of two pubs in Birmingham in 1974 was, at the time, the worst terrorist outrage on British soil since the war. Although the IRA was widely accused of the crime, and six innocent men were later imprisoned for it, the Provisional IRA never officially claimed any responsibility.

The time gap between some terrorist outrages in the past, and the passage of new draconian laws – laws whose passage through parliament might otherwise be strongly resisted – is often amazingly short. The far-reaching Prevention of Terrorism Act, for example, was passed a mere six days after the Birmingham bombings, on 27th November 1974.

Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their excellent study British intelligence and Covert Action also record that:

Despite public embarrassment of their security authorities, the British government achieved its main objective: the passage of strong anti-terrorist legislation through the Dail. Two conveniently timed car bombs, which exploded in Dublin the night before the vote, produced an overnight switch of policy in the opposition Fine Gael and labour Parties, whose votes in favour carried the measures through the Dail.3

And the gruesome “Patriot Act” raced into US law a mere 6 weeks following the destruction of the World Trade Centre – an event whose full details are still deeply opaque.

Now Prime Minister May has said, as part of her election campaign and in response to the recent terror events in Britain, “she will change human rights law” which would “restrict the freedom and movements” of those that present a threat. The fact that such laws already exist, where people can be imprisoned in their own homes, suggests that she thinks the concentration camps proposed by police and army chiefs are a great idea.

Plausible deniability

Evidence of cynical evil being carried out by our own trusted rulers, experts in the principle of “plausible deniability”, is obviously difficult to come by. But every now and then a brief flash of light is shone into this dark and murky world – when heroic whistle-blowers such as Manning, Snowden, and Assange, for example, provide the 99% with irrefutable proof – only to be rewarded not with honours, praise and glory, but with persecution, exile, imprisonment and death threats.

Not only have previous British governments already used concentration camps – in South Africa, and Northern Ireland – the Brits have also specialised in false flag operations for centuries. The very expression comes from the days when the Royal Navy’s battleships would sometimes sail under the national flags of other countries in order to trick unsuspecting foreign vessels to allow the Brits to get close enough to attack them and capture them as “prizes”, or sink them: legitimised piracy, in other words. Today the expression “false flag” is used for incidents where terrorist outrages are carried out by one group of terrorists pretending to be another group of terrorists. In the 1970s, when Irish terrorism was at its peak, a unit of Britain’s so-called “special forces” was assembled under the name of the Military Reconnaissance Force. Their purpose was to pretend to be IRA terrorists and cruise the streets of Belfast murdering people.

Such gems of proof of the cynicism of the British state are obviously rare, but because the proof is rare does not mean the practices are similarly uncommon. Far from it. Bloch and Fitzgerald, for example, recall the words of Kim Philby, the MI6 spy, who revealed the existence of:

A ‘Special Political Action’ section set up in the mid-fifties with the various tasks of organising coups, secret radio stations and propaganda campaigns, wrecking international conferences and influencing elections.4

And Stephen Dorril, in his superb history of Britain’s MI6, writes about:

The ‘false flag’ ploy, a favourite of MI6.5

Anyone who has ever had first-hand experience of the work of “special forces”, anywhere in the world, knows about false flag operations. For these people they’re almost routine. Yet for the 99% the concept is too far-fetched, and horrifying, to believe, and conveniently dismissed as “conspiracy theory”. But those who serve in the so-called “special forces” know the truth – as the rare Panorama programme about the MRF showed.

There seems to be a slowly-growing awareness that our very own governments, no matter their apparent political ideology – Labour or Tory, Republican or Democrat – are directly linked to the massive rise in global terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, has been outspoken in his demand for radical reform of Britain’s foreign policy. He knows, as many of us do, that there is a direct link between Islamic terrorism and British support for illegal wars in the Islamic world. The connection is obvious to anyone with a properly functioning brain: if you deliberately hurt innocent people for no good reason or, even worse, to somehow profit from doing so, you will create a lot of anger, anger which, in the absence of justice, will demand revenge instead. British foreign policy has for many years been hurting innocent people for no good reason other than generating corporate profits.

British governments have been warned many times about the likelihood that their foreign policy decisions would invite retribution, and warned by people who should know what they’re talking about. Eliza Manningham-Buller, for example, ex-chief of MI5, said that Blair’s illegal war in Iraq “increased the terrorist threat”; and Stella Rimmington, another ex-chief of MI5, talking about suicide bombers generally, said “to ignore the effect of the war in Iraq is misleading.”

But misleading is what our trusted leaders do exceptionally well. Reaction to Jeremy Corbyn’s perfectly rational call for major changes to British foreign policy was met with a storm of self-righteous indignation from both the Tories, in the shape of Foreign Secretary Amber Rudd and leader of the LibDems Tim Farron, both of whom affected to be “outraged” that Corbyn could suggest such a thing.

This appearance of shocked, wounded innocence to voices-in-the-wilderness such as Corbyn’s pointing out the blindingly obvious is, of course, the standard response of nearly all of those in positions of power, from government ministers to bemedalled generals and admirals to arguably the most cynical power-brokers of them all, the mainstream media.

It doesn’t have to be like this

Public opinion, which is real political power, is shaped by two main forces. Firstly, the education system, which is primarily responsible for training us how and what to think. Secondly, the mainstream media, which supplies endless information to the 99% about how our world appears to be working. These two powerful forces, increasingly controlled by the corporate business world, carefully shape and maintain public opinion so that it never strays too far from acceptable norms. A tiny fringe of outspoken criticism is tolerated, indeed even sometimes encouraged, to create the illusion of impartiality, free expression and “balance”; but such voices are rare and quickly and crushingly dismissed by the far more powerful faces of established respectability.

The truly infuriating thing to understand is not only that none of the mayhem that’s unleashed around the world is necessary, but also that it could be easily remedied. The ceaseless and deliberate destruction of millions of lives, together with the catastrophic ruin of our life-sustaining planet – which right now is enduring the biggest mass extinction of species since the meteor strike at Chicxulub – is not only wholly unnecessary.  It could all be so easily stopped, and good, responsible administration of our planet quickly arranged – for the first time in history. That could be so easy to do.

The biggest obstacle is now, and always has been, the people we mistakenly allow to lead us. Perfectly symbolised by the Occupy Movement as the 1%, they comprise a tiny fragment of society who wield almost absolute control over 99% of the rest of us. Edward Dowling once observed that,

The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it.

This chronic terror among the 1% is ever-present, and grows as their greed grows and increases the oppression of the 99%. The report that outriders of British power, senior police and army officials, want to build concentration camps is consistent with this fear. Such camps have never increased the safety and security of the general population, and they never will. They do, however, help to consolidate the grip of the super-rich over societies that they are systematically looting.

The role of the education system and the mainstream media in maintaining this situation needs to be recognised and clearly understood. A better world is not only possible, it could be created with astonishing ease and rapidity – given that 99% of us would love to live in a better world. The problem lies not in visualising alternative and better models of society, it lies in breaking free from the vice-like grip the 1% have around the throats of the 99%. For the 1% the world could not be much better than it already is. For the 99% it couldn’t be much worse, and the desire of our trusted leaders to lock us up in concentration camps is dazzling confirmation of those facts.

The fact that Theresa May can suggest, as a vote-winning campaigning proposal, law changes that could lead to building concentration camps in Britain shows the extent of the brainwashing of the 99%. With Muslims being murdered in their own homes in industrial quantities by Zionists, the US and Britain, Islamic rage is easy to understand; why British people continue to vote for the perpetrators of western terror is not. Muslims don’t need re-programming nearly as much as Tory voters do.

  1. Aeschylus Frag. 135
  2. Essential Chomsky, Anthony Arnove, p. 89
  3. British Intelligence and Covert Action, Johnathan Bloch and Patrick Fitzgerald, p. 222.
  4. British Intelligence and Covert Action, Johnathan Bloch and Patrick Fitzgerald, p. 39
  5. MI6, Stephen Dorril, p. 281

How did al-Qaeda know in advance about the Syrian air strike?

There is an anomaly among the evidence that the Syrian chemical weapons attack at Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4, 2017 was a “false flag” operation, designed to provoke a US attack on Syria. The evidence is otherwise quite strong, as put forth by former Pentagon consultant and MIT professor Theodore Postol in his three part analysis of the declassified White House Report on the Syrian chemical weapons attack of April 4, 2017. Postol’s analysis has been widely cited as disproving the White House contention that the Syrian Air Force bombed the “rebel” controlled village with chemical weapons.

Indeed, Dr. Postol’s analysis pokes quite a few gaping holes in the White House Report, concluding that the crushed gas canister and the “crater” shown in open source videos and photographs from the site demonstrate that it could not have been delivered by air.  Postol also concludes that the report is, in fact, fraudulent and was produced by the National Security Agency without the input or review of impartial intelligence professionals.

Nevertheless, Postol begs a couple of questions, the most compelling of which is how the “false flag” imposters on the ground would have known how to time their operation with the Syrian air strike that everyone admits actually took place (the Syrians and Russians alleging that only conventional weapons were used, and the Americans alleging the use of chemical weapons). In order to do this, they would have had to have advance knowledge of the attack. How would they have gotten this information?

A clue to this comes from the suspension of the Russian-American “deconfliction” agreement. Under a September, 2015, memorandum of understanding, information about all military flights by forces in the area would be shared in order to prevent dangerous and unintended confrontations.  In this case, Russia informed its US counterparts of the intended Syrian strike twenty-four hours in advance.

That would be plenty of time to prepare a “false flag” operation of the type shown in the videos and photographs and described in the Postol analysis.  But in that case, the information would have to have been conveyed by US sources to operatives on the ground in Idlib, which is headquarters for al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliates.

Russia seems to think that this is exactly what happened.  Their unilateral suspension of the agreement has been widely interpreted as a reaction to the US attack on the al-Sha’yrat airstrip, but it may be more than that.  Military actions are often calculated to appear to be a justifiable reaction to an earlier action from the other party.  Thus, for example, the US chose to attack the Sha’yrat airstrip at least partly because that is where the aircraft that attacked Khan Sheikhoun had originated.

Similarly, Russia reacted to the US strike by authorizing increased anti-aircraft defenses in Syria and dispatching a frigate to its Mediterranean base in Tartus.  These moves can be considered reactions to the fact that Russian anti-aircraft missile systems are known to be able to shoot down Tomahawk missiles of the type used in the US attack, and that the Tomahawks were fired from US vessels in the Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria.

But what about the suspension of the deconfliction agreement?  How is that a specific response to the something done by the US? Perhaps Russia suspects that the information that they gave to the US in compliance with the agreement was leaked. Does Russia think that the US has al-Qaeda operatives at the highest and most secure levels of the U.S. government?  That is a bit far-fetched, especially when there is a simpler and more plausible explanation.

The explanation is that al-Qaeda does not need operatives to get such information. The US has been strategically in bed with al-Qaeda, ISIS and their permutations for quite some time.  US policy makers do not speak with a unified voice on this matter, but many – especially those of the neoconservative school of strategic policy – have cultivated the use of violent groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS as alternatives or supplements to the use of US forces on the ground.

Furthermore, many of the same policy makers were the ones who led the US into the disastrous wars in Iraq and Libya, and are committed to do the same in Syria.  False flag operations and faulty intelligence are part of their stable, as they showed with their tall tales of WMD and Viagra-fueled black mercenaries. They have been influential in the US government since at least the Reagan administration, and groomed Hillary Clinton for the White House for decades.

Since the loss of their horse in the last presidential election, these policy makers have been trying to turn the Trump government against its campaign rhetoric of leaving Syria and letting Russia and the Syrian government put an end to ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria.  That is not part of their playbook.  Their plan therefore uses false flag operations, false intelligence and working with terrorists, in order to control US foreign and military policy through subterfuge when they cannot control it directly.

But how can they do this?  What sorts of connections make it possible for them to undermine the White House, State Department and intelligence services to achieve their ends? We don’t have to look far for examples.

An obvious one is the US attack on the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zour on September 17, 2016, killing scores of Syrian soldiers and wounding many more. Critically, this happened only five days into a trial ceasefire and only two days before the trial period was to end and the ceasefire to become permanent.  Needless to say, this had the effect of scuttling the ceasefire, but interestingly, ISIS troops were apparently standing by to overrun Syrian army positions almost immediately after the US aircraft completed their bombing mission (and how would they have known when it was completed?).

US military officials said it was unintentional, but an excellent investigative report by Gareth Porter demonstrates that, in fact, this was a purposeful choice by high ranking US military officers to prevent the ceasefire from forcing them to cooperate with Russian counterparts on target coordination in Syria.  These officers had allies in the administration, including Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who effectively undermined the policies of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry and their Russian counterparts, President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.  As Kerry admitted to the Boston Globe, “…we had people in our government who were bitterly opposed to [the agreement].”

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of US collusion with al-Qaeda, as well.  Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan even went so far as to admit that “AQ [al-Qaeda] is on our side in Syria.” Is it coincidence that most of the weapons delivered to “moderate rebels”, including TOW anti-tank guided missiles that turned the tide against the Syrian army in 2014-15 were almost immediately transferred or put under the control of al-Qaeda? Or that when US forces evacuated Falujah and other territories conquered by ISIS in the same period, it left behind huge quantities of arms, vehicles and other resources, contrary to standard military policy of destroying whatever could be of use to the enemy?  Or that, more recently, when retaking Mosul, US forces left the way to Syria open for ISIS to flee to Syria and use its forces to retake Tadmur (Palmyra) from the Syrian army?

Typically, the US has created intermediaries such as the quasi-mythical “moderate rebels” between them and the most extreme terrorist organizations.  However, the mythical quality of these emissaries is sometimes exposed, as when an audio recording was released of a conversation between John Kerry and twenty representatives from four “moderate” Syrian organizations in September, 2016, at the United Nations.

In the recording, a Syrian woman, Marcell Shehwaro, threatens Kerry that if the US doesn’t do more to help, they will join forces with al-Nusra (the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria).  Another man (unidentified) repeats the threat later in the recording.  Shehwaro later argues that more support should go to al-Nusra; i.e., that “we are not arming the right people” and “there is not enough political and arms support to those who consider [al-Nusra] moderate. I wish we had these friends.”

Such admissions show that the veneer of “moderation” is very thin in these groups.  They are, in fact, little more than a public relations front for al-Qaeda and ISIS, providing whatever the west needs – and especially news feeds – needed to keep support flowing.

The four groups represented at the meeting clearly have access to the highest levels of the US government and vice versa.  It would be a simple matter for a US government official in the Pentagon, NSA or other agency to pass the information about Syrian aircraft movements to someone like White Helmets leader Raed Saleh, who was present at the Kerry meeting, with assurance that it would reach the al-Nusra leadership in Idlib.  In effect, Kerry (and other government officials) are speaking directly to al-Qaeda.

Obama and Kerry learned their lesson.  They understood the degree to which their decisions could be undermined, so to preserve their limited power, they sometimes went along with the powers that they could not control, and sometimes partly thwarted those powers.  Obama was gifted with a Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who famously told him that the alleged 2013 Syrian army use of chemical weapons was “not a slam dunk,” which led the President to back off his plan to attack Syria.

Does Trump have such people?  His replacement of noninterventionist Michael Flynn with war hawk H.R. McMaster is an ominous sign that neoconservative influence is reasserting itself.  And the success of the  Khan Sheikhoun false flag chemical weapons attack in inciting a US attack on Syria is a clear encouragement for more such false flag operations.

New Facts of the White Helmets’ Stage in Khan Shaykhun

On April 13, The Syrian Observer published an article related to the fact that the chemical attack in Khan Shayhun was staged by the White Helmets.

Tuesday, April 4, the White Helmets activists reported the chemical attack in the town of Khan Shaykhun of Idlib province. The national coalition of the Syrian opposition and revolutionary forces was the first to report 80 dead and 200 injured.

In fact, this chemical attack was a premeditated false flag operation aimed to blame the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons against civilians.

A lot of high-ranking opposition journalists took part in this bloodcurdling staging that involved slain and drug intoxicated children and adults.

The high-quality performance was covered by the Smart News Agency and Edlib Media Center. The world’s mainstream media immediately reported this staged attack.

Moreover, photos taken from the stage were immediately posted on Twitter and Facebook and shared by the White Helmets activists and popular opposition bloggers. This plot is proved by correspondence between Mustafa al-Haj Yussef, one of the White Helmets leaders, and Sakir Khader, a well known photographer.

JAsIrX, a Malaysian hacker, has published a letter on his blog that reveals preparations for filming the damage of the alleged chemical attack. The hacker has promised to publish more information on the activity of the Syrian opposition and collaborating with it NGOs.

“one letter from White Helmets leader Mustafa al-Haj Yussef to Syrian opposition journalist Sakir Khader”

Thus, the revealed information demonstrates once again that there are various opposition groups who are behind such provocations. It’s worth thinking about who may benefit from this chemical attack. In the context of progress in the Syrian crisis political settlement, it is advantageous only for those who don’t want the Syrian conflict to end.

Lap Dog Politicians Fail Australia Yet Again

One of the more profoundly depressing consequences of the aftermath of the American missile attack on the al Shayrat Syrian air base is having to acknowledge how terminally stupid our politicians are.  Either that, or they are so captivated by the dictates of United States foreign policy that they follow blindly in its wake, which is a different kind of stupidity.

Only the independent MP Andrew Wilkie (12 April 2017) and Green spokesperson Scott Ludlum (media release 7 April 2017) have publicly questioned the dominant media narrative.

There are at least four alternative narratives available to explain what happened in what is alleged to be a chemical weapons attack on the Syrian village of Khan Sheikhoun.

  • the Syrian government dropped illegal chemical weapons on civilians. This is the meme repeated ad nauseum by our politicians and the media.  This barrage of propaganda has been maintained despite the compete absence of any compelling evidence.
  • That it was an accidental discharge following an air strike on terrorist positions by the Syrian Air Force. This was the initial Russian reaction, but it also lacks supporting evidence.  The Russians did, however, call for an independent investigation, which has been ignored by the western media and western politicians.  They didn’t need evidence as they already “knew” that Syria was guilty.
  • The whole thing was a staged event using civilians kidnapped some time earlier from Khattab. This really has different components, as it is possible to be a staged, or false flag event, without the use of previous kidnap victims.  Either way, again there is a lack of real evidence.
  • That outside forces (the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia?) supplied the terrorists for the purpose of creating a situation that would lend itself to American intervention of the type we have witnessed. There is at least a track record of such practices (A. Larsen Analysis of Evidence Contradicts Allegations on Syrian Gas Attacks. The Indicter Magazine (5 April 2017).  This has prima facie more plausibility than the other theories, but again the evidence is lacking.

The strengths and weaknesses of the respective theories are usefully discussed by Rick Sterling1.  The central point, however, is that whatever theory emerges as the most plausible explanation, it will only do so after a proper independent investigation.  Judging from their public utterances thus far, an independent investigation is the furthest thing from the minds of our politicians.

Even without such an investigation, there are ample grounds for questioning the official narrative.  A far from exhaustive list would include such factors as the following:

  • the near impossibility that it was Sarin gas that was used. This is especially evident in the lack of typical symptoms in the victims that follow a Sarin attack.
  • The UN report of 23 June 2014 declared that Syria had been disarmed of its chemical weapons. There is no evidence of any resumption of manufacture or storage.
  • Given the short shelf life of Sarin, it would have to have been manufactured recently, and there is zero evidence of such manufacture.
  • In any criminal investigation, one of the first questions asked by investigators is: cui bono?, that is, who benefits.
  • As Assad is, since the intervention of the Russians in September 2014 (and the help of Iran and Hezbollah) winning the war against the terrorists in their multiple guises, there is no convincing reason why he would risk international opprobrium for so little military benefit.
  • Conversely, the US response gives umpteen reasons for the terrorists to repeat the exercise (which they have done several times before) knowing that the American response against Assad will be to their military advantage.

There are many other factors militating against it being a Syrian government attack, but the above points are sufficient to confirm that the rush to judgment is neither appropriate nor likely to lead to a proper understanding of the forces at work.

It hardly needs to be stated that the American attack was contrary to international law, and possibly US domestic law as well.2  That is a factor that barely, if at all, exercises the minds of either the politicians or the media that breathlessly repeat their inanities and provide equally inane ‘analysis’ of what is happening in Syria and its repercussions.

It is not, of course, the first time that the United States has flaunted international law, perceiving itself as exempt from the constraints that dictate, or should dictate, the exercise of brute power in pursuit of geopolitical objectives.

What is of additional concern, however, is that the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Labor leader Bill Shorten fell over themselves in their eagerness to approve such a flagrant violation of international legal norms.  Turnbull, as a former lawyer, in particular, should have known better than to publicly ally himself and Australia with what is manifestly a war crime.3

One wonders exactly what international outrage has to be perpetrated by the Americans before the Australian government (and Opposition) takes a principled stand.

Some important consequences flow from the American folly.  One of the first things that Russia did was to cancel the Memorandum of Understanding with the US and its “coalition:” allies governing the military use of Syrian air space.  The Belgium government, for example, immediately withdrew its contribution to the air war.

Henceforth, coalition planes flying in Syrian air space will be vulnerable to being shot down by Syrian missiles, the upgrading of which Russia has already begun.  Although you will not find any discussion of this in the Australian mainstream media, this also puts Australian planes at risk.

Since September 2015 Australian fighters, reconnaissance planes and mid-air refueling tankers have been operating in Syrian air space.  This is, itself, in violation of international law although the Australian government claims otherwise. They have refused to release the legal advice upon which this idiosyncratic view is based.

In January 2017, the last month for which figures are available, E7A reconnaissance planes and K30A tankers violated Syrian air space 11 and 5 occasions respectively.

What will be the Australian response if and when one or more of these planes are shot down? It is clearly not a matter our politicians are willing or able to discuss, any more than they allow debate on the broader issues of principle and practice involved.

Another consequence is the absurd flip-flopping of US Secretary of State Tillerson and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, contradicting not only each other but also themselves in the space of only a few days.  It speaks volumes about the power struggle going on in Washington between the various factions vying for dominance.  On present indications it appears that Trump’s vague pre-election statements about a more constructive relationship with Russia have been overridden by the more powerful neocon and Deep State factions that control the US.

The factional infighting, foreign policy inconsistencies and completely irrational conduct by the US administration led one of the more astute observers to invoke the Russia  concept of “not agreement capable”.4

Given the erratic and arguably insane direction of US foreign policy Australia has every right to be concerned.  The U aircraft carrier the USS Carl Vinson cancelled a planned Australia visit and diverted to Korean waters where a singularly dangerous situation is escalating.  Further unilateral and unlawful conduct cannot be ruled out.  The consequences of an American attack on North Korea are potentially horrendous.  If the Australian government is concerned, as it should be, there has been no such sign.

At a time when the international geopolitical scene calls for calm heads and rational analysis, it is all the more concerning that the best our politicians can muster is inflammatory rhetoric, in an evidence and fact free environment.  The result is likely to be a great deal more harm than good.

  1. How Media Bias Fuels Syrian Escalation, 10 April 2017
  2. Marjorie Cohn, Trump’s Syria attack Trampled Many Laws,11 April 2017.
  3. M. Milanovic, The Clearly Illegal US Missile Strike in Syria, European Journal of International Law, 7 April 2017.
  4. The Saker, A Multi-Level Analysis of the US Cruise Missile attack and its Consequences

Pipelines, Tomahawks, and The Syrian Gulf of Tonkin

Right off the bat, you may have realized that The Gulf of Tonkin is nowhere near Syria.  But if you’re familiar with The Gulf of Tonkin Incident from 1964, in which the American public was duped by its government into believing that its Navy was fired upon by North Vietnam forces – a lie which resulted in the deaths of 58,000+ U.S. Military Boys, and several untold, uncounted, superfluous millions of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians – you too may be doubting the official U.S. Government/MSM story about a recent sarin gas war crime, which allegedly took place in Syria.  The built-in lie-detector in the pit of my stomach has been flying off the charts, as Lester Holt and his multi-network cadres in lies and deceit carefully recite the C.I.A.-issued song and dance, nightly, in four part harmony, each wearing his best ‘serious’ face, and with feeling:  “The attack on Syrian civilians in Idlib was carried out by the Assad Regime and Russia.”…or words to that effect.  Over and over and over and over again, ad infinitum, to the extent that it begins to interfere with all the important stuff:  Namely sports, car thefts, kidnappings, and more localized murders  Did I mention that no proof is ever offered?

And now Don Trump tells invites “all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed” in Syria.  Pretty funny stuff, Don, considering the U.S.A. NEVER intervenes in the affairs of other countries for “humanitarian” reasons.  When the Tomahawk Missiles are flying, they are not following a trail of blood and death nor truth and justice…their path follows the money.  Syria; nothing but a thimbleful of semen in the 20-year-old wet-dreams of Cheney and his gang of thieves and thugs at The Project for a New American Century (PNAC).  Far from being fired to end the slaughter and bloodshed, U.S. Tomahawk Missiles are out to complete the transformation of Syria into a pile of death and debris.  Like Afghanistan, like Iraq, and like Libya.  Wars are no longer waged with winning in mind.  If you break it, you own it…and the U.S. Military’s goal is to break Syria and gain control of its strategic location, its oil, and its gas.  To own it, my friends.

Anybody else think that footage of the largely discredited, Isis-friendly, C.I.A.-stooge White Helmets “saving” child victims of the alleged sarin gas attack was a little strange?  Those Academy Award-winning White Knights must be supermen.  Amazing how they handled those dead and dying children with bare hands, in an attempt to save their lives.  With little to no regard for their personal safety.  Few gas masks, no gloves…touching the dying and certainly becoming contaminated with sarin…a death sentence.  Wonder how many are now dead?  Anybody like to wager that they’re all just fine?  I’d just about guarantee you that the heroes will be up on stage at next year’s Oscar Event, to accept another award for yet another grim fairy tale.  That or accepting The Nobel Peace Prize.

The U.S.A., its European lapdogs, and Israel would sorely like to close the books on the Pipeline War they have been waging in Syria since 1949.  Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who’s studied recent Syrian history extensively tells us:

The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949—barely a year after the agency’s creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March of 1949, Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation, the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA’s handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za’im. Al-Za’im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime.

Of course, this was only the beginning of a struggle which has spanned my lifetime, and of which, as an uninformed American Citizen, I’ve been largely unaware.  More recently, in 2000, Qatar proposed a ten billion dollar natural gas pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey.  In 2009, Assad announced that the pipeline would not be allowed a route through Syria, in deference to the wishes of his favored ally, Russia.  The flow of Qatar gas to Europe would have cut into Putin’s business.  And that, boys and girls, is why the allegorical shit is hitting the fan in Syria.  That is why Trump has just ramped up Wall Street’s war on Assad.  That is why Lester Holt wears the same nightly, pale, blank, lying facial expression, which adorned the face of Colin Powell when he told his tall tales and blatant lies about Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.

And so time marches on in The U.S.A.  Pearl Harbor was no surprise to F.D.R. nor the war-hungry businessmen who surrounded him, and so my Dad got drafted and sent into the bloody waters of The Pacific.  The Gulf of Tonkin lies justified The Vietnam War.  The sordid story of 9-11 may never be revealed, but it is clear that the official story was as bogus as a $20 Rolex Watch, and the result has been justifiable and endless wars in the Mideast and Africa.  Gaddafi had grand plans to free Africa from Empire’s heavy hand, so he was falsely and obtusely accused of some undefinable crimes, summarily and disgracefully murdered, and Libya reduced to rubble while Hillary Clinton cackled for joy.  And the sarin gas attack at Idlib is now being used as a welcome mat to World War III.  How will Putin respond?  Will a handful of Satan II Missiles wipe out all U.S. population centers sometime before the Summer of 2017?  Stay tuned for the next exciting chapter.

Cotton Mather’s Rolex

Only the liberation of the natural capacity for love in human beings can master their sadistic destructiveness.

— Wilhelm Reich, The Function of the Orgasm (1927) (Ch. V: The Development of the Character-Analytic Technique)

It is fascinating to watch mainstream media, the corporate owned news outlets like CNN, or MSNBC, or even FOX — because whatever their disagreements, the one thing that is never open for discussion is the questioning of Capitalism itself. Trump predictably came in with a budget torn from the frontal lobes of the Koch Brothers, but one that is also essentially in line with the sensibility of a good many Americans. Even Americans who themselves are only one foot from penury, who are one month from losing their homes, who are desperately in debt and who can barely keep food on the table; these same people basically hate the poor, hate those on food stamps, and hate anyone not white, and sort of think Trump and the other Republican ghouls make sense. They hate difference.

Now there is an outcry about the obvious propaganda that claims Assad used chemical weapons (a tried and true PR false flag gambit, that) but almost zero outcry about the U.S. blowing up children (mistakenly…of course) in Yemen and Iraq. Civilian death by military is always OK. The price of being the best. Children died? Oh, well. War is nasty. Real men can tolerate such stuff. But if a *terrorist* blows up a nightclub, say, then the mass outrage goes on for weeks. Plus these were Arab children and, well, you know, they are prone to early death anyway, right? So, to follow the logic, it is OK to occupy Iraq and destroy Libya and (mistakenly) bomb wedding parties and kill children (not to mention manufacture starvation, in the case of Yemen) but its not okay for a leader to kill people with a gas attack? Now, of course, Assad didn’t use gas. Why would he? It’s idiotic and such an obvious bit of propaganda that I continue to be stunned so many believe it. But then, of course, they WANT to believe it, really. This is the barbaric Muslim world. It fits the racist xenophobic narrative that mainstream media and Hollywood have supplied for decades. The world remains the world seen through the lens of Orientalism.

So, yes, Trump is the ultimate incarnation of Capitalism itself. Cut the EPA, cut Agriculture and Science. How many Americans care about people on food stamps? And look, why is it nobody questions a system that creates such a huge need FOR food stamps? Are people in general aware of the poverty levels in the U.S.? Why is there such desperation in the U.S. populace? Why do so many people need so much help from the government? Might this be the result of a Capitalist system that demands inequality to function?

I read people demanding I write my congressmen or congresswoman. Demand this or that service be saved. But Trump was elected because, really, his sensibility is that of a majority of Americans. They hate woman, foreigners, minorities, and what they see as the lazy (which is, well, women, foreigners and minorities….so…yeah) — they have also been trained to love their own servitude. None of what is desperately being demanded being saved is really more than a pathetic set of band aids to the problems of inequality, environmental destruction, and loss of civil liberties. If you are a family that needs food stamps (I grew up in such a family), then it IS desperate. But it is desperate either way and the truth is that NOBODY should be forced into the humiliation of food stamps. If you have ever used food stamps, you know the experience of using them. The looks from others in line, the looks from minimum wage clerks. And the restrictions! God forbid the poor use them on something besides instant potatoes and macaroni and cheese. Velveeta at that. This is not to say those on food stamps don’t need them. They do. It’s often the difference between eating and not eating at all. Trump has gotten very little outcry from Democrats about his spike in Defense spending, though. Everyone wins with that move. And how many new threats are being manufactured? China, North Korea, Syria, and the old favorites like Afghanistan and Iraq. And the biggest threat of all, Russia. None of these places, none of the leaders of these countries has done anything to the U.S. Nothing. Zero. And that is remarkable when you think about it.

Andre Vltchek writes:

…there is no culture, anywhere on Earth, so banal and so obedient as that which is now regulating the West. Lately, nothing of revolutionary intellectual significance is flowing from Europe and North America, as there are hardly any detectable unorthodox ways of thinking or perceptions of the world there.

The dialogues and debates are flowing only through fully anticipated and well-regulated channels, and needless to say they fluctuate only marginally and through the fully ‘pre-approved’ frequencies.

The average white American, that educated thirty percent who cling, ever more tenuously, to what passes for middle class life, is seemingly motivated most by hatred. Propaganda works because it grants permission to hate. Now, Trump provides the perfect figure to hate right here at home. His appointments are horrible, no question. But as I’ve written before, Obama’s were horrible, too. Only just a bit less horrible. Tim Geithner? Rahm Emanuel? Hillary Clinton? Joe Biden? Scott O’Malia or William Lynn? I mean Hillary Clinton’s under secretary Victoria Nuland is married to arch neo con Robert Kagen. How can one hate Bush and the neo cons but heap praise on Hillary Clinton? But as much as Trump is hated, the figure of the Muslim terrorist is even more hated. And even more than Muslims, Vladimir Putin is hated. But where does this sense of entitlement to meddle in the affairs of other countries come from? It is remarkable how little questioned is the practice of involving the U.S. state in the matters of other countries. Russia elected Putin. Syria elected Assad. And even if, EVEN IF, the elections were fraudulent (they weren’t, but this is a thought experiment) what concern is that of the United States? (Not to mention U.S. elections were not exactly models of probity of late).

The U.S. has 800 plus military bases around the world. There is no corner of the globe where you will not find the U.S. military. Do Americans think other countries WANT the U.S. military on their soil? I suppose some do, the fascistic current regime in Poland probably does. And even here in Norway, a nation of inestimable achievements and daily sanity, the general feeling is that having U.S. and NATO around serves as protection. But protection from what? This is really the question, or rather two questions. Who can possibly be thinking of invading Poland or Norway or Japan? The U.S. has bases in Italy, South Korea, Djibouti, Spain, Bahrain, Kuwait, Greece, it has 38 bases in Germany, and bases in the Bahamas, and in Brazil and Honduras and Singapore and Belgium. The list just goes on and on and on. Why does the U.S. have a base in Bulgaria? The answer is, global hegemony. Total and absolute control of the world. That is the goal. And yet this topic is never ever raised in electoral debates or in mainstream media. Never ever.

Why did the U.S. go into Haiti to remove Aristide? Why was there a coup in Honduras? Why was Qadaffi murdered again? Does anyone care?

The recent press conference Trump called, hastily, with King Abdullah (of Jordan) resembled Shakespearian parody. It was America’s own Mad King Ludwig. But the take away from this train wreck appearance was that Trump is not likely to last. Bannon being yanked off the NSC probably means less than some think but it also reads as loss of face. One thing seems clear in this palace shake up and that is that HR McMaster and the anti-Iranian hardliners are exerting influence. And in general that the old entrenched intelligence and military guys are getting tough. Nature abhors a vacuum and all that. And this was inevitable. Trump, as with any even vaguely out of step National level politician, will be made to heel. The Pentagon was done screwing around with this rube. The shadow of the military state is never too far away. And they don’t play around (think Michael Hastings).

One might think there would be less terrorism if the U.S. built schools or clean water plants or hospitals in places like Djibouti or Greece. But then there would be less terrorism if the U.S. stopped helping armed terrorists. And stopped helping countries like Saudi Arabia arm and supply terrorists. The entire marketing of Saudi Arabia as an ally is something to wonder at, really. I mean here is a country that beheads apostates and homosexuals. Where woman can’t drive. And yet, we sell them billions upon billions in armaments and help train their military in how to use them. U.S. presidents visit Riyadh, and have Saudi leaders visit Washington. It is breathtaking, really, to think how demonized Chavez was and how NOT demonized was King Abdullah (Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud..the Custodian of the two Holy Mosques, which I believe was his full name and title). They behead people in public in the Kingdom, a lot of them.

But see, the U.S. is a punishment state, too. To deny that is to deny reality. The U.S. prison system is a national disgrace, but more, it is a sign, a kind of living metaphor for the madness of American society. Is *Old Sparky* any less morally bankrupt than chopping off heads in the town square? (As Lenny Bruce said…”If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses”.) Two million people are in prison in the U.S.. All of them poor. And most black or brown. The U.S. penal system is the most draconian and sadistic in the world, quite possibly. There are occasional news programs, news magazines, that examine prison conditions, but they are token examples that justify the idea of free speech and reform. The nation wide prison strike recently was utterly invisible in corporate media.

By the way, the evil Russian empire has all of 9 foreign military bases, all of them in former Soviet countries. How do such facts jive with the propaganda? Oh, and China has ONE foreign military base. One. North Korea, of course, has none. For an overview on North and South Korea read Keith Harmon Snow here:

Or take the other essential U.S. ally and recipient of aid, Israel. A nation that is operating as an apartheid state, openly and even proudly. And whose political leaders are the most openly racist in the world. But again, this is not a topic in electoral political debate. Is the subject of Israel ever raised in Presidential debate? Is Israeli policy in Gaza ever questioned? No, of course not. And to add a last note on this idea of *terrorism*, a word that has undergone quite a semiotic adjustment over the last decade, the U.S. state does not want an end to terrorism. This is their job description, really, those in intelligence and the military; foment conflict, bomb and rebuild, foment again, bomb and rebuild again. And during this process Defense and contractors like Halliburton and Bechtel reap obscene profits. Terrorism is useful. It makes money. It sustains jobs.

These are the enduring tropes of the U.S. political system. Militarism is good, necessary, and almost always heroic. That belief translates domestically to the sadistic occupation of poor black neighborhoods throughout the U.S. The militarization of the U.S. police establishment is stunning, and yet rarely discussed, really. The shooting of unarmed black men hasn’t decreased by the way (The death of Sabin Marcus Jones, a 45 year old schizophrenic is a typical case. His mother called 911 for help because Marcus was off his meds and highly agitated. The police came and Tased him to death. Marcus weighed about 140 lbs. Six police answered that call.) The destruction of much of the Middle East is mirrored exactly in the police destruction of poor black communities in the U.S.

Ajamu Baraka wrote recently…

After almost three decades of pro-war conditioning by both corporate parties and the corporate media coupled with cultural desensitization from almost two decades of unrelenting war, opposition to militarism and war is negligible among the general population.

This is the real story today. Not that a white nationalist is President, or that his new budget is cutting already shrunken social services. No, it is the callous indifference of Americans to their own country’s military violence globally. And it is the nearly psychotic addiction to the consumption of entertainment that is itself a form of egregious propaganda. An addiction to narratives that glorify American society and demonize the rest of the world, or the rest of the world not cravenly subservient to U.S. policy.

The real issue is why are so many in such need in the supposedly most powerful and rich country in the world?

Baraka ends his essay with this…:

There must be an alternative to the neoliberalism of the Democrats and the nationalist-populism of Trump. We need an independent movement to address both the economic needs of poor and working people and the escalating attacks on the Black community, immigrants, women, unions, the LGBTQ community, refugees, Muslims, the physically and mentally challenged, youth, students, the elderly, Mother Earth – all of us.

The issue is not that Trump is a racist gangster misogynist bent on further brutalizing the working class and enriching his family and friends. The issue is that America is a nation that has stopped questioning authority. The adoration of wealth is itself a sign of collective derangement. So deep is the demonizing of socialism and communism that even many barely hanging on economically will express affection and admiration for the very rich. Why was Trump such a popular TV host? It certainly wasn’t his riveting personality or scintillating wit. He was RICH. And the rich are the anointed in America. Why does Hollywood (and the UK) keep producing stories about Kings and Queens? Why are settings always the playgrounds of the rich? The answer is complicated but a good part of it is the introjection of some kind of reverse Puritan/Calvinist guilt. A kind of resentment, too, simply. Did Cotton Mather secretly want a Beemer and Rolex? In American mythology, he most certainly did.

The pathology of white patriarchy is so nakedly revealed in Hollywood entertainments that it is rather amazing it is so rarely discussed. One hears much about adding more women or people of color to TV shows, both as actors and directors, but rarely does one hear a discussion about the Orientalism and xenophobia of Hollywood. One rarely asks why almost all crime shows demonize the poor, especially black and brown poor, and why soldiers are so fawned over. Why Arabs are always terrorists. Find me a single show that suggests the U.S. occupation of the middle east is wrong. Just one. One show that addresses the idea of American Imperialism. And, just one show where the very idea of volunteering for the military is seen as either an act of desperation born of poverty, or just a sign of nascent mental illness or a propensity for violence. That maybe, MAYBE, the desire to shoot people and play with weapons signaled a psychological problem. Not heroism but insanity. Not sacrifice but sadism. There may be one somewhere, but it will only prove the point of the overriding uniformity of opinions expressed. And, of course, why is it the working class are not participating in the creation of mass culture? Mostly the creativity of the underclass is simply appropriated and stolen.

The reality of Trump and his backers is that they could only have won this election because of three or four decades of the destruction of public education and the monopoly of media and the constant saturation of information highway with the most naked Imperialist propaganda. No sane and emotionally stable person would vote for Trump or for Hillary Clinton. To endorse either, unless you yourself are a millionaire, is a sign of pathology. A sign of self loathing. Whatever the justifications, whatever version of less evilism, or whatever other cliche that has been fed to you — the inability to see the horrors of both these candidates is suggestive of mass regression. This is where I am reminded yet again of Wilhelm Reich. A man driven from the establishment and eventually into madness. But one who most clearly understood the direction of Western society.

The Little Man does not know that he is little, and he is afraid of knowing it. He covers up his smallness and narrowness with illusions of strength and greatness.

— Wilhelm Reich, Listen, Little Man, 1948

America cannot examine its own littleness. Its own failures and crimes. It cannot. I do not expect that to change. In fact, I expect an increasing prosecution of those who suggest this, an increasing prosecution of dissent. It was Obama, remember, who launched the fake news meme. Who introduced that idea into discourse. America continues to express a historical revisionism that excludes the genocide of Native Americans, that erases the wilful destruction of unions and socialist movements, and that glorifies the Westward expansion of Manifest Destiny. Mainstream media today is so narrow that any opinion not clearly in line with the prevailing mythology is either castigated or simply made invisible.

We forget that, although freedom of speech constitutes an important victory in the battle against old restraints, modern man is in a position where much of what “he” thinks and says are the things that everybody else thinks and says; that he has not acquired the ability to think originally – that is, for himself – which alone gives meaning to his claim that nobody can interfere with the expression of his thoughts.

— Eric Fromm, Escape from Freedom, 1941

This is a society of great unhappiness. But more, it is a society of conformity.They go together. America is far more conformist than it was in the 1950s. The little men and women of corporate life, in politics, in media and the arts, everywhere; these are the gatekeepers to an establishment narrative that allows no questioning of its legitimacy. Capitalism is good, socialism is bad. This last month in Arkansas, the state decided to fast track executions because they didn’t want to waste the chemicals used in lethal injection, many of which were soon to be past their sell by date. Human life is that unimportant. Punishment is the highest virtue. Americans enjoy punishment. American football is so popular because it is gladiatorial and damaging to the players. Life threatening, in fact. So much the better. Or take factory farming. Again, most Americans are aware of the brutality of factory farming. The cruelty of the mass industrial abattoir. It’s not a secret. And yet, mostly people continue consuming these products. Meats so adulterated with hormones and chemicals that 100 years ago nobody would feed this stuff to their dogs. The cruelty to our fellow creatures is astounding. There is a sort of symbolic compensation in the form of over pampering household pets. But such contradictions are to be expected. Again, if people cared, if compassion had not been eroded to this degree, we would not have Trump or Hillary. I mean look at the national political figures today from both parties. Mike Pence and Betsy DeVos, Chuck Schurmer and Mitch McConnell. If we lived in anything resembling a rational society, John McCain would be in a mental hospital getting the help he obviously needs. Look at the leading figures for the 2020 elections on the Democratic side. Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. Both have consistently voted for war. Warren is a particularly unsavoury figure, opportunistic and smug, a woman who enthusiastically supported Obama’s drone assassinations and voted FOR sanctions against Iran. You really think a President Warren would do anything different from Obama? Less drone assassination or less muscular foreign policy? Of course not. She and Cuomo and Cory Booker and all the rest of the establishment creeps in the Democratic Party are part of the problem. NOT the solution. They are the solution to nothing.

The lesson today is that it is now on the U.S. populace to wake up. It’s time. Stop accepting the official narrative and stop watching mainstream propaganda and stop turning away from the crimes of your own country. Stop the unquestioning acceptance of U.S. hagiography. Thanksgiving was not friendly Pilgrims inviting happy tribes to turkey dinner. Columbus was a psychopathic mass murderer. The founding fathers were slave owners. The U.S. revolution was economic.

Here is Howard Zinn on the American Revolution

The Continental Congress, which governed the colonies through the war, was dominated by rich men, linked together in factions and compacts by business and family connections. These links connected North and South, East and West.

It seemed that the majority of white colonists, who had a bit of land, or no property at all, were still better off than slaves or indentured servants or Indians, and could be wooed into the coalition of the Revolution. But when the sacrifices of war became more bitter, the privileges and safety of the rich became harder to accept. About 10 percent of the white population (an estimate of Jackson Main in The Social Structure of Revolutionary America), large landholders and merchants, held 1,000 pounds or more in personal property and 1,000 pounds in land, at the least, and these men owned nearly half the wealth of the country and held as slaves one-seventh of the country’s people. The American Revolution is sometimes said to have brought about the separation of church and state. The northern states made such declarations, but after 1776 they adopted taxes that forced everyone to support Christian teachings. William G. McLoughlin, quoting Supreme Court Justice David Brewer in 1892 that “this is a Christian nation,” says of the separation of church and state in the Revolution that it “was neither conceived of nor carried out. … Far from being left to itself, religion was imbedded into every aspect and institution of American life.

A loss of curiosity, of reading, and a near complete submission to authority marks the American people today.

This is not a recommendation to anything other than a genuine intellectual resistance. Of some kind, any kind. Resistance to the prevailing narratives of the system, of the ruling class. That is all. I feel the suffocating narrowness of American society today, and it is awful. It is numbing and its habitual repetitiveness in all aspects of the culture is a sign of dementia. A resistance is needed, too, to the aesthetics of domination. Neurotic white people are not the only suitable topic for drama. Nor are the caricatured portraits of the working class manufactured by white liberals (American Crime, anyone?). Aesthetic and intellectual resistance. Empty activism is counter productive. Working for Elizabeth Warren is really worse than pointless. Check your own privilege, too, white man.

Lenny Bruce said something else:

The liberals can understand everything but people who don’t understand them.

He wrote that a half century ago. Think about that.