Monday, September 29, 2014

Onward Christian Soldiers

Two Southern states I've lived in (most of my years were spent in Tennessee and Alabama) are both attempting to compete for jobs by lowering the cost of labor – wages.  American labor, if you can afford it, is good stuff. Both states have attracted factories, mostly automobile assembly I believe, and tout that accomplishment, yet the median income in both states is among the lowest in the nation, because competing with the third-world, on third-world terms, means choosing to join it.

The United States is becoming a modern "fiefdom," in which the mass of the people, trained to be obedient to authority, exist to serve a handful of powerful feudal lords, who own everything, and control everything.  The electoral process in the US is a total sham; giving the illusion of change, when it is apparent that nothing of any real consequence ever changes.  Each presidential administration serves the powerful, which in the US means the war industry, and each continues the work of the preceding.

But it is exciting to watch!  You can't change it, so enjoy it. You'll never get a better chance to view, close up and personal, an historical shift of this magnitude. It's more than the collapse of a global military empire; it's the reversal of one of history's greatest social shifts.  It's a failure of a great, and I believe noble, social model.  America was not just a great empire; it was a great world culture.

Pay close attention and learn but, above all, enjoy the show. You paid for it, so get your money's worth.  2014 has been an amazing year; and we are witnessing some of the most exciting events in the history of mankind.

Americans, given all the evidence of their huge loss of liberty, are easily distracted by the childish political theater in Washington that bears absolutely no resemblance to responsible government. They love that shit,  And they are led by the rings in their noses.  Like a hog to slaughter; and the rich are gutting America, just like that hog.

And you know why?  Because most Americans desire it that way.  They give up freedom after freedom, willingly, almost eagerly ... in exchange for protection, security, SSRIs, and crap television.  They desire serfdom.

And serfs is what they will be.  The real glitter and gold belongs to the new crusaders.  God bless our young knights in shining armor, the men and women who travel to hostile foreign lands to slay the Mohammedans.

Martyrdom is good for the cause.

Monday, September 22, 2014

PNAC expressed the goals of America's global war planners

Where is America going, and why is it in this handbasket?

Two world superpowers divided much of the planet into mighty blocs, as the “free world” faced off against the “communist” one. What was left, often called the Third World, became a game board and sometimes battlefield for influence and dominance.

And then, unexpectedly, there was only one superpower. In 1991, something like the ultimate step in the concentration of power seemed to occur. The weaker and less wealthy of the two rivals, its economy grown sclerotic even as its nuclear arsenal bulged, its vaunted military bogged down in an unwinnable war with Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan (backed by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), suddenly vanished from the planet.

Where great powers had once been, only a few rickety “rogue states” remained: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. George W. Bush was soon to lump those three countries into a convenient “Axis of Evil,” a phrase meant to combine the fearsomeness of World War II’s Axis powers (Germany, Italy and Japan) and Ronald Reagan’s famous Star Wars-style moniker for the Soviet Union, “the Evil Empire.” No matter that two of the three powers in question had been at each other’s throats for a decade and the third, a half-nation with a population regularly on a starvation diet, was quite unrelated.  Beyond that, when it came to enemies, there were relatively small numbers of jihadi bands, mostly scattered in the tribal backlands of the planet, and a few poorly armed minority insurgencies.

In 2000, [America's neo-cons] took over the White House (with a helping hand from the Supreme Court). After a single devastating terrorist attack (the “Pearl Harbor” of the twenty-first century), they were soon dreaming on a global scale as befit their new vision of power. They imagined a "wartime" that would last for generation.

Tom Englhardt:

The United States has accepted the neocon vision of a war that will last for a generation, and longer.  War, everywhere, and continuously, is the future the nation has chosen.

The Project for a New American Century (or PNAC) was founded by neocon luminaries William Kristol and Robert Kagan whose names, incidentally, do not appear among those who signed their Statement of Principles:

That website has been taken down but it's archived here, where they apparently can't get rid of it:

The principles of PNAC have also been stated as the "Bush Doctrine", which was pulled from it's original location on the PNAC website during the Iraq War, but can be found here on the Internet "Wayback Machine" (an invaluable resource):

The Bush doctrine, In part, reads:

No nation is exempt" from the "non-negotiable demands" of liberty, law and justice. Because the United States has a "greater objective" – a greater purpose – in the world, [George W.] Bush sees in the war not just danger but an opportunity to spread American political principles, especially into the Muslim world.

and it goes onto read:

The Bush Doctrine is also notable for what it is not. It is not Clintonian multilateralism; the president did not appeal to the United Nations, profess faith in arms control, or raise hopes for any "peace process." Nor is it the balance-of-power realism favored by his father. It is, rather, a reassertion that lasting peace and security is to be won and preserved by asserting both U.S. military strength and American political principles.

These are the same principles of dominion through force that were embodied in the Bush White House's National Security Strategy.  These are, quite simply, the words of men who desire war and power.  World domination.  Governments are just the tools they are using to achieve their objectives.

I'm not just sharing my opinion; I'm telling you what this group said in its very own statement of principles. I don't think you can read these documents and still believe that the goal of these men isn't world domination through military aggression and global expansion. 

If this group and its ideology represent the thinking of the US government, the Iraqi War was only the beginning. And that has probably been my biggest fear; since the beginning of the Iraq War, that the US is leading the world into an extended period of low-intensity wars and regional conflicts; essentially a state of perpetual warfare.  Proxy wars to create puppet states.

It is the neoconservative philosophy of US domination of the globe by force that Americans must refute; not one political party or the other. Neoconservatism should be refuted,  for one reason alone: from the neoconservative point of view, it may be succeeding in destabilizing the world, but it is failing America spectacularly.  It is hollowing the nation, morally, economically, and spiritually; eating it from the inside out.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

10 Years Ago: 20 September 2004

It was ten years ago, today, on September 20, 2014, that then-Presidential candidate John Kerry made a very powerful speech at New York University.  In that speech, Senator Kerry made many statements of truth that were not being spoken by many in the US government at that time.  That, alone, made his speech noteworthy.

You can read Kerry's address at:

Kerry said, "Before the Iraq war [which was then in its second year–CAulds], before [George W. Bush] chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings … major outside studies … and even some in the [Bush] administration itself, predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq."

Earlier in the same speech, Kerry said, "General [Eric K.] Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was 'retired.' Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired."

Kerry made two points in that speech:  Iraq was not a cakewalk; it would become a protracted costly war, but more importantly, he made the point that it was known, beforehand, that this was so, but those who advised against the invasion were ignored or, worse, silenced. 

NEW YORK, March 14 (Reuters) - According to a March 2013 report from the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University which was published for the 10th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, the U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The report concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said. Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud, it said.

I believe john Kerry was right about one thing:  The military did advise against invading Iraq on false pretenses; and the military officers who did were shut up, as a warning to other not to try the same thing.  To their shame, I think, most military officers folded under pressure.  They weren't putting their careers and pensions on the line ... let alone their lives.  They went along, for the sake of convenience; like far too many Americans, then and now.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

A Tennessee Republican speaks about military interventionism

Over 10 years ago, and only months into the US-led invasion of Iraq, Tennessee Republican Congressman John J. (Jimmy) Duncan called it correctly:

"Neo-con interventionist foreign policies are only breeding resentment, creating even more enemies, and putting our children and grandchildren into a financial black hole so deep they may never get out. There is nothing conservative about the U.S policy in Iraq."
– Congressman John J. Duncan (Republican-TN District 2), 9/24/03

Congressman Duncan was, incidentally, one of only seven Republicans in the entire US Congress who voted against HJ Res 114 (the Iraq War Resolution) in October 2002.  Seven.  Six in the House of Representatives, and one only in the Senate. Of the seven, Jimmy Duncan is the only one still in office.

Words that ring even more true today than when Duncan said them.  Incidentally, Congressman Duncan continues to stand against a warfare state that is attempting to fight the wars of other nations, having said, only yesterday: "We cannot take care of our own people and our own country if we are permanently at war in the Middle East."

Who were the Republicans who stood for the Constitutional restriction on the President's ability to wage war, reserving that right exclusively for the People, through their electing representatives in Congress?
  1. John J. "Jimmy" Duncan, Tennessee (incumbent Congressman, TN-2)
  2. John Hostettler, Indiana
  3. Amo Houghton, New York
  4. James Leach, Iowa
  5. Constance Morella, Maryland
  6. Ron Paul, Texas
  7. Lincoln Chaffee, Senate, Rhode Island

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Remember the Iranian nuclear weapon crisis

Nearly all US intelligence agencies have concluded that ISIS poses no immediate threat to the United States.  That's a stark contrast to the shrill war rhetoric coming from the White House. 
There is no threat; there are no terrorist sleeper cells.  Got it?

God, this reminds me of at time, only two years ago, when the war hawks in Washington were screaming for an attack on Iran, but all 16 US intelligence agencies had affirmed and reaffirmed that Iran abandoned its interest in nuclear weapons years before  ... declaring [] that nothing had changed since the previous National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's "Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" in November 2007, which declared that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon capability.  But the war hawks only screamed louder; hoping that by repeating the lie, they could make it come true.  It was not, of course, true; and their dire predictions of what would happen if Iran was not bombed immediately, turned out to be false as well.

The US had to abandon its plans, five years ago, to attack Iran, which posed NO THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES, in other words, an unprovoked aggression against a weaker sovereign nation, because no other nation in the world was willing to go along with that sort of thing.

And other nations had better wise up and refuse participation in the US war against ISIS.  Because they know, good and damned well, that the US promise to "destroy" ISIS is completely worthless.  In the past decade, the US government has not been able to destroy al-Qaida or any other terrorist group on this planet. 

But the best reason to stay out of this is because ISIS is America's baby to spank.  America created the conditions that allowed it to survive and to thrive.  Other nations would be darned smart to let the US and the UK handle this.   Alone.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Dee Snider & the Religious Right

I lived in the Deep South, America's Bible Belt, most of my life (at least 45 years).  I was there, raising a young daughter, during the "culture wars" of the 1990's.  I remember how those "hot button" social issues dominated the politics of the day, and were used to divide Americans.  At the time, I took no strong position on any one of these issues; and that includes attempts to censor the entertainment media; I took that as very normal; and didn't feel that it concerned me directly.  No one was attempting to restrict my right of free speech – of course, I wasn't using that right anyway, so it shouldn't matter if they did.

If I had paused to think about it, I would've realized that bigotry and sanctimony were at the root of those attempts, but that's the point; I didn't think about it,  I took it as normal.  And a few years later, I was being attacked by the same kind of sanctimonious cowards.  But, since I couldn't care about others who were being attacked by the Religious Right; maybe it was justice that brought those attacks on me.

Oh, they couldn't care about my right of free speech; not if it conflicted with their lynch mob mentality.  They failed, huge, to live according to their stated principles.  They failed.

In 1985, a Senate hearing was instigated by the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), who wanted to introduce a parental warning system that would label all albums containing offensive material. The system was to include letters identifying the type of objectionable content to be found in each album (e.g. O for occult themes, S for sex, D for drugs, V for violence, etc.).

Dee Snider (of the band Twisted Sister), John Denver, and Frank Zappa all testified against censorship and the proposed warning system. The proposed system was never implemented, but the result of the hearing brought about what you've seen on CDs, the generic "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content" label.

The PMRC was initially formed by the wives of Senator Al Gore (D-TN), and Secretary of State James Baker. Tipper Gore in particular became the face of the PMRC and a public foil for Snider in the hearings.

But those Senate hearings were never focused on protecting children from obscene material ... that was just cover for an attack on what those sanctimonious hypocrites hated, and feared, because it was different.  And, ye
h, why not question Dee Snider's patriotism while you're at it, and find out how he feels about the Holy Trinity, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The irony of those Senate hearings is that the American government exists to protect Dee Snider's right to free speech; not to advance someone else's social agenda.  What about you?  Do you think the government exists only to further your agenda?  Or does it exist to protect those who disagree with you?

In his opening remarks at the PMRC hearings, Dee Snider stated: "I was born and raised a Christian and I still adhere to those principles."

Yeh, and as Mister Snider pointed out to the Senate committee the only pornographic content was in Tipper Gore's twisted mind.

Dee Snider's 1985 PMRC Senate Hearing Speech: Part 1  Part 2 Part 3  (Senator Al Gore's questions to Dee Snider)


Friday, September 12, 2014

What's in those 28 pages? We have a right to know

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the 9/11 operatives received between $400,000 and $500,000 from al-Qaeda through Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to plan and conduct the attack.  That's the official story – except that US government has never been been able to determine the origin of that money or to recreate a money trail linking it to the groups they claim provided it.   The 9/11 Commission Report: "we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding."

In other words; the official 9/11 Commission Report (released in 2004) identifies al-Qaeda and Kalid Sheikh Mohammed as the asource of the funding for the training and execution of the 9/11 WTC tower attacks, without being able to find any direct evidence of that funding, or of support or funding from any foreign government (that is, the Taliban).
There is very good reason to believe that the official story is wrong, and the truth about the source of the funding for the 9/11 attacks came from another source – a Saudi source.

The thing that convinced me something was wrong with the official investigation of the 9/11 WTC tower attacks was when my own federal Senator, Republican Senator Richard Shelby, who was Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when the investigating commission report was completed, and who saw the complete unexpurgated version of that report, told the nation publicly that the 28 pages that were concealed from the public were not related to national security, and the American people had every right to view them.  He was subsequently accused of, and investigated for, divulging classified secrets in a Fox News broadcast that was never aired; in other words, they accused him of treason. Fox News claimed that they halted the broadcast before any damage was done, but Richard Shelby backed off on the 9/11 Commission Report, and he was moved the Senate Banking Committed, where he could do no more harm.

Shelby was put on notice:  "Shut up willingly, or we will shut you up."

Shelby went about as far as any Congressman could in 2004 to put the truth before the public.  I commend him for that.

Richard Shelby was replaced as the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee by US Senator and former Governor of Florida, Bob Graham.  Graham had the guts to continue fighting both the Bush and Obama administrations to declassify those 28 pages of a 9/11 intelligence report that it is believed detail the efforts of members of the Saudi Arabian royal family to aid the 9/11 terrorists (most of whom were themselves Saudi) when they were training in Florida.  (15 of the 19 hijackers carried Saudi Arabian passports).  That Saudi family, which was living in Sarasota, left the US just before the attacks occurred.
Were they tipped off that they should leave? If so, by whom?

Senator Graham wants to know why the Obama administration does not release these documents, which he read when he was chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and co-chair of a congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. He also claims those 28 pages contain nothing that risks national security, but are very important in revealing how the attacks were planned and carried out.

Now, Senator Graham has joined others in a Freedom of Information Act request asking that 80,000 pages of information on that Saudi family be made public.

Senator Graham said: "It isn't credible that 19 people – most that could not speak English well and did not have experience in the United States – could carry out such a complicated task without external assistance."  I agree.

Graham believes that there was a deliberate effort to cover up Saudi involvement in the tragedy of 9/11 by the Bush administration.  He believes there was a cover-up, one that he says the Obama administration supports.  Why?  Do you want to know why?  I do.
What was in those 28 pages?  We'll never know ... I suspect it had a lot to do with financial connections to the bin Laden family.  Probably no smoking guns about the WTC tower attacks, but damaging enough.  The money/power connections are the key, I think, to the "who?" and "why?" questions regarding those attacks.

In short, where the 9/11 investigation came even marginally close to the truth; the source of that truth was immediately and conclusively shut down.

We don't know even the smallest percentage of the truth about what happened, and we never will, but I'm damned glad there are a few people left who are willing to defend our right to know.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

What really happened on 9/11? We will never know

One doesn't have to buy into any alternative theory of what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001 to know that there are many questions yet unanswered.  Questions that will never be answered, if some have their way.

And this a factual statement:  there is no evidence of Osama bin Laden's prior knowledge of, or involvement in, that attack.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the 9/11 plotters spent between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct the attack.  That funding came from al-Qaeda through Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to the operatives who used it to travel to the United States and to train for the mission.  That's the official story – except that US government has never been been able to determine the origin of that money or to recreate a money trail linking it to the groups they claim provided it.   The 9/11 Commission Report: "we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding."

In other words; the official 9/11 Commission Report (released in 2004) identifies al-Qaeda and Kalid Sheikh Mohammed as the source of the funding for the training and execution of the 9/11 WTC tower attacks, without being able to find any direct evidence of that funding, or of support or funding from any foreign government (that is, the Taliban).

No direct evidence of the involvement of al-Qaeda or its founder, Osama bin Laden, has ever been discovered.

Whatever happened that day, and it is certain that we will never know the truth; the outcome was absolutely no different from a false flag operation.  Believe the official account if you wish, but do not pretend that it has been proven to the satisfaction of every reasonable doubter.

For one thing; it has never been proven that Osama bin Laden was involved; and the whole damned thing was pinned on him.  He was a convenient scapegoat.  Stop right there – that's reason enough for me to doubt the rest.  The official 9/11 story  sounds like some lunatic conspiracy theory anyway.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Battle for the Net

Today, some of the world’s largest internet companies, including Netflix, Etsy, Kickstarter, Mozilla, Reddit, imgur, Foursquare, Vimeo, and Wordpress, along with the porn sites Pornhub, RedTube and Youporn, will join more than 35 advocacy organizations and hundreds of thousands of activists in an Internet "slowdown" to show how the internet might look if the FCC’s proposed rules go into effect.

The protesting companies will display a widget with a "loading" symbol on their websites to show how the internet would look should the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) go ahead with the proposal, thus overturning "net neutrality" rules.     Game on.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Do the American thing: close Guantanamo Bay

149 men remain imprisoned, indefinitely, inside America's Guantanamo Bay "detention facility."  The oft-repeated lie is that these men are the "worst of the worst", that's why they can't be released  The truth is much different. The truth is that the vast majority of these men are completely innocent, and were simply swept up in a dragnet in Afghanistan, many turned over to the US for bounty payments or to enact revenge.  78 of the 149 have been deemed innocent and cleared for release in 2009. Only 6 of the 149 men have been formally charged with any crime. Five are being tried together as alleged co-conspirators of 9/11, and one stands accused of masterminding the USS Cole bombing. Yet the commissions' "tribunal" process is completely extra-judicial; corrupted by lies and government secrecy; it's a kangaroo court more suited to a third-world dictatorship than the United States.

By the very most basic tenet of American justice – never having been tried, never having been convicted, no evidence of their guilt in any crime ever presented before a court or judge – these are innocent men.  Guilty of no wrong-doing; their continued imprisonment is a violation of American principles.  It is a violation of my principles and, I hope, yours too.

No evidence of guilt?  What does that mean to Americans?  You are an American, right?  Tell me:  what does that mean to Americans?

Are those detainees guilty?  Then produce the evidence of that guilt and charge them formally.  No evidence of their guilt? Then do the American thing.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Dianne Feinstein, wants to release the full "unredacted" version of its report on these tortures. The Obama Administration is blocking that action. Why?

According to some who have seen the report, it will demonstrate not only that the U.S. government tortured victims all over the world, but that its techniques were not those revealed and approved by congressional regulators, that the CIA repeatedly lied to its own congressional supporters and, most importantly, that the torture did not produce any material actionable intelligence, including the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

What happened to your backbone, America?

Monday, September 8, 2014

Change the date by 30 years ... and it's 1984

Twenty-five years ago, Milton Friedman wrote this open letter to conservative columnist William J. Bennett, which was published in the Wall Street Journal:

This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes "on suspicion" can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations.
– Milton Friedman (1912 – 2006)
   An Open Letter to Bill Bennett, published in the Wall Street Journal, September 7, 1989

In 1949, when he wrote "1984", Orwell predicted all we've seen in the past dozen years, essentially governments that rule over the people, and don't exist to "serve and protect" the citizenry.  Governments that reinforce their power with fear at home, and continuous war abroad, against one enemy after another, sometimes conveniently reversing the role of friend and foe (as in Syria).

Orwell predicted the torture in secret prison facilities, the heavily-militarized police forces, the perpetual warfare, the ubiquitous spying, and the continuous fear-mongering of the government.

Orwell predicted a government that acted as though it was the master of the citizens of Oceania, and he predicted a citizenry that acted as though that was "normal".  

He predicted today's America.

Orwell's predictions were right on the mark — he was just 30 years early.  Substitute "cell phone" for "telescreen", the NSA and the DHS and the TSA and the CIA, they perform the functions of the Ministries of Truth, Love and Peace; bin Laden, Gaddafi, Hussein, Putin, they've all assumed the role of "Goldstein," and we'll have a new target soon for our fear and hatred.

It's not 2014; it's 1984.

Friday, September 5, 2014

The real aggressor is emerging (hint: it's not Putin)

Let's give the devil his due ... let's not forget (or, more accurately, ignore the fact) that Vladimir Putin has been consistent and steadfast in refusing to recognize the "Donetsk Peoples Republic" and he has publicly urged them to negotiate with the Kiev government of Ukraine. It is probably to his credit that the rebels dropped their demands for complete independence, and have asked, instead, for autonomy within Ukraine.

I believe it was President Putin who acted to bring about the current "cease-fire" agreement between Ukraine and pro-Russian rebels in the East.  That, of course, put even more egg on Obama's face.
Ukraine readily agreed to the cease-fire, I believe, for one reason:  they are losing the war.  Ukraine's soldiers balk at shooting their countrymen and firing artillery into villages (what decent human being  wouldn't?) and they have been deserting in droves; some units joining the rebels, other soldiers simply tucking their tails and running away.

Americans' biggest mistake, in my opinion, is that they too readily believe their own propaganda.

Learn to recognized a campaign of bullshit, people.  This one, from Day One, has borne all the earmarks.

Masterfully played, Mr. Putin!

Thursday, September 4, 2014

The "Russian invasion of Ukraine," one week later

It was one week ago, on 28 August, that Ukrainian officials claimed that 1,000 Russian troops had crossed its border and was invading Ukraine.  The following day, they increased this to "4-5 thousand troops", supported by tanks, APCs, and artillery. 

Even US military officials admitted they couldn't confirm any of those claims of a Russian "invasion",   And it's been a full week since those claims were first made and US President Obama has refused to lend any credence to them.

Why?  Because it never happened! 

The US response, though, indicated a huge shift in its position toward the government of Ukraine.  For months now, they've "rubber-stamped" anything that government has claimed, including the use of a Russian missile to shoot down Malaysian flight MH017 (something I don't think they believe actually happened).

Far too many Americans, I think, bought right into that recycled Cold War propaganda ("Putin is the new Stalin").   

Learn to recognize a campaign of bullshit, people ... this one bore all the earmarks.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Continuous propaganda; perpetual warfare

I grew up in America's Deep South during the 1960's.  My world was conservative, white, and Protestant, and I bought it all, lock, stock and barrel.  Oh, yes, I remember the Cold War very well; I was steeped in its mythology; the propaganda that was endless, and mostly total bullshit.

I remember when the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the Russian people, who had always been forced to live like peasants serving rich master (Tzars or Communist Party officials, take your pick) looked to the West for help ... it was a tremendous opportunity to embrace those people as part of the "free world" and to encourage them to throw off the mantle of communism.  Instead, what was the response of the leadership of the United States?  Do you remember?

It was, essentially, silence, although there were some speeches congratulating the Russians, they were not welcomed into the community of Western industrialized nations.  We are now seeing what a huge mistake that was.

Essentially, I think the US didn't know what to do without its old cold war adversary.  How were they going to continue to frighten the American people into silent submission?  For the past 25 years, the US has been looking for new enemies in order to maintain its state of perpetual fear and warfare.

Every read George Orwell's "1984" ?  That book seems written for the "New America". Americans now live in a state of continuous propaganda, and endless warfare (only the current villain changes).

It certainly seems to me that Russia has far more justification for sending troops into Eastern Ukraine, which is part of its sphere of influence, in defense of the people there, and their right to self-determination, and who are undoubtedly Russian, than the US does for sending military forces into Somalia or Iraq.

Imperialism?  Absolutely.  By definition, imperialism is "a policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies."  Yes, the appellation fits.

And Russia has not exhibited a fraction of the imperialistic aggression of the United States.  The only thing Russia threatens, under Vladimir Putin, is America's lust for imperialistic domination of the planet. 

Monday, September 1, 2014

The Ukrainian war propaganda is a pack of lies

All summer long, we've been subjected to the heaviest barrage of war propaganda since 9/11 ... and it's mostly crap.  None of it, actually, rings true to me.  None of it.

Last week we heard claims of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces.  That claim came from Ukrainian officials who first claimed 1,000 Russian troops crossed the border and then dramatically increased that to 4-5 thousand ground troops backed by columns of tanks and other armored vehicles.  There was no evidence of that, other than a few photos that could have shown anything, really ... but essentially showed nothing at all.  Reminds me of the photos used to "prove" the existence of Saddam Hussein's vast stockpiles of WMD.  They looked like screenshots from a video game.  We're not even getting adult lies; we're getting lies that a child would make.

But here's the thing:  It never happened. It's all bullshit, people, don't buy it this time.  Don't let friends go around selling it.

To their credit, the American military officials admitted they couldn't confirm any of those claims and, over the weekend, President Obama refused to lend any credence to them.  That marks a change, actually, since US officials have been "rubber-stamping" the false claims of the Ukrainian government for months now.

You wonder why you don't hear about the Malaysian Airliner (MH 017) that was allegedly shot down by the Russian surface-to-air missile?  Because it never happened.  That airliner was almost certainly shot down by the Ukrainian government fighter-jet that was detected approaching the plane just before it crashed.  The facts simply don't support the propaganda.

What is most interesting to me is the contrast in the way the Russian government and the US government handled the downing of MH 17 is striking.  The US immediately made unfounded claims it later had to retract after the Intelligence agencies refused to back up Secretary of State John Kerry's claims (which were baseless in fact, in other words, they were lies).

But the Russian government patiently asked for the US to assist them, and called for:

  1. the US to use its satellite surveillance videos to verify what the Russians' own intelligence suggested might be a Ukrainian Su-25 ascending at high speed toward the Malaysian jetliner (
  2. the publishing of the photos and the data captured by US satellites in order to determine the cause of the crash. (never released)
  3. an independent investigation of the crash by the International Civil Aviation Organization
The Russians were not the ones attempting to hide the satellite surveillance photos that can reveal the truth about that incident.  The US, at least, has used good sense in backing away from recent Ukrainian government claims that simply aren't verifiable.  In other words, propaganda lies.