Category Archives: news

Forbidden Questions? 24 Key Issues That Neither the Washington Elite Nor the Media Consider Worth Their Bother

Posted on by
3

By Andrew J. Bacevich

Source: TomDispatch.com

Donald Trump’s election has elicited impassioned affirmations of a renewed commitment to unvarnished truth-telling from the prestige media.  The common theme:  you know you can’t trust him, but trust us to keep dogging him on your behalf.  The New York Times has even unveiled a portentous new promotional slogan: “The truth is now more important than ever.” For its part, the Washington Post grimly warns that “democracy dies in darkness,” and is offering itself as a source of illumination now that the rotund figure of the 45th president has produced the political equivalent of a total eclipse of the sun. Meanwhile, National Public Radio fundraising campaigns are sounding an increasingly panicky note: give, listener, lest you be personally responsible for the demise of the Republic that we are bravely fighting to save from extinction.

If only it were so.  How wonderful it would be if President Trump’s ascendancy had coincided with a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism.  Alas, that’s hardly the case.  True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already emerging as Trump era signatures.  That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he had previously sworn fealty requires something less than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes.  As for beating up on poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes — well, that’s more akin to sadism than reporting.

Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select military figures excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to November 8th of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties discovered, celebrated, then mocked; “extraordinary” stories of ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only to once again be consigned to oblivion — all served with a side dish of that day’s quota of suffering, devastation, and carnage.  These remain journalism’s stock-in-trade.  As practiced in the United States, with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic, and governed by the attention span of a two year old.

As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their labors as “now more important than ever” ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten.  Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further.  If anything, the media’s current obsession with Donald Trump — his every utterance or tweet treated as “breaking news!” — just provides one additional excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they currently receive.

To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security issues that presently receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set the nation’s political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters to which you’re not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.

1. Accomplishing the “mission”: Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia.  Not long thereafter, U.S. security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well.  Under what circumstances can Americans expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs?  To put it another way, when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home?  And if it is incumbent upon the United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in the international order — the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change — affect the U.S. approach to doing so?

2. American military supremacy: The United States military is undoubtedly the world’s finest.  It’s also far and away the most generously funded, with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities to practice their craft.  So why doesn’t this great military ever win anything?  Or put another way, why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington’s stated wartime objectives?  Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere in the Greater Middle East?  Could it be that we’ve taken the wrong approach?  What should we be doing differently?

3. America’s empire of bases: The U.S. military today garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent.  Successive administrations, regardless of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in distant lands fosters peace, stability, and security.  In the present century, however, perpetuating this practice has visibly had the opposite effect.  In the eyes of many of those called upon to “host” American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation.  They resist.  Why should U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?

4. Supporting the troops: In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation.  Everyone professes to cherish America’s “warriors.”  Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard camouflage a growing gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system, based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective.  Why has discussion and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation’s political priorities? 

5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief: Are there any military actions that the president of the United States may not order on his own authority?  If so, what are they?  Bit by bit, decade by decade, Congress has abdicated its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to do (or simply stays mum).  Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit?  Have U.S. policies thereby become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?

6. Assassin-in-chief: A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes.  When the secrets were revealed, however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment, so much so that presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones.  Today, the only secret is the sequence of names on the current presidential hit list, euphemistically known as the White House “disposition matrix.” But does assassination actually advance U.S. interests (or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)?  How can we measure its costs, whether direct or indirect?  What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?

7. The war formerly known as the “Global War on Terrorism”: What precisely is Washington’s present strategy for defeating violent jihadism?  What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case?  How is it that the absence of strategy — not to mention an agreed upon definition of “success” — doesn’t even qualify for discussion here?

8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history — having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon’s plan for concluding that conflict?  When might Americans expect it to end?  On what terms?

9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil.  Today, that is no longer the case.  The United States is once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?

10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents, drug overdoses, or even lightning strikes.  Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?

11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don’t: Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity.  A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs.  Why the difference?  To what extent does race provide the answer to that question?

12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?

13. Peace in the Holy Land: What purpose is served by indulging illusions that a “two-state solution” offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?  As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American tribes, Israeli settlers expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year.  As they do, the likelihood of creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of Mar-a-Lago.

14. Merchandizing death: When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America Great Again.  The U.S. ranks number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies Saudi Arabia and Israel leading recipients of those arms.  Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product $20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons.  Israel (per capita gross domestic product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American taxpayer.  If the Saudis pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn’t the Israelis? They can certainly afford to do so.

15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis.  What does that fact signify?

16. Our friends the Saudis (II): If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should the United States favor Saudi Arabia?  In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American values than do Iranian ones?

17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state.  It is a nuclear weapons proliferator.  It supports the Taliban.  For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden.  Yet U.S. policymakers treat Pakistan as if it were an ally.  Why?  In what ways do U.S. and Pakistani interests or values coincide?  If there are none, why not say so?

18. Free-loading Europeans: Why can’t Europe, “whole and free,” its population and economy considerably larger than Russia’s, defend itself?  It’s altogether commendable that U.S. policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics.  But how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?

19. The mother of all “special relationships”: The United States and the United Kingdom have a “special relationship” dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.  Apart from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today?  Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more “special” than its relations with a rising power like India?  Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting Americans and Mexicans?  Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence still need a “mother country”?

20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz: American presidents routinely cite their hope for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons.  Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war.  The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first.  How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?

21. Double standards (I): American policymakers take it for granted that their country’s sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S. military forces to scores of countries.  Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes the position that spheres of influence are obsolete and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft.  So Chinese, Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong — in China, Russia, and Iran.  To stray beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order.  Why should these other nations play by American rules?  Why shouldn’t similar rules apply to the United States?

22. Double standards (II): Washington claims that it supports and upholds international law.  Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard it.  They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill.  They do these things with impunity, only forced to reverse their actions on the rare occasions when U.S. courts find them illegal.  Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since the United States does so only when convenient? 

23. Double standards (III): The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians in wartime.  Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often on a massive scale.  By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible than the Syrian government’s use of “barrel bombs” to kill Syrians today?  On what basis should Americans accept Pentagon claims that, when civilians are killed these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental, whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice?  Why exclude incompetence or the fog of war as explanations?  And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over or ignore altogether the noncombatants that Saudi forces (with U.S. assistance) are routinely killing in Yemen?

24. Moral obligations: When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to “do something.”  Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions.  Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it.  Proponents of action — typically advocating military intervention — argue that the United States has a moral obligation to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth.  But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations?  Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans?  Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the U.S. invasion of 2003?  Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue?  How about the Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended?  Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves?  Or, for that matter, dispossessed and disinherited Native Americans?  Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations?  And if not, shouldn’t those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?

Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues — none seriously covered, discussed, or debated in the American media or in the political mainstream — bears more directly on the wellbeing of the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may have said or done during his first 100 days as president.  Collectively, they define the core of the national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery of American politics.

How much damage Donald Trump’s presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen.  Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon.  To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error.  It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever.  If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions.

 

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, now out in paperback. His next book will be an interpretive history of the United States from the end of the Cold War to the election of Donald Trump.

Comey’s Quixotic Quest to Prove Russian Involvement in Elections

Posted on by
Reply

By Wayne Madsen

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey may be physically imposing at 6 feet, 8 inches tall. However, when it comes to his oratorical skills, or, in his case, the lack thereof, Comey is nothing more than a «snake oil» salesman trying to market fanciful conspiracies masked as fact. Trying to emulate one of his predecessors, J. Edgar Hoover, Comey said that when it comes to protecting the democratic process, Russia is «the greatest threat to any nation on earth, given their intention and their ability». Comey’s rhetoric is right out of the pages of the Cold War and Senator Joe McCarthy’s anti-Communist «witch hunts». Comey engaged in McCarthyite tactics by referring to WikiLeaks as «a conduit for the Russian intelligence services».

It is hard to tell whether President Trump agrees with Mr. Comey. Trump has indicated that it is within his power to fire Comey, but has given no further indication as to whether the FBI director will serve out the traditional ten-year term. There is one thing for certain. Comey may not want to appear as a right-wing, Cold War-mentality neoconservative, but his professional and personal history indicates that when it comes to Russia-bashing, it is in his blood. Comey supported and donated to the presidential campaigns of the psychotically anti-Russian John McCain, as well as the neocons’ darling Mitt Romney.

After leaving the Justice Department in 2005, Comey became General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s largest contractor. When it comes to war-making, Lockheed Martin has profited handsomely from ensuring that military tension remains a hair-trigger from war from the Baltic region and the Balkans to the Korean peninsula and the Middle East. Feeding the «war-porn» addicts in the U.S. Congress, including the likes of Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas, improves the bottom line of Lockheed Martin, a firm in which Mr. Comey likely still has a significant personal financial stake.

Comey and his neocon friends have decided that the best way to challenge the anti-globalist populist wave that is sweeping the world is to deploy a wide brush and paint every sovereigntist political campaign and leader – both left and right – as Russian «tools» and Kremlin «agents». It worked for Hoover during the Cold War when he decided that the best way to avert the attention of the American public away from his friends in organized crime and his own well-known homosexuality was to claim that «Communists» had infiltrated every sector of American society. In his attempt to fill Mr. Hoover’s high-heeled shoes, Comey accuses Russia of being the greatest threat to free elections on earth.

One only need examine the record of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency since its creation in 1947 to find out that it has been the United States that has been the greatest threat to free and fair elections around the globe. When it comes to election interference, no country – Russia, China, the former Soviet Union, apartheid South Africa, or North Korea – holds a candle to the boys at Langley. In 1948, a CIA full-court press of bribes, threats, and infiltration ensured the defeat of the Communist Party by the U.S.-supported Christian Democrats in the Italian general election. This same template was used again and again by Washington in countries ranging from Chile and Nicaragua to Australia and Russia.

Now, the CIA, headed by the neo-Cold Warrior and right-wing religious extremist Mike Pompeo, and its allies, are trying to turn the tables in suggesting that Russia has been able to almost singlehandedly affect the U.S. presidential campaign, the «yes» vote in the European Union Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, the French presidential election, and the «no» vote in the Italian constitutional reform referendum. There is a major problem with this thinking. If Russia were as powerful as claimed by the Comey, Pompeo, and others, Austrian nationalist Norbert Hofer, not the anti-Russian emigré from Estonia, Alexander Van der Bellen, would have won the Austrian presidential election. And it would have been the Dutch Freedom Party nationalist Geert Wilders, not the globalist Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who would have been the victor in the Netherlands election.

If Russia’s intentions were as malignant as claimed by the neocons and the Cold Warriors, a dubious Russian-backed coup operation in Montenegro would have been successful and not a failure. When it comes to coup-making and putsches, it is Langley that excels, especially with its own unlimited funds, coupled with those of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros, at its disposal. It is American fingerprints that have been found in successful and aborted «color revolutions» in Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Macedonia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Armenia, and the Srpska Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was joint CIA-Soros funds that gave rise to the bloody «Arab Spring» uprisings in Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen. The Arab Spring template has been moved by the globalist power centers to create havoc in socialist Venezuela, with their eyes soon to be set on Bolivia.

The strategy of the globalists and their puppets, such as Comey, Lindsey Graham, and others, is to demonize as «Russian agents» those who pose a threat to the «world order» fashioned by the CIA, Wall Street, and the Pentagon. Therefore, leftist anti-globalists like British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, French leftist leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and U.S. Independent Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders are given the same McCarthyite «Russian agent» labels, as have Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Alternative for Germany leader Frauke Petry.

Globalist politicians – left and right – now routinely engage in claims of Russia involvement in their nations’ political processes to mask their own ineffective leadership. In January of this year, Swedish Social Democratic Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said he could not rule out «Russian interference» in Sweden’s 2018 general election. There is little doubt that if Löfven loses, he will blame it all on «the Russians».

The New York Times suggested that Russia was financially backing Mr. Wilders in the Netherlands election but the paper paid scant attention to the fact that Israel is the Dutch opposition leader’s biggest financial «sugar daddy». It is amazing that the tools of the globalists, like The New York Times and The Washington Post, did not claim that Russia interfered in the February 5, 2017 general election in the Principality of Liechtenstein, because an anti-EU and anti-migrant party, «Die Unabhängigen», («The Independents»), came in third, beating a traditional third party.

Mr. Comey testified about intelligence proof he has confirming Russian interference in the U.S. election. Let’s examine the history of U.S. intelligence «proof». It includes intelligence reports from a phony Iraqi defector named «Curveball» that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, fake signals intelligence intercepts on a non-existent North Vietnamese naval attack on the USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin, phony intelligence reports on Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi committing mass executions of Libyans in 2011, fake reports on Iranian nuclear weapons development after it ended its weapons program in 2003, and, more recently, a dubious intelligence dossier from a mid-level former British MI-6 employee who successfully shopped «dirt» to the Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton campaigns on Trump and «golden shower» parties in Moscow. The dossier, embraced by Comey, is said to «prove» Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. British «dossiers» on just about everything, from the Number 10 «dodgy dossier» on Saddam Hussein’s weapons to the «dirty dossier» on Trump, are about as credible as everything else in the British tabloids. Comey should read Harry Potter books, not FBI and CIA intelligence reports, if he wants to wallow in fiction.

How to get rid the bastards before they murder us all

Posted on by
3

march_of_tyranny

By Jack Balkwill

Source: Intrepid Report

If most Americans knew what was happening in our extremely corrupt government, there would be a bloody riot, and most of the Democrats and Republicans would be slaughtered with as little mercy as they’ve shown the American public.

Through their actions, Democrats and Republicans have caused the deaths of millions from unsafe products, unsafe workplaces, lack of minimal health care, unnecessary wars, and other malfeasance resulting from their serving the vile capitalists who finance their elections.

True, a fourth of the electorate vote Democrat, and another fourth Republican, because they see no other hope. Delusions of “lesser evils” lead them to line up, lambs to the slaughter, hoping that the stinking pile of dung for whom they vote will enable less horror than the other stinking pile of dung.

Half of the electorate routinely do not vote, understanding that, in our system, decent candidates are not allowed air time by the corporate-viewpoint media, nor allowed the mountains of cash given to the Democrats and Republicans with which to purchase additional media exposure for deceitful campaign ads.

If a candidate of the people did find a way to be recognized, he or she would not be allowed into the controlled debates. Ballot access is another way the establishment blocks democracy from breaking out in the Land of the Free. The ruling plutocratic oligarchs have pretty much covered all the bases to snuff out any hope for an iota of democracy.

In many of our elections, far more than half of eligible voters do not cast ballots. Propaganda control by mainstream media tell us this is because those who do not cast votes are satisfied, when anybody with an IQ higher than their shoe size knows it’s a lie. “Let’s see now,” these potential voters ponder, should I vote for the guy who’ll stick a knife in my left hand, or the one who will put an ice pick through my right foot?

I’ve watched for decade after decade as young people voted for “lesser evil” scum, saying they will do better next time. Next time they do the same thing. The system is evil itself, if anything is evil, encouraging the hopeless to vote for scumbags with the hope to stop other scumbags from winning.

It is a part of American capitalism, where everything of importance is controlled and nobody is supposed to notice that it only works for the capitalists—those few who control most of the capital. American capitalism is so badly broken that it requires the world’s largest prison system to make it barely chug along. It requires thousands dying for a lack of health care each year, higher numbers than in any industrialized nation. It requires the highest homelessness and hunger among major industrialized nations.

And the corporate media, fawning lap dogs that they are, never notice any of it. If a corporate-paid journalist did, they would soon find themselves to be among the unemployed. Capitalism loves unemployment because it draws down wages, allowing the capitalists to increase their profits, the only thing that works in capitalism. That is why our submissive government lies about unemployment figures constantly, always giving the numbers as half or less than half of the true misery index.

When people begin to minimally get jobs, the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to increase unemployment and maintain the wealth disparity. As the poor are wiped out by the millions, no billionaire is allowed to lose a penny in the rigged system.

The problem in doing something about it is that the doors have just about all been shut by corrupt laws. There are groups of voters who have more right to be upset than others, but they are locked out of the system to prevent an outbreak of democracy.

For example, in most states convicted felons are not allowed to vote, even though they have officially “paid for their crime.” These people are ripe for voting for a people’s party, and the establishment knows it, so bars them. Unemployed, they may have sold some pot to feed their kids, the only real shot there is for many at the bottom of an economy in which more illegal drugs are sold than in any other nation.

And I’ve tried for decades to change the law in Virginia so that homeless people can vote. Long ago I was feeding homeless people on the street, spooning out grits in freezing cold, watching people with ice around their faces crawl out from doorways where they slept and thinking, “What if I could bring registration forms, get them to sign up and encourage them to vote for the Greens?”

I even found a legislator, a Black woman named Mary Christian, to sponsor me to speak before the Constitution Committee of the House of Delegates, the oldest legislature in North America, and ask that they allow homeless people to vote. To make a long story short, I failed in that attempt.

Didn’t know that homeless people can’t vote? Check your state and you will probably find it’s near impossible there as well. In Virginia, if you are caught with a false address on your registration, you are subject to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. If you are homeless, and you register as living in the building whose doorway you slept in last night, chances are you won’t be there the next night after a cop tells you to move along.

The establishment knows who could be trouble, and has already enacted laws to make democratic participation hell for millions of Americans.

Most Americans live in ignorance of almost anything of importance to them, knowing only the myths given to them by the corporate media. That is what makes it so difficult to organize them—their heads are filled with propaganda. “But if I don’t vote for Hitler, Satan will get in. . . .”

So, in my entire life of trying to find ways to disrupt the system and make it work for the people, I always come back to the one thing that holds promise, and that is to find a way to get information to the masses around the corporate-viewpoint media. It is that mainstream media which keeps the masses ignorant and in thrall.

I hate to agree with Donald Trump, but he’s right that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people. They have been all my 72 years, but it is getting worse.

Once there were big dreamers in our government who came up with National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System, which were a great idea. The idea was to allow opinions around the corporate media, so that the public could get a second opinion.

But good ideas soon hit a meat grinder in our system. The scum who run the country had their bought-and-paid-for politicians cut funding, forcing NPR and PBS to take more and more corporate money, until they became a clone of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc.

If we had one TV channel of our own, we could destroy the entire house of cards. Years ago I wrote about it and it appears we need a Social Justice Network more than ever today. The thing the establishment fears most is information and democracy, and a Social Justice Network could bring us both, by opening the eyes of the public to the scam that keeps a boot on their backs. Ignorant people are controlled people.

 

Jack Balkwill has been published from the little read Rectangle, magazine of the English Honor Society, to the (then) millions of readers USA Today and many progressive publications/web sites such as Z Magazine, In These Times, Counterpunch, This Can’t Be Happening, Intrepid Report, and Dissident Voice. He is author of “An Attack on the National Security State,” about peace activists in prison.

Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Posted on by
1

By Mike Whitney

Source: Unz Review

“Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian ‘chemical weapons attack.’ Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died…..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.”

— Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community 

You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, has produced no smoking gun, no damning evidence, in fact, no evidence at all. Similar to the Russia hacking fiasco, (not a shred of evidence so far) the western media and the entire political class has made the case for attacking a sovereign country on the thin gruel of a few videos of an incident that took place in a location that is currently under the control of militant groups connected to al Qaida. That’s pretty shaky grounds for a conviction, don’t you think?

And it’s not up to Assad to prove his innocence either. That’s baloney. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. If Trump and his lieutenants have evidence that the Syrian President used chemical weapons, then– by all means– let’s see it and be done with it. If not, we have to assume that Assad is innocent, not because we like Assad, but because these are the legal precedents that one follows to establish the truth. And that’s what we want, we want to know what really happened.

Neither Trump nor the media care about the truth, what they care about is regime change, which is the driving force behind Washington’s six year-long war on Syria. The fact that Washington has concealed its support by secretly arming-and-training Sunni militias, does not absolve it from responsibility. The US is totally responsible for the mess in Syria. Without Washington’s support none of this would have happened. 7 million Syrians wouldn’t have fled their homes, 400,000 Syrians wouldn’t have been killed, and the country would not be the anarchic wastelands it is today. The United States is entirely is responsible for the death and destruction of Syria. These are Washington’s killing fields.

As we said earlier, there is no evidence that Assad used chemical weapons against his people nor has there been any investigation to substantiate the claims. The Trump administration launched its Tomahawk missile barrage before consulting with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which essentially preempted the organization from doing its job. The administration’s rejection of the normal investigative procedures and rush to judgement reinforces the belief that they know they have no case and are just peddling pro-war BS in the mad pursuit of their geopolitical objectives.

Since we don’t have an organization like the OPCW to conduct an investigation, we should at least consider the informed opinions of professionals who have some background in intelligence. This doesn’t provide us with iron-clad proof one way or another, but at least it gives us an idea of some probable scenarios. Here’s a quote from former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi, who stated last week on the Scott Horton show:

“I am hearing from sources on the ground, in the Middle East, the people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence available are saying that the essential narrative we are all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham. The intelligence confirms pretty much the account the Russians have been giving since last night which is that they hit a warehouse where al Qaida rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear, and people both in the Agency and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented what he should already have known — but maybe didn’t–and they’re afraid this is moving towards a situation that could easily turn into an armed conflict.” (The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia, Counterpunch)

We hear a very similar account from retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was former chief of Staff to General Colin Powell. Here’s what he said in a recent interview on the Real News Network:

“I personally think the provocation was a Tonkin Gulf incident….. Most of my sources are telling me, including members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons –including people in Syria, including people in the US Intelligence Community–that what most likely happened …was that they hit a warehouse that they had intended to hit…and this warehouse was alleged to have to ISIS supplies in it, and… some of those supplies were precursors for chemicals….. conventional bombs hit the warehouse, and due to a strong wind, and the explosive power of the bombs, they dispersed these ingredients and killed some people.” (“Lawrence Wilkerson: Trump Attack on Syria Driven by Domestic Politics“, Real News Network)

Finally, we have the collective judgement of 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community, the so-called Steering Group of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Here’s what they say:

“Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died…..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.”

So, why is the administration so eager to jump to conclusions? Why do they want to use such a sketchy incident to justify an attack on sovereign nation that poses no threat to US national security? What’s really going on here?

To answer that, we need to review an interview with President Trump’s new National Security Advisor, Lt. General H.R. McMaster, that took on place on Sunday on Fox News. McMaster– you may recall– recently replaced General Michael Flynn at the same position. Flynn’s failing was that he wanted to “normalize” relations with Russia which the behind-the-scenes powerbrokers rejected out-of-hand and worked to have him replaced with far-right wing militarist-neocon McMaster. Now, McMaster is part of the one-two combo that decides US foreign policy around the world. Trump has essentially dumped Syria in the laps of his two favorite generals, McMaster and James “Mad Dog” Mattis who have decided to deepen Washington’s military commitment in Syria and intensify the conflict even if it means a direct confrontation with Russia.

In the Fox interview, McMaster was asked a number of questions about Trump’s missile attack. Here’s part of what he said:

“The objective (of the strikes) was to send a very strong political message to Assad. And this is very significant because…. this is the first time the United States has acted directly against the Assad regime, and that should be a strong message to Assad and to his sponsors….

He added,

“Russia should ask themselves, what are we doing here? Why are we supporting this murderous regime that is committing mass murder of its own population and using the most heinous weapons available….Right now, I think everyone in the world sees Russia as part of the problem.” (Fox News with Chris Wallace)

Can you see what’s going on? Trump’s missile attack was not retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin. McMaster was saying as clearly as possible, that ‘the US military is coming for Assad, and you’d better stay out of the way if you know what’s good for you.’ That’s the message. It has nothing to do with chemical weapons or the suffering of innocent people. McMaster was delivering a threat. He was putting Putin ‘on notice’.

Like McMaster said, “this is the first time the United States has acted directly against the Assad regime, and that should be a strong message to Assad and to his sponsors….”

In other words, McMaster wants Putin to know that he’s prepared to attack the Syrian government and its assets directly and, that, if Putin continues to defend Assad, Russian forces will be targeted as well.

There was some confusion about this in the media because UN ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson got their talking-points mixed up and botched their interviews. But the Washington Post clarified the policy the next day by stating bluntly:

“Officials in the Trump administration on Sunday demanded that Russia stop supporting the Syrian government or face a further deterioration in its relations with the United States.”

Bingo. That’s the policy in a nutshell. The issue isn’t chemical weapons. The issue is Russia’s support for Assad, the leader who remains the target of US regime change plans. We are seeing a fundamental shift in the policy from mainly covert support for CIA-backed Sunni militias to overt military intervention. This is just the first volley in that new war.

The media wants the American people to believe that President Trump impulsively ordered the missile attacks in response to the use of chemical weapons. But there’s reason to suspect that the attacks had been planned for some time in advance. As one blogger pointed out:

“In the weeks before the missile strikes, Trump met with the Saudis, the president of Egypt, and the King of Jordan, while Secretary of State met with Turkish President Erdogan. In other words, the administration met with the entire Middle East ‘Sunni alliance’ just days before ordering the missile strikes. Coincidence?

Probably not. They were probably tipped off and asked for their continued support.

Also, Trump waited until the evening that he was having dinner with President Xi Jinping to launch the attacks. How’s that for timing?

Do you think that the announcement that Trump just attacked Syria would have an impact on the two leaders’ conversation about North Korea? Do you think Xi might have seen the announcement as a not-so-subtle threat of violence against the North unless China forces its ally to make concessions?

Of course, he did. The man wasn’t born yesterday.

It seems unlikely that Trump’s attack was a snap decision made by an impulsive man. Instead, it looks like there was a significant amount of planning that went on beforehand, including the deploying of 400 additional Special Ops to Syria and 2,500 combat troops to nearby Kuwait. It appears as though Washington had been building up its troop-strength for some time before it settled on the right pretext for taking things to the next level. As journalist Bill Van Auken noted at the World Socialist Web Site:

“We have been here so many times before that it is hardly worth wasting the time required to refute the official story. It is now 14 years since the US launched its invasion of Iraq over similar lies about weapons of mass destruction, setting into motion a vast slaughter that has claimed the lives of over one million people and turned millions more into refugees……..

Once again, as in the air war against Serbia in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, and the attack on Libya in 2011, the United States has concocted a pretext to justify the violation of another country’s sovereignty…” (“The Bombing of Syria, Bill Van Auken, World Socialist Web Site)

I have no way of knowing whether Assad used chemical weapons or not, but I found Russian President Vladimir Putin’s analysis particularly interesting. Reporters asked Putin — “What is your view about the use of chemical weapons in Syria?”

Putin answered-:

“You all know that the Syrian government has repeatedly asked the international community to come and inspect the sites where the rebels used chemical weapons. But they always ignored those requests. The only time the international community has responded, was to this last incident. So, what do I think?

I think we can figure out what’s going on by just using a little common sense. The Syrian army was winning the war, in some places they had the rebels completely surrounded. For them to throw it all away and give their trump card to the people who have been calling for regime change is, frankly, a crock of shit.”. (Russian President Vladimir Putin.)

Putin’s response to Trump’s missile attack has been subdued to say the least. He did issue a perfunctory presidential press statement on the incident, but the tone of the statement was neither incendiary or belligerent. If anything, it sounded like he found the whole matter irritating, like the man who sits down to a picnic lunch and finds he has to deal with pesky mosquito before he can eat. But, of course, this is the way that Putin handles most matters. He’s a master of understatement who is not easily given to emotional outbursts or displays of rage. He’s more apt to scratch himself, roll his eyes and give a shrug of the shoulders, than wave his fist and issue threats.

But from a strategic point of view, Putin’s measured response makes perfect sense, after all, the real battle isn’t going to be won or lost in Syria. It’s much bigger than that. Putin is challenging the present world order in which a disproportionate amount of political and economic power has accrued to one unipolar center of authority, a global hegemon that imposes its economic model wherever it goes and topples sovereign states with a wave of the hand. Putin’s task is to build resistance among the vassals, form new alliances, and strengthen the collective resolve for a different world where national sovereignty and borders are guaranteed under an impartial set of international laws that protect the weak as well as the strong.

That’s Putin’s real objective, to rebuild the system of global security based on a solid foundation of respect for the vital interests of each and every country. To accomplish that, Putin must seem like a reasonable and trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and stands by his friends even when they are under attack. That’s why Putin won’t abandon Assad. It’s because he can’t.

Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on. It’s where the rubber meets the road.

 

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

Long Buried Texas Fertilizer Plant Explosion Conspiracy Re-Emerges From Shadows Of Boston Bombing

Posted on by
2

The remains of a fertilizer plant after explosion in West, Texas

By Bernie Suarez

Source: Truth and Art TV

Sometimes conspiracies are truly forgotten when there are so many other state crimes and conspiracies to choose from. Such is the case with the Waco Texas fertilizer plant “explosion” of April 17, 2013. I’m talking about the Texas fertilizer plant explosion which was conveniently buried in the immediate aftermath of the April 15, 2013 Boston bombing. I’m sure many have forgotten about this event in the same way they don’t remember or have completely forgotten that two days earlier, on the very same day of the Boston bombing “event” a wave of bombings and shootings took place in Iraq just before their elections leaving at least 75 people dead and hundreds injured. The mainstream media conveniently gave little to no attention to this story as the Boston bombing event was selected as the featured story we were supposed to be thinking about at the time.

Meanwhile in Waco Texas 2 days later, on the evening of April 17th a fertilizer plant caught fire and was being consumed in flames when some 22 minutes later a mighty suspicious massive explosion took place; an explosion captured nicely on camera by nearby residents that was so loud and so bright that many have suspected it was some sort of missile strike. Sounds crazy? You decide:

Now let’s listen in to what Nevada Governor candidate at the time David Lory VanDerBeek had to say about this. The Governor candidate breaks down some of the features of this evidence very nicely showing you the trajectory of the energy being provided by the missile. After seeing this video no one should wonder why he had no chance at winning the governor race.

The plant was owned by Adair Grain Inc a family owned food plant which also goes by or is closely associated with “Texas Grain Inc” a competitor of Monsanto who had filed a lawsuit against Monsanto accusing Monsanto of artificially inflating the price of their Roundup herbicide. This additional explosion to this day is highly suspicious and now that the mainstream media is briefly covering this story it’s a good time to examine this event a bit more closely.

According to mainstream media sources the federal government “investigators” claim the factory was an explosion waiting to happen:

The source of the explosion was ammonium nitrate stored in a wooden container at the plant, investigators have said.

The ammonium nitrate detonated with the force of approximately 15,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds (6,800 kg to 9,100 kg) of TNT, according to federal officials.

But if we examine the explosion claim we must take into consideration that the Adair Grain fertilizer plant reported to the EPA a very different picture:

The fertilizer plant that exploded Wednesday night in West, Texas, reported to the Environmental Protection Agency and local public safety officials that it presented no risk of fire or explosion, documents show.

West Fertilizer Co. reported having as much as 54,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia on hand in an emergency planning report required of facilities that use toxic or hazardous chemicals.

But the report, reviewed Wednesday night by The Dallas Morning News, stated “no” under fire or explosive risks. The worst possible scenario, the report said, would be a 10-minute release of ammonia gas that would kill or injure no one.

The second worst possibility projected was a leak from a broken hose used to transfer the product, again causing no injuries.

The plan says the facility did not have any other dangerous chemicals on hand. It says that the plan was on file with the local fire department and that the company had implemented proper safety rules.

ATF Chief investigator Rob Elder recently announced:

“the fire has been ruled as an incendiary. This means this fire was a criminal act”.

Elder then says that numerous evidences were taken into account including, witnesses, images and video footage. But was the video evidence really taken into account? Even more intriguing, Mr Elder has announced a $50,000 award for information leading to the capture of the arsonist so if anyone wants to take him on please do. I can’t help but to be reminded of the 1933 Reichstag fire false flag in Germany and how a patsy of choice was afterward chosen and executed in the period that followed.

Let’s consider some additional ironies and peculiar accounts surrounding this explosion. According to the reported investigation conclusions:

The explosion damaged an area measuring roughly the size of 37 city blocks, Elder said, and left a crater 93 feet (28 metres) wide by 12 feet (3.7 metres) deep.

The ammonium nitrate detonated with the force of approximately 15,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds (6,800 kg to 9,100 kg) of TNT, according to federal officials.

This conjures up memories of the government claims that on 9/11 WTC 7 was packed with “diesel fuel tanks” which they would then use in an attempt to sell the theory that office fires alone could destroy the building in the controlled demolition manner in which it was destroyed.

The problem with looking at the entire story, looking at all the evidence and then listening to the government “investigation” statements (or lack thereof) is that the whole story doesn’t fit like it should, and that alone should lead us to wonder, was the fertilizer plant purposely struck with a sophisticated military missile to send Texas Grain Inc a message? Can Ammonium Nitrate alone cause such a wide and deep crater in the damaged area? And is the quality, direction and trajectory of the explosion consistent with an explosion originating from the plant as the government would have you believe?

Suspicions run high that this was not only a classic military style (think 9/11 Pentagon style) attack on the plant but specifically this may have involved a new “Advanced Hypersonic Weapon” (AHW) developed by the Army in 2011 seen here. The video below explains this possibility more in-depth. Again, you decide.

When analyzing this let’s keep in mind that conspiracies are now the norm and today it is well within reason for any critical thinker to suspect government conspiracy as a reasonable possible explanation. It is also incumbent upon us to consider all evidence including the irony of this story being buried in the height of the Boston bombing event. That they are just now briefly talking about this explosion after 3 years of hiding the story is suspicious in itself. The multiple video analysis above demonstrating reasonable probability of a sophisticated military style missile strike should matter to everyone. If true, this constitutes another blatant murderous act of violence of our government against its own people potentially on behalf of its global organized crime cartel partner Monsanto who is known to work with Blackwater/XE.

Now that investigators are officially ruling this event as a “criminal act” it will be very interesting to see if they produce a patsy of their choice in the future (Reichstag fire style) to throw off anyone suspicious of government activity in this crime.

It sure does seem like a criminal act to my eyes, and as usual no one in the mainstream media or the usual pre-selected government “investigative” body is looking for or even suspecting that the plant was ultimately pulverized by a missile strike. We all know that government investigative bodies never even look for possibilities that imply that the State is involved in the crime. So this phony search including their phony $50,000 reward will never lead to any real justice.

Don’t think for a moment the ruling class wouldn’t commit a crime like this to protect their interest and send a message. These are ultimately the same people who funded the attacks in Iraq on April 15, 2013 and organized the Boston bombing “event” on the same day. In order for truth seekers to remain vigilant and to stay on top of government crimes and conspiracies they need to take events like this serious and do their own research. It’s not about being paranoid it’s about believing your own eyes and ears, looking for patterns, exercising critical thinking, and maintaining a clear overall awareness of the big picture.

 

Saturday Matinee: Shadows of Liberty

Posted on by
Reply

Synopsis from ShadowsofLiberty.org:

Shadows Of Liberty reveals the extraordinary money and power behind the news media dictating censorship, cover‐ups and corporate control.

Filmmaker Jean‐Philippe Tremblay takes an intrepid journey through the dark corridors of the American media landscape where global conglomerates call the shots. For decades their overwhelming influence has distorted journalism and compromised its values.

In highly revealing stories, renowned journalists, activists and academics give insider accounts of a broken media system. Controversial news reports are suppressed, people are censored for speaking out, and lives are shattered as the arena for public expression is turned into a private profit zone.

Tracing the story of media manipulation through the years, Shadows Of Liberty poses a crucial question: why have we let a handful of powerful private corporations write the news? We’re left in no doubt, ‘…what will save us is when we really know what’s going on, media not filtered through the lens or the microphone of a corporation.’

‘False flag,’ another weapon in the US arsenal

Posted on by
Reply

By Dave Alpert

Source: Intrepid Report

Now hear this . . . Noam Chomsky, respected intellect and political guru of the “left,” a man that ridiculed and denounced the efforts of the 9/11 Truth Movement, has joined the ranks of the conspiracy theorists.

On Monday, March 27, Noam, in an interview, as reported by AlterNet, stated that Donald Trump could stage a “false flag” terror attack in order to consolidate his power.

Trump’s administration is currently on thin ice. Not only does he not have the support of Democrats, but members of his own party have been distancing themselves from him. It also should be noted that Trump’s standing amongst the voters, according to poll numbers, is at an historic low.

George W. Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, from January 2001 to December 2002, Paul O’Neill, revealed in his book, “The Price of Loyalty,” published in 2004, that the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office. At the first cabinet meeting of the new Bush administration, O’Neill observed that the debate was not “should we attack Iraq?” but rather “how do we go about attacking Iraq?”

It was and is clear that the Bush administration needed to gather popular support for an invasion of Iraq through an event that would guarantee such support. Fortunately, along came 9/11, a perfect example of how a “false flag” event is organized and implemented.

Predictably, the people rallied behind the Bush administration’s stated desire to hold the guilty parties accountable and pursue retribution. Bush was given carte blanche powers to fulfill his promise to find and destroy those responsible for the savage attack on US soil.

Trump knows that people are losing faith in his presidency and, according to Chomsky, will look to scapegoat someone or some group in order to draw our attention away from his failings and, as the G.W. Bush administration did, mobilize support. Trump has already identified those he is likely to scapegoat, the vulnerable, the immigrants, the Muslims, the terrorists, etc.

Chomsky states, “I think that we shouldn’t put aside the possibility that there would be some kind of staged or alleged terrorist act, which can change the country instantly.” WOW, he really said that?

The first and crucial step in a planned false flag event is for the government initiating the action to prime the public by demonizing the target, the country or group that will be scapegoated and assume the blame for the event, and creating fear and anger among the populace. For that, Trump has a fairly large group of possible scapegoats if, in fact, Chomsky’s projections get played out. As mentioned above, there are, of course, Muslims as well as extremists from any of the immigrant groups coming from countries that the US has decimated or from our Mexican neighbors to the South, as well as any group that can conveniently be labeled “terrorists.”

Immediately after the event, there is a comprehensive narrative and a convenient, ready-made culprit is identified by officials. With the help of law enforcement and the media, the narrative is repeated often enough to convince the public of its accuracy. Not only is the official explanation not questioned by the media, their responsibility is to ensure that no alternative views of the event in question are heard. In fact, the media often actively denounce and mobilize against alternative theories regarding the events in question. Most often they marginalize the people who raise questions about the official version, labeling them as “conspiracy nuts.”

Coincidently, it should be noted, if you believe in coincidences, a large percentage of major domestic or international terror attacks have involved simultaneous “training drills.” This list includes, but is not limited to, the infamous NORAD drills of 9/11, the 7/7 London Bombings, the 2011 Norway shooting, the Aurora shooting, and the Boston Marathon.

These training drills serve to confuse respondents to the “terror” attack. During the 9/11 attack, a military officer could be heard, when he was informed, asking “Is this real time?” At the time of the attacks, several military exercises were in progress and were a factor in immobilizing and confusing respondents. Is this another coincidence?

So, the question still hangs out there, unanswered, “Why now, Mr. Chomsky?” Why project the possible false flag operation orchestrated by the Trump people, while ignoring the overwhelming real evidence demonstrating that 9/11 was a false flag event?

The answer to that question may be in Chomsky’s personal feelings about Trump, the man. Chomsky has called Trump a “con man” who will drag civilization “down to the utter depths of barbarism.”

Yet, Mr. Chomsky, despite the events of the past century, when various US presidents have played the role of “con men” and have dragged civilization down to a deadly and destructive level of barbarism, has decided to vent his anger and frustration at Trump, who I’m certain will also continue his assignment to drag the world into a state of savagery. After all, world domination and making America great again is not for sissies.

Yet, he and many other so-called leftists abandoned the 9/11 Truth Movement, made up of people who did not accept the government’s mythological version of that day and were seeking truth.

During the past 16 years, millions of people were either killed, mutilated, or displaced from their homes as a result of 9/11. Where have these “progressive” voices been during this time? Now he’s going to speak out . . . screw him!!!

Wonderland

Posted on by
Reply

By James Howard Kunstler

Source: Kunstler.com

There are times in the course of events when a society cannot tell what the fuck is going on, or what to do about it, and this is one of those moments in history here in the USA. The quandaries of life on the home front — how to make a living, how to care for ourselves and loved ones — get shoved aside by misadventures in foreign lands with their own quandaries. One delusion leads to another until you enter a zero gravity of the mind. Case in point du jour: Syria.

The persistent hyperRussomania of the US Dem-Prog alliance and its sob-sisters in the media seeks to make a bad situation worse in Syria and probably for the worst reasons. How many Americans have even the dimmest idea what’s going on in Syria, who the cast of characters there represent, and where the USA fits into all of it?

There is the head of government, one Bashar al Assad (son of the previous president, Hafez al Assad). The Assads had run Syria as a mostly secular Arab state until the civil war within Islam, Sunni against Shia, spilled out of Iraq. The Assads belonged to the tiny Alawite sect of the Shia. They comprise only 13 percent of the Syrian population, which has a Sunni majority. Under the Assads, Syria has tilted toward Iran, the Shia home state, and away from the Sunni Arabs elsewhere in the neighborhood. Russia has cultivated Iran and support its “friends,” the Assads.

A mash-up of Sunni jihad armies fights the Assad government in Syria’s civil war. These are Isis, al Qaeda, and Jabhat al Nusra. The US government had made official noise about supporting the more “moderate rebels” in the Syrian conflict. Who are they exactly? Do you have a clue? Which army among those three rebel groups are “moderates?” And what is their moderate goal under jihad? To topple Assad. And then what? To set up a new theocratic government perhaps? How is it in America’s interests to promote Islamic jihadi theocracy?

One hypothesis is that the struggle is over who gets to run gas and oil pipelines through Syria to get easier access to the Mediterranean Sea and the European energy market. Iran would very badly like to do that. But they are in competition with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the little giant emirate of natural gas. So, you have the Iran/Shia gang on one side and the KSA/Qatar/Sunni on the other side. Anybody who had scanned the news since 1979 can probably tell whose side the US is on. By the way, this hypothesis has had no airing among the mainstream media triumvirate: The New York Times, CNN, and The WashPo. These news orgs won’t even entertain that angle of the story… but as I said, it’s only a hypothesis.

It was not so many weeks ago that President Trump met with the crown prince of KSA at the White House to give assurances of American friendship and support. KSA is supposedly America’s chief ally against Isis in Syria. Yet, KSA and the USA are dedicated to getting rid of the Assad government as well as Isis. That is, we are against both sides in the Syrian civil war. Still wondering why the American public is confused by all this? Do you know who our choice is to replace Assad? Can you name an opposition figure? Of course you can’t. There is nobody. What the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the NSA seem to have in mind is the familiar failed state policy that has worked so well in the past (not).

Which brings us to the curious case of Bashar Assad’s recent supposed poison gas bombing of civilians in Khan Sheikhoun. The media triumvirate was avid to play along with the story. I don’t know about you, but I have to ask myself: what would Assad’s strategic goal be in gas bombing women and children? To gin up worldwide positive PR? To get the Syrian people on his side against Isis and other jihadis? What advantage could Assad possibly gain? In warfare generally, the tacticians strike against military targets. There’s a hypothesis that Assad’s air force sought to strike a rebel arms depot in Idlib province — a military target. The hypothesis goes further, saying that the depot contained phosgene and chlorine gas, but not Sarin. The wind carried these released gases among civilian homes and streets in Khan Sheikhoun. People suffered and died. Evidence for the absence of Sarin gas is that the gassing victims were handled manually by doctors and aid workers in street clothes. Sarin can kill on skin contact and doctors have to treat it in protective gear. So, maybe the gas wasn’t Sarin and maybe it wasn’t dropped in bombs from Assad’s planes. But, like the pipeline angle of the story, this hypothesis is missing in the media triumvirate’s pages.

President Trump was lauded mostly for the missile strike against the Syrian air force base that followed. The Dem/Progs and The New York Times gave him brownie points, if only for it being a swipe against Russia. It seemed so clever, what with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Mar-a-Lago dinner table where, presumably, the subject of the maniac in North Korea came up. Days later, a US aircraft carrier group steamed to the waters off Kim Jong Un’s fortress state. Which brings forth another hypothesis: that the Syria missile strike was solely a demonstration of US military will vis-a-vis the more ominous threat over in Asia — an attempt to get Xi to do something about the Kim Jong Un before we do.

It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out. The big fear is that in the event of a rumble, Kim will turn Seoul into an ashtray. The South Korean capital is only a few miles from the DMZ between the two states. The US couldn’t find a jucier enemy than Kim Jong Un, a character so improbable he might have been dreamed up in a Batman comic. Hence, he’s comprehensible to an American public that more and more looks like the ever-present crowd of perplexed bystanders in a Batman movie.

*

I was quite surprised to hear that a podcast called “S-Town,” about the dark doings in an Alabama backwater, had become a huge hit on the Web-waves. Back around 2012-2013, I had some email correspondence from John B. McLemore, the tragic figure at the center of the series. He was a real person, referred to by various people in the series as “brilliant,” “a genius,” “a real character,” and he was for sure.

Apparently, he was also a fan of my books. He got my phone number off my website and took to calling me on the phone. I probably had a dozen long phone conversations with him. Hours. It is well-known now that he called his home of Woodstock, Alabama, “Shit-town.” He regaled me with many a sordid tale of the home-folk, and even of himself. The place sounded like Hieronymus Bosch meets Dogpatch. Since John B seemed so unhappy under his mask of hilarity and mirth, I tried to encourage him to think about moving. He always had an excuse for not doing that, but clearly John B and the neighbors he disdained, fought with, looked for love with, had a synergistic thing going. They needed each other to play out their never-ending crazy scripts of cracker mischief, vengeance, and failure. After a while, John B went dark. I thought he’d just gotten tired of me telling him to move.

I was startled to hear in the second episode of the “S-Town” podcast that John B had made good on his constant intimations of suicide. Startled, but not especially surprised. He was more than a fish out of water. He was like a Martian suffocating in an atmosphere too heavy for him. I suspect the truth is there are thousands of places like “S-Town” all over America, places devastated by the poor choices of the last several generations — most particularly the way they threw away their livelihoods and surrendered to one vice after another in boredom, defeat, and self-loathing. It’s a very sad story and it’s not over yet by a long shot.