This is the third edition of IN CONTEXT: Editorial and Opinion and Current Events.

A supplement of the first two issues in 2014 & 2015.

As world events seem to be moving in Fast Forward >> We anticipate the need for more room in this section dedicated to recent events put in their historical context.

Willy Whitten, Editor

VerityTwo, Associate Editor

“Crimes are conceived and they’re solved – in the imagination.”~Sherlock Holmes


Intrigue, complex and convoluted charades; these are the constructs of covert operations. What is it that makes some dismiss this reality? Is it naivety, denial? Wishful thinking for a more “innocent world”?

There is a critical distinction between raw”data/datum” and “information”.
. . .
The term data refers to factual integers, especially that used for analysis and based on reasoning or calculation. Data itself has no meaning, but becomes information when it is interpreted. Information is a collection of facts or data that is communicated.
Data are the facts or details from which information is derived. Individual pieces of data rarely have inherent meaning in themselves.

Data — Information — Context

Data is raw, unorganized facts that need to be processed. Data can be something simple and seemingly random and useless until it is organized. When data is processed, organized, structured or presented in a given context so as to make it useful, it is called information.

Whether one likes it or not, what facts mean is to a certain extent, ALWAYS subjective; ultimately a matter of opinion. There is informed opinion, there is uninformed opinion, there is disinformed opinion.

And opinions may vary.


182 thoughts on “IN CONTEXT v 2016


    The Mexican drug cartels are finally meeting their match as a wave of cannabis legalization efforts drastically reshapes the drug trafficking landscape in the United States. It turns out that as states legalize cannabis use and cultivation, the volume of weed brought across the border by Mexican drug cartels dramatically decreases — and is putting a dent in their cash flow.

    A newly-released statistical report from the U.S. Border Patrol shows a sharp drop-off in cannabis captured at the border between the United States and Mexico. The reduction in weed trafficking coincides with dozens of states embracing cannabis use for both medical and recreational purposes.

    In fact, as the Washington Post reports, cannabis confiscations at the southern border have stumbled to the lowest point in over a decade — to only 1.5 million pounds. That’s down from a peak of four million pounds in 2009.

    Speaking to Anti-Media, Amir Zendehnam, host of the popular cannabis show, “In the Clear with Amir” on, told us what he thinks of these new statistics:

    “The economics of the cannabis industry show us that with healthy competition in the market, prices drop, quality rises, violence diminishes, and peaceful transactions increase. As constant new research emerges detailing the plant’s benefits, the negative stigma of using cannabis, both medicinally and recreationally, is diminishing, raising the demand for high quality product.

    “Colorado, for example, is experiencing an economic boom that has never been seen in the state. The biggest issue in Colorado today is what to do with the huge amounts of revenue and economic success the state is gaining as a result of legalization. The Colorado model has proven that legalization reduces crime rates, cuts prices, pushes unfavorable competition out of the market, provides cleaner products with heightened transparency, and increases the standard of living for society as a whole.

    “The only people hurt by continued societal acceptance and legalization of cannabis are the cartels and their friends, who have flourished for decades as a result of drug prohibition.

    “As legalization spreads across the U.S. and the rest of the world like wildfire, I predict the industry will soon become one of the most dominant and beneficial industries humanity has ever seen.”
    And the new competition from legal states has taken a big bite out of the entire illicit Mexican marijuana food chain. “Two or three years ago, a kilogram [2.2 pounds] of marijuana was worth $60 to $90,” a cannabis farmer in Mexico said in an interview with NPR. “But now they’re paying us $30 to $40 a kilo. It’s a big difference. If the U.S. continues to legalize pot, they’ll run us into the ground.”

    Consumers are also starting to see the difference. Cheap low quality Mexican cannabis has become almost impossible to find in states that have legalized, while prices for high quality home-grown have steadily decreased.

    This is good news for Mexico. A decreasing flow of cannabis trafficking throughout the country will likely lead to less cartel violence as revenues used to buy weapons dry up. Drug war-related violence in Mexico was responsible for an estimated 27,000 deaths in 2011 alone — outpacing the entire civilian death toll of the United States’ 15-year war in Afghanistan.

    These developments reinforce criticism of the War on Drugs as a failed policy. Making substances like cannabis illegal simply drove the industry underground, helping make America the largest incarcerator in the world.

    Legalizing cannabis will also save the United States a great deal of money. As Mint Press News reported:

    “Since Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in June 1971, the cost of that “war” had soared to over $1 trillion by 2010. Over $51 billion is spent annually to fight the drug war in the United States, according to Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit dedicated to promoting more humane drug policies.”
    Early reports from Colorado’s cannabis tax scheme show that revenues that will ostensibly help schools and rehabilitation efforts by flooding the state with cash. In fact, Colorado became the first state to generate more tax revenue from cannabis than alcohol in one year — $70 million.

    But why stop with cannabis legalization? As more and more drug propaganda is debunked thanks to the legal weed movement, it’s time to also advocate for drug legalization across the board. The drug war’s criminalization of substances has done nothing to stem their use, and has simply turned addicts into criminals, even though plenty of experts agree that addiction is a health issue, not a criminal one.


    by Jon Rappoport
    It Takes a Village to Ruin Everything: Enemies with Benefits in the NWO

    April 21, 2012

    “You want to know how elites solve problems? Here’s their formula: smaller problem, bigger solution. And when that doesn’t work? Concoct a huge problem that doesn’t exist and solve it with a huge program.” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda operative, in THE MATRIX REVEALED

    “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” — David Rockefeller in Memoirs (2003)

    In a future sea of darkness, the islands of light, toward which people desperately grope, are clusters of buildings occupied by mega-corporations and government agencies.

    To achieve a measure of survival, people seek those islands and the jobs that come with them.

    When you sign on and are accepted, you pledge a loyalty that knows no bounds, because there is no viable alternative. You cease worrying about the crimes your employer is committing, because you are safe, you are out of the darkness, and you want to stay there.

    What would cause this future to come to pass? Many answers have been offered. I’ll add a factor to the list.

    It concerns a method of problem-solving. Here is the premise: if a difficulty crops up, solve it by enlarging the scope of the relevant factors.

    More precisely, ARTIFICIALLY enlarge the scope of the relevant factors.

    This is Elite Problem Solving.

    In 1996, Hillary Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, appeared. In it, she argued that a whole community must solve the problem of raising a child. Of course, this was pretentious nonsense. It runs parallel to the idea that no entrepreneur can prosper without infra-structure that is built with public money, and therefore the entrepreneur and his output should be the property of the state.

    Starting with the individual child, Clinton offers a solution that encompasses a town or a community or even a city…or who knows…maybe a planet.

    But one, the original problem isn’t solved (if it was a problem to begin with), and two, the solution is an artifact designed to regulate a larger environment. To put it another way, Clinton’s model makes it necessary to put everyone under the gun because a child may be a problem.

    Problem: 50 small fish might be wiped out by allowing water from rivers to irrigate farmland. Solution: we must consign the whole valley of farms to eternal drought.

    If the free market gives birth to 12 million companies and corporations, this creates the “problem” of uninspected potential crimes. Therefore, we have to put the world under the regulatory eye and nose of agencies, whose ultimate objective is to wipe out those enterprises, or weaken them to the point at which they will be absorbed in much larger corporations—until, finally, there are 400 mega-corporations that are responsible for 80% of all international trade and production.

    Then and only then can we feel safe. Then and only then can we know that government will exercise proper control over business on planet Earth.

    Of course, when 400 corporations do constitute the productive engine of Earth, they will have bought off governments so they can do exactly as they like. They will partner with governments to share the spoils. Which was part of the idea in the first place.

    Again, the method is: whatever the size of the original purported problem, make the solution bigger and more encompassing.

    If one gun (fired by one person) killed one person, confiscate all guns everywhere.

    Here is another example: if you foment and prepare and fund and supply a war between two major powers, in the aftermath you will solve the problem of reconstruction by welding those powers together as one Complex…in which case, you end up with larger unified organizations than when you started, and you control that unified whole.

    You can call this approach SMALLLER PROBLEM, LARGER SOLUTION.

    Look at the opposite strategy, which is no longer held to be viable: you create self-sufficiency wherever possible. Responsible self-sufficiency. Most people don’t have a clue what that means.

    Suppose you started a small nation. You would be faced with the problem of survival. How would you solve that? You could forge all sorts of relationships with other countries in the areas of trade, loans, and purchases of material…except you know that these other nations are corrupt beyond the telling of it. Their governments are corrupt, their economies are corrupt, their leaders are criminals. Do you opt for this larger entangling solution, or do you decide to make do with what you have and innovate and work your way toward the objective of your own national self-sufficiency?

    If you opt for the second choice, what happens? It has rarely if ever been tried. These days, you would be accused of isolationism and, at the very least, “exiled from the world community.”

    And yet, theoretically speaking, if you could survive and prosper as a new nation, dedicated to inculcating the self-sufficiency of every citizen as a long-range goal, you would stand as a shining example to the rest of the world. You would have made the great experiment with freedom work. This was, in a way, what the original American Republic was built to achieve, before it was subverted, at the latest, three or four minutes after the Constitution was drawn up.

    During World War 2, members of the Council on Foreign Relations were tasked with setting out a plan for the creation of the United Nations, the grand global solution to war everywhere at all times.

    As we have seen, its emerging agenda has been a covert op to control many facets of of human life in all nations, under the rubric of “sustainability.”

    In 1988, two UN agencies that seemed to have little power, the World Meteorological Association and the Environmental Programme, created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC went on to spearhead the drive to convince the world that man is causing so much atmospheric warming, civilization will soon end if the UN doesn’t radically reorder the behavior of all societies and individuals.

    The science behind this warming claim has been shown to be without merit, but the campaign to “solve” warming continues.

    A child in a classroom fidgets in his chair and looks out the window. He doesn’t respond immediately when the teacher asks him a question. Well, this child needs to be “solved.” For that, a school counselor is brought in, who in turn recommends a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist makes a diagnosis of ADHD, which doesn’t exist. There is no test for it. The child takes Ritalin, and within eight weeks falls into a funk. The psychiatrist diagnoses this as a new emerging condition, clinical depression, rather than an understandable reaction to Ritalin. He prescribes one of the SSRI antidepressants. Two months later, the child cuts himself. The psychiatrist, ignoring the fact that these SSRI drugs are known to cause suicide, decides to prescribe an even stronger chemical, one of the so-called antipsychotics. The parents refuse to allow this. Child Services is called in. They interview the parents and suggest that a charge of medical neglect could be brought against them, in which case the child might be taken from the home and put into state-sponsored foster care.

    It takes a village.

    An innovative but struggling company, Silk, which markets organic soy products, sells itself to Dean, a giant agribusiness corporation. Dean turns around and begins buying cheaper soy from China, rather than from the US organic farmers who were supplying Silk. Some of those US farmers go out of business. This is called “free trade,” and is justified by the claim that we’re all living in a Global Village, and the sovereignty of nations is merely an outmoded fiction. Loyalty to one’s own country is scoffed at as “primitive.”

    All over the planet, huge agribusiness corporations are bringing local farmers to their knees. These corporations are international. They owe no allegiance to any nation. They float.

    Here is Richard Bell, a former financial insider I interviewed in THE MATRIX REVEALED:

    “Some day, up the road, a few of these agribusiness corporations will merge into a super-entity. Then what will we have? Is this still the free market? Of course not. The level playing field no longer exists.

    “In certain areas of the world, you can grow rice much more cheaply. If you turn those areas into gigantic rice plantations, you can then export that rice anywhere and overwhelm local farmers.

    “Why don’t governments stop this? Because they signed on to membership in the World Trade Organization with its rules. And here’s the kicker: overall food production declines. Government pension funds and banks are INVESTED in the stock of that super-agri-entity. They want to see that stock price rise. They’ll do NOTHING to interfere with that.

    “It’s really a closed system. The whole idea is to make it look like free-market capitalism, when it isn’t. It turns out that you need separate nations to have capitalism. You need tariff protections. You need nations that figure out how to move toward self-sufficiency. You won’t learn these principles in college courses. You’ll learn just the opposite.

    “I spoke to an economics professor at an Eastern university. He told me my analysis of capitalism was correct, but if he taught that and pushed it too far, he would never gain tenure. He would eventually be forced out of his job.

    “Essentially, he was admitting that his university was operating under a forced system of mind control. There were no options. Forces were at work, on many fronts, to make sure that Globalism was the preferred curriculum.

    “I undertook an analysis of the sources of funding for that university. Where was the money coming from? Who was issuing grants and contracts to the university? What was the university fund invested in? The answers clarified things. The university was floating on money that was dedicated to the precepts of Globalism.

    “The university was, when you boiled it down, a PR agency working for Globalism. And here was an interesting irony: there were students at that university who were protesting Globalism, and they were supported by a few professors. Do you get it? The protests were really a charade, and the students were unwitting dupes, whose real function was to make it appear that the university was a bastion of free ideas. The protests were a cover story. A cover story to hide the true intent of the university.

    “I dug further, and I found a few professors and administrators who KNEW THAT.”

    We have been sold a fiction. Time and time again we have been told that no nation can exist and survive on its own. Self-sufficiency is a foul and selfish myth. Every nation needs vital resources it doesn’t have. It can only obtain them from another country.

    This presupposes that the ingenuity and imagination of the human mind is limited in what it can devise. Which is the biggest lie of all.

    Discrediting the notion of self-sufficiency is the cornerstone in the building of Globalism.

    Why do you think we are bombarded with stories and pictures of poverty around the world? Why do you think stories of celebrities adopting babies from “The Third World” are given such wide play? Because our so-called leaders really care? This op has as its goal fostering the amorphous conviction that everyone must pitch in to help everyone at all times everywhere.

    And THAT sets the stage for what? Not share and care. Not a better world. No. It sets the stage for mega-corporations and their partner governments and banks, backed up by intelligence agencies and armies and “missionaries,” to enact their Great Solution: global control, management, governance.

    The celebrity, bouncing her new adopted baby on her knee, says, “I know, in the end, when all this is done, our leaders will make it a better world. I know they will. Share and care will win.”

    That’s not the plan.

    Jon Rappoport

    The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

  3. The Regulation Trap

    Every time there’s a problem in the world, there are those who will cry for more government regulations to make it better. Time and again, these interventions make things worse, and yet the same people inevitably cry for the same false solutions. Could it be that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system? Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we interrogate government regulations and the criminals who enforce them.

    NOTE: This is a visualization of Episode 228 of The Corbett Report podcast, first released on April 23, 2012. This video was recently posted to The Corbett Report Extras YouTube channel as part of a project to make older Corbett Report audio podcasts and interviews available on YouTube. If you are interested in seeing more of this content in the future please SUBSCRIBE TO THE THE CORBETT REPORT EXTRAS CHANNEL.

  4. How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power

    Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today’s president
    Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
    Saturday 25 September 2004 18.59 EDT Last modified on Sunday 10 January 2016 00.37 EST

    George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
    The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

    His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

    The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    The debate over Prescott Bush’s behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the “Bush/Nazi” connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis’ plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

    Remarkably, little of Bush’s dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush’s business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election….

    Read more at:


    • For an actual deep analysis of the issues of the Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1949, I would suggest reading TRADING WITH THE ENEMY by Charles Highham.

      Other books in that vein are:

      BITTER SCENT by Michael Bar-Zohar


      BLOWBACK by Christopher Simpson

      Antony Sutton (See: below)

    Antony Sutton

    This is the third and final volume of a trilogy describing the role of the American corporate
    socialists, otherwise known as the Wall Street financial elite or the Eastern Liberal
    Establishment, in three significant twentieth-century historical events: the 1917 LeninTrotsky
    Revolution in Russia, the 1933 election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United
    States, and the 1933 seizure of power by Adolf Hitler in Germany.
    Each of these events introduced some variant of socialism into a major country — i.e.,
    Bolshevik socialism in Russia, New Deal socialism in the United States, and National
    socialism in Germany.
    Contemporary academic histories, with perhaps the sole exception of Carroll Quigley’s
    Tragedy And Hope, ignore this evidence. On the other hand, it is understandable that
    universities and research organizations, dependent on financial aid from foundations that are
    controlled by this same New York financial elite, would hardly want to support and to
    publish research on these aspects of international politics. The bravest of trustees is unlikely
    to bite the hand that feeds his organization.
    It is also eminently clear from the evidence in this trilogy that “public-spirited businessmen”
    do not journey to Washington as lobbyists and administrators in order to serve the United
    States. They are in Washington to serve their own profit-maximizing interests. Their
    purpose is not to further a competitive, free-market economy, but to manipulate a
    politicized regime, call it what you will, to their own advantage.
    It is business manipulation of Hitler’s accession to power in March 1933 that is the topic of
    Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.
    July, 1976

  6. 5 Secret Conspiracies to Stop Donald Trump

    \\][// — posted for Veri who has a computer problem at the moment.

    • Hyperbole from both sides!!!

      t seemed that Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s rallies couldn’t get any more disturbing or overtly racist. But just when we thought we had seen it all, after vowing to expand the powers of the police state, Donald Trump had supporters at a rally on Saturday “pledge allegiance” to vote for him in the upcoming Florida party primary, The Hill reported, by making them extend their right hands forward like the Nazi salute of the Third Reich.

      The video footage of the incident was posted by Bloomberg Politics. It clearly shows attendees at the event in Orlando extending their right hands forward – not merely raising their hands in the air – vowing allegiance to “vote for Donald J. Trump for president.”

      “Don’t forget you all raised your hand,” Trump added, as they lowered their hands. “You swore. Bad things happen if you don’t live up to what you just did.”

      The statement was ominous and disturbing to say the least. Bad things? What exactly was he implying.

      The primary in question has been scheduled to be held on March 15.

      Watch the video below…
      “Raise your right hand…” Donald Trump makes FL crowd swear they’ll show up to vote for him

      — Michael C. Bender (@MichaelCBender) March 5, 2016


    Nancy Reagan in her later life never did much in the way to revisit or retract her statements made in 1982 as she launched her iconic War on Drugs campaign and it’s easy to see why.

    In 1982 drug use was viewed as an epidemic by the public and a major target to blame for domestic unrest and urban crime. To put it simply that sentiment is completely changed in 2016 with more than 50% of the nation’s population at least having tried marijuana and a snowballing base of support for blanket nation-wide legalization and Nancy looks sort of foolish in retrospect when approached canonically.

    Indeed the only drug mentioned by name specifically in her ‘War on Drugs’ was marijuana even ridiculously citing that dealers are stealing “the dream from every child’s heart.” with every sale. Thankfully many politicians on both sides of the 2016 election debates have adopted the inverse opinion claiming the economic benefits each state and the country stand to face via legalization should no longer be ignored in the nation’s weakening economic state.

    The unfortunate reality Nancy must have faced as she exited this mortal coil was that her’s and her husband’s hardline policies stand out as one of the few transparent and traceable failures carried out by a presidential administration. The US has more of citizens in prison population than any other ‘civilized’ country 53% of which are non-violent drug offenders and only 7% of which actually committed violent crimes. The fallout of the ‘Just Say No’ campaign slogan is so vast that viewing the campaign and its rippling effect in policies as anything besides an abject failure is nearly impossible.

    We live in a country that is more apt to pander to pharmaceutical corporations and jail people who are innocent of committing any real crime instead of the murderers and thieves guilty of perpetuating the black market drug trade, many of which are seated US politicians and government bureaucrats.

    So maybe it does make a bit more sense now why Nancy almost never spoke of her ‘War on Drugs’ positions post-inception. Her legacy is not one of social reform and healthy living but rather a legacy of tyranny and failure.

    ‘Just Say No’ to the ‘War on Americans’.

    What you eat drink smoke and think is NOBODY’S business but your own.

  8. Communitarianism
    Amitai Etzioni
    Communitarianism is a social philosophy that, in contrast to theories that emphasize the centrality of the individual, emphasizes the importance of society in articulating the good. Communitarianism is often contrasted with liberalism, a theory which holds that each individual should formulate the good on his or her own. Communitarians examine the ways shared conceptions of the good are formed, transmitted, justified, and enforced. Hence, their interest in communities (and moral dialogues within them), the historical transmission
    of values and mores, and the societal units that transmit and enforce values – such as the family, schools, and voluntary associations (including places of worship), which are all parts of communities.
    See also: Etzioni , A. ( 1999 ) The Limits of Privacy . New York : Basic Books

    Amitai Etzioni was born Werner Falk in Cologne, Germany in 1929 to a Jewish family. Et-Zioni means “I am a Zionist”.

    Communitarianism is Communism with 7 extra letters to befuddle the simple minded.
    It is just more of the same old collectivist bullshit in a new package


    • Earth IS our home planet! What is so peculiar about the NASA spokesman pointing that out?

      I hear so much pure conjecture and assumption here in this interview that I am rather startled that this is Ms Fitts speaking.
      If you don’t know what the threat is, it is nonsense to claim there is a threat. The OBVIOUS threat is the totalitarian global government.

      I think it would be a great EXCUSE for these globalists to give the impression that there is some sort of alien entity ready to attack Earth.
      The bottom line reaction I have to this show is that it is pure science fiction; total speculation and nothing more.


    • Spectacle
      (critical theory)

      The spectacle is a central notion in the Situationist theory, developed by Guy Debord in his 1967 book, The Society of the Spectacle. In its limited sense, spectacle means the mass media, which are “its most glaring superficial manifestation.”[1] Debord said that the society of the spectacle came to existence in the late 1920s.[2][3]

      The critique of the spectacle is a development and application of Karl Marx’s concept of fetishism of commodities, reification and alienation,[4] and the way it was reprised by György Lukács in 1923. In the society of the spectacle, the commodities rule the workers and the consumers instead of being ruled by them. The consumers are passive subjects that contemplate the reified spectacle.

      “The spectacle in general, as the concrete inversion of life, is the autonomous movement of the non-living.”
       ~Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

    • Speaking to the last scene in this film:
      Like the second response, of the mushrooms having a profound and lasting effect for the rest of ones life — I have to agree.
      The trip is a portal to experiences that change ones perceptions forever. One has to experience this oneself to really understand.

      • Rare footage of 1950’s housewife on LSD (Full Version)

        Awsome!! “If you can’t see it then you’ll never know it…I feel sorry for you.”

  9. Bob Moog from Theremin to Synthesizer

    The Theremin (/ˈθɛrəmɪn/[1] therr-ə-min; originally known as the ætherphone/etherphone, thereminophone[2] or termenvox/thereminvox) is an early electronic musical instrument controlled without physical contact by the thereminist (performer). It is named after the Westernized name of its Russian inventor, Léon Theremin (Термéн), who patented the device in 1928.

    The instrument’s controlling section usually consists of two metal antennas that sense the relative position of the thereminist’s hands and control oscillators for frequency with one hand, and amplitude (volume) with the other. The electric signals from the theremin are amplified and sent to a loudspeaker.

    The theremin was used in movie soundtracks such as Miklós Rózsa’s Spellbound, The Lost Weekend, and Bernard Herrmann’s The Day the Earth Stood Still, and Rocket Ship XM. It has also been used in theme songs for television shows such as the ITV drama Midsomer Murders. This has led to its association with eerie situations. Theremins are also used in concert music (especially avant-garde and 20th- and 21st-century new music) and in popular music genres such as rock.

  10. And now for something more sobering. No ESP here. We’ll see if it’s not a repeat “New Boss, Same as the Old Boss”. Eventually, the pissed off will come to outnumber the complacent. Slow motion hundred monkeys.

    Two Corrupt Establishments
    March 9, 2016

    Exclusive: The insurgent campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have staggered Official Washington’s twin corrupt establishments on the Republican and Democratic sides, but what happens next, asks Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    The United States is led by two corrupt establishments, one Democratic and one Republican, both deeply dependent on special-interest money, both sharing a similar perspective on world affairs, and both disdainful toward the American people who are treated as objects to be manipulated, not citizens to be respected.

    There are, of course, differences. The Democrats are more liberal on social policy and favor a somewhat larger role of government in addressing the nation’s domestic problems. The Republicans embrace Ronald Reagan’s motto, “government is the problem,” except when they want the government to intervene on “moral” issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
    But these two corrupt establishments are intertwined when it comes to important issues of trade, economics and foreign policy. Both are true believers in neo-liberal “free trade”; both coddle Wall Street (albeit seeking slightly different levels of regulation); and both favor interventionist foreign policies (only varying modestly in how the wars are sold to the public).

    Because the two establishments have a chokehold on the mainstream media, they escape any meaningful accountability when they are wrong. Thus, their corruption is not just defined by the billions of special-interest dollars that they take in but in their deviations from the real world. The two establishments have created a fantasyland that all the Important People treat as real.

    Which is why it has been somewhat amusing to watch establishment pundits pontificate about what must be done in their make-believe world – stopping “Russian aggression,” establishing “safe zones” in Syria, and fawning over noble “allies” like Saudi Arabia and Turkey – while growing legions of Americans have begun to see through these transparent fictions.

    Though the candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have many flaws, there is still something encouraging about Americans listening to some of straight talk from both Trump and Sanders – and to watch the flailing reactions of their establishment rivals.

    While it’s true Trump has made comments that are offensive and stupid, he also has dished out some truths that the GOP establishment simply won’t abide, such as noting President George W. Bush’s failure to protect the country from the 9/11 attacks and Bush’s deceptive case for invading Iraq. Trump’s rivals were flummoxed by his audacity, sputtering about his apostasy, but rank-and-file Republicans were up to handling the truth.

    Trump violated another Republican taboo when he advocated that the U.S. government take an evenhanded position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and even told pro-Israeli donors that they could not buy his support with donations. By contrast, other Republicans, such as Sen. Marco Rubio, were groveling for the handouts and advocating a U.S. foreign policy that could have been written by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Trump’s Israel heresy brought the Republican foreign-policy elite, the likes of William Kristol and other neoconservatives, to full battle stations. Kristol’s fellow co-founder of the neocon Project for the New American Century, Robert Kagan, was so apoplectic over Trump’s progress toward the GOP nomination that he announced that he would vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

    Clinton’s Struggles

    Clinton, however, has had her own struggles toward the nomination. Though her imposing war chest and machine-driven sense of inevitability scared off several potential big-name rivals, she has had her hands full with Sen. Bernie Sanders, a 74-year-old “democratic socialist” from Vermont. Sanders pulled off a stunning upset on Tuesday by narrowly winning Michigan.

    While Sanders has largely finessed foreign policy issues – beyond noting that he opposed the Iraq War and Clinton voted for it – Sanders apparently found a winning issue in Michigan when he emphasized his rejection of trade deals while Clinton has mostly supported them. The same issue has worked well for Trump as he lambastes U.S. establishment leaders for negotiating bad deals.

    What is notable about the “free trade” issue is that it has long been a consensus position of both the Republican and Democratic establishments. For years, anyone who questioned these deals was mocked as a know-nothing or a protectionist. All the smart money was on “free trade,” a signature issue of both the Bushes and the Clintons, praised by editorialists from The Wall Street Journal through The New York Times.

    The fact that “free trade” – over the past two decades – has become a major factor in hollowing out of the middle class, especially across the industrial heartland of Middle America, was of little concern to the financial and other elites concentrated on the coasts. At election time, those “loser” Americans could be kept in line with appeals to social issues and patriotism, even as many faced borderline poverty, growing heroin addiction rates and shorter life spans.

    Despite that suffering, the twin Republican/Democratic establishments romped merrily along. The GOP elite called for evermore tax cuts to benefit the rich; demanded “reform” of Social Security and Medicare, meaning reductions in benefits; and proposed more military spending on more interventions overseas. The Democrats were only slightly less unrealistic, negotiating a new trade deal with Asia and seeking a new Cold War with Russia.

    Early in Campaign 2016, the expectations were that Republican voters would again get behind an establishment candidate like former Florida Jeb Bush or Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, while the Democrats would get in line behind Hillary Clinton’s coronation march.

    TV pundits declared that there was no way that Donald Trump could win the GOP race, that his high early poll numbers would fade like a summer romance. Bernie Sanders was laughed at as a fringe “issue” candidate. But then something expected happened.

    On the Republican side, blue-collar whites finally recognized how the GOP establishment had played them for suckers; they weren’t going to take it anymore. On the Democratic side, young voters, in particular, recognized how they had been dealt an extremely bad hand, stuck with massive student debt and unappealing job prospects.

    So, on the GOP side, disaffected blue-collar whites rallied to Trump’s self-financed campaign and to his promises to renegotiate the trade deals and shut down illegal immigration; on the Democratic side, young voters joined Sanders’s call for a “political revolution.”

    The two corrupt establishments were staggered. Yet, whether the populist anti-establishment insurrections can continue moving forward remains in doubt.

    On the Democratic side, Clinton’s candidacy appears to have been saved because African-American voters know her better than Sanders and associate her with President Barack Obama. They’ve given her key support, especially in Southern states, but the Michigan result suggests that Clinton may have to delay her long-expected “pivot to the center” a bit longer.

    On the Republican side, Trump’s brash style has driven many establishment favorites out of the race and has put Rubio on the ropes. If Rubio is knocked out – and if Ohio Gov. John Kasich remains an also-ran – then the establishment’s only alternative would be Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a thoroughly disliked figure in the U.S. Senate. It’s become increasingly plausible that Trump could win the Republican nomination.

    What a Trump victory would mean for the Republican Party is hard to assess. Is it even possible for the GOP establishment with its laissez-faire orthodoxy of tax cuts for the rich and trickle-down economics for everyone else to reconcile with Trump’s populist agenda of protecting Social Security and demanding revamped trade deals to restore American manufacturing?

    Further, what would the neocons do? They now control the Republican Party’s foreign policy apparatus, which is tied to unconditional support for Israel and interventionism against Israel’s perceived enemies, from Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, to Iran, to Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Would they join Kagan in backing Hillary Clinton and trusting that she would be a reliable vessel for neocon desires?

    And, if Clinton prevails against Sanders and does become the neocon “vessel,” where might the growing ranks of Democratic and Independent non-interventionists go? Will some side with Trump despite his ugly remarks about Mexicans and Muslims? Or will they reject both major parties, either voting for a third party or staying home?

    Whatever happens, Official Washington’s twin corrupt establishments have been dealt an unexpected and potentially lasting punch.

    • It is my personal opinion that we will end up with the stench of rotting tuna wafting from the oval office, next turn of the presidential stile.

      • 2016 Presidential Election ▾ … Date November 8, 2016

        Still 8 months away, and the people of Amerika are having hysterical fits over this non-event. The President of the US is CHOSEN by the Power Elite, the “vote” is an absurd burlesque.

  11. The Words of a Modern Day Nazi:
    Michael Froelich [2:47, 3/10/2016]

    “Willy Whitten, Yes if the government involved is a tyranny. Then yes. But even tyrannies are better than no government at all. For example, Nazi Germany was a tyranny and yet it was orderly and there was no crime and everyone’s incomes were high and there was no longer any poverty and everyone had paid vacations and we didn’t have to listen to obnoxious Jew anarchists and communists like Chomsky because they were put in Dachau for re-education for a year or two. If you think the world is better without any government then go to someplace like Congo today and see the way things really are without courts and police and so forth to keep people in check. If we lived in a society with no law you would be somebody’s bitch because you are weak and cannot stand up to powerful people…otherwise you would not feel so powerless in your life to make these idiotic accusations against power. You are a weakling.”

    My Reply:
    Michael Froelich, ” Nazi Germany was a tyranny and yet it was orderly and there was no crime…”
    Froelich, you are fucking insane! Any sane and lucid person reading what you just wrote above can see that for themselves.


    • multifarious
      many and of various types.
      “multifarious activities”
      having many varied parts or aspects.
      “a vast multifarious organization”
      synonyms: diverse, many, numerous, various, varied, diversified, multiple, multitudinous, multiplex, manifold, multifaceted, different, heterogeneous, miscellaneous, assorted.


    Forty-five years ago on Tuesday, peace activists broke into an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania and unearthed documents exposing the government’s expansive COINTELPRO operations, which aimed to surveil, disrupt, and “neutralize” lawful activist groups, including war protesters, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the American Indian Movement, and the National Lawyers Guild.

    Though the COINTELPRO revelations stirred widespread outrage and led to the eventual passage of reform legislation, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, such abuse of activists’ First Amendment rights continues to this day.

    More than 60 national and local groups on Tuesday sent a letter (pdf) to the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees expressing concern over the FBI’s and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s “abuse of counterterrorism resources to monitor Americans’ First Amendment protected activity.”

    The groups, which include Center for Constitutional Rights, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Government Accountability Project, Greenpeace USA, National Lawyers Guild, School of the Americas Watch (SOAW), and Veterans for Peace, among others, are urging the Committees to conduct a full investigation, not unlike the Church Committee, “to determine the extent of FBI and DHS spying in the past decade.”

    “The FBI in particular has a well-documented history of abuse of First Amendment rights,” the letter states—referring specifically to the COINTELPRO operations—and such activities have continued, including “sending undercover agents and informants to infiltrate peaceful social justice groups, as well as surveillance of, documenting, and reporting on lawful political activity.”

    Groups recently targeted by the FBI include SOAW, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and anti-Keystone XL Pipeline activists. Meanwhile DHS and local fusion centers, which operate as local sources of “counter-terrorism” intelligence gathering and sharing, monitored the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements as well.

    What’s more, the groups note, “documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the FBI continuously invokes counterterrorism authorities to monitor groups it admits are peaceful and nonviolent.”

    “Labeling activism as terrorism criminalizes political dissent,” the letter states. “Given the current political climate and draconian laws concerning terrorism, individuals may be deterred from participating in completely lawful speech, such as a protest march, by this stigma.”

    “That the FBI cannot discern between activism and terrorism shows us that they think dissent is still the enemy,” said Chip Gibbons, legal fellow with Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Defending Dissent Foundation, which organized the letter. “There have been multiple attempts at reform but after each and every one we see the same thing happening again. The FBI claims to no longer investigate groups for their political beliefs, but look at who the FBI investigates under its counterterrorism authority—peace groups, racial justice groups, economic justice groups—the very same types of organizations that were targeted during the heyday of J. Edgar Hoover.”

      Mainstream Academia/Media Attacks “Conspiracy Theorists”: Ignore Compelling Info, Focus On Irrational Sounding Things

      TOPICS:Cassius MethylConspiracyPropaganda
      MARCH 10, 2016
      surveillanceBy Cassius Methyl

      Another hit was recently attempted on the rising culture of educated people: people educated about “conspiracies.” Mainstream academic institution the University of Kent published a study claiming that conspiracy theorists tend to be narcissistic.

      A Daily Mail article sports the headline “Believe in conspiracy theories? You’re probably a narcissist: People who doubt the moon landings are more likely to be selfish and attention-seeking.”

      Right: the University of Kent experts have really pinned down the root psychological machinations of a conspiracy theorist.

      Like other recent attacks on “conspiracy theorists” in mainstream academia, they associate “moon landing conspiracy theories” with all kinds of other historically proven, irrefutably true facts.

      The article tries to paint these people as absurd, saying “Do you think the moon-landings were faked, vaccines are a plot for mind control, or that shadowy government agencies are keeping alien technology locked up in hidden bunkers?”

      Here are some irrefutable facts to put reality in perspective: from an article titled “Governments and Biowarfare: a Brief History”

      – 1932: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated. Follow this link for more info.

      – 1950: In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Francisco. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms. Follow this link for more info.

      – 1955: The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human populations with biological agents, releases a bacteria withdrawn from the Army’s biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Fl. Follow this link for more info.

      – 1956: U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects. Follow this link for more info.

      – 1965: Prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia are subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chemical component of Agent Orange used in Viet Nam. The men are later studied for development of cancer, which indicates that Agent Orange had been a suspected carcinogen all along. Follow this link for more info.

      – 1966: U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates. Follow this link for more info.

      – 1990: More than 1500 six-month-old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an “experimental” measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental. Follow this link for more info.

      – 1994: With a technique called “gene tracking,” Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made. Follow this link for more info.

      The bottom line is, there are all types of historical facts, crimes committed by governments, events, pieces of information, that the ordinary person has not investigated. Once you learn about historical facts that are suppressed by governments, corporations, and their media partners, you realize this:

      Nobody has a perfect measure of probability. Nobody has the ability to say “no, that can’t be true, that’s not probable,” because to have an accurate sense of probability, you’d have to know a lot more than you do.

      There are so many historical facts that could obliterate a person’s perception of “probable.”

      If an ordinary person spent a few days being educated by a person into these facts, a person who mainstream culture would condemn as a “conspiracy theorist,” they would never see the world the same again.

      Mainstream academia cannot reasonably sit on a pedestal and claim that they have supreme ability to measure probability.

      Moon landing conspiracy theories have little to do with an understanding of the irrefutable reality of hegemony and its conniving, conspiring nature: the conspiring history of Rockefeller and Carnegie, the industrial magnates of the United States, creating corrupt academic institutions such as the University of Chicago, for example.

      Moon landing theories have little to do with the recent conspiracy facts of Halliburton being granted contracts in Iraq, or the US taking out Gaddafi in Libya to defend the petrodollar.

      There’s an entire world of geopolitics, an entire obfuscated world of geo-economic warfare, an entire world of power beneath the curtain of mainstream culture.

      There’s an entire world of history behind the industrial powers that fought in the World Wars (IG Farbin, National City Bank).

      There’s an entire world of depth behind the curtain of political theater, and it takes more effort to try and understand than some contracted, paid-off mainstream academics at the University of Kent are willing to put forth. Well, the amount of effort it takes is not something they can’t do, it’s something they won’t do. If you’re reading this, that’s probably abundantly clear to you.

      The establishment media would like to crush dissent, to crush speculation or questions for the official narrative: the truth is, it’s not narcissists who like to look deeper, it’s people with the common sense to realize that many things in our society are not right, and we need to understand history better to know why they are not right.

      Perhaps sometimes the more open-minded people could fall prey to an illusion, as we all might at times, but to try and paint it as some overarching, general rule of psychology that conspiracy theorists are narcissistic is preposterous.

      We need to understand where the structures of our society, corporations, and government powers really originated: the truth is, people conspire. Wealthy people conspire, infiltrate academia, have wars, use propaganda, and if a man in power can get away with something, history shows that they will take advantage.

      Please share this with as many people as possible, to clearly distinguish the difference between true geopolitics, true power, and some paranoid sounding speculation on the reality of the moon landing.

      • Quite right Veri, an excellent summation of the state of mainstream bullshit. Elementary.

    • I wonder if we are all 8th cousins of King John?

      “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.
      A free race cannot be born of slave mothers.
      Diplomats make it their business to conceal the facts.”~Margaret Sanger
      . . . .

      “Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108):

      Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
      Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
      Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
      . . .
      Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.:

      We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
      See also:

      • A great little video Veri. Yea, George Carlin told it like it is. Few and far between are those who were able to reach as many as he did with the Hard Truth.

    A verdict that you may never have heard of before is the exoneration of James Earl Ray in the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in 1999. The civil trial King v. Jowers went for 30 days; and in only 59 minutes of deliberation, the jury found the original case incorrect, and a Memphis PD Officer Loyd Jowers had been complicit in the conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King.

    The court case never received much media attention. In 1993, the lead up to the consideration of the trial by the King family; Jowers appeared on Prime Time Live on the ABC confessing publicly that he played a role in the assassination, and naming Lt. Earl Clark from the Memphis Police Department as the one who fired the shot that killed Dr. King.

    The lead up to the assassination, and on the day before, saw MLK’s security detail removed.

    Inspector Don H. Smith was responsible for the request to remove the security. Also removed were a black Memphis PD detective Ed Redditt, and two black firemen from a nearby station, who were known to Dr. King.

    The House Select Committee on Assassinations later heard an undercover Memphis Police Department Officer Marrell McCollough testifiy in 1978 that he joined the CIA following Dr King’s death. McCollough had said from his account that he witnessed the assassination from the parking lot of the Lorraine Motel and ran up the stairs to view the body. He remained on the premises until Dr. King’s death, even though others had been removed in the lead up to the event.

    Finally, the Tact 10 police escort that was to accompany Dr. King’s security detail was pulled on the day before his death, by an Inspector Evans.

    The final conclusion by the trial in 1999 who heard from 70 witnesses, ruled that there was a “conspiracy to kill Martin King involving agents of the government of the United States, State of Tennessee, City of Memphis…”

    But after the first 12 hours of reporting the ruling just faded…and “nobody ever heard about it.”


    On Thursday, the district’s chief medical examiner’s office said Lesin died from blunt force injuries to his head. It seems as though Lesin’s enemies finally acted on their resentment of the millionaire.

    The announcement of the heart attack back in November makes this case all the more ominous considering the fact that the medical examiner’s office also said Lesin’s body had blunt force trauma to the neck, torso, arms and legs too. How did authorities overlook his wounds?

    What’s more, investigators have yet to declare his death a criminal act, even after these findings.

    The medical examiner’s office did not explain the timing of its announcement, nor why the findings took so long, reports the NY Times. Officials there had said as recently as Wednesday that it would not imminently release its findings, only to reverse course the next day. According to the Times, his death remains the subject of a police investigation, though spokesmen for the Metropolitan Police Department and the F.B.I. in Washington declined to comment.



    Donald Trump’s history with the Mob—beginning with early business partners in Atlantic City who were ‘dese dem & dose’ guys with crooked noses who knew where Jimmy Hoffawas really buried —is a virtual travelogue through 30 years of ever-more sophisticated organized crime.

    Relying on the Mob for support in Atlantic City and during construction of his signature New York projects is certainly lamentable. But Trump’s questionable early partners are only half of the story.

    At a moment when Americans have begun registering their anger at having been swindled financially, Trump’s ‘homies’ in Palm Beach, whose exploits have victimized entire nations, could provoke real outrage. If, that is, they ever receive exposure.

    There’s a corrupt nursing home magnate, at least one Russian Mobster, and a serial thief who may have “hidden out on a Trump property in Palm Beach” while INTERPOL was looking to serve a criminal warrant for looting a big bank in Thailand.

    There’s Trump buddy, and favorite for a Cabinet post in a Trump Administration, shady financier Carl Icahn, whose checkered career may finally get the attention it deserves.

    Example: Icahn made a $100 million investment in a bogus St. Petersburg Florida company whose only “product” turned out to be 5.5 tons of cocaine busted on a company plane. The plane, a DC-9, was also used to give illegal free rides during the 2000 election to soon-to-be Florida Senator and later nationwide GOP Campaign Finance Chair Mel Martinez.

    And there’s Saudi wheeler-dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who sold Trump his yacht at a bargain-basement price, winters in Palm Beach, and is similarly fabulous.

    While Khashoggi specializes these days in robbing banks from the inside, (PDF, pg 8), and evading INTERPOL arrest warrants, he periodically rapes the American financial system for hundreds of millions of dollars—with STOCKWALK, for example, a scam that cost Deutsche Bank $278 million in fines.

    Trump’s Palm Beach homies may be slightly more genteel… But they’ve stolen far more money than Trump’s Mob partners back in Jersey ever dreamed possible.

    The subject surfaced thanks to someinarticulate heavy breathing recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, who speculated last week that Trump hasn’t released his tax returns because they show ties to the Mob.

    Then on Sunday Cruz doubled-down, accusing the media of knowing all about it, but waiting for just the right time. “The media is sitting on ‘bombshell’ exposes on Donald Trump,” he said, “but won’t publish it until the tycoon is the Republican nominee.”~Daniel Hopsicker

    […] See much more:


    “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
    – James Madison, Founding Father and 4th President of these United States

    Our founding fathers studied power structures over the millennia and knew exactly what they were doing when solidifying the Bill of Rights into the U.S. Constitution. All it took was a couple hundred years, an extraordinarily ignorant and apathetic American public, and a major terror attack to roll back this multi-generational gift.

    For many years, I and countless others have been screaming from the rooftops that a society should never trade civil liberties for security. Life on earth has always been dangerous for us humans, and what has historically separated free and noble civilizations from stunted tyrannies is a willingness to acknowledge such a precarious existence while at the same time demanding and defending one’s dignity and liberty. In the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11 (seemingly carried out by U.S. ally Saudi Arabia), the American public has demonstrated no such strength of character or historical maturity, thus allowing a corrupt, deceptive and lawless government to run roughshod over freedom with very little resistance.

    Well now the chickens are coming home to roost. The tyrannical powers granted to government in order to stop foreign terrorists are rapidly being turned inward against an ever servile and apathetic American public.

    As Radley Balko at the Washington Post notes:


  17. H. L. Mencken

    Henry Louis “H. L.” Mencken (September 12, 1880 – January 29, 1956) was a German-American journalist, satirist, cultural critic and scholar of American English.[1] Known as the “Sage of Baltimore”, he is regarded as one of the most influential American writers and prose stylists of the first half of the twentieth century. As a scholar Mencken is known for The American Language, a multi-volume study of how the English language is spoken in the United States. His satirical reporting on the Scopes trial, which he dubbed the “Monkey Trial”, also earned him notoriety. He commented widely on the social scene, literature, music, prominent politicians and contemporary movements.

  18. “Contemporary academic histories, with perhaps the sole exception of Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy And Hope, ignore this evidence. On the other hand, it is understandable that universities and research organizations, dependent on financial aid from foundations that are controlled by this same New York financial elite, would hardly want to support and to publish research on these aspects of international politics. The bravest of trustees is unlikely to bite the hand that feeds his organization.”~Antony Sutton


    Sutton was referring to the information in his book – but I think these points he made are well taken on the many topics discussed here;
    Going along to get along – not daring to “rock the boat” unwilling to stand out from the crowd of conformity.
    More than ‘conspiracy’ these are the reasons for silence in the face of the pathological system; Moral Cowardice. Fear of disenfranchisement, loss of status and livelihood.


  19. Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect” by Jon Rappoport
    December 19, 2012

    “No, I’m not talking about the flicker of the television picture. I’m talking about an on-off switch that controls information conveyed to the television audience.
    The Sandy Hook school murders provide an example.
    First of all, elite media coverage of this tragedy has one goal: to provide an expanding narrative of what happened. It’s a story. It has a plot.
    In order to tell the story, there has to be a source of information. The top-flight television anchors are getting their information from…where?
    Their junior reporters? Not really. Ultimately, the information is coming from the police, and secondarily from local officials.
    In other words, very little actual journalism is happening. The media anchors are absorbing, arranging, and broadcasting details given to them by the police investigators.
    The anchors are PR people for the cops.
    This has nothing to do with journalism. Nothing.
    The law-enforcement agencies investigating the Sandy Hook shootings on the scene, in real time, were following up on leads? We don’t what leads they were following and what leads they were discarding. We don’t know what mistakes they were making. We don’t know what evidence they were overlooking or intentionally ignoring. We don’t know whether there were any corrupt cops who were slanting evidence.
    The police were periodically giving out information to the media. The anchors were relaying this information to the audience.
    So when the police privately tell reporters, “We chased a suspect into the woods above the school,” that becomes a television fact. Until it isn’t a fact any longer.
    The police, for whatever reason, decide to drop the whole “suspect in the woods” angle. Why? No idea.
    Therefore, the media anchors no longer mention it.
    Instead the police are focused on Adam Lanza, who is found dead in the school. So are the television anchors, who no longer refer to the suspect in the woods.
    That old thread is gone down the memory hole.
    What does this do to the audience who has been following the narrative on television? It sets up a flicker effect. An hour ago, it was suspect in the woods. Now, that bit of data is gone. On-off switch. It was on, now it’s off.
    This is a break in logic. It makes no sense.
    Which is the whole point….”
    They flicker yes and they flicker no. They edit and cut and discard and tailor as they go along. Yes, no, yes, no. On, off, on, off.
    And the viewers follow, in a state of hypnosis.

    Because the viewers are addicted to STORY. They are as solidly addicted as a junkie looking for his next shot.
    “Tell me a story. I want a story. That was a good story, but now I’m bored. Tell me another story. Please? I need another story. Tell me the beginning and the middle and the end. I’m listening. I’m watching. Tell me a story.”

    And the anchors oblige.
    They deal the drug.

    But to get the drug, the audience has to surrender everything they question. They have to submit to the flicker effect and go under. Actually, surrendering to the flicker effect deepens the addiction.

    And the drug deal is consummated.

    Welcome to television coverage.

    • If Nugent thinks that Trump isn’t part of the System he is a naïve bitch.
      Anyone who thinks electoral politics is anything but a cheesy burlesque has shot too many inanimate targets.


    • Naomi Wolf – The End of America revisited – New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2014

      10 STEPS TO FASCISM by Naomi Wolf

      1. Invoke an External and Internal Threat
      2. Establish Secret Prisons
      3. Develop a Paramillitary Force
      4. Surveil Ordinary Citizens
      5. Infiltrate Citizens’ Groups
      6. Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens
      7. Target Key Individuals
      8. Restrict the Press
      9. Cast Criticism as “Espionage” and Dissent as “Treason”
      10. Subvert the Rule of Law

  20. Wake Up World

    We Don’t Need a New President; We Need a New Consciousness and a New System 1

    13th March 2016

    By Makia Freeman

    Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

    What the United States needs most right now is a new consciousness, and a new system which springs from that elevated consciousness – not a new president.

    Here we are again in the midst of another long election cycle in the US, and what has changed? Yes, there are more “outsiders” this time, to the extent that you can call Sanders (a career politician) and Trump (a billionaire intent on always getting the best deal, in true capitalistic style, no matter what) “outsiders”. You see it every election cycle; a new candidate emerges, promising hope, change and sometimes even a revolution. But how often does it actually lead to significant, lasting and beneficial change? Can any candidate really deliver as much freedom, peace and abundance to the average person as much as an improved new system?

    The “Hope and Change” Ride

    Many get swept away by the euphoria of it. Obamamania was a classic example. Obama was Mr. Hope and Change, but as many have noted, he turned out to be Bush on steroids, or tyranny with a smiley face. Obama has continued and expanded all the wars he inherited, spearheaded a whole new type of war (remote controlled drone killings) and signed pieces of legislation like the NDAA which allows Americans to be held indefinitely without trial, in gross violation of the 6th amendment among others.

    Is this the kind of hope and change people thought they were getting when they voted for Obama?

    Hope and change, or similar notions, are almost always seized upon by politicians vying for office, because they play off people’s dissatisfaction with the status quo. However, history shows us that generally the promised change never quite happens in a way that’s good for the people. The movement or revolution in the making tends to dissipate once the candidate takes office. It leaves us betrayed and trapped, like a donkey tricked into doing hard work, reaching forward for the carrot on a fishing line that always remains out of grasp no matter what he does.

    Understanding the Four Types of Political and Corporate Lies

    Although Bernie Sanders is clearly of a higher moral character than Obama, what will his brand of “change” be? If he wins, will he, as Chris Hedges writes, just be the leader of another phantom movement?

    The US President Has Too Much Power — Whoever It Is

    We may get a new president, but he or she will inherit the same system of control. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. Lord Acton famously said that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It is a very rare person indeed who cannot be corrupted by the massive excess of power that is afforded an office like that of the US President.

    US presidents have the power to fire anyone in the entire executive branch of the government, and also to command the instant destruction of entire cities. The US has thousands of nuclear missiles; only the president can give the signal to launch them. Why are we still allowing a system to exist that gives one person such massive power over the entire world?

    Call It What It Is – America Is A Police State 3

    Men like JFK, although he had flaws like anyone, held to his principles (for which he paid his life), but he was one in a million. It is insane to continue on with a system that keeps deceiving, manipulating and enslaving us, waiting in vain for someone “good” to finally take office and reverse it all. We will run out of breath trying.

    Let’s Face It: Power is Way Too Centralized

    The issue is clearly that there is too much power vested in too few hands. Power is far too centralized already, and the goal of the New World Order is further centralization of power into a world government. If we care about freedom, we need to be going in the opposite direction: decentralization of power.

    Haven’t we learned enough from history, with pages full of mass murder, genocide and war, to see the disastrous consequences of concentrating power in too few hands? Or are we going to continue to delude ourselves that decentralization is too inefficient, and that it’s better to sacrifice freedom for “more efficacious decision making”? It’s just like our health; many people would rather eat fast food and hold cell phones to their heads for hours (thus microwaving themselves) because it’s more “convenient” than eating home cooked meals and talking on landlines. Our values and priorities are so out of whack we are literally killing ourselves with our decisions.

    It’s time humanity asked itself: politically, what’s more important – freedom or efficiency?

    Creating a New System

    You may say I’m a dreamer

    Imagine if we put as much power into changing the system as we did changing the US president. Imagine a new system where the government only had 1/6th of its current power, and things like defense, education, energy and healthcare were decentralized and not under the government umbrella. Imagine a new system like direct democracy where citizens could vote electronically on bills and initiatives, thus bypassing much of the need for elected representatives. Imagine a new system where the government had to balance its books and legally could not borrow to go into debt. Imagine a new system where only those who didn’t want the job were chosen, in order to prevent the ambitious from becoming career politicians. Imagine a new system where campaigning and rigged electronic voting machines were banned. Imagine a new system where anyone who declared war would have to personally go on the front lines to fight it!

    We have the numbers and the power. We could create any new system we wanted to, only limited by our imagination and our will. Many societies in humanity’s past used a council of elders or wise men and women as their sole political vehicle. Some native American Indians gave great power to the old women or crones, who got to decide which men would be leaders, since they knew their characters as young children, when they had reared and watched over them.

    Elevated Consciousness: Key to Any New System

    However, before we create any possible new decentralized system, we need to address the root cause of the issue. To really be beneficial, any new system must be grounded in a higher state of consciousness. Einstein said that a problem can only be solved by moving to a higher level of thinking than that which created it. The real revolution has to be a revolution of consciousness. Any other movement or revolution that is not accompanied by this is bound to fail.

    Activism without spirituality is just an angry mob

    Conclusion: It’s Time for a Real Revolution

    Imagine if we put as much power into changing the system as changing the President.

    If you live in the US, I urge you to think big this election cycle. Don’t just think about which candidate you want, because after all, many are bought-and-sold NWO puppets. Think about the entire system. Think about what changes you would make if you could. Think about what system would better serve everyone. Share this with people you know, even if they aren’t open to it, because it may just plant a seed in their minds. We don’t have to constantly settle for mediocrity by choosing the lesser of two evils. We’re better than that.

    At some point we created the government, and thus, so too can we dissolve it and replace it with an entirely new system if we so choose. Remember the words from the Declaration of Independence:

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

  21. Dopamine

    Dopamine is an organic chemical of the catecholamine and phenethylamine families that plays several important roles in the brain and body. Its name is derived from its chemical structure: it is an amine synthesized by removing a carboxyl group from a molecule of its precursor chemical L-DOPA, which is synthesized in the brain and kidneys. Dopamine is also synthesized in plants and most multicellular animals.

    In the brain, dopamine functions as a neurotransmitter—a chemical released by neurons (nerve cells) to send signals to other nerve cells. The brain includes several distinct dopamine pathways, one of which plays a major role in reward-motivated behavior. Most types of reward increase the level of dopamine in the brain, and most addictive drugs increase dopamine neuronal activity. Other brain dopamine pathways are involved in motor control and in controlling the release of various hormones. The pathways and cell groups make up a dopamine system which is neuromodulatory.

    Outside the central nervous system, dopamine functions in several parts of the peripheral nervous system as a local chemical messenger. In blood vessels, it inhibits norepinephrine release and acts as a vasodilator (at normal concentrations); in the kidneys, it increases sodium excretion and urine output; in the pancreas, it reduces insulin production; in the digestive system, it reduces gastrointestinal motility and protects intestinal mucosa; and in the immune system, it reduces the activity of lymphocytes. With the exception of the blood vessels, dopamine in each of these peripheral systems is synthesized locally and exerts its effects near the cells that release it.


    Welcome To The Empire Of Chaos

    Globalist Agenda
    MARCH 13, 2016
    chaosOp-Ed by Ulson Gunnar

    When globe-trotting journalist and keen geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar refers to the United States as the “Empire of Chaos,” it may seem like hyperbole. But upon looking deeper at both Escobar’s coverage and the United States’ foreign policy itself, it is perhaps the most accurate title for this political entity and its means of operation, perhaps more apt than the name “The United States” itself.

    In the wake of World War II, the US and its allies set out upon the reclamation of the West’s lost colonies, many of which took advantage of Europe’s infighting to either establish independence from their long-standing colonial masters, or begin the conflicts that would inevitably lead toward independence.

    Perhaps the most well-known of these conflicts was the Vietnam War. The United States would involve itself in the dissolution of French Indochina at the cost of some 4 million lives in a conflict that would embroil not only Vietnam, but much of Southeast Asia, including Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. Covert coups and brutal insurgencies were underwritten by Washington across the planet, from the Middle East to South and Central America. And while this too seems chaotic, the goal always seemed to be the destruction of independent states, and the creation of viable client states.

    These client states included the Shah’s Iran, Saudi Arabia, much, if not all of Western Europe and even to varying degrees, some of the enduring autocracies of the Middle East until for one reason or another they fell out of favor with Washington. The idea was to create an international order built upon the concept of globalization.

    Globalization was meant to be a system of vast interdependencies governed by international institutions created by and for the United States and more specifically, the special interests that have long since co-opted America’s destiny.

    However, the concept of globalization seems to have neglected any anticipation for rapid technological advances in both terms of information technology and manufacturing. There are very few real interdependencies left to stitch this vision of globalization together with many of them being artificially maintained at increasing costs. The idea of using sanctions to ‘starve’ a nation by isolating it from this global order has been exposed as more or less impotent by nations like Iran and North Korea who have sustained themselves for decades despite everything besides air and gravity being denied to them.

    Indeed, nations understand the value of self-sufficiency in both terms of politics and the basic necessities which constitute any state’s infrastructure. Russia’s recent encounter with Western sanctions has caused it to look not only eastward, but inward, to secure its interests and to transcend sanctions wholly dependent on the concept of “globalization.”

    As this “carrot and stick” method of working the world into Wall Street and Washington’s international order becomes less effective, some of the uglier and less elegant tools of the West’s geopolitical trade have taken a more prominent role on the global stage. It appears that if the West cannot rule this international order built upon the concepts of globalization, it will rule an international order built on chaos.

    The Empire of Chaos

    The unipolar geopolitical concepts that underpin globalization have eroded greatly. Nations no longer have to pick between an existence of lonely isolation and socioeconomic atrophy or subordination within this international order. Instead, they can pick to associate with the growing community of what the West calls “rogue states.” So large has this list grown that the US may soon find itself and Western Europe the last remaining members of its failed international order.

    The real danger for an aspiring global empire is to find a planet that has suddenly begun to move in tandem out from under its shadow and moving on without them in relative peace and prosperity. To prevent this from happening we have seen a concerted effort focused on disrupting and destroying this emerging multi-polar world.

    In Europe, the refugee crisis is being used to polarize European society and allow governments to increase their power domestically and further justify wars abroad. Along Western Europe’s borders, facing Russia, a relative stable balancing act maintained by former Soviet territories attempting to benefit from associating with both East and West has been turned into outright war.

    Throughout North Africa and the Middle East, any nation that even so much as slightly resembles a sovereign nation state has been undermined and attempts to violently overthrow them pursued. The goal is no longer to create viable client states, but rather to Balkanize and leave them in ruins so as to never contest Western ambitions in the region again. This can be observed clearly in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen where none of the groups backed by the US and its allies could ever realistically run a functioning nation state.

    And in Asia, in state after state, those leading political parties marked by Washington for future client status are being removed from power and their leaders, long backed by the US, being either exiled or jailed.

    Where these political gambits are crumbling, a steady stream of violence perpetrated by terrorist groups not even indigenous to the region has begun to build in strength.

    Divide and Conquer

    Divide and conquer is a geopolitical maxim that has served as empire’s bread and butter since the beginning of recorded human civilization. When the British could not subdue a targeted territory just beyond the grasp of its empire, it would divide and destroy them. A ruined nation that can be plundered and trampled may not be as desirable as a loyal client state run by a British viceroy, but it is better than a pocket of national sovereignty serving as an example for others of the merits of resisting “Great Britain.”

    This Book Could Save Your Life (Ad)

    Today, it is clear that the idea of creating a client state in the midst of a general public increasingly aware of the features and fixations of modern empire is becoming ever more tenuous. Such client states are less likely to be accepted by a local population who, with minimum effort, can put up significant resistance against even the best funded of foreign proxies.

    Globalism required more and more illusions to convince people they needed a global system controlled by far-off special interests to do what can now be done through advances in technology nationally and even locally. Now all that is left is the sowing of chaos to prevent people from leveraging this technology nationally and locally, to keep them divided and distracted for as long as possible, to perpetuate the West’s global hegemony for as long as possible.

    Moving Beyond the Chaos

    An empire built on chaos is not meant to last. Chaos, like the international order of globalization that preceded it, requires illusions and manipulation to perpetuate itself. Unfortunately, stirring chaos among a population is a lot easier than convincing them of the non-existent interdependencies of globalization.

    Nations leading the way out of this chaos include those who have suffered the most because of it. Their leaders have realized the necessity of closing off the vectors through which the West feeds this chaos within their borders, which include socioeconomic disparity, foreign-funded propaganda, foreign-funded nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and of course extremist groups used to carry out the actual terrorism and agitation required to create the worst sort of chaos.

    Russia and China in particular have been busy creating alternatives not only for the remnants of the West’s globalization racket, but alternatives for the unipolar world the West was trying to create. They are both looking within and across their borders to create a patchwork of nations ready to move beyond the chaos and toward a more widespread balance of power.

    By in turn, placing sanctions on the West, Russia is forcing itself to not only produce raw materials for export, but to become a more capable producer of finished goods. By doing so, Russia has begun a process that turns America’s sanctions game back onto itself. While many believe Washington drives American policy, it is unrealistic to discount Wall Street’s role. By cutting the corporations trading on Wall Street down to size, one cuts down their unwarranted power they wield on the global stage.

    Nations choosing to trade rather than being forced to because of an ungainly system of globalization ensures that any given people have more control over not only what they buy and sell, but how and where their natural resources are used.

    With the Empire of Chaos in terminal decline and with a new multi-polar order emerging, the only question left to ask is; will chaos spread and destroy faster than this new multi-polar order can be built? It is certainly a close race pushing both sides into acts of increasingly unimaginable confrontation.

  23. “We are moving in the direction of a formalized system of despotism where people and organizations that have financial power get what they want…and, increasingly, make everybody else pay those costs,” Tabbi said. “We’re going back in time now, to the old way of doing things, where we have one tiny upper class, and then there is the whole segment of everybody else who doesn’t really have any rights. That’s unfortunate.”

    Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi proves real conspiracies and warns financial despotism is breaking America
    The journalist and author says the United States is doing all right, at least by the standards of the crumbling Soviet Union.
    by Travis Lupick on July 13th, 2013 at 3:54 PM
    In a sit-down with the Straight on July 12, Taibbi discussed the dysfunctions of democracies in which elections are up for sale. In addition, he described how the financial system is openly manipulated to favour the super-rich, and highlighted spying programs that violate the rights of millions.

    He also commented on the Obama administration’s overseas assassination operations, and how the law has been contorted to allow for death squads to operate beyond it.

    “When did it become okay for us to go out and just assassinate people?” he asked in reference to U.S. drone strikes. “I remember being 25, 30 years old, and if you had told me back then that the United States was going out and extra-legally assassinating people by the thousand, I think it would have been a national outrage among somebody. Now, it’s out in the open.”

    Taibbi said that this level of government audacity is why he has a problem with conspiracy theorists, such as those who argue that the September 11 attacks were an inside job. (He also dismissed suggestions of government foul play in relation to the death of Michael Hastings, a fellow writer for Rolling Stone who covered national security issues before dying in an alleged car accident on June 18, 2013.)

    “They are still convinced that conspiracies are these things that take place with the Rothschilds and the Illuminati, and that it’s all taking place behind some closed door somewhere,” Taibbi said. “I’m like, ‘They’re not hiding it. It’s right out in the open.’

    “Like the financial conspiracies that are going on,” he explained. “During the bailouts in 2008, a handful of people got together and they redistributed all of these fallen companies. They just sort of handed out who was going to get Washington Mutual [which went to JPMorgan Chase], who was going to get Wachovia [Wells Fargo], and who was going to get Merrill Lynch [Bank of America]. And none of that stuff happened with the permission of the American people. It didn’t have anything to do with the free market. It was a bunch of guys getting together and just deciding how things were going to be. That’s a conspiracy, but they didn’t hide it.”

    Taibbi offered a second, more-recent example of corruption that borders on organized conspiracy: the case of HSBC, which, Taibbi said, figures prominently in a book he’s writing. In December 2012, HSBC agreed to pay a record $1.92-billion settlement to U.S. authorities after admitting to laundering huge amounts of money for Latin American drug cartels and violating a number of other laws, including the Trading with the Enemy Act.

    “It is an extraordinary case, an extraordinary step in the wrong direction,” Taibbi emphasized. “Here is a company that admitted to laundering over $800 million for the worst and most-violent drug cartels in the world and nobody has gone to jail.
    […] More at:

  24. hybridrogue1 — August 1, 2012 at 2:12 am

    And so now Fetzer has joined in egging Felton on – adding fuel to the fire that he started. Fetzer was obviously referring directly to me, with the flimsiest of veiled rhetoric; as I pointed out on the thread where this is taking place {Fear of Ridicule}. As I am the one who has objected most strenuously against his Orwellian term “No-Planes”. I am his most vociferous opponent on this blog.

    Fetzer continues to use the term NPT but now adds qualifiers of “No Commercial Planes” etc…and these qualifiers are essential enough to replace NPT or “No-planes Theory” if he actually meant to replace them – BUT he doesn’t mean it, he is conning us, because he really means no-planes, that the aircraft witnessed and recorded were HOLOGRAMS.

    So this offer of qualifiers is disingenuous mollification, to appease this host and readership with clumsy rhetorical acrobatics.

    There is no business like bullshit, and bullshit is Fetzer’s game.

  25. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress – FLNWO #33
    This month on Film, Literature and the New World Order David Friedman joins us to discuss Robert Heinlein’s science fiction classic, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. We discuss the power of Heinlein’s example of an anarchistic society and examine that society’s devolution into democracy. We also talk about whether books like this have value as metaphor or even blueprint for an anarchist transformation of society.


    • Feud as Law Enforcement, Ancient and Modern
      David Friedman
      Germanic law development
      Germanic law: Rise of feudal and monarchial states
      …the power of the Carolingian kings of the Frankish Empire and to make the inhabitants of their own areas their vassals. These vassals held their land from the lords as tenants of a so-called feud, or fee. Each feudal lord held a court for his tenants in which he applied the same law to all of the tenants, irrespective of their racial or national origin. Thus the old Germanic personal…

    • Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, March 10, 2016

      I thought it would be interesting to hear a bit of what Lyndon LaRouche has to say. I do not agree with much of what LaRouche has to say. I am not a Libertarian, nor a statist in any form whatsoever. But I think it is important to understand those we disagree with as well as those we think we do agree with.


    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

    William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

  27. though I don’t like the man, and I disagree with his politics, I respect his news-reporting. And, here is what he says, in a rush interview with the ‘conspiracy theorist’ (another libertarian) Alex Jones, on Saturday evening, March 12th, and I think that the entire nation needs to hear Stone’s account, at least to give it consideration. So, here it is:

    My rush transcript of highlights from his rush-interview:

    I think everybody in the country has now heard about these violent protests [at Trump rallies] which are being blamed on supporters of Bernie Sanders. … This is a false-flag. These demonstrators are flying under a false banner. They are not Sanders supporters by-and-large. This is an operation directed by supporters of Hillary Clinton, paid for by George Soros and Move-On, by David Brock at Media Matters for America, also funded by Soros, and also by the reclusive billionaire Jonathan Lewis. Now, Lewis was identified by the Miami New Times as a ‘mystery man.’ He inherited roughly a billion dollars from his father Peter Lewis … [founder of Progressive Insurance Company]. Jonathan Lewis interestingly withdrew his support of the Democratic National Committee over the immigration bill that he thought was unfair to gays. In any event, this is a Hillary Clinton operation. The idea here, very clearly, is to divide the Sanders economic voters from Trump; in other words, those voters who lost their jobs because of NAFTA and all of the other globalist international trade-deals that have screwed this country, they now realize that these voters are potentially, when Sanders is out of the race, Trump votes, and this is an effort to make Trump toxic, to disqualify him, [as a] racist, bigot, the whole thing is essentially a hoax. It’s a gambit directed, by the way, by Brock. Brock was once a friend of mine and was a comrade in the fight for freedom; but he went over to the dark side, with the Clintons, for money: big, big, big, money; and this is unfortunately his little dirty trick, Unfortunately, they have leaks within their operation, my sources are of the very best. The entire collaboration in Chicago is a Hillary Clinton operation. And, frankly, I can’t see Bernie Sanders having anything to do with it. I don’t agree with Bernie, but I respect him, and this is not his handiwork or the handiwork of his campaign.

    [Jones here goes on to explain why he respects the investigative reports from Stone, then says, “When I saw all these Bernie shirts and Bernie people saying ‘We attack!’ — you know, people shooting guns in the air saying ‘We support Bernie!’ that is so clearly a way to attack him, make him look like a radical revolutionary, and to make Hillary look good, and also make Trump look like a racist when the media plays this up. You’re absolutely right. … To be clear: you have sources inside saying this is a Soros/Brock Media Matters, which they admit is run by the White House, they have weekly meetings, Obama’s former transition chief. … We’ve seen the build-up toward race-war this summer, this fall, to try to cloud the entire election; is that what you’re getting at; is this the opening salvo … ]

    [Stone continues] I think Hillary understands that Trump would lose the votes of certain establishment Republicans if he is the nominee. On the other hand, it doesn’t matter, because of his crossover outreach. Right now in Ohio, Democrats and independents in the Mahoning Valley, these people have lost their jobs because of these great globalist trade deals, are lining up to vote for Donald Trump in the Republican primary, which is legal in Ohio with some paperwork. And we saw this same crossover in Michigan. So it occurred to the Clinton people that Bernie’s economic voters — not his hard-left voters, she’s not going to get them, they’re not going for Hillary, blue-collar folks who have just figured out that they have been left out of the new-world-order economy, are a ripe target for Trump; he’s already getting that, she is petrified of it; so, this little maneuver, this David Brock dirty trick, solves two problems at once: it helps knock down Bernie, because after all these people are involved in violence; and it also disqualifies Trump as a future vote, by portraying him as a racist or a bigot. The whole thing is a kabuki dance. And I think it’s very important that Trump understand that it’s not the Sanders campaign that’s disrupting his rallies; this is a Hillary Clinton operation.

    [Jones asks for more details.]

    [Stone continues] Hillary Clinton empowered a certain member of Congress to approach the billionaire John Lewis to pay for a portion of this overall program. This isn’t just Chicago. You’re now going to see these phony demonstrators, these ringers, showing up at other Trump events. … That’s as much as I’m prepared to say. …

  28. Police avoided federal civil rights charges in 96% of cases over 20 years – report
    Posted: 13 Mar 2016 09:00 PM PDT
    Federal prosecutors chose not to levy charges against US law enforcement officers alleged to have committed civil rights violations in 96 percent of relevant cases from 1995 to 2015, according to a new investigative report. Based on analysis of nearly 3 million records from the US Department of Justice’s National Caseload Data, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review found that the 94 US Attorney offices declined 12,703 referrals of potential civil rights violations made by the FBI and other agencies out of a total of 13,233 complaints. This 96 percent rejection rate for potential civil rights violations against officers contrasts with a 23 percent rejection rate that prosecutors exercised for all other allegations of criminal activity in the same time period.
    One more report confirming the immunity from prosecution afforded the police in this Police State.

  29. Crashes of Convenience: Michael Connell

    In late 2008, the GOP’s theft of the 2004 presidential election via vote machine rigging in Ohio was on the verge of being exposed. An insider had been identified and deposed, and he was ready to be sworn in as a star witness in a major trial…but on December 19, 2008, the small Piper airplane he was piloting crashed on approach to the Akron-Canton Regional Airport. Join us today on The Corbett Report as we start connecting the pieces of the Michael Connell puzzle.

    NOTE: This is a visualization of Episode 226 of The Corbett Report podcast, first released on April 14, 2012. This video was recently posted to The Corbett Report Extras YouTube channel as part of a project to make older Corbett Report audio podcasts and interviews available on YouTube. If you are interested in seeing more of this content in the future please SUBSCRIBE TO THE THE CORBETT REPORT EXTRAS CHANNEL.


  30. “OK. Yes, we are bored. We’re all bored now. But has it ever occurred to you Wally that the process that creates this boredom that we see in the world now may very well be a self-perpetuating, unconscious form of brainwashing, created by a world totalitarian government based on money, and that all of this is much more dangerous than one thinks? and it’s not just a question of individual survival Wally, but that somebody who’s bored is asleep, and somebody who’s asleep will not say no” ~My Dinner with Andre


    It is a common assumption that when we use the word “talent”, that we all know what we each mean personally when using the term. This is an assumption based in the acceptance of the idea of consensus.
    There is a brief “dictionary definition” of the term. And when such a definition is referred to by a specific individual, they assume that their particular understanding has some universal application, when in fact the life experiences of each individual is going to afford a unique and separate view of things from anyone else in the entire world of time and space.

    Like all human language, the term “talent” is a metaphor, the ‘meaning’ of which is a complex of sensations and memories of past sensations blended into a ‘present moment’. Who and what it is that is experiencing that present moment is taken purely on assumption – that assumption being that the meat-creature inhabiting the universe of the time-space-continuum is the essential point of reference.

    Talent is known personally by those who possess it to the degree which it is possessed. It is possessed in unequal portions from individual to individual. Individuals lacking in talent haven’t the imagination to grasp what a talented individual does. They take the term “imagination” to mean merely ‘flights of fancy’, not getting the fact that imagination is the seed to creativity; that curiosity and imagination are intimately entwined.

    • Beautiful, yes, inspiring I don’t know.. Wolves are welcome as long they’re managed.. And Monbiot’s Disneyesque fairy tale has been scientifically discredited quite some time back.. The International Bankers have always been behind all the worlds philosophical and economic concepts and even the trend of going green, is really their idea and no doubt, they will be the ultimate beneficiaries. Real environmentalism is a good thing when used for the benefit of all life, these eco systems, and for the people living here in the west. The pseudo sciences and what i call weaponized environmentalism used to destroy businesses, livelihoods and families is disgusting and is a part of the war us truthers are involved in by pushing back against this warmongering police state, which includes this bullshit corporate controlled opposition environmentalism coming straight out of the Club of Rome, The UNEP Bio-diversity Assessment, YES WILLY that international treaty known as agenda 2100.. The proof is in various United Nations Publications.

      “The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts or RSWT…was previously known by the names Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves and Royal Society for Nature Conservation.”

      History – The forerunner of the RSWT, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, was established by Charles Rothschild in 1912. It aimed initially to draw up a list of the country’s best wildlife sites with a view to purchase for protection as nature reserves, and by 1915 it had drawn up a list of 284, known as Rothschild Reserves.” Source: Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts. Nathaniel Charles Rothschild (9 May 1877 – 12 October 1923), known as “Charles”, was an English banker and entomologist and a member of the Rothschild family. And – The Wildlife Trusts, The Rothschild Reserves.. – Climate Change & Wildlife – The Wildlife Trusts – And takes us to Giammaria Ortes: The Decadent Venetian Kook Who Originated The Myth of “Carrying Capacity”.. World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF (formerly named the, World Wildlife Fund, WWF) World Wildlife Fund / World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Founders –Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld – Julian Huxley – Max Nicholson – Peter Scott – Guy Mountfort – Godfrey A. Rockefeller – The Windsors..

      These people were claiming over population back then.. And what else were they connected with? Eugenics, sterilization, genocides via their war creation.. Sustainablility and its development’, is a cruel deception in which a vast majority of people in the world, as victims of its ‘doublespeak hidden agenda’, work towards their own elimination, with the enslavement of the surviving few, housed in concentration camp ‘smart growth’ community dwellings, serving the rest of their miserable lives as serfs..

      All tied in to the varying levels of research we both do.. Same cockroaches Willy..

    • “THAT there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force, cannot be denied.”~James Hamilton

      A most obvious declaration of war upon the people by the main architect of the so-called “Constitution for The United States”…One nation under the rule of force.

      Government is a racket.

  32. Year Zero – The Silent Death of Cambodia
    A documentary by John Pilger

    President Nixon and Mr. Kissinger unleashed 100,000 tons of bombs, the equivalent of 5 Hiroshimas.

    The bombing was their personal decision; they illegally and secretly, they bombed Cambodia, a neutral country, back to the Stone Age.

    And I mean Stone Age in its’ literal sense.

    John Pilger vividly reveals the brutality and murderous political ambitions of the Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge totalitarian regime which bought genocide and despair to the people of Cambodia while neighboring countries, including Australia, shamefully ignored the immense human suffering and unspeakable crimes that bloodied this once beautiful country.


  33. The “Need to Know” as constricted by the usurpers who instituted the National Security State, is not restricted to military matters. A people who would be free must have access to information to make meaningful decisions for themselves. The sequestering of information by the State is counter to the entire conceptual underpinning developed in the Declaration of Independence.

    The unalienable rights to Liberty cannot be maintained by a population that is uninformed and disinformed by the illegitimate syndicate squatting in DC. “National Security” is a scam produced and maintained by charlatans to grasp political power in the hands of the few to lord over and rule the many.

    How many more generations of fools will it take before this system implodes on itself? Perhaps fewer than you might imagine.

  34. “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”~Edward Langley

  35. In the ebb and flow of a very interesting time indeed.
    “tHE COWBOY”

    5 threats Trump poses, and 6 plans to stop him

    Jon Rappoport via
    12:22 PM (6 hours ago)

    5 threats Trump poses, and 6 plans to stop him
    Underneath all the familiar charges leveled at Trump, there is one that has the shadow government deep in thought.
    Trump: the loosest cannon.
    by Jon Rappoport
    March 20, 2016
    (To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)
    Note: When I say “GOP,” I also include “Globalist.” Both major Parties are in the pocket of Rockefeller Globalists.

    —Here cometh the loose-talking cowboy and hustler, walking into the saloon; The Donald; and the customers are cheering.



    What went wrong? What in the world went wrong?

    The first 4 threats Trump poses:

    Threat One: The way he talks. It isn’t measured sing-song generality, which is the standard form of hypnotic prose in America for both politicians and media. The rise and fall of empty words isn’t his style, and believe me, that is disturbing to the establishment.

    Big-time politics and news in the US must be delivered in hypnotic cadence—otherwise they fall apart, because they have no inherent substance. But everything Trump is advocating is carried on the waves of far different rhythms—casual, direct, non-teleprompter, jump-around, zig-zag, off the cuff; as if, out of some bygone era, he’s saying: “Hey kid, here’s a dime, run down to the corner and get me a newspaper, and here’s a nickel for yourself…”

    Blown dry, androidal, high-flying, empty, sentimental, super-clean, sing-song—these are qualities drilled into, or already possessed by, successful pols and media stars. Trump cuts across and buries that style. He’s a disruptor, and he violates the cardinal rule, which is:

    Don’t wake the children.

    I can’t emphasize too strongly what a threat that poses to the status quo, which can only sustain itself through a tacit agreement, on all sides, to engage in trance-inducing speech.

    On top of all this, Trump is delivering messages that are beyond the pale, according to current standards of political correctness. Another jolt.

    Trump is doing one of these:

    “Listen, folks, they’re all lying to you. You know who I’m talking about. Last month I was in Cincinnati and this reporter came up to me, I could see she was all ready to do me in, you know? She had this big question she wanted to ask me, like she was going to kill me with it—I’ve known lots of people like that, you have, too. People all over the country are out of work but all she can think about is her pet question…jobs, we’ve got to bring them back…I’m calling those companies that went overseas and telling them, pack your bags and come back or you’re going to face…(pointing) he knows what I mean…I can see it on your face, what’s your name?…I’ll bet you know someone close to you who was thrown out of his job, or maybe you were…”

    Trump comes across every which way. Right side up, inside out, sideways.

    Threat Two: He gets in the face of media personalities and slaps them down and topples them from their pedestals. He doesn’t bow. He doesn’t play the game. On a moment’s notice, not by script, he attacks when ruffled. He doesn’t care. This amounts to a declaration of war against media hegemony and media hypnosis. This is akin to a person telling a hypnotist, “Hey, take that pendulum out of my face, you idiot. I don’t need to go to sleep. I’m awake.” Media are supposed to be the providers of every slice and tidbit of information that’s important. They’re the eyes, ears, and mouths for the public. Trump is telling them to shut up and go away. His attitude flies in the face of the Program.

    Threat Three: He knows what Globalist trade treaties have done to destroy jobs in America. He knows the American economy hasn’t come back after the 2008 crash. He doesn’t care who has signed on to these treaties. He says he’s going to make new deals and change the landscape and bring back jobs.

    Whether he will or not, whether he can or not, he’s exposing the Globalist agenda, as well as the politicians on both sides of the aisle who have surrendered their minds and souls to it.

    This Globalist agenda is the real third rail of politics, and Trump is not only stepping on it, he’s licking his fingers and putting his hand on the electricity and living (so far) to tell the tale. Once again, he doesn’t appear to care.

    Is he for real? Is he a fake? Regardless, he’s talking about what is supposed to remain hidden, and he’s clicking with people all over the country who have lost their jobs to the insane trade policy of the Rockefeller forces.

    This is verboten. This can’t happen. But it is happening.

    And he isn’t going into a long song and dance about the theory of Globalism. He’s keeping it tight and simple. He’s keeping it emotional. He’s actually speaking a real language real people can understand and want to understand. In other words, he’s committing a grave crime.

    He’s telling people their jobs and money and prosperity have been stolen and he’s going to get them back.

    Threat Four: Immigration. In a nation that already has 60 million immigrants living here, which makes it the number one “importer” of immigrants, per capita, in the world, and generous to the hilt by most standards, he’s saying: yes, but now there is a problem, a very serious problem—and he’s going to solve it. The problem is crime, drugs, potential terrorism. And since the federal government admits it has no proper screening program to spot terrorists, he’s going to put a pause on allowing Muslim immigrants to enter the US. What could the man say that is more politically incorrect?

    Whether you agree or disagree with any or every item of his proposal, consider what he’s wreaking on his comfortable liberal opposition—the people who believe open borders should be endless and forever, people who would never, under any circumstances, put a ceiling on it, because they only care about being seen as tolerant and kind and generous and self-effacing and wonderful…people who would, if necessary, walk down streets naked in the rain carrying whips and flagellating themselves to prove their motives are pure.

    Based on these four points (I’m saving the best for the end, for later), Trump is a clear and present danger to the political establishment—both Parties and their Globalist handlers.

    He’s a “narcissist, a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Stalin, a loon.”

    The GOP, his own Party, is the first line of defense. They must try to sweep him off the board. What can they do?

    One: Change the nominating rules so Rubio and Kasich can easily shift their delegates to Cruz. Right now, for example, those three men have 703 delegates among them. Trump has 671.

    Two: Induce a complete deadlock at the Convention and bring in a “compromise” candidate from the closet. For instance, Mitt Romney. Creating that deadlock could involve more rule changes that would strip delegates away from Trump by declaring they aren’t bound to vote for him.

    Three: Let Trump have the nomination, but then back/encourage a third-party or independent candidate to run. This would be a person who’d obviously suck votes away from Trump in the general election, giving Hillary a walk in the park to the White House.

    Or alternatively: allow a straight-on Trump vs. Hillary contest, and rig enough voting machines to make sure Hillary achieves victory in key states.

    Four: Covertly back more riots leading up to the Convention, casting Trump as the cause, as the “divisive one” leading the nation over a cliff. The “law of consequences”—support Trump and this is what you get; you get fear; you get looking over your shoulder as you walk down the street.

    Another version of the op: stage a grisly crime and set up a “racist Trump patsy” as the perpetrator.

    Another version: stage so many violent protests the message is clear: vote for Trump and this will be a nation in permanent chaos.

    Five: If all else fails, the campaign to stop Trump could be taken out of the GOP’s hands, and he would be rubbed out.

    Those people calculating the success of any of these five strategies would certainly be considering blowback from Trump’s supporters. The risks are many. Exposure is a virtual certainty.

    “Cooler heads” would be saying: “Look, give him the nomination. Hillary’s going to win anyway.”

    And if by a miracle Trump somehow gains the Presidency, the sixth option is:

    “Let’s get serious.” People with deep knowledge of the political establishment and significant clout would approach him and let him know, in no uncertain terms, that his radical plans are destined to fail. Therefore, compromise is in order. What would President Trump settle for in the real world? What would he give up?

    Those are questions whose answers would define his Presidency. He could just step back into his familiar role as the ordinary maker of the ordinary deal.

    But before deciding whether to capitulate, Trump might, on the spur of the moment, arrange a sit-down with, say, President Putin. He might lay his cards on the table and say, “Look, this is what I’m trying to do at home, and this is the opposition I’m facing. I think we have issues in common. How can we help each other?”

    If that happened, Trump would drive the American neocons out of their minds.

    And so now we’ve come to the fifth and greatest threat Trump poses:

    His unpredictability.

    As President, he could meet with any world leader at the drop of a hat. He could consult all sorts of unconventional sources. He could find out that solutions to national problems are available outside normal channels. Who knows?

    Who knows what an un-vetted President, with a large sense of curiosity, might find out, vis-a-vis a number of issues the public is also quite curious about?

    This is why men who have operated in the shadows for a long time are truly worried.

    Trump has no visible pattern. When he talks, one idea sparks another and then he goes off on a third. A man like that, with the clout of the Presidency, rummaging around in the halls and basements of power and secrets? Are you kidding?

    Pick your issue. Chemtrails? Black-budget ops? The extent of NSA spying on US government officials and subsequent blackmail? Extant technologies far in advance of what has been shown to the people? Including suppressed energy technologies?

    Might Trump be just the sort of unhinged cowboy who would wander into one of these forbidden areas and start shooting his mouth off?

    What does he care about propriety or the rules of the game? He’s Donny Trump who came out the Bronx, where he was hustling commercial buildings; he parlayed his wins into bigger and bigger properties downtown, he went bankrupt three or four times, he dealt with the mafia princes of concrete in NYC, he fired everybody in sight on The Apprentice…

    He’s the loosest cannon.

    Conspiracy researchers cite their prime reasons for the 1963 assassination of JFK, but there is one possibility they rarely, if ever, mention. It’s just the sort of project a wandering bored-in-the-middle-of-the-night Trump might come upon.


    For some 90 years, it’s lain fallow, up in the state of Maine. The basis of it is quite simple. It’s a way to provide energy for the people that doesn’t involve conventional resources buried under the ground:

    Off-shore turbines.

    Taking advantage of the daily difference between high and low tides, ocean water literally turns the wheel and produces electricity.

    For decades, utility companies and governments in the US and Canada and town councils and all sorts of other players have fought and delayed and blocked Passamaquoddy. JFK’s interest in it started when he was a Massachusetts Senator, and when he was President he ordered a report on its status. He was more than interested in it.

    He saw the implications. If off-shore turbines in Maine could produce a great deal of electricity, how many other inlets off the coast of America could fit that bill? And why only in America?

    Since JFK’s death, technical research has been done, in fact, on very small turbines that would sit in the flow of rivers and yield up electricity for small communities all over the world.

    Bone-headed academics have declared that water-turbine energy isn’t cost effective. The truth is, with a tiny fraction of the government money and a fraction of the favors and loopholes that have been bestowed on the oil and nuclear industries, water-turbines could change a great deal of the energy picture today.

    I point this out as merely one example of the sort of secret a properly vetted US President isn’t supposed to query or expose. Presidents know the rules of the game. In most cases, they behave.

    But suddenly…an intruder in the Oval Office? A man who is either pretending to be, or is, a rabid populist? A man who loves to talk and talk and talk in front of his people? A man who doesn’t seem to assess consequences in the way that other groomed candidates do? A man who has no discernible pattern?

    “Listen, everybody, I just found out about something JFK was working on. It’s fantastic. In fact, it’s super-fantastic. Let me tell you all about it. Those media jerks and professors will say it doesn’t work, but President Kennedy, who was a truly great guy, thought it would. Some super-educated friends of mine have been studying it and they agree. They’ve got a whole lot of degrees and credentials behind their names…It’s called Passamaquoddy…”

    There are people in the shadows with a great deal of power who couldn’t care less about the morality of Trump’s stance on immigration. What they do care about, what they do guard are the boundaries of this propped-up fantasy world of scarcity we live in together. That is their first concern.

    The idea of a sitting President hunting and pecking and stumbling around in secrets whose exposure would crack that system puts their teeth on edge.

    What about this strange man, Trump, who, for whatever reasons, likes to stick his hand in dark places and pull rabbits out of rabbit holes?

    That would be a cause for great concern.

    That would be a threat that demands action.

    To grasp this situation, you have to look past the op to divide America into two warring camps. You have to look past the media piling on as they try to make Trump into the destroyer of all human civilization. You have to look past the attempt to elevate his enemies into saviors of humanity. You have to look past obvious strategies to bring in agents to stir the pot, step up violence, and threaten peaceful communities.

    According to the unspoken rules of political life in this country, no un-vetted President must ever move into the White House. It must not happen. Presidents have to understand their roles and their assignments.

    Trump isn’t merely another puppet set up to hand the election to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. At the start, Hillary’s allies may have seen it that way, encouraged him, helped push him out on the national stage. But then things spiraled out of control.

    Once in a while, that happens. A plan falls apart and the supposed dupe takes on a life of his own. He exceeds the limits. He strikes a nerve in the public. He starts listening to himself and realizes he might actually believe in his own ideas.

    As of now, the men who operate the levers of this country at several upper strata see Trump as a wild card.

    And they don’t like what they see.

    They don’t like it at all.

    In his better moments, this crazy cowboy seems to have a penchant for solutions that actually work. He isn’t mired down in standard actions designed to yield up more stagnation and more despair.

    That makes him both unpredictable and dangerous, because there are real secrets that have been buried over the years—secrets that could restore prosperity and abundance for populations.

    He might be crazy enough to unearth them and hold them up and talk about them, and new allies might come to his aid.

    This is what is at the bottom of elite fear about the candidate who was never supposed to jump up out of nowhere.

    Don’t assume such a threat could never, ever come in the form of a wise-cracking self-inflating hustler from way back. Don’t assume there is some correct archetype of the person who will blow the lid off the grave of secrets. This isn’t a spy novel in which the hero fits the reader’s fantasy. This is the American Empire, and it has been ruled, for a long time, by lunatics.

    It might not be a surprise that a wild-talking cowboy exposes a few of their holy of holies.

  36. Crossing the Rubicon
    Black Listed News

    Published: March 20, 2016

    Blacklisted News

    Once the Oligarchy is above the law, the Republic is already dead.

    To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway: How did you lose your Republic? Two ways, gradually and then suddenly. The Romans experienced this when their Republic was extinguished by Empire.

    The erosion of the Republic was gradual: slowly but surely, the lower classes’ representation in governance was curtailed; the Oligarchy of the wealthy and powerful cemented their privileges at the expense of the many; Oligarchs rose above the laws that were supposed to apply to all, and executive power was consolidated in top administrators and the wealthy at the expense of the Senate.

    When Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army to seize control of Rome, the Roman Republic ceased to exist. Gradually and then suddenly: this is how Republics become Empires.

    We find ourselves in a parallel moment in history: the American Republic has been hollowed into a shell that is maintained for PR purposes. Beneath the propaganda, the Establishment runs the nation for its own benefit. The people are ignored, because they are powerless in this hollow shell of democracy: their only role is to provide bodies, talent and blood for the Imperial armed forces, pay taxes if they have any money, and spend their food stamps if they don’t.

    Here’s the proof:

    Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

    Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

    Here are two articles in the same vein:

    America the Banana Republic

    The Quiet Coup

    The United States has reached a crossing the Rubicon moment: either Hillary Clinton is indicted for knowingly violating statutes regarding State Department security, or the rule of law and the Republic are dead. This is a binary moment: we either let Hillary evade the laws that were established to protect the security of the nation and confess there is no rule of law now for the Oligarchy, or the agencies tasked with defending the nation indict her.

    There is no middle ground. If Hillary isn’t indicted, the rule of law, i.e. no one is above the law, is dead.

    If you believe Hillary that she didn’t really do anything to violate the spirit or the letter of security laws, please review these statutes:

    U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 12 – Diplomatic Security
    12 FAM 531.1 Top Secret Storage
    12 FAM 531.1-1 Domestic
    (CT:DS-185; 01-31-2012)
    (Uniform State, USAID, OPIC, TDP)

    (TL:DS-70; 10-01-2000)

    Incidents involving intentional or grossly negligent release or mishandling of classified information may be subject to criminal penalties. An illustrative list of criminal statutes establishing penalties of fine and imprisonment for the release of classified information is set forth in 12 FAM 558 Exhibit 558.

    Once the Oligarchy is above the law, the Republic is already dead. Once the people have lost the ability to influence the central state’s policies and decisions, the Republic is dead. Once the elected officials can no longer impose the nation’s statues on the Oligarchy (or have lost interest in doing so because they are all corrupted cronies), the Republic is dead. Once the nation’s agencies of law enforcement are stayed from indicting, prosecuting and jailing members of the Oligarchy, be they super-wealthy politicos like Hillary or super-wealthy Wall Street bankers, the Republic is dead.

    The Democratic Party bosses and special interests have already selected Hillary as their shoo-in candidate for the Presidency, and these Oligarchs and special interests won’t let any pesky details like laws protecting the security of the nation stand in the way of their Not So Quiet Coup.

    The nation’s Deep State, which I have covered extensively, has at least grudgingly approved Hillary as the next neo-conservative (never met an Imperial entanglement or drone strike she didn’t like), neocolonial (we’re going to put the “little people” in their rightful place, i.e. under our management) Imperial President.

    A vote for Hillary, unindicted Oligarch, is a vote in favor of the destruction of the rule of law and the Republic. This is the Rubicon every voter must decide to cross or refuse to cross: vote for Hillary (destroy the Republic and surrender to Imperial Oligarchy) or refuse to vote for an unindicted Imperial Oligarch.

    • Great! I was just about to post this article here myself Veri…

      Although I like the article very much, I do have to say that anyone who thinks the Republic is still intact is daydreaming, it has been defunct for decades.

      • What I find is where I’ve been identified as a “conspiratard” by many. The common language on the street is melding. Seems more want to listen to what I have to say these days and I’m running into more on cue.
        If Killery Clunton gets in and/or Trump gets off’d, the game will turn nasty. Welcome to the Matrix crumbling into the turd pile it is. If it wasn’t so frightening, it’d be very entertaining. Sorry to beat you to the pulse on that story Willy, that was a jump out.

      • They have diplomatic immunity guys, as is proven in the essay’s by the INFORMER, James Montgomery, and David Parker Williams. Sovereign status. You and I have world citizen status. Slave.


    This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirical poet Juvenal (circa A.D. 100). In context, the Latin panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which no longer cares for its historical birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of contemporary Romans.[5] Roman politicians passed laws in 140 B.C. to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole: giving out cheap food and entertainment, “bread and circuses”, became the most effective way to rise to power.

    As we are fully immersed in this current electoral cycle, whether we would like to be or not, I thought some reflection on just how utterly absurd the whole “democratic” process has become was appropriate. What we are witnessing is the Roman equivalent of Bread & Circuses. To distract, mollify and pacify the American citizenry. The aim is to keep the populace from full-scale revolt. Overthrowing the entire corrupt political establishment, with all their attendant taxes and privileges that bleed the rest of society dry.
    Our politicians are nothing but self-serving parasites, and nothing more. With all of the conflict between whatever side you support, there is near universal agreement on this point. This is about the only thing that society in general can agree upon. The underlying anger directed towards anyone associated with Washington is very real. Congress has an approval rating of 13%, the President at 40%… if you can believe that.

    What we are witnessing with the rise of candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is nothing less than the American Public raising the proverbial middle finger to the Establishment.
    And there is So Much drama! On one hand you have leftist Protesters being as disruptive and angry as they possibly can be. On the other hand you have Supporters resorting to physical violence to express their own opinions and views of how things should be in the society in which they live. Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!!!!

    This whole event lasts a staggering 2-years. 2 entire years folks! Can you really comprehend that as Americans we spend nearly 2 out of every 4-years campaigning, and letting the media and the establishment attempt to appeal to the masses? It was PT Barnum that famously said “If you can’t dazzle them with facts, then baffle them with bullshit!” It really does boggle the mind. It’s common for our sister democracies in Europe to be done with the process in 3 months, and then it’s back the business of plundering the masses. It is a much more efficient process that they have over there in the EU.
    But this is how we are sold on the concept of the Ownership Society. The dream of the rapidly shrinking middle class. Don’t have a job? No problem. We will find something that you can feel ownership of. Don’t own a house? No problem. You too can feel included in the ownership society by feeling really proud of the local sports franchises! Like football? GO PATRIOTS! Basketball? YAAAY LAKERS! Don’t worry about things like you have to go into debt to attend college. Don’t worry that you are struggling to make ends meet with rampant inflation and stagnation of incomes. Don’t worry that you are being shut out of the middle class. You are a great fan!!!!! You have a common bond with that poor schmuck that stood right next to you in the crowd, in the exact same boat as you.

    It’s all a grand distraction. It’s entertainment. It’s what you want after all, isn’t it? You don’t want to know what your government is really doing, all in your name, do you really? I mean, they do act on your behalf. You knew that right? It’s the Social Contract. Legitimacy is bestowed upon the government with the consent of the governed. That’s how this game works, every 4-years. Isn’t this great?
    Donald Trump is an entertainer. He is a very wealthy entertainer for sure, but an entertainer, nonetheless. I just watched a clip of his WWF performance where he body slammed Ed McMahon, and then had him tied up and shaved his head! You can see that for your own viewing pleasure HERE. It took me back to my younger years where I thought wrestling was real. I believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and that elections actually mattered. But I was always so entertained by those things. It made childhood something to be remembered nostalgically. Life was much simpler then. Yes the Donald is entertaining. You never know what he is going to say or do next. He was great in the Apprentice. I mean, who didn’t secretly relish the famous line, “You’re Fired!”

    We’ve heard some great slogans like “Make America Great Again” or “Fighting for You”, or my favorite – “Get Free Shit”, but we’ve heard very little about the specifics on real issues like the state of the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy or the palpable anger that is just radiating from the American People. That’s the whole point. The Media would much rather you sit in front of your TV, and watch your programming like a good little debt slave. They know the whole House of Cards(no pun intended) would come falling down if the American people started to wake up and talk with each other about the real state of affairs in our country and the world in general. When the next economic crash happens later this year, it might very well be the flashpoint where the frustration and rage boil over into outright Civil War.
    Trump has been foreshadowing the real possibility of violence if and when the establishment tries to foist a candidate upon the majority of the Republican base that isn’t the one of their choosing. Consider how divisive this election cycle is on both sides. 33% of Sanders Supporters said they would not support Hillary Clinton, and what happens if she wins her parties nomination and is indicted? This is a very real possibility, despite what she and her campaign says if you believe what Intelligence and FBI insiders are saying.

    The feelings of Revolt are in the air. How it ends will depend largely on whether or not the Media and Government can keep us entertained, and absolutely not talking about the important issues. Bread & Circuses for all! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED????

  38. “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
    ― Vladimir Ilich Lenin

    Meaning planned-for false opposition -Thus controlled opposition.

    Thus simply wasting people’s time as, unintentional false opposition.



    In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.—Leo Tolstoy

    All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do.—Leo Tolstoy

    • Splendid interview with F. William Engdahl, He is on top of things like very few are.
      Remember the New World Order meme: “Order out of Chaos’

      Hillary Emails, Gold Dinars and Arab Springs
      by F. William Engdahl

      Buried amid tens of thousands of pages of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s secret emails, now being made public by the US Government, is a devastating email exchange between Clinton and her confidential adviser, Sid Blumenthal. It’s about Qaddafi and the US-coordinated intervention in 2011 to topple the Libyan ruler. It’s about gold and a potentially existential threat to the future of the US dollar as world reserve currency. It’s about Qaddafi’s plans then for the gold-based Dinar for Africa and the Arab oil world.

      Two paragraphs in a recently declassified email from the illegal private server used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the US-orchestrated war to destroy Libya’s Qaddafi in 2011 reveal a tightly-held secret agenda behind the Obama Administration’s war against Qaddafi, cynically named “Responsibility to Protect.”

      Barack Obama, an indecisive and weak President, delegated all presidential responsibility for the Libya war to his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Clinton, who was an early backer of an Arab “regime change,” using the secret Muslim Brotherhood, invoked the new, bizarre principle of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) to justify the Libyan war, which she quickly turned into a NATO-led war. Under R2P, a silly notion promoted by the networks of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Clinton claimed, with no verifiable proof, that Qaddafi was bombing innocent Libyan civilians in the Benghazi region.

      According to a New York Times report at the time, citing Obama Administration senior sources, it was Hillary Clinton, backed by Samantha Power, then a senior aide at the National Security Council and today Obama’s UN Ambassador; and Susan Rice, then Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, and now National Security Adviser. That triad pushed Obama into military action against Libya’s Qaddafi. Clinton, flanked by Powers and Rice, was so powerful that Clinton managed to overrule Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Tom Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser, and John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism chief, today CIA head.

      Secretary of State Clinton was also knee-deep in the conspiracy to unleash what came to be dubbed the “Arab Spring,” the wave of US-financed regime changes across the Arab Middle East, part of the Greater Middle East project unveiled in 2003 by the Bush Administration after occupation of Iraq. The first three target countries of that 2011 US “Arab Spring”–an action in which Washington used its “human rights” NGOs such as Freedom House and National Endowment for Democracy, in cahoots as usual, with the Open Society Foundations of billionaire speculator, George Soros, along with US State Department and CIA operatives–were Ben Ali’s Tunisia, Mubarak’s Egypt and Qaddafi’s Libya.

  40. A World War Has Begun: Break the Silence
    By: John Pilger

    Published 22 March 2016 (21 hours 38 minutes ago)

    Donald Trump is a maverick, unlike Hillary Clinton, argues John Pilger.
    I have been filming in the Marshall Islands, which lie north of Australia, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Whenever I tell people where I have been, they ask,”Where is that?” If I offer a clue by referring to”Bikini”, they say, “You mean the swimsuit. Few seem aware that the bikini swimsuit was named to celebrate the nuclear explosions that destroyed Bikini island. Sixty-six nuclear devices were exploded by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 — the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs every day for twelve years.

    Bikini is silent today, mutated and contaminated. Palm trees grow in a strange grid formation. Nothing moves. There are no birds. The headstones in the old cemetery are alive with radiation. My shoes registered “unsafe” on a Geiger counter.

    Standing on the beach, I watched the emerald green of the Pacific fall away into a vast black hole. This was the crater left by the hydrogen bomb they called”Bravo”. The explosion poisoned people and their environment for hundreds of miles, perhaps forever.

    On my return journey, I stopped at Honolulu airport and noticed an American magazine called Women’s Health. On the cover was a smiling woman in a bikini swimsuit, and the headline: “You, too, can have a bikini body. A few days earlier, in the Marshall Islands, I had interviewed women who had very different “bikini bodies” — each had suffered thyroid cancer and other life-threatening cancers.

    Unlike the smiling woman in the magazine, all of them were impoverished: the victims and guinea pigs of a rapacious superpower that is today more dangerous than ever.

    I relate this experience as a warning and to interrupt a distraction that has consumed so many of us. The founder of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, described this phenomenon as “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the habits and opinions” of democratic societies. He called it an “invisible government.”

    How many people are aware that a world war has begun? At present, it is a war of propaganda,of lies and distraction, but this can change instantaneously with the first mistaken order, the first missile.

    In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the center of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make “the world free from nuclear weapons.” People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    It was all fake. He was lying.

    The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.

    A mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything like it. General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, “Going smaller [makes using this nuclear]weapon more thinkable.”

    In the last 18 months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two — led by the United States — is taking place along Russia’s western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.

    Ukraine — once part of the Soviet Union — has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority.

    This is seldom news in the West, or it is inverted to suppress the truth.

    In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — next door to Russia — the U.S. military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world’s second nuclear power is met with silence in the West.

    What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China.

    Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a “threat.” According to Admiral Harry Harris, the U.S. Pacific commander, China is “building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea.”

    What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines — a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called “freedom of navigation.”

    What does this really mean? It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China. Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.

    I made a film called, “The War You Don’t See,” in which I interviewed distinguished journalists in America and Britain: reporters such as Dan Rather of CBS, Rageh Omar of the BBC, David Rose of the Observer.

    All of them said that had journalists and broadcasters done their job and questioned the propaganda that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; had the lies of George W. Bush and Tony Blair not been amplified and echoed by journalists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq might not have happened, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today.

    The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or &China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western “mainstream” — a Dan Rather equivalent,say — asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea.

    The answer ought to be glaringly obvious. The United States is encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear-armed bombers.

    This lethal arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India. America has hung a noose around the neck of China. This is not news. Silence by media; war by media.

    In 2015, in high secrecy, the U.S. and Australia staged the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent history, known as Talisman Sabre. Its aim was to rehearse an Air-Sea Battle Plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca and the Lombok Straits, that cut off China’s access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.

    In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our skepticism.

    INTERVIEW: US Neo-Nazi Leader Says Donald Trump ‘the Real Deal’

    Trump’s views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.

    According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is “unleashing the dark forces of violence” in the United States. Unleashing them?

    This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.

    No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America’s wars (almost all of them against defenseless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

    In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as a world substantially made over in America’s own image. The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.

    Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted exceptionalism is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.

    RELATED: Trump Names His Advisers: A Lebanese Fascist and War Profiteers

    As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies — just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about “hope.” And the drool goes on.

    Described by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones as “funny, charming, with a coolness that eludes practically every other politician,” Obama the other day sent drones to slaughter 150 people in Somalia. He kills people usually on Tuesdays, according to the New York Times, when he is handed a list of candidates for death by drone. So cool.

    In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to “totally obliterate&” Iran with nuclear weapons. As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomized with a knife — a murder made possible by American logistics — Clinton gloated over his death: “We came, we saw, he died.”

    One of Clinton’s closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, who has attacked young women for not supporting Hillary. This is the same Madeleine Albright who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as “worth it.”

    Among Clinton’s biggest backers are the Israel lobby and the arms companies that fuel the violence in the Middle East. She and her husband have received a fortune from Wall Street. And yet, she is about to be ordained the women’s candidate, to see off the evil Trump, the official demon. Her supporters include distinguished feminists: the likes of Gloria Steinem in the U.S. and Anne Summers in Australia.

    A generation ago, a post-modern cult now known as “identity politics” stopped many intelligent, liberal-minded people examining the causes and individuals they supported — such as the fakery of Obama and Clinton; such as bogus progressive movements like Syriza in Greece, which betrayed the people of that country and allied with their enemies.

    Self-absorption, a kind of “me-ism,” became the new zeitgeist in privileged western societies and signaled the demise of great collective movements against war, social injustice, inequality, racism and sexism.

    Today, the long sleep may be over. The young are stirring again. Gradually. The thousands in Britain who supported Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader are part of this awakening — as are those who rallied to support Senator Bernie Sanders.

    In Britain last week, Jeremy Corbyn’s closest ally, his shadow treasurer John McDonnell, committed a Labour government to pay off the debts of piratical banks and, in effect, to continue so-called austerity.

    In the U.S., Bernie Sanders has promised to support Clinton if or when she’s nominated. He, too, has voted for America’s use of violence against countries when he thinks it’s “right.” He says Obama has done “a great job.”

    In Australia, there is a kind of mortuary politics, in which tedious parliamentary games are played out in the media while refugees and Indigenous people are persecuted and inequality grows, along with the danger of war. The government of Malcolm Turnbull has just announced a so-called defense budget of $195 billion that is a drive to war. There was no debate. Silence.

    What has happened to the great tradition of popular direct action, unfettered to parties?Where is the courage, imagination and commitment required to begin the long journey to a better, just and peaceful world? Where are the dissidents in art,film, the theatre, literature?

    Where are those who will shatter the silence? Or do we wait until the first nuclear missile is fired?

    This is an edited version of an address by John Pilger at the University of Sydney, entitled A World War Has Begun.

    This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
    “”. If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article.

  41. Anatomy of Controlled Opposition

    This article inquires the nature of the phenomenon named ‘controlled opposition’, aka ‘limited hangout’, which comprises useful idiots in the service of manipulative powers. This phenomenon is known in the history literature and is often quoted by media venues which proclaim to be ‘alternative’, i.e. auxiliary to the state/banking/corporate establishment, and yet may be controlled opposition themselves.

    The Nature of the Beast

    Lenin noted: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”.
    He wasn’t the first to note it or to act accordingly. The dynamic nature of the world necessitates reforms, which in turn challenge the existing power structure, which then needs to survive while the masses hate it for its failures. The establishment is usually much better organized, resourced, educated, experienced and smarter than the masses thus manipulates them by various means, including the installation of establishment-controlled leaders for the alleged opposition. Much of the horrid history of the past century was played by means of controlled oppositions and it still does. (see: “A century of war” by William F. Engdahl)

    There are cases where both opposing sides are pawns on the service of the same manipulative power, which keeps viable working relations with them both, e.g.:
    1. How the USA established and controlled both the illegal USSR and the illegal 3rd kingdom of Germany. Both were illegal in their constitutional-monarchy homelands.
    Both were implemented by means of a brutal usurpation by means of Wall-street money and empowered by means of Anglo-American physical resources and knowledge.
    2. How the USA has equipped both Israel and Iran with devastating nuclear capacities, starting in the late 1950s and empowering it further till date.

    There are cases where the controlled-opposition collaborates with its manipulative master in order to extort a third party. A pertinent example is how the USA and its USSR played the charade of the “cold war” with nuclear MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction),
    in order to extort western Europe and Australia/New-Zealand in to suicidal measures:
    (1) extreme socialism i.e. unpayable debt thus perpetual slavery,
    (2) Feminism i.e. self-genocide by means of overall decline,
    (3) Miscegenation i.e. self-genocide by means of becoming actual 3rd world.
    The excuse was neutralizing communist(i.e. Wall-street instigated and financed) pressures at home and abroad. These 3 suicidal measures only destabilize humanity at all fronts.

    There is more…

  42. “MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

    Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

    They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

    It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”~Patrick Henry — March 23, 1775.
    St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia

  43. By Jon Rappoport

    I want to acknowledge two researchers and reporters, whose work cuts deeply into the ISIS mirage: Tony Cartalucci and Brandon Turbeville. In a half-sane world, Cartalucci would be the international editor of the New York Times, if the Times were a real news outlet.

    If we accept the premise that ISIS attacked Brussels, then the next question is: what is ISIS?

    Who is behind it? Who supplies it? Who funds it? Who sustains it?

    Brandon Turbeville, writing at Activist Post (“Congress Votes To Fight ISIS By Funding ISIS To Fight Assad”, 9/19/2014), states:

    “Obama’s plan [is] to ‘detect and degrade’ ISIS…the reality is that the plan is nothing more than a plan to…destroy the Syrian government to benefit of ISIS and other fundamentalist groups that the United States has created, funded, trained, and directed since the very beginning of the Syrian crisis.”

    Cartalucci, in an article titled, “In Syria, There Are No Moderates” (9/2013), writes:

    …there were never, nor are there any ‘moderates’ operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria’s borders as ‘divided’ along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria’s borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention [in Syria].

    Turbeville writes:

    Indeed, even the New York Times has been forced to admit that there are, as Cartalucci expertly argues in his article, no moderates in the ranks of the Syrian death squads. As Ben Hubbard [NY Times] wrote in April, 2013 (“Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy”), ‘In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce…Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government…Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.’ (emphasis added)

    In other words, the “moderate Syrian rebels” are a fiction no one could fail to notice. The US funding has always gone to ISIS.

    I could cite much more from Cartalucci and Turbeville, who effectively argue that ISIS is a created tool of the US government and its allies. I strongly recommend you read and study their work.

    As far as the Brussels attacks are concerned, if we assume that ISIS was responsible, the whole scenario is turned upside down after analyzing the basis of ISIS.

    The Obama administration (jointly with the Bush administration) should be announcing: “Well, we keep ISIS alive. Unfortunately, things happen. One of those things is Brussels.”

    And then you could go on to query the sincerity of the word “unfortunately.”

    Articles by Tony Cartalucci:

    Brussels Attack: The True Implications of ISIS Links (3/22/2016)

    ISIS: US-Saudi Plague Reaches Indonesia? (1/16/2016)

    America’s Fake War on ISIS Grinds On (3/22/2016)

    Turkey: The Islamic State’s Second Home (1/18/2016)

  44. Interview 1152 – Sibel Edmonds Shines A Light on the Brussels Attacks
    Sibel Edmonds of joins us to discuss the Brussels attacks. We discuss Belgium’s central role as the base of NATO/EU/Gladio headquarters and how the script of this event follows the script of previous false flags almost precisely. We also talk about the public’s reaction to these events and how both the mainstream and alternative media are being divided and conquered to keep people from questioning the true roots of these events.


    • Paris, Brussels… The Role of “Massive Casualty Producing Events”.
      The Roadmap to a Police State

      By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
      Global Research, March 24, 2016
      Global Research 3 February 2004

      Author’s Note
      This article first published by Global Research in February 2004 examines the relationship between terrorist attacks (resulting in the tragic loss of life) and the transition in Western countries towards a totalitarian police State. This article which focusses on the role of a “massive casualty producing event” is of particular relevance to an understanding of the November 13, 2015 terror attacks in Paris and those in Brussels on March 22, 2016.

      Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks predicted in a 2003 interview with cynical accuracy a scenario, which would result in the repeal of civil liberties and the installation of a de facto totalitarian state:
      (This is a description of the Hegelian Dialectic~WW)
      “a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world … that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.”1

      A “massive casualty producing event” as described by General Franks will invariably result in a campaign of fear and intimidation. In turn, politicians in high office will use the tragic loss of life as a justification for the implementation of sweeping police state measures including the enactment of martial law.

      Flash Forward to Paris, November 13, 2015 and Brussels March 22, 2016.

      The above scenario accurately describes the tragic “massive casualty producing event” in Paris, depicted by France’s media as “Le 11 septembre à la française” (9/11 French Style).

  45. Funny this. Flashback 1989, “Bring Down The Wall”. The worm turns, we find ourselves on the other side of the “Wall”. A rising malaise, even on alt media. It appears we have a much longer perilous way to go to come out of the darkness.

    Robert De Niro censors VAXXED documentary from Tribeca Film Festival to appease totalitarian science bullies
    Putin: Human evolution under big threat from GMOs, vaccines
    Sunday, March 27, 2016 by: J. D. Heyes

    (NaturalNews) Those who support vaccine choice and oppose genetically modifying our food chain have an unlikely ally: Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    As reported by the Health Freedom Alliance, a report that was prepared by the Russian Security Council (SCRF), a report which is currently circulating within the Kremlin, says that Putin has given orders to protect the Russian people from GMO “food” as well as Western pharmaceuticals “at all costs.”

    The report states that Putin believes the next phase of human evolution is being put at “grave risk,” and that Western and other great powers are “intentionally decelerating the process for their personal gain.”

    “We as a species have the choice to continue to develop our bodies and brains in a healthy upward trajectory, or we can follow the Western example of recent decades and intentionally poison our population with genetically altered food, pharmaceuticals, vaccinations, and fast food that should be classified as a dangerous, addictive drug,” says the report.

    “We must fight this. A physically and intellectually disabled population is not in our interests,” the report added.

    As further reported by the Health Freedom Alliance:

    “Describing the average government-controlled Westerner as an ‘intensively vaccinated borderline autistic fat man slumped in front of a screen battling a high-fructose corn syrup comedown,’ the report states that such tactics used by governments to subjugate their citizens are not only ‘dark/evil’ but ‘counter-productive in the medium to long term.'”

    ‘Largest world supplier of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food’

    Under Putin, who is a billionaire himself, the Russian government has been giving away land for free over the past few years to anyone who is willing to plant and farm organically and sustainably, with the goal of becoming the world’s “leading exporter” of non-GMO foods that are based on “ecologically clean” production.

    The report comes just a few months after the Kremlin announced that it planned to halt production of all GMO foods, seen by the international organic community as a major step in the fight against multinational GMO pushers like Monsanto and Syngenta.

    And Russia is continuing to lead the way in organic, natural food production.

    In December, reported on Putin’s intent to become the world’s biggest organic food producer.

    At the same time, Putin condemned U.S. food manufacturing, as well as food production in other countries, for no longer offering high quality, healthy and ecologically clean food.

    “We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resources – Russia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing,” the Russian leader said in a speech to Parliament.

    Food self-sufficient and GMO free

    Putin added that Russia had become a net exporter of food rather than an importer.

    “Ten years ago, we imported almost half of the food from abroad, and were dependent on imports. Now Russia is among the exporters. Last year, Russian exports of agricultural products amounted to almost $20 billion – a quarter more than the revenue from the sale of arms, or one-third the revenue coming from gas exports,” he said, noting that the country was on track to becoming completely food-self-sufficient by 2020.

    In January, the Russian leader criticized both Western Big Pharma and GMO foods, the Australian National Review reported, a familiar theme.

    “Three years ago, the Russian government was considering imposing a ban on the participation of foreign drug producers in the tendering for public procurement of drugs if there are already two similar drugs created by local manufacturers,” the Australian site noted. “The measure was meant to encourage international pharmaceutical producers to localize their production in Russia and to reduce the share of imported drugs in the total procurements, which was estimated at around 85 per cent. The initiative was put forward by Russia’s Ministry of Industry and Trade.”


    Learn more:

    • Love the artist in this video!!

      BUT the system described is NOT capitalism — he himself distinguishes between capitalism and FINANCE CAPITALISM. And what Finance Capitalism is__is a PLANNED ECONOMY__planned by finance capitalists. And THAT is the problem—the SAME problem a MARXIST economy has. “A government powerful enough to provide your every need–is powerful to take it away from everybody”


      Government is a racket.


      • BEHEMOTH

        I. THE EMPIRE

        FOR HALF A CENTURY or more the history of modern Germany pivoted around one central issue: imperialist expansion through war. With the appearance of socialism as an industrial and political movement threatening the established position of industrial, financial, and agricultural wealth, fear of this challenge to imperialism dominated the internal policy of the empire. Bismarck tried to annihilate the socialist movement, partly by enticement and even more by a series of enactments outlawing the Social Democratic party and trade unions (1878-90). He failed. Social Democracy emerged from this struggle stronger than ever.
        Both Wilhelm I and Wilhelm I P then sought to undermine the influence of the socialists among the German workers by introducing various social reforms—and also failed.

        The attempt to reconcile the working class to the state was carried as far as the ruling forces dared; further efforts in this direction would have meant abandoning the very foundation on which the empire rested—the semi-absolutist and bureaucratic principles of the regime. Only political concessions to the working classes could bring about a reconciliation.
        The ruling parties were unwilling, however, to abolish the Prussian three-class franchise system and to establish a responsible parliamentary government in the Reich itself and in the component states. With this recalcitrance, nothing remained for them but a war to the death against socialism as an organized political and industrial movement.
        The methods of struggle selected took three basic forms; (i) the reorganization of the Prussian bureaucracy into a stronghold of semi-absolutism; (2) the establishment of the army as a bulwark of monarchical power; and (3) the welding together of the owning classes. The absence of any liberal manifestation in this programme is significant.
        The liberals had been defeated in Germany in 1812, in 1848, and again in the constitutional conflict of 1862. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, liberalism had long ceased to be an important, militant political doctrine or movement; it had made its peace with the empire. On theoretical grounds, furthermore, the spokesmen of absolutism rejected liberalism as a useful tool against socialism. Take the doctrine of inalienable rights. What was it but an instrument for the political rise and aggrandizement of the working classes?

  46. canaille
    (kəˈnī,-ˈnāl – noun derogatory)
    the common people; the masses.

    “the haughty contempt of a grandee sneering at the canaille”

  47. Cleopatra was a queen of Egypt but she was not Egyptian. She was the last of the Macedonian Greek dynasty that ruled Egypt from the time of Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BCE to about 30 BCE.

  48. Obama High Court Pick Merrick Garland: A Record Of Support For Police Powers
    By Tom Carter

    In the roughly two weeks since President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the US Supreme Court, a picture has emerged of a former prosecutor who consistently upholds the police powers of the state.

    Appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1995, the 63-year-old Garland has earned a reputation as a judicial “centrist,” a term that in the contemporary context signifies an accommodation to corporate interests and the curtailment of democratic rights.

    Obama’s nominee is by most accounts the most conservative of the judges said to have been on his “short list” of possible nominees. Near-term political considerations in advance of the November elections clearly played a significant role in Obama’s pick to succeed the long-time leader of the right-wing bloc on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, who died suddenly last month. With the Republican leadership in Congress vowing to block a vote on Scalia’s replacement until after the election, Obama chose a federal appeals court judge who had been broadly backed and even praised by prominent Republicans.

    Garland’s judicial career parallels the rightward trajectory of the American judiciary over the past two decades, and especially since the launch of the so-called “war on terror” in 2001. He has endorsed the authoritarian theory of “deference” to the executive, according to which executive agencies are presumed to be acting reasonably and lawfully.

    As a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Garland joined an antidemocratic decision that deferred to the Bush administration regarding the rights of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. The New York Times’ Adam Liptak admitted, “He has been notably deferential to executive agencies and is seen as reluctant to second-guess experts.”

    Before becoming a judge, Garland worked for the Justice Department as an associate deputy attorney general (a federal prosecutor), a fact touted by Obama in his nomination speech. On that occasion, Obama emphasized Garland’s law-and-order background as a prosecutor who would “take no chances that someone who murdered innocent Americans might go free on a technicality.” Here the term “technicality” is a code word for violation of constitutional due process.

    In 2003, while some of the most egregious forms of torture were being employed at Guantanamo Bay, Garland voted to throw out a lawsuit by prisoners at the camp challenging their detention without trial, effectively making Garland an accomplice in their illegal detention and torture from that point forward. In that case, Al Odah v. United States, Garland sided with the Bush administration and ruled that the judiciary had no jurisdiction over the case and no authority to challenge the executive.

    After the Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United decision in 2010 lifting restrictions on corporate donations in elections, Garland joined in a unanimous appeals court decision expanding the doctrines announced in that decision and facilitating the rise of “super PACs.”

    In that case, SpeechNow v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the DC Circuit reasoned that since the Supreme Court decided that corporate political spending in elections could not be corrupt, donations to fund spending by so-called “political action committees” (PACs) could not be corrupt either. The SpeechNow decision cited the Citizens United decision 26 times.

    In Hatim v. Obama (2014), Garland sided with the Obama administration in a case involving allegations that Guantanamo detainees were subjected to humiliating and vindictive genital probing before being allowed to meet with their lawyers, discouraging detainees from getting legal advice. Garland ruled that the genital searches were “reasonable security precautions.”

    In Judicial Watch v. United States Department of Defense (2013), Garland rejected a request for the Obama administration to release images of Osama bin Laden’s reported burial at sea. This ruling asserted that the purpose of censoring the images was “to prevent the killing of Americans and violence against American interests.”

    One exception is a 2013 decision authored by Garland rejecting the Central Intelligence Agency’s refusal to “confirm or deny” the existence of records pertaining to its drone assassination program. The CIA had claimed that acknowledging the mere fact of the existence or nonexistence of the records would jeopardize national security.

    The CIA’s legal position in that case was exceptionally spurious, even by the standards of 21st century American jurisprudence. “No reasonable person,” Garland wrote, could make the CIA’s argument “with a straight face.”

    On the question of the criminal justice system, Washington Post journalist Radley Balko noted, “Garland may actually move SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] to the right on criminal justice.” In 2010, the New York Times commented that “his rulings suggest that he could be more of a center-right justice in matters of criminal law.”

    In 2008, for example, Garland sided with a cop who had allegedly performed an illegal search by unzipping a person’s jacket without permission and without probable cause. In 2007, he justified a police search of a car as a “search incident to arrest,” when the arrest had actually come after the search. In 1999, he supported a prosecutor who had misrepresented critical evidence in closing arguments in a jury trial.

    With respect to the death penalty, Garland has claimed that the constitutionality of capital punishment is “settled law.” While he worked as a prosecutor, he personally “recommended that the government seek the death penalty,” according to the Times.

    In the upcoming elections, the American people will be told once again that to defend democratic rights it is necessary to vote for Democrats who will appoint supposedly liberal judges. In that regard, it is instructive to consider the Supreme Court decision in Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014). In that ruling, the court overrode the democratic rights of the family of a victim of police brutality and granted immunity to the police. The unanimous decision was authored by Bush appointee Samuel Alito and joined by both of Obama’s Supreme Court appointees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

    The administration’s March 16 announcement of the nomination of Garland has touched off back-and-forth posturing by prominent figures in the political establishment and the media. Obama and his fellow Democrats have denounced the Republicans as “obstructionists” for blocking consideration of Garland, calling it a violation of the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to confirm or deny executive appointments. Far from claiming that the accession of Garland would end the generally reactionary trend on the high court, they are promoting him as a “moderate” and “consensus” pick and seeking to use his conservative credentials to embarrass prominent Republicans who previously backed him.

    The Republican position, no less cynical, is that Scalia’s replacement will so decisively shift the balance on the Supreme Court that the American people should be given the opportunity to weigh in on the choice in the November elections before the Senate takes action.

  49. Way off subject, I know but. Commentator here is Joe Rogan. A man that wears many coats. I’m an old counter culture guy, what can I say. CIA created or otherwise. Ken Kesey said, “They have the best acid”

    • Ayahuasca – DMT – Pineal Gland

      I went there naturally and spontaneously once. Yes indescribable!! [1≡∞]

  50. And now for a completely different deflection. As the saying goes, the Nazi’s didn’t lose the war. The German people did, the former just moved on and are still in our midst

    • A sad story … for millions of people. A very sad story. One that hasn’t ended. As you say, such monsters are still in our midst.

      Werph Aucht — Grotesqueoscopic Transliniar Field Manual Grimiore

    • Anyone who has looked into the “financial system” realize that it is a total scam based on usury and junk “money”. It is a superstitious belief system having nothing to do with real markets: a delusional paradigm.

  51. Former Bush Official Just Confirmed That Our Wars Are For Corporate Interests
    By Claire Bernish

    “I think Smedley Butler was onto something,” Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former George W. Bush administration heavyweight, told Salon in an exclusive interview.

    Major General Smedley Butler earned the highest rank in the U.S. Marine Corps, accumulating numerous accolades as he helped lead the United States through decades of war. He later became an ardent critic of such militarism and imperialism.

    “War is a racket,” Butler famously said, and Wilkerson — who has also turned critical of U.S. imperialist policy — agrees with and admires the esteemed Marine.
    Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to former secretary of state, Colin Powell, has grown tired of “the corporate interests that we go abroad to slay monsters for.”

    Of the profiteering scheme that wars have come to embody, Wilkerson quoted Butler:

    Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

    Noting Butler’s brief but accurate characterization of what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, Wilkerson added that today’s war machine “is more pernicious than Eisenhower ever thought it would be.”

    The willingness of such weapons and military equipment corporations to excuse the transgressions of repressive and abusive regimes in the Middle East and Asia for the sake of profit, Wilkerson asserted, stands as evidence Eisenhower underestimated the extent the to which the problem would manifest.

    “Was Bill Clinton’s expansion of NATO — after George H. W. Bush and [his Secretary of State] James Baker had assured Gorbachev and then Yeltsin that we wouldn’t go an inch further east — was this for Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, and Boeing, and others, to increase their network of potential weapons sales?” Wilkerson asked.

    “You bet it was,” he answered his own question.

    “Is there a penchant on behalf of the Congress,” he continued, “to bless the use of force more often than not because of the constituencies they have and the money they get from the defense contractors?

    “You bet.

    “It’s not like Dick Cheney or someone like that went and said let’s have a war because we want to make money for Halliburton,” Wilkerson explained, describing such decision-making as “pernicious.”

    Taking his description a step further, Wilkerson characterized those corporations flooding congressional elections and political PACs with cash as “another pernicious influence.”

    Relating another ill of the U.S. war machine, Wilkerson repined the creep of privatization of “public functions, like prisons,” for which the former Bush official places greatest blame on Republicans — though Democrats appear as eager about the shift. Salon mentioned Hillary Clinton’s speech from 2011, during her tenure as Secretary of State, in which she stated, “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity.”

    Indeed, journalist Jeremy Scahill extensively reported and investigated the enormous army of private contractors operating in Iraq and Afghanistan — with a particular focus on Blackwater. Run by notorious mercenary Erik Prince — who recently became the subject of an investigation by the Dept. of Justice and other federal agencies — Blackwater appeared to operate so unpredictably as to essentially be a rogue organization.

    Scahill penned an article for the Guardian in 2007, revealing the exact troubles with privatization Wilkerson referred to — there were 48,000 ‘private contractors’ working for 630 companies in varying capacities in Iraq.

    “In many respects,” Wilkerson continued, “it is now private interests that benefit most from our use of military force. Whether it’s private security contractors, that are still all over Iraq or Afghanistan, or it’s the bigger-known defense contractors, like the number one in the world, Lockheed Martin.”

    Contractors have arguably done the most to damage U.S.’ international relations and accountability than any other factor — except for the corporations paying them. All of this profit for belligerence has clearly benefited one de facto policy: American imperialism.

    “We now dwarf the Russians or anyone else who sells weapons in the world,” Wilkerson noted. “We are the death merchant of the world.”

    Now, Wilkerson worried, “We’ve privatized the ultimate public function: war.”
    . . . . . . .
    This article (Former Bush Official Just Confirmed That Our Wars Are for Corporate Interests) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific.
    . . . .
    “We are the death merchant of the world”: Ex-Bush official Lawrence Wilkerson condemns military-industrial complex
    Col. Lawrence Wilkerson is tired of “the corporate interests that we go abroad to slay monsters for.”

    As the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Wilkerson played an important role in the George W. Bush administration. In the years since, however, the former Bush official has established himself as a prominent critic of U.S. foreign policy.

    “I think Smedley Butler was onto something,” explained Lawrence Wilkerson, in an extended interview with Salon.

    In his day, in the early 20th century, Butler was the highest ranked and most honored official in the history of the U.S. Marine Corps. He helped lead wars throughout the world over a series of decades, before later becoming a vociferous opponent of American imperialism, declaring “war is a racket.”

    Wilkerson spoke highly of Butler, referencing the late general’s famous quote: “Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

    “I think the problem that Smedley identified, quite eloquently actually,” Wilkerson said, “especially for a Marine — I had to say that as a soldier,” the retired Army colonel added with a laugh; “I think the problem is much deeper and more profound today, and much more subtle and sophisticated.”

    Today, the military-industrial complex “is much more pernicious than Eisenhower ever thought it would be,” Wilkerson warned.

    In his farewell address in 1961, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously cautioned Americans that the military and corporate interests were increasingly working together, contrary to the best interests of the citizenry. He called this phenomenon the military-industrial complex.

    As a case study of how the contemporary military-industrial complex works, Wilkerson pointed to leading weapons corporations like Lockheed Martin, and their work with draconian, repressive Western-allied regimes in the Gulf, or in inflaming tensions in Korea.

    “Was Bill Clinton’s expansion of NATO — after George H. W. Bush and [his Secretary of State] James Baker had assured Gorbachev and then Yeltsin that we wouldn’t go an inch further east — was this for Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, and Boeing, and others, to increase their network of potential weapon sales?” Wilkerson asked.

    “You bet it was,” he answered.

    “Is there a penchant on behalf of the Congress to bless the use of force more often than not because of the constituencies they have and the money they get from the defense contractors?” Wilkerson continued.

    Again, he answered his own question: “You bet.”

    “It’s not like Dick Cheney or someone like that went and said let’s have a war because we want to make money for Halliburton, but it is a pernicious on decision-making,” the former Bush official explained. “And the fact that they donate so much money to congressional elections and to PACs and so forth is another pernicious influence.”

    “Those who deny this are just being utterly naive, or they are complicit too,” Wilkerson added.

    “And some of my best friends work for Lockheed Martin,” along with Raytheon, Boeing and Halliburton, he quipped.

    Wilkerson — who in the same interview with Salon defended Edward Snowden, saying the whistle-blower performed an important service and did not endanger U.S. national security — was also intensely critical of the growing movement to “privatize public functions, like prisons.”

    “I fault us Republicans for this majorly,” he confessed — although a good many prominent Democrats have also jumped on the neoliberal bandwagon. In a 2011 speech, for instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity” for U.S. corporations.

    Wilkerson lamented, “We’ve privatized the ultimate public function: war.”

    “In many respects it is now private interests that benefit most from our use of military force,” he continued. “Whether it’s private security contractors, that are still all over Iraq or Afghanistan, or it’s the bigger-known defense contractors, like the number one in the world, Lockheed Martin.”

    Journalist Antony Loewenstein detailed how the U.S. privatized its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in another interview with Salon. There are an estimated 30,000 military contractors working for the Pentagon in Afghanistan today; they outnumber U.S. troops three-to-one. Thousands more are in Iraq.

    Lockheed Martin simply “plans to sell every aspect of missile defense that it can,” regardless of whether it is needed, Wilkerson said. And what is best to maximize corporate interest is by no means necessarily the same as what is best for average citizens.

    “We dwarf the Russians or anyone else who sells weapons in the world,” the retired Army colonel continued.

    “We are the death merchant of the world.”

    Ben Norton is a politics staff writer at Salon. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.

  52. Journalism: Not What It’s Cracked Up To Be

    By Catherine J. Frompovich

    “What’s happened to mainstream journalism?” is the question being asked by millions of thinking people, and more than ever before. Could a real clue be found in what may be termed “sound bite” reporting rather than investigative journalism dug up by investigative journalists? They, like the extinct Dodo bird, are becoming a vestige of the past, especially since most media (90 percent in the USA [1]) are owned, controlled, and manipulated by five corporations: Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom.

    In former years, each issue of Time Magazine used to be voluminous, not the scrawny few pages it is today. Currently, newspapers are anemic renditions of their glorious past, i.e., scaled down from pages packed full of good reporting and reading into a sanitized propaganda versions of the news that spews forth what could be considered “crowd control” for the mind.

    An apparent storm of arousal to misrepresentative information from what some call the “lame stream press,” the alternative (alt) media and press have left mainstream news media in their dust. One reason is that the Internet allows access to global networks where some independent news reporting is very different from the supposed “free press” in the USA. One really has to question why U.S. citizens are not permitted to know information about certain topics discussed openly and freely in other countries, e.g., specifics regarding the dangers of vaccines, plus how numerous countries are having second thoughts about their effectiveness, and also questioning their efficacy and adverse reactions [2].

    Another equally-controlled and restricted news item is what’s referred to as Solar Radiation Management or weather geoengineering, aka “chemtrails,” which ‘decorate’ the skies above our heads with toxic chemicals polluting and poisoning the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat, plus creating abnormal weather patterns we have been experiencing in recent years, and numerous die-offs around the globe [3,6].

    But not all journalists are satisfied to take the “cool aid” (hush money) or drink from the kook aid trough, as they say. One, in particular, Dr Udo Ulfkotte, a former editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s largest newspapers, wrote the 2014 tell-all book, Bought Journalists, “in which he claims that the CIA and other secret services pay money to journalists to report a particular story in a certain light.” [4] What a striking, but not quite unexpected, confession to make. He claims while “an editor of a major German daily has said that he personally planted stories for the CIA.” [5]

    Dr Ulfkotte definitely seems remorseful about his past transgressions of misleading the public. Here are some of his comments:

    “When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Ulfkotte’s newspaper) that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but I don’t mind. You see, I don’t have children to take care of. And you must know I was severely injured during the gas attack I witnessed in Iran in 1988. I’m the sole German survivor from a German poison gas attack. I’m still suffering from this. I’ve had three heart attacks. I don’t expect to live for more than a few years.” [5]

    He was “taught to lie, to betray and not to tell the truth to the public.” [5]

    “I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service.” [5]

    “I’m ashamed I was part of it. Unfortunately I cannot reverse this.” [5]

    Here is an interview with Dr Ulfkotte during which he tells how the news and press indoctrination and reporting processes work.

    How many journalists do you think can tell similar stories? And, is there really a free press?

    Now, listen to what Swedish journalists are doing to hide “The Rape of Sweden.”



    Editor of Major German Newspaper Says He Planted Stories for the CIA

    Bought Journalists

    Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies.

  53. Long but well worth the effort. The Devil in the details

    US-NATO WarEconomyCivil RightsEnvironmentPovertyMediaJustice9/11War CrimesMilitarizationHistoryScience

    Governments Admit that Much of Modern History Has Been Manipulated By False Flag Attacks

    Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror

    By Washington’s Blog
    Global Research, March 31, 2016
    Washington’s Blog 30 March 2016
    Theme: 9/11 & ‘War on Terrorism’, Intelligence

    The 9/11 “Watershed Event”: Towering Infernos, False Flags and the “Global War on Terrorism”
    In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos:

    (1) As admitted by secret Russian police files that are part of the Hoover Institution’s archives, the Russian Tsar’s secret police set off bombs and killed people in order to blame and arrest labor agitators. And see this.

    (2) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.

    (3) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

    (4) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

    (5) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

    (6) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.

    (7) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this, this and this).

    (8) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

    The U.S. Army does not believe this is an isolated incident. For example, the U.S. Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies said of Mossad (Israel’s intelligence service):

    “Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

    (9) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

    (10) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

    (11) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

    (12) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s through the 1980s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.

    As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” … so that “a state of emergency could be declared, so people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

    The CIA also stressed to the head of the Italian program that Italy needed to use the program to control internal uprisings.

    False flag attacks carried out pursuant to this program include – by way of example only:

    The murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960)
    Bombings in Portugal (1966)
    The Piazza Fontana massacre in Italy (1969)
    Terror attacks in Turkey (1971)
    The Peteano bombing in Italy (1972)
    Shootings in Brescia, Italy and a bombing on an Italian train (1974)
    Shootings in Istanbul, Turkey (1977)
    The Atocha massacre in Madrid, Spain (1977)
    The abduction and murder of the Italian Prime Minister (1978) (and see this)
    The bombing of the Bologna railway station in Italy (1980)
    Shooting and killing 28 shoppers in Brabant county, Belgium (1985)

    Painting by Anthony Freda

    (13) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]”.

    (14) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

    (15) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

    (16) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

    (17) The U.S. Department of Defense also suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

    (18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

    (19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.

    (20) A declassified 1973 CIA document reveals a program to train foreign police and troops on how to make booby traps, pretending that they were training them on how to investigate terrorist acts:

    The Agency maintains liaison in varying degrees with foreign police/security organizations through its field stations ….

    [CIA provides training sessions as follows:]

    a. Providing trainees with basic knowledge in the uses of commercial and military demolitions and incendiaries as they may be applied in terrorism and industrial sabotage operations.

    b. Introducing the trainees to commercially available materials and home laboratory techniques, likely to he used in the manufacture of explosives and incendiaries by terrorists or saboteurs.

    c. Familiarizing the trainees with the concept of target analysis and operational planning that a saboteur or terrorist must employ.

    d. Introducing the trainees to booby trapping devices and techniques giving practical experience with both manufactured and improvised devices through actual fabrication.


    The program provides the trainees with ample opportunity to develop basic familiarity and use proficiently through handling, preparing and applying the various explosive charges, incendiary agents, terrorist devices and sabotage techniques.

    (21) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

    (22) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

    (23) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

    (24) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

    (25) In 1993, a bomb in Northern Ireland killed 9 civilians. Official documents from the Royal Ulster Constabulary (i.e. the British government) show that the mastermind of the bombing was a British agent, and that the bombing was designed to inflame sectarian tensions. And see this and this.

    (26) The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 – recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars“. And see this.

    (27) Similarly, a CIA “psychological operations” manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a “martyr” for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

    At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

    (28) An Indonesian government fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.

    (29) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

    (30) As reported by the New York Times, BBC and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that in 2001, the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”. luring foreign migrants into the country, executing them in a staged gun battle, and then claiming they were a unit backed by Al Qaeda intent on attacking Western embassies”. Macedonian authorities had lured the immigrants into the country, and then – after killing them – posed the victims with planted evidence – “bags of uniforms and semiautomatic weapons at their side” – to show Western diplomats.

    (31) At the July 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, black-clad thugs were videotaped getting out of police cars, and were seen by an Italian MP carrying “iron bars inside the police station”. Subsequently, senior police officials in Genoa subsequently admitted that police planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer at the G8 Summit, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

    (32) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war.

    Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.

    Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.).

    (Additionally, the same judge who has shielded the Saudis for any liability for funding 9/11 has awarded a default judgment against Iran for $10.5 billion for carrying out 9/11 … even though no one seriously believes that Iran had any part in 9/11.)

    (33) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country. And see this.

    (34) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

    (35) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

    (36) Police outside of a 2003 European Union summit in Greece were filmed planting Molotov cocktails on a peaceful protester.

    (37) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

    (38) Similarly, in 2005, Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School – a renowned US defense analyst credited with developing the concept of ‘netwar’ – called for western intelligence services to create new “pseudo gang” terrorist groups, as a way of undermining “real” terror networks. According to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, Arquilla’s ‘pseudo-gang’ strategy was, Hersh reported, already being implemented by the Pentagon:

    “Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, US military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists…

    The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls ‘action teams’ in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. ‘Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?’ the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. ‘We founded them and we financed them,’ he said. ‘The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.’ A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, ‘We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.’”

    (39) United Press International reported in June 2005:

    U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

    (40) In 2005, British soldiers dressed as Arabs were caught by Iraqi police after a shootout against the police. The soldiers apparently possessed explosives, and were accused of attempting to set off bombs. While none of the soldiers admitted that they were carrying out attacks, British soldiers and a column of British tanks stormed the jail they were held in, broke down a wall of the jail, and busted them out. The extreme measures used to free the soldiers – rather than have them face questions and potentially stand trial – could be considered an admission.

    (41) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

    (42) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

    (43) A 2008 US Army special operations field manual recommends that the U.S. military use surrogate non-state groups such as “paramilitary forces, individuals, businesses, foreign political organizations, resistant or insurgent organizations, expatriates, transnational terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black marketers, and other social or political ‘undesirables.’” The manual specifically acknowledged that U.S. special operations can involve both counterterrorism and “Terrorism” (as well as “transnational criminal activities, including narco-trafficking, illicit arms-dealing, and illegal financial transactions.”)

    (44) The former Italian Prime Minister, President, and head of Secret Services (Francesco Cossiga) advised the 2008 minister in charge of the police, on how to deal with protests from teachers and students:

    He should do what I did when I was Minister of the Interior … infiltrate the movement with agents provocateurs inclined to do anything …. And after that, with the strength of the gained population consent, … beat them for blood and beat for blood also those teachers that incite them. Especially the teachers. Not the elderly, of course, but the girl teachers yes.

    (45) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

    (46) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

    (47) In 2011, a Colombian colonel admitted that he and his soldiers had lured 57 innocent civilians and killed them – after dressing many of them in uniforms – as part of a scheme to claim that Columbia was eradicating left-wing terrorists. And see this.

    (48) Rioters who discredited the peaceful protests against the swearing in of the Mexican president in 2012 admitted that they were paid 300 pesos each to destroy everything in their path. According to Wikipedia, photos also show the vandals waiting in groups behind police lines prior to the violence.

    (49) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

    (50) On November 20, 2014, Mexican agent provocateurs were transported by army vehicles to participate in the 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping protests, as was shown by videos and pictures distributed via social networks.

    (51) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

    (52) Two members of the Turkish parliament, high-level American sources and others admitted that the Turkish government – a NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks in Syria and falsely blamed them on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

    (53) The Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others. Ukrainian officials admit that the Ukrainian snipers fired on both sides, to create maximum chaos.

    (54) Burmese government officials admitted that Burma (renamed Myanmar) used false flag attacks against Muslim and Buddhist groups within the country to stir up hatred between the two groups, to prevent democracy from spreading.

    (55) Israeli police were again filmed in 2015 dressing up as Arabs and throwing stones, then turning over Palestinian protesters to Israeli soldiers.

    (56) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

    (57) U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

    (58) Similarly, police frame innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:

    In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.

    Newsweek reported in 1999:

    Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a “throwdown”–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot them during a stakeout.

    Wikipedia notes:

    As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division’s anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.

    (As a side note – and while not technically false flag attacks – police have been busted framing innocent people in many other ways, as well.)

    (59) A former U.S. intelligence officer recently alleged:

    Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.

    (60) The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by the CIA and FBI as false flags. Similarly, the director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom said:

    By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

    (audio here).

    (61) Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the “benefits” of of false flags to justify their political agenda:

    “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
    – Adolph Hitler

    “Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
    – Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

    “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
    – Josef Stalin

    Postscript: The media plays along as well. For example, in 2012, NBC News’ chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, was kidnapped in Syria. NBC News said that Engel and his reporting team had been abducted by forces affiliated with the Syrian government. He reported that they only escaped when some anti-Syrian government rebels killed some of the pro-government kidnappers.

    However, NBC subsequently admitted that this was false. It turns out that they were really kidnapped by people associated with the U.S. backed rebels fighting the Syrian government … who wore the clothes of, faked the accent of, scrawled the slogans of, and otherwise falsely impersonated the mannerisms of people associated with the Syrian government. In reality, the group that kidnapped Engel and his crew were affiliated with the U.S.-supported Free Syrian Army, and NBC should have known that it was blaming the wrong party. See the New York Times and the Nation’s reporting.

    Of course, sometimes atrocities or warmongering are falsely blamed on the enemy as a justification for war … when no such event ever occurred. This is sort of like false flag terror … without the terror.

    For example:

    The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war
    One of the central lies used to justify the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait was the false statement by a young Kuwaiti girl that Iraqis murdered Kuwaiti babies in hospitals. Her statement was arranged by a Congressman who knew that she was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S. – who was desperately trying to lobby the U.S. to enter the war – but the Congressman hid that fact from the public and from Congress
    Another central lie used to justify the Gulf War was the statement that a quarter of a million Iraqi troops were massed on the border with Saudi Arabia (see also this article)
    Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind reported that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 … and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq. And see this and this
    Time magazine points out that the claim by President Bush that Iraq was attempting to buy “yellow cake” Uranium from Niger:
    had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it.

    Everyone knew that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. More
    The entire torture program was geared towards obtaining false confessions linking Iraq and 9/11
    CIA agents and documents admit that the agency gave Iran plans for building nuclear weapons … so it could frame Iran for trying to build the bomb
    The “humanitarian” wars in Syria, Libya and Yugoslavia were all justified by false reports that the leaders of those countries were committing atrocities against their people. And see this.
    The original source of this article is Washington’s Blog
    Copyright © Washington’s Blog, Washington’s Blog, 2016


    Otto Skorzeny A notorious lieutenant colonel in the Waffen SS, who served in Adolf Hitler’s personal bodyguard unit, worked as a hitman for the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad after World War II, it has been revealed. Austrian-born Otto Skorzeny became known as the most ruthless special-forces commander in the Third Reich. Having joined the Austrian branch of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party at 19, at age 23 Skorzeny began serving in the Waffen SS, Nazi Germany’s conscript army that consisted largely of foreign-born fighters. In 1943, Hitler himself decorated Skorzeny with the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross, in recognition of his leadership in Operation EICHE, the rescue by German commandos of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, who had been imprisoned at a ski resort in the Apennine Mountains following a coup against his government.

    Skorzeny survived the war and ended up living in Spain under the protection of the country’s far-right dictator, Francisco Franco. The Mossad, Israel’s covert-action agency, which had made it a priority to arrest or kill senior Nazis who had survived the war, intended to kill Skorzeny. However, two veteran Israeli intelligence observers, Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, revealed on Sunday that, instead of killing Skorzeny, the Mossad decided to recruit him. Based on “interviews with former Mossad officers and with Israelis who have access to the Mossad’s archived secrets”, Raviv and Melman allege that Isser Harel, who directed the Mossad from 1952 to 1963, decided that the former Waffen SS commander would be a useful asset against other Nazis operating in Europe and the Middle East. Specifically, Harel planned to use Skorzeny as a trap to lure a number of Nazi scientists who were secretly working for Egypt’s missile program.
    According to Raviv and Melman, a Mossad team was sent to Spain to meet Skorzeny. After a tense incident that involved Skorzeny pointing a loaded weapon at two Mossad operatives, the former Nazi soldier agreed to cooperate with Israel in return for assurances that his name would be removed from the Mossad’s assassination list. Raviv and Melman claim that one of Skorzeny’s most high-profile operations as an agent of the Mossad culminated in the assassination of Heinz Krug in Munich in 1962. Krug was a German rocket scientist who was working for the Egyptian government under the tutelage of Dr Wolfgang Pilz, another rocketry expert who had put together a top-secret missile program for Cairo. Krug was targeted for assassination by Yitzhak Shamir, Israel’s future prime minister, who was then commander of the Mossad’s clandestine operations service.

    Krug, who was worried for his life after receiving threatening messages from individuals he believed were connected with the Mossad, reached out to Skorzeny in hopes that the former Waffen SS commander could give him advice on enhancing his personal security. But Skorzeny, operating on orders of the Mossad, shot dead the German scientist in a remote wooded area outside Munich. A Mossad team then poured acid on Krug’s body before burying it in a grave that had been dug in preparation for his killing. According to Raviv and Melman, Skorzeny also sent German scientists in Egypt a number of mail bombs designed by the Mossad, which killed a number of people. Raviv and Melman also state that they received oral confirmation from Rafi Eitan, a legendary Mossad operations officer, that he “met and ran Skorzeny” on behalf of the Israeli intelligence agency.

    Skorzeny died of cancer in Spain in 1975. He was 67. It is believed that the Mossad never tried to kill or kidnap him.

  55. “Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this… That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow — but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one.”—Dr. Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former instructor at Harvard Medical School


    Twenty years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: “What’s the difference between a politician and a psychopath?”

    The answer, then and now, remains the same: None.

    There is no difference between psychopaths and politicians.

    Nor is there much of a difference between the havoc wreaked on innocent lives by uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, irresponsible, parasitic criminals and elected officials who lie to their constituents, trade political favors for campaign contributions, turn a blind eye to the wishes of the electorate, cheat taxpayers out of hard-earned dollars, favor the corporate elite, entrench the military industrial complex, and spare little thought for the impact their thoughtless actions and hastily passed legislation might have on defenseless citizens.

    Psychopaths and politicians both have a tendency to be selfish, callous, remorseless users of others, irresponsible, pathological liars, glib, con artists, lacking in remorse and shallow.

    Charismatic politicians, like criminal psychopaths, exhibit a failure to accept responsibility for their actions, have a high sense of self-worth, are chronically unstable, have socially deviant lifestyle, need constant stimulation, have parasitic lifestyles and possess unrealistic goals.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about Democrats or Republicans.

    Political psychopaths are all largely cut from the same pathological cloth, brimming with seemingly easy charm and boasting calculating minds. Such leaders eventually create pathocracies—totalitarian societies bent on power, control, and destruction of both freedom in general and those who exercise their freedoms.

    Once psychopaths gain power, the result is usually some form of totalitarian government or a pathocracy. “At that point, the government operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups,” author James G. Long notes. “We are currently witnessing deliberate polarizations of American citizens, illegal actions, and massive and needless acquisition of debt. This is typical of psychopathic systems, and very similar things happened in the Soviet Union as it overextended and collapsed.”

    In other words, electing a psychopath to public office is tantamount to national hara-kiri, the ritualized act of self-annihilation, self-destruction and suicide. It signals the demise of democratic government and lays the groundwork for a totalitarian regime that is legalistic, militaristic, inflexible, intolerant and inhuman.

    So why do we keep doing it over and over again?

    There’s no shortage of dire warnings about the devastation that could be wrought if any one of the current crop of candidates running for the White House gets elected. Yet where the doomsayers go wrong is by ignoring the damage that has already been inflicted on our nation and its citizens by a psychopathic government.

    According to investigative journalist Zack Beauchamp, “In 2012, a group of psychologists evaluated every President from Washington to Bush II using ‘psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president.’ They found that presidents tended to have the psychopath’s characteristic fearlessness and low anxiety levels — traits that appear to help Presidents, but also might cause them to make reckless decisions that hurt other people’s lives.”

    The willingness to prioritize power above all else, including the welfare of their fellow human beings, ruthlessness, callousness and an utter lack of conscience are among the defining traits of the sociopath.

    When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, jailed if we dare step out of line, and then punished unjustly without remorse—all the while refusing to own up to its failings—we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic.

    Instead, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

    Worse, psychopathology is not confined to those in high positions of government. It can spread like a virus among the populace. As an academic study into pathocracy concluded, “[T]yranny does not flourish because perpetuators are helpless and ignorant of their actions. It flourishes because they actively identify with those who promote vicious acts as virtuous.”

    People don’t simply line up and salute. It is through one’s own personal identification with a given leader, party or social order that they become agents of good or evil.

    Much depends on how leaders “cultivate a sense of identification with their followers,” says Professor Alex Haslam. “I mean one pretty obvious thing is that leaders talk about ‘we’ rather than ‘I,’ and actually what leadership is about is cultivating this sense of shared identity about ‘we-ness’ and then getting people to want to act in terms of that ‘we-ness,’ to promote our collective interests. . . . [We] is the single word that has increased in the inaugural addresses over the last century . . . and the other one is ‘America.’”

    The goal of the modern corporate state is obvious: to promote, cultivate, and embed a sense of shared identification among its citizens. To this end, “we the people” have become “we the police state.”

    We are fast becoming slaves in thrall to a faceless, nameless, bureaucratic totalitarian government machine that relentlessly erodes our freedoms through countless laws, statutes, and prohibitions.

    Any resistance to such regimes depends on the strength of opinions in the minds of those who choose to fight back. What this means is that we the citizenry must be very careful that we are not manipulated into marching in lockstep with an oppressive regime.

    Writing for ThinkProgress, Beauchamp suggests that “one of the best cures to bad leaders may very well be political democracy.” He advocates for the media holding politicians accountable for their actions and the actions of their staff. While psychopaths may not care about how their actions harm other people, notes Beauchamp, “they very much do care about being able to hold on to their positions of power. A system that actually holds people accountable to the broader conscience of society may be one of the best ways to keep conscienceless people in check.”

    That said, if we allow the ballot box to become our only means of pushing back against the police state, the battle is already lost.

    Resistance will require a citizenry willing to be active at the local level.

    If you wait to act until the SWAT team is crashing through your door, until your name is placed on a terror watch list, untilyou are reported for such outlawed activities as collecting rainwater or letting your children play outside unsupervised, then it will be too late.

    This much I know: we are not faceless numbers. We are not cogs in the machine. We are not slaves.

    We are human beings, and for the moment, we have the opportunity to remain free—that is, if we tirelessly advocate for our rights and resist at every turn attempts by the government to place us in chains.

    The Founders understood that our freedoms do not flow from the government. They were not given to us only to be taken away by the will of the State. They are inherently ours. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.

    Until we can get back to this way of thinking, until we can remind our fellow Americans what it really means to be a free American, and until we can learn to stand our ground in the face of threats to those freedoms and encourage our fellow citizens to stop being cogs in the machine, we will continue to be treated like slaves in thrall to a bureaucratic police state run by political psychopaths.

    • Some reality between the beats of the war drums
      Apr 3, 2016

      Eric Zuesse

      On Saturday April 2nd, CNN headlined, “U.S. F-15s Deployed to Iceland,” and Zachary Cohen opened:

      Demonstrating its commitment to a ‘free’ and ‘secure’ Europe, the United States deployed 12 F-15C Eagles and approximately 350 airmen to Iceland and the Netherlands on Friday, the Air Force announced.

      U.S. aircraft units from the 131st Fighter Squadron at Barnes Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts and the 194th Fighter Squadron at Fresno Air National Guard Base in California will support NATO air surveillance missions in Iceland and conduct flying training in the Netherlands.

      The F-15s are not the only package of American fighters being sent to Europe in an effort to deter further Russian aggression in the region.

      Next to that text appears a video from Christiane Amanpour, “Amanpour in Focus,” which opens with her saying:

      Of all the crises plaguing Europe right now — Grexit, Brexit, the migrant crisis, the economy even still — the worst, by far, is the Ukraine-Russia crisis, which still has the potential to flare into open warfare beyond the borders of Ukraine; and who would have thought that in two thousand [inaudible]teen, we would still hear President Vladimir Putin sometimes raise the nuclear option. This extraordinary state of affairs has come from Ukrainians protesting for their independence — they saw off one President, and they elected another one, Petro Poroshenko.

      Here’s the actual history behind all of that:

      Back in February 2014, Obama overthrew (please click on the link if you have any doubt about anything that’s being said here) the democratically elected President of Russia’s neighbor Ukraine, in an extremely bloody coup, which was at least a year in being set-up, and the rationale for this ‘democratic uprising’ was that that actually democratically elected President was corrupt — but no one mentioned that all of Ukraine’s post-Soviet leaders have been corrupt. Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland had instructed the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine whom to get appointed to take over control of Ukraine as soon as the coup would be completed, and that person did become appointed — and top officials of the EU were shocked to find out that it had been a coup. The “armed militias in ski masks” that Obama referred to in the coup (and in the ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ afterward), were actually his, not Viktor Yanukovych’s (the President whom Obama overthrew); they were America’s mercenaries, not either Yanukovych’s or Russia’s operatives as he pretends they were. And, now, after the extremely bloody civil war that resulted in Ukraine when the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the President whom Obama overthrew rejected Obama’s coup-regime and refused to be ruled by it, Ukraine is even more corrupt than it ever was, but, for some mysterious reason, the United States isn’t overthrowing the post-coup government. Obama had gotten what he basically wanted out of his coup: Russia’s ability to pipeline its gas into the EU is now severely hampered by the necessity to establish alternate pipeline-routes. Ukraine is crucial to strangulating Russia, because most of Russia’s gas-pipelines into Europe run through its formerly friendly neighbor, Ukraine, which now is rabidly anti-Russian. So: the coup and ethnic-cleansing and all the rest have been just a part of America’s effort to strangulate Russia; and all of the maimed and dead people are merely collateral damage — no concern of Obama.

      Obama lies about Russia and Ukraine and Crimea; and, the same aristocracy that control the U.S. government, control also the U.S. ‘news’ media, such as CNN; so, this is America’s ‘free press’, in America’s ‘democracy’: nonstop lies and propaganda, to fool the suckers to elect their candidates.

      Consequently: when this CNN ‘news’ story said, “The F-15s are not the only package of American fighters being sent to Europe in an effort to deter further Russian aggression in the region,” what was the source of the term, “aggression,” that was being used against Russia, there? It was, now, under Obama, the official U.S. government term to refer to Russia: for example, in Obama’s National Security Strategy 2015, he had used that term on 17 of the 18 times, when ‘aggression’ was being charged, in that document, against a foreign nation.

      However, it’s not Russia that surrounds America with over 300 military bases in 185 foreign countries; it is the United States that surrounds Russia with over 300 military bases in 185 foreign countries; and which, on top of this, has the nerve to accuse Russia as being the ‘aggressor,’ when Russia is merely defending Crimeans (and Russia’s own naval base) from America’s takeover of Ukraine — and allows Crimeans to plebiscite on rejoining Russia after the U.S. coup in Ukraine. (Even Western-sponsored polls in Crimea showed overwhelming support among them for rejoining Russia.) To add insult to injury, America then organizes global economic sanctions against Russia, for, essentially, defending Crimeans, and for defending itself, against American aggression.

      And, then, the American President has the arrogant audacity to proclaim that “the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation,” meaning that not only Russia, but every other country, is ‘dispensable.’

      It’s the official line. And America’s ‘news’ media promote it, unquestioningly (as if it’s not outrageous).

      And, if you ever wondered why people like this get promoted at major ‘news’ media, while people like this get the boot and are blackballed by them, you now know.


      Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

    • Thanks g888, I can see why you thought of me, and interesting and outeresting article from many fannypacked angles. Something brought the PsychoSlut to mind just the nuther day … or wuz it daze?
      Might’ve had something to do with this craze.


      • Thats what I was trying to think of earlier, the Psychoslut..Yeah I hear ya man I’ve been there done that.. Drop dead gorgeous nazi bitches.. The one I had would dial 9/11 if I talked back in my own defense..

    • Are “Panama Papers” An Act Of Destabilization By Western Powers?
      Brandon Turbeville

      “World media is now alight with reports surrounding the largest data leak in the history of journalism known as the Panama Papers. The 2.6 terabytes worth of information has apparently revealed dirty deals, money laundering operations, and tax avoidance schemes by some of the world’s most powerful people including celebrities, athletes, world leaders, politicians, and their relatives. In addition, over 200,000 companies, trusts, and foundations are mentioned and exposed in the leak coming from Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian “law firm” that contains files with information such as “holdings of drug dealers, Mafia members, corrupt politicians and tax evaders – and wrongdoing galore.”

      Mossack Fonseca is considered one of the world’s biggest creators of “shell companies,” corporate formations that can be used to hide the true owners of various assets. The data that was released by Mossack Fonseca includes contracts, emails, bank records, property deeds, passport copies and a host of other collections of sensitive information going as far back as 1977 to as recent as December, 2015.

      As media outlet Zero Hedge describes the leak, “It allows a never-before-seen view inside the offshore world — providing a day-to-day, decade-by-decade look at how dark money flows through the global financial system, breeding crime and stripping national treasuries of tax revenues.”

      As Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the outlet that received the leaks, summarized the new revelations:

      Over a year ago, an anonymous source contacted the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and submitted encrypted internal documents from Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm that sells anonymous offshore companies around the world. These shell firms enable their owners to cover up their business dealings, no matter how shady. In the months that followed, the number of documents continued to grow far beyond the original leak. Ultimately, SZ acquired about 2.6 terabytes of data, making the leak the biggest that journalists had ever worked with. The source wanted neither financial compensation nor anything else in return, apart from a few security measures. The data provides rare insights into a world that can only exist in the shadows. It proves how a global industry led by major banks, legal firms, and asset management companies secretly manages the estates of the world’s rich and famous: from politicians, Fifa officials, fraudsters and drug smugglers, to celebrities and professional athletes.

      Zero Hedge also described a number of high-profile revelations coming from the leaks. The website writes:

      Mossack Fonseca’s fingers are in Africa’s diamond trade, the international art market and other businesses that thrive on secrecy. The firm has serviced enough Middle East royalty to fill a palace. It’s helped two kings, Mohammed VI of Morocco and King Salman of Saudi Arabia, take to the sea on luxury yachts.

      The Targets of the Release

      Out of all this data, however, there are several curious aspects that no mainstream media outlet has yet to adequately explain – the apparent absence of any relevant American or Israeli names as well as any high-profile and realistically relevant European names, particularly those of the active NATO countries.

      In fact, despite the fact that the Russians, Syrians, Chinese, and Icelandics have been revealed for the offshore dealers that they are – we are being led to believe that the oligarchs in the United States, England, Israel, and Germany are squeaky clean.

      Three points must be made in this regard.

      First, many of the targets of the Panama Papers leaks are being “exposed” only by means of guilt by association. For instance, a full on public relations assault has been launched against Russian President Vladmir Putin, suggesting that Putin himself is responsible for using offshore accounts for personal gain. However, Putin’s guilt is simply being associated with an individual who is holding money in offshore accounts. Putin himself has not been revealed as one of the individuals laundering money.

      The Guardian video entitled “How To Hide A Billion Dollars: The Panama Papers,” is perhaps one of the most obvious examples of how “guilt by association” is used to implicate Putin himself in offshore accounts and tax evasion. Yet there is no evidence of Putin himself doing anything of the sort, only evidence of a “close friend” of Putin who has maintained offshore accounts. The reports out of Western mainstream media even go so far as to associate Putin with the accounts because the leaks revealed that his “childhood friends” were also engaged in offshore accounting.

      While many may have, at first, believed the Panama Papers leaks to be an instance of guerrilla hacking or some other form of grassroots activism against world oligarchs, all indications are that they are nothing more than an exercise in mass propaganda designed to paint certain “enemies” of the Western powers as corrupt and greedy, further demonizing them in the Western press and undermining their credibility and legitimacy in their own countries.

      While this type of corruption may indeed be rampant in the overwhelming majority of cases across the world (including the United States, Israel, and the West), the Panama Papers appear to be nothing more than other propaganda assault conducted by the U.S. State Department and its host of interconnected color revolution agencies like the Ford Foundation, OSI, and USAID. Before activists rejoice, they should take a deeper look into the leaks and the source that produced them.”


    • Dark Web

      “The dark web is the World Wide Web content that exists on darknets, overlay networks which use the public Internet but which require specific software, configurations or authorization to access.[2][3] The dark web forms a small part of the deep web, the part of the Web not indexed by search engines, although sometimes the term “deep web” is confusingly used to refer specifically to the dark web.[4][5][6][7][8]

      The darknets which constitute the dark web include small, friend-to-friend peer-to-peer networks, as well as large, popular networks like Freenet, I2P, and Tor, operated by public organizations and individuals. Users of the dark web refer to the regular web as the Clearnet due to its unencrypted nature.[9] The Tor dark web may be referred to as onionland,[10] a reference to the network’s top level domain suffix .onion and the traffic anonymization technique of onion routing.”


    The last few days days have been rife with speculation about the motivation, if any, behind the release of the Panama Papers, with the most prominent example coming from Wikileaks two days ago on Twitter which accused the journalist consortium behind the leak, the ICIJ, of being a “Washington DC based Ford, Soros funded soft-power tax-dodge which has a WikiLeaks problem” and adding that “PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.”

    As we further suggested, the fact that none other than Rothschild, which is trying to corner the US-based “tax haven” sector, stands to benefit from the collapse of the Panama offshoring industry (as international clients who demand to maintain their anonymous status are forced to move to the US), may lead to further questions about a potential conflict of interest behind said release.

    But while these and many other questions will remain unanswered, including why the ICIJ is cherrypicking which names to release especially as pertains to US clients of the Panamanian law firm, earlier today Russian president Putin made his first public announcement on the topic of the Panama Papers.

    Acording to AP, Putin denied having any links to offshore accounts and described the Panama Papers document leaks scandal as “part of a U.S.-led plot to weaken Russia.” Putin described the allegations as part of the U.S.-led disinformation campaign waged against Russia in order to weaken its government. “They are trying to destabilize us from within in order to make us more compliant,”…


  57. RAH RAH RAH for Killery, NOT

    Asia-Pacific Research
    Global Research

    GR Newsletter,

    US-NATO WarEconomyCivil RightsEnvironmentPovertyMediaJustice9/11War CrimesMilitarizationHistoryScience

    Overturning “Inverted Totalitarianism”.The Tightening Grip of Corporations on the U.S. Government

    By Michael Hasty
    Global Research, April 08, 2016
    Free Radical Maine 8 April 2016
    Region: USA
    Theme: Media Disinformation, Police State & Civil Rights
    In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

    bernie for president
    Perhaps the most important result so far of the Bernie Sanders insurgency is how starkly it has exposed the truly totalitarian nature of the 21st century American state.

    Of course, this is not totalitarianism of the classic Orwellian variety. It is the “inverted totalitarianism” that the late political scientist Sheldon Wolin so brilliantly described in his book, “Democracy, Incorporated.” In a system of inverted totalitarianism, there is no real distinction between state and corporate power. In this system, a carefully “managed democracy,” as Wolin called it, is supervised by a technocratic elite in the general service of corporate interests.

    In inverted totalitarianism, the outward forms of democracy continue to exist—enough to keep a deliberately uninformed populace under the illusion that they still live in a democracy—but the actual levers of government are tightly controlled by Wall Street and its associated industries—finance, armaments, energy and media.

    What makes this system of totalitarianism “inverted” is that, instead of being ruled by a “strong leader,” like you find in classic 1930s-style fascism—the earlier, more primitive version of the merger of corporate and state power—the system is instead governed by a consensus of corporate interests, with a puppet US president answering to the “phalanx of CEOs” that Bob Woodward once described as immediately surrounding every new American president.

    And Bill Clinton, with his brilliant technocratic grasp of policy, and his enthusiastic embrace of so-called “free trade” agreements, and his ruthless commitment to American imperialism, and his welfare and telecommunications and banking “reforms”—all of which served to increase the share of global wealth owned by the 1 percent—proved himself a very effective “manager” of democracy indeed. So he was generously rewarded for his services to the elite with millions in post-presidential speaking fees, and millions more in donations to a foundation that primarily serves as a personal family slush fund, and was welcomed wholeheartedly into the 1 percent—his trailer trash background and habits notwithstanding.

    It is therefore a natural development for the global elites who oversee the world’s economic system to hire Bill Clinton’s longtime “partner in power,” with equal confidence in her ability to provide the certainty and stability that capitalism and the financial markets depend on, and with the knowledge that she will do her utmost to protect and maintain the status quo.

    Making Hillary president has the added benefit for the ruling elites of making it appear as if the US is moving in a more liberal direction politically. This helps to disguise the tightening grip of transnational capital on the US government, not to mention those of democracies worldwide, and keeps liberals confused.

    Meanwhile, a Hillary presidency will guarantee that Americans remain divided, as a Republican Congress—the likely result of a November enthusiasm gap—mine the files of the Clinton Foundation or, who knows, maybe Benghazi, for impeachable offenses, cheered on by those who have hated her with righteous fury ever since she was First Lady. And left and right will square off as enemies, rather than uniting as compatriots with a common foe: a corrupt American government that no longer functions either as a democracy or, in any meaningful sense, a republic. And a corrupt and unjust system will be protected from a united populace.

    It is Bernie’s ability to unite Americans that I think has brought the greatest shock to the establishment. They were already alarmed by his ability to spark a movement, and to organize a campaign, and to outflank the media narrative, and to rack up victory after victory, and to beat the establishment’s anointed candidate at her own high-stakes and all-important game—raising money—all of which have been minimized to the greatest extent possible by a well-coordinated and relentlessly on-message corporate/state media.

    But because of the authenticity and commonsense nature of his message, it is Bernie’s ability to appeal not only to progressives, but to independents and conservatives, and to unite people in the common cause of cleaning up a corrupt and decadent political system, that seems to have made the establishment realize that his political revolution could actually be a genuine threat.

    So in their eyes, it must be stopped.

    This serious turn in the establishment attitude is, as usual, most evident in the media. As long ago as 2014, the media has been in the tank for Hillary, as Chris Cuomo openly admitted on CNN. “We couldn’t help her any more than we have,” he said on June 9, 2014. “She’s getting a free ride from the media. We’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign.”

    That media pattern of Hillary promotion has been apparent throughout the campaign, but has intensified in the wake of the Wisconsin primary, where Bernie’s 13-point victory vastly outperformed every mainstream prediction, and an uninterrupted Bernie winning streak made the media’s “inevitability” narrative look increasingly silly.

    As progressive radio host Thom Hartman has noted, most of the post-Wisconsin cable news coverage has concentrated on the Republican race (where Ted Cruz is much farther behind Donald Trump than Bernie is of Hillary). An absurd example of this occurred when Nation reporter John Nichols, a very early advocate for Bernie Sanders, appeared on a panel on CNN the day after Wisconsin, and was only asked about Cruz. The media are continuing a pattern of ignoring Bernie as much as possible. And the headlines about his string of victories are all, “Bernie wins, but math.”

    The media has also mostly parroted Clinton campaign misrepresentations of Bernie’s recent interview with the NY Daily News. A Washington Post headline even suggested that, in Hillary’s opinion, Bernie is “unqualified” to be president, spurring a reaction from Bernie that the media also tried to turn in Hillary’s favor. The correspondence between the media metanarrative and Hillary’s rhetoric on breaking up the big banks is exact: they’re in agreement that Bernie doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    The Hillary Clinton campaign and establishment media have virtually merged. Two days after Wisconsin, CNN ran a near-continuous loop of Hillary on the NYC subway, woman of the people, kissing babies and using her Metro card. It looked more like a Clinton campaign commercial than a journalistic report on a candidate who hasn’t held a press conference in weeks.

    What has terrified the establishment is the realization that the political revolution that Bernie has openly instigated may in fact be a real revolution; and that Bernie is right when he says that, when millions of us stand together, there is nothing that can’t be done. The establishment knows that millions of us standing together is the only way inverted totalitarianism can be overturned.

    And to just about everyone’s surprise, and to the establishment’s utter terror, Bernie turns out to be a guy who can unite millions.

    Michael Hasty is a lifelong activist, writer, musician and carpenter. He blogs at Free Radical Maine, where this essay first appeared

    • Election Theater has reached Becket level absurdity.
      “Waiting for Godot” with a dose of twatsnot.


      • And a follow up on Clinton. Will the history books tell the real story

        Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995

        Is Hillary Clinton ‘Qualified’?
        April 8, 2016

        Exclusive: The question of “qualifications” is suddenly at the center of the Democratic race with Hillary Clinton’s backers touting her résumé but ignoring her many failures in job after job, writes Robert Parry.

        By Robert Parry

        Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has dismissed Sen. Bernie Sanders questioning her qualifications to be President as “silly” – and looking at her résumé alone, she’d be right – but there is also the need to judge her performance in her various jobs.

        What is troubling about Clinton’s record is that she has left behind a trail strewn with failures and even catastrophes. Indeed, her highest profile undertakings almost universally ended in disaster – and a person’s record should matter when voters are deciding whether to entrust him or her with the most powerful office on earth.

        Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
        Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
        In other words, it’s not just a question of her holding one prestigious job or another; it’s also how well she did in those jobs. Otherwise, you have a case of the Peter Principle Squared, not just letting someone rise to the level of his or her incompetence, but in Clinton’s case, continuing to get promoted beyond her level of incompetence.

        So, looking behind Clinton’s résumé is important. After all, she presents herself as the can-do candidate who will undertake small-scale reforms that may not move the needle much but are better than nothing and may be all that’s possible given the bitterly divided Congress.

        But is Hillary Clinton really a can-do leader? Since she burst onto the national scene with her husband’s presidential election in 1992, she has certainly traveled a lot, given many speeches and met many national and foreign leaders – which surely has some value – but it’s hard to identify much in the way of her meaningful accomplishments.

        Clinton’s most notable undertaking as First Lady was her disastrous health insurance plan that was concocted with her characteristic secrecy and then was unveiled to decidedly mixed reviews. Much of the scheme was mind-numbing in its complexity and – because of the secrecy – it lacked sufficient input from Congress where it found few enthusiastic supporters.

        Not only did the plan collapse under its own weight, but it helped take many Democratic members of Congress with it, as the Republicans reversed a long era of Democratic control of the House of Representatives in 1994. Because of Hillary Clinton’s health-care disaster, a chastened Democratic Party largely took the idea of providing near-universal health-insurance coverage to Americans off the table for the next 15 years.

        In Clinton’s next career as a senator from New York, her most notable action was to enthusiastically support President George W. Bush’s Iraq War. Clinton did not just vote to authorize the war in 2002, she remained a war supporter until 2006 when it became politically untenable to do so, that is, if she had any hope of winning the Democratic presidential nomination against anti-war Sen. Barack Obama.

        Both in her support for the war in the early years and her politically expedient switch – along with a grudging apology for her “mistake” – Clinton showed very little courage.

        When she was supporting the war, the post-9/11 wind was at Bush’s back. So Clinton joined him in riding the jingoistic wave. By 2006, the American people had turned against the war and the Republican Party was punished at the polls for it, losing control of Congress. So it was no profile-in-courage for Clinton to distance herself from Bush then.

        Not Learning Lessons

        Still, Clinton seemed to have learned little about the need to ask probing questions of Bush’s team. In November 2006, she completely misread Bush’s firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and replacing him with ex-CIA Director Robert Gates. Serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Clinton bought the conventional wisdom that Gates’s nomination meant that Bush was winding down the Iraq War despite warnings that it actually meant the opposite.

        Former CIA Director (and later Defense Secretary) Robert Gates.
        Former CIA Director (and later Defense Secretary) Robert Gates.
        If Clinton had done any digging, she could have discovered that Rumsfeld was dumped not because of his warmongering but because he backed his field generals – George Casey and John Abizaid – who wanted to rapidly shrink the U.S. military “footprint” in Iraq. But Bush and his neocon advisers saw that as effectively an admission of defeat, so they got rid of Rumsfeld and recruited the more malleable Gates to front for their planned escalation or “surge.”

        Not only did spell out that reality in real time, but it also was explained by right-wing pundit Fred Barnes in the neocon Weekly Standard. As Barnes wrote, Gates “is not the point man for a boarding party of former national security officials from the elder President Bush’s administration taking over defense and foreign policy in his son’s administration. … Rarely has the press gotten a story so wrong.”

        Barnes reported instead that the younger George Bush didn’t consult his father and only picked Gates after a two-hour face-to-face meeting at which the younger Bush got assurances that Gates was onboard with the neocon notion of “democracy promotion” in the Middle East and shared Bush’s goal of victory in Iraq. [The Weekly Standard, Nov. 27, 2006]

        But the mainstream press — and much of Official Washington — loved the other storyline. A Newsweek cover pictured a large George H.W. Bush towering over a small George W. Bush. Embracing this conventional wisdom, Clinton and other Senate Armed Services Committee members brushed aside the warnings about Gates, both his troubling history at the CIA and his likely support for a war escalation.

        In his 2014 memoir, Duty, Gates reflects on his 2006 nomination and how completely clueless Official Washington was. Regarding the conventional wisdom about Bush-41 taking the reins from Bush-43, Gates wrote about his recruitment by the younger Bush: “It was clear he had not consulted his father about this possible appointment and that, contrary to later speculation, Bush 41 had no role in it.”

        Regarding the mainstream news media’s wrongheaded take on his nomination, Gates wrote: “There was a lot of hilarious commentary about a return to ‘41’s’ team, the president’s father coming to the rescue, former secretary of state Jim Baker pulling all the strings behind the scenes, and how I was going to purge the Pentagon of Rumsfeld’s appointees, ‘clean out the E-Ring’ (the outer corridor of the Pentagon where most senior Defense civilians have their offices). It was all complete nonsense.”

        Though Gates doesn’t single out Hillary Clinton for misreading the significance of his nomination, Gates wrote: “The Democrats were even more enthusiastic, believing my appointment would somehow hasten the end of the war. … They professed to be enormously pleased with my nomination and offered their support, I think mainly because they thought that I, as a member of the Iraq Study Group [which had called for winding down the war], would embrace their desire to begin withdrawing from Iraq.”

        In other words, Hillary Clinton got fooled again.

        Surging for Surges

        Once installed at the Pentagon, Gates became a central figure in the Iraq War “surge,” which dispatched 30,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq in 2007. The “surge” saw casualty figures spike. Nearly 1,000 additional American died along with an untold number of Iraqis. And despite another conventional wisdom about the “successful surge” it failed to achieve its central goal of getting the Iraqis to achieve compromises on their sectarian divisions.

        President George W. Bush pauses for applause during his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003, when he made a fraudulent case for invading Iraq. Seated behind him are Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (White House photo)
        President George W. Bush pauses for applause during his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003, when he made a fraudulent case for invading Iraq. Seated behind him are Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (White House photo)
        Yet, the mainstream press didn’t get any closer to the mark in 2008 when it began cheering the Iraq “surge” as a great success, getting spun by the neocons who noted a gradual drop in the casualty levels. The media honchos, many of whom supported the invasion in 2003, ignored that Bush had laid out specific policy goals for the “surge,” none of which were achieved.

        In Duty, Gates reminds us of those original targets, writing: “Prior to the deployment, clear benchmarks should be established for the Iraqi government to meet during the time of the augmentation, from national reconciliation to revenue sharing, etc.”

        Those benchmarks were set for the Iraqi government to meet, but the goals were never achieved, either during the “surge” or since then. To this day, Iraq remains a society bitterly divided along sectarian lines with the out-of-power Sunnis again sidling up to Al Qaeda-connected extremists and even the Islamic State.

        But Clinton didn’t have the courage or common sense to recognize that the Iraq War “surge” had failed. After Obama appointed her as Secretary of State – as part of a naïve gesture of outreach to a “team of rivals” – Clinton fell back in line behind Official Washington’s new favorite conventional wisdom, the “successful surge.”

        In the end, all the Iraq War “surge” did was buy President Bush and his neocon advisers time to get out of office before the failure of the Iraq War became obvious to the American public. Its other primary consequence was to encourage Defense Secretary Gates, who was kept on by President Obama as a gesture of bipartisanship, to conjure up another “surge” for Afghanistan.

        In that context, in Duty, Gates recounts a 2009 White House meeting regarding the Afghan War “surge.” He wrote: “The exchange that followed was remarkable. In strongly supporting the surge in Afghanistan, Hillary told the president that her opposition to the surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary [in 2008]. She went on to say, ‘The Iraq surge worked.’

        “The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.” Obama’s aides disputed Gates’s suggestion that the President indicated that his opposition to the Iraq “surge” was political, noting that he had always opposed the Iraq War. The Clinton team never challenged Gates’s account.

        In other words, having been an Iraq War hawk when it mattered – from 2002-06 – Hillary Clinton changed direction when that was politically expedient, apologizing for her “mistake,” but then returned to her enthusiasm for the war by accepting the benighted view that the “surge worked.”

        Clinton’s enthusiasm for “surges” also influenced her to side with Gates and General David Petraeus, a neocon favorite, to pressure Obama into a “surge” for Afghanistan, sending in an additional 30,000 troops on a bloody, ill-fated “counterinsurgency” mission. Again, the cost in American lives was about 1,000 soldiers but their sacrifice did little to shift the war’s outcome.

        Winning Praise

        Again and again, Hillary Clinton seemed incapable of learning from her costly errors – or perhaps she just understands that the politically safest course is to do what Washington’s neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment wants done. That way you get hailed as a serious thinker in the editorial pages of The Washington Post and at the think-tank conferences.

        Virtually all the major columnists and big-name pundits praised Clinton’s hawkish tendencies as Secretary of State, from her escalating tensions with Iran to tipping the balance of the Obama administration’s debate in favor of a “regime change” mission in Libya to urging direct U.S. military intervention in Syria in pursuit of another “regime change” there.

        On the campaign trail, Clinton seeks to spin all these militaristic recommendations as somehow beneficial to the United States. But the reality is quite different.

        Regarding Iran, in 2010, Secretary Clinton personally killed a promising initiative sponsored by Brazil and Turkey (at President Obama’s request) to get Iran to swap much of its low-enriched uranium for radiological medical tests. Instead, Clinton followed the path laid out by Israel and the neocons, ratchet up pressure on Iran and keep open the “bomb-bomb-bomb Iran” option.

        It is noteworthy that the diplomatic agreement with Iran to restrain its nuclear program and to give up much of its low-enriched uranium required Clinton’s departure from the State Department in 2013. I’m told that Obama understood that he needed to get her out of the way for the diplomacy to work.

        Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.
        Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.
        But Clinton’s signature project as Secretary of State was another war of choice, this time the “regime change” in Libya resulting in the grisly murder of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 and the descent of Libya into a failed state beset with terrorism, including the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, and more recently the emergence of the Islamic State.

        Clinton and her “liberal interventionist” allies sold the Libyan war as a “responsibility to protect” mission – or R2P – but the propaganda about Gaddafi’s supposed plans for “genocide” against the Libyan people was wildly exaggerated and fit with a long and sorry pattern of U.S. officials deceiving the U.S. public. [For more details, see’s “Covering Up Hillary’s Libyan Fiasco.”]

        Taking Credit

        According to all accounts, Obama was on the fence about the wisdom of joining European nations in undertaking the Libyan “regime change” and it was Secretary Clinton who tipped his decision toward going to war. The U.S. military then provided the crucial technological infrastructure for the war to go forward. Without the U.S. involvement, the “regime change” in Libya wouldn’t have happened.

        As the conflict raged, Clinton’s State Department email exchanges revealed that her aides saw the Libyan war as a chance to pronounce a “Clinton doctrine,” bragging about how Clinton’s clever use of “smart power” could get rid of demonized foreign leaders like Gaddafi. But President Obama seized the spotlight when Gaddafi’s government fell.

        But Clinton didn’t miss a second chance to take credit on Oct. 20, 2011, after militants captured Gaddafi, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Appearing on a TV interview, Clinton celebrated Gaddafi’s demise with the quip, “we came; we saw; he died.”

        However, with Gaddafi and his largely secular regime out of the way, Islamic militants expanded their power over the country. Many, it turned out, were terrorists, just as Gaddafi had warned. Some were responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens.

        Over the next five years, Libya – a once prosperous North African country – descended into anarchy with dozens of armed militias and now three competing governments jockeying for power. Meanwhile, the Islamic State expanded its territory around the city of Sirte and engaged in its signature practice of beheading “infidels,” including a group of Coptic Christians slaughtered on a beach.

        Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confronts Sen. Bernie Sanders in Democratic presidential debate on Jan. 17, 2016.
        Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confronts Sen. Bernie Sanders in Democratic presidential debate on Jan. 17, 2016.
        Yet, on the campaign trail, Clinton continues to defend her instigation of the Libyan war, disputing any comparisons between it and the Iraq War by rejecting any “conflating” of the two. Yet, the two disasters – while obviously having some differences – do deserve to be conflated because they have many similarities. Both were wars of choice justified by false and misleading claims and having terrible outcomes.

        Clinton’s rejection of “conflating” the two wars has another disturbing element to it, the suggestion that she is incapable of extracting lessons from one situation and applying them to another. That inability to analyze, engage in self-criticism, and thus avoid repeating the same mistakes may indeed be a disqualifying characteristic for someone seeking the U.S. presidency.

        So, is Hillary Clinton “qualified” to be President of the United States? While her glittering résumé may say one thing, her record – a litany of misjudgments, miscalculations and catastrophes – may say something else.

        [For information about Hillary Clinton’s earlier career, see’s “Clinton’s Experience: Fact and Fantasy.”]

        Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and

      • “So, is Hillary Clinton “qualified” to be President of the United States?”~Robert Parry

        One need not have any qualifications to act the part of a powerless titular “leader”. As proven by Bush Jr., you don’t even have to be capable of speaking in full sentences.


    Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives. Only this path leads to the unleashing of human energies that build civilization, provide security, generate wealth, and protect the people from systematic rights violations. In this sense, only liberty can truly ward off tyranny, the great and eternal foe of mankind.

    The definition of liberty I use is the same one that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It is the understanding derived from the great freedom tradition, for Jefferson himself took his understanding from John Locke (1632–1704). I use the term “liberal” without irony or contempt, for the liberal tradition in the true sense, dating from the late Middle Ages until the early part of the twentieth century, was devoted to freeing society from the shackles of the state. This is an agenda I embrace, and one that I believe all should embrace.

    To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions.

    Our standards of living are made possible by the blessed institution of liberty. When liberty is under attack, everything we hold dear is under attack. Governments, by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty.

    Take the United States, for example. Our country was established with the greatest ideals and respect for individual freedom ever known. Yet look at where we are today: runaway spending and uncontrollable debt; a monstrous bureaucracy regulating our every move; total disregard for private property, free markets, sound money, and personal privacy; and a foreign policy of military expansionism. The restraints placed on our government in the Constitution by the Founders did not work. Powerful special interests rule, and there seems to be no way to fight against them. While the middle class is being destroyed, the poor suffer, the justly rich are being looted, and the unjustly rich are getting richer. The wealth of the country has fallen into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Some say this is because of a lack of regulations on Wall Street, but that is not right. The root of this issue reaches far deeper than that.

    The threat to liberty is not limited to the United States. Dollar hegemony has globalized the crisis. Nothing like this has ever happened before. All economies are interrelated and dependent on the dollar’s maintaining its value, while at the same time the endless expansion of the dollar money supply is expected to bail out everyone.

    This dollar globalization is made more dangerous by nearly all governments acting irresponsibly by expanding their powers and living beyond their means. Worldwide debt is a problem that will continue to grow if we continue on this path. Yet all governments, and especially ours, do not hesitate to further expand their powers at the expense of liberty in a futile effort to force an outcome of their design on us. They simply expand and plummet further into debt.

    Understanding how governments always compete with liberty and destroy progress, creativity, and prosperity is crucial to our effort to reverse the course on which we find ourselves. The contest between abusive government power and individual freedom is an age-old problem. The concept of liberty, recognized as a natural right, has required thousands of years to be understood by the masses in reaction to the tyranny imposed by those whose only desire is to rule over others and live off their enslavement.

    This conflict was understood by the defenders of the Roman Republic, the Israelites of the Old Testament, the rebellious barons of 1215 who demanded the right of habeas corpus, and certainly by the Founders of America, who imagined the possibility of a society without kings and despots and thereby established a framework that has inspired liberation movements ever since. It is understood by growing numbers of people who are crying out for answers and demanding an end to Washington’s hegemony over the world.

    And yet even among the friends of liberty, many people are deceived into believing that government can make them safe from all harm, provide fairly distributed economic security, and improve individual moral behavior. If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that that power is always abused. Every single time.

    Over the centuries, progress has been made in understanding the concept of individual liberty and the need to constantly remain vigilant in order to limit government’s abuse of its powers. Though steady progress has been made, periodic setbacks and stagnations have occurred. For the past one hundred years, the United States and most of the world have witnessed a setback for the cause of liberty. Despite all the advances in technology, despite a more refined understanding of the rights of minorities, despite all the economic advances, the individual has far less protection against the state than a century ago.

    Since the beginning of the last century, many seeds of destruction have been planted that are now maturing into a systematic assault on our freedoms. With a horrendous financial and currency crisis both upon us and looming into the future as far as the eye can see, it has become quite apparent that national debt is unsustainable, liberty is threatened, and the people’s anger and fears are growing. Most importantly, it is now clear that government promises and panaceas are worthless. Government has once again failed and the demand for change is growing louder by the day. Just witness the dramatic back-and-forth swings of the parties in power.

    The only thing that the promises of government did was to delude the people into a false sense of security. Complacency and mistrust generated a tremendous moral hazard, causing dangerous behavior by a large number of people. Self-reliance and individual responsibility were replaced by organized thugs who weaseled their way into achieving control over the process whereby the looted wealth of the country was distributed.

    The choice we now face: further steps toward authoritarianism or a renewed effort in promoting the cause of liberty. There is no third option. This course must incorporate a modern and more sophisticated understanding of the magnificence of the market economy, especially the moral and practical urgency of monetary reform. The abysmal shortcomings of a government power that undermines the creative genius of free minds and private property must be fully understood.

    This conflict between government and liberty, brought to a boiling point by the world’s biggest bankruptcy in history, has generated the angry protests that have spontaneously broken out around the country – and the world. The producers are rebelling and the recipients of largess are angry and restless.

    The crisis demands an intellectual revolution. Fortunately, this revolution is under way, and if one earnestly looks for it, it can be found. Participation in it is open to everyone. Not only have our ideas of liberty developed over centuries, they are currently being eagerly debated, and a modern, advanced understanding of the concept is on the horizon. The Revolution is alive and well.

    The goal is liberty. The results of liberty are all the things we love, none of which can be finally provided by government. We must have the opportunity to provide them for ourselves, as individuals, as families, as a society, and as a country.

  59. Clocking in at 1300 pages of small print text, Carroll Quigley’s seminal work, Tragedy and Hope, is an intimidating and weighty tome. Today we talk to Joe Plummer of about his guide to Quigley’s massive book. Available as a free e-book or as a paperback or kindle purchase and dubbed Tragedy and Hope 101, Plummer’s guide condenses, summarizes, explains and footnotes the highlights and lowlights of the text so you can understand the nature of the conspiratorial network that Quigley exposed and why this information is so important.



    It’s time to remind US citizens again of HR 378, the Act that would “prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions,” (source). The Act caused a stir when it was first reported on in early 2015, but has since dwindled in the media, and slipped through the cracks of the public’s attention. The proposal is still open, however, and those who are interested can track its progress through the (source) link above.

    The Act was proposed on January 14, 2015 by Representatives Michael Honda (D-CA), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Robin Kelly (D-IL), and Danny Davis (D-IL). According to, other sponsors or cosponsors include Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), and Julia Brownley (D-CA).

    The controversy surrounding the topic spills over into the gun-rights issue, but regardless of your opinion on guns, whether or not we have the right to protect ourselves from them should not be an issue. The fact is, armor itself doesn’t hurt anyone (it’s designed to do the opposite), so why is an Act being proposed to take a form of safety away?

  61. The Conspiracy Theorists Were Right: Mega Bank Admits To Rigging Global Gold And Silver Markets
    — Justin Gardener

    “In a stunning victory for “conspiracy theorists” within the precious metals space, overnight Deutsche Bank not only agreed to settle a lawsuit accusing it of manipulating the silver fix, but also agreed to help the plaintiffs pursue similar claims against other banks as part of the settlement by providing instant messages and other communications, reports ZeroHedge. And so the former cartel members are turning on each other.

    Within the span of 24 hours, it was reported that Deutsche Bank, along with other banks, has been rigging both the silver and gold futures markets since 2007. The German-based bank reached a settlement in two separate lawsuits brought by bullion investors.

    According to Reuters:

    The plantiffs accused Deutsche Bank of conspiring with Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS.TO), Barclays Plc (BARC.L), HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA.L) and Societe General (SOGN.PA) to manipulate prices of gold, gold futures and options, and gold derivatives through twice-a-day meetings to set the so-called London Gold Fixing.”



    Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is expected to announce this week that Alexander Hamilton’s face will remain on the front of the $10 bill and a woman will replace Andrew Jackson on the face of the $20 bill, a senior government source told CNN on Saturday.

    When it was originally announced that Hamilton would be replaced by a woman, the statist banking crowd, led by Ben Bernanke, roared in outrage. The statists know their history. It was Hamilton, who from the early days of the nation clamored for a central bank and a strong interventionist federal government.

    I have quoted Thomas DiLorenzo on the evil Hamilton before:
    The current economic crisis is the inevitable consequence of what I call Hamilton’s Curse in my new book of that name. It is the legacy of Alexander Hamilton and his political, economic, and constitutional philosophy. As George Will once wrote, Americans are fond of quoting Jefferson, but we live in Hamilton’s country.

    The great debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over the purpose of government, which animates American politics to this day, was very much about economic policy. Hamilton was a compulsive statist who wanted to bring the corrupt British mercantilist system — the very system the American Revolution was fought to escape from — to America. He fought fiercely for his program of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, pervasive taxation, and a central bank run by politicians and their appointees out of the nation’s capital….

    Hamilton complained to George Washington that “we need a government of more energy” and expressed disgust over “an excessive concern for liberty in public men”…

    Hamilton was neither the inventor of capitalism in America nor “the prophet of the capitalist revolution in America,” as biographer Ron Chernow ludicrously asserts. He was the instigator of “crony capitalism,” or government primarily for the benefit of the well-connected business class. Far from advocating capitalism, Hamilton was “befogged in the mists of mercantilism” according to the great late nineteenth century sociologist William Graham Sumner….

    When Hamilton and George Washington led some 15,000 conscripts into Pennsylvania to enforce the hated whiskey tax, the purpose was not only to collect the tax and reassure bondholders, but also to send a message to any future tax resisters….

    • Hamilton’s True Identity

      Hamilton was a rat from the get go. His real name was Alexander Levine; the son of a Jew named John Michael Levine and a mulatto named Rachel Faucitt. Alex was stigmatized as a “bastard” rather than acknowledge his Negro and Jewish ancestry. That’s why Aaron Burr killed him in a duel because Burr constantly chided Hamilton and finally slapped him in the face with his gloves that started the duel. He was the one that cajoled Washington into accepting the First Bank of America when the Constitution forbade banking by the United States. Alex was groomed at age 15 when he was sent back to Europe from the Isle of Neveus, to be trained in banking by the Bank of England, and the Rothchilds, knowing that he would be Washington’s aid, as Secretary, when the con job was put into place. So Forbes and all these modern day higher ups either are totally ignorant of history or are still conning the people today .

      Even back then the election process was rigged and votes really counted for nothing.To top it off Hamilton embezzled so much money from the Bank, in which he put himself as Treasurer, that the bank was going under and he was charged, just Like Paulson and all today. However Hamilton did correct all the private banking stealing . When that fiasco was cleared up, the private banking cartel, they as private banks, started looting again. Just like the private Federal Reserve is doing now. Congress does not control the Federal Reserve. See section 10.3 and Section 10.4 of the Federal Reserve Act as amended thru to 1961.
      The US Supreme Court sustained the evasions and sided with the banks. Why not, as Chief Justice Marshall owned much more in the stocks than he did when he first bought 3700 shares in that private banking. From 1817 to 1823 Nicholas Biddle took over and again let the private banks control the US and State banks to steal even more money from the depositors. This is why Andrew Jackson vetoed the third private banks charter and that is why the government in 1841 created a real bank and it dealt in gold and silver only.

      Oh, there is much more I am not telling, Such as this private bank was the fiscal agent of the Pope. The Pope, through this private banking cartel, rules America and all the Banks, and that started back in the year 1215. The Private Bank of England again gained control in 1913 when the Federal Reserve, a branch of the Exchequer gained control and operated along with the real banks. That started the flood of Private bank notes called the Federal Reserve note. At first they had to print their notes payable in gold and silver. In 1921 they abolished the real US bank and you all know what happened from then to the present. Congress, the real criminals, allowed this when they abdicated their control of making sure the real money, gold and silver, was the constitutional mainstay of this country. In fact, when this country was in dire straits in 1929 it was because the money deposited, mostly gold and silver of the people, was used on bad business deals in Europe and caused the crash.

      The Federal Reserve created legislation for President Hoover to sign which he refused, saying it was unconstitutional to call the people the ‘enemy’ for simply wanting their money back. They wrote into the Trading With The Enemy Act that the people of America were to be classed as the “enemy” of the banking cartel; and, for that the banks were closed for 6 days when the Criminal Congress was asked by Roosevelt to implement this by the War Powers Act, just as Washington did in 1792. This draft legislation licensed the private banks so they could deal with the American enemy. Little does the mass of people know that a Jewish Immigrant by the name of van Rosenvelt, [who you now know as the Roosevelt’s], that his Grandfather, President Grant, was the closest relative of Franklin D., who was the one that used the war powers to further enslave the American people. Today you have the same, only worse, as Paulson, is NOT, I repeat NOT the Secretary of any US Treasury as it was abolished in 1921. He is the Governor of the IMF running what they call a DEPARTMENT of TREASURY when it has not a blessed thing to do with the United States and State’s banks.

      We are right back in worse shape now, controlled by foreign powers, as the Private IRS is controlled by this Governor of the IMF and THE BANK. The Income tax is a fraud on the people to suck even more money from them which goes directly to the private banking cartel today. The age old saying that “Knowledge is Freedom” rings hollow because the ignorant masses have no clue what is happening. The $700 billion bail out is to protect the likes of Paulson, Bernanke and from the President to Congress for trashing the Constitution parameters that were already destroyed by the 55 members of Congress, Hamilton and G. Washington in 1792, when allowing the private Bank of England to take control of he money.

      I had asked Ron Paul if he would abolish and repeal 12 Stat 319, 12 U.S.C. 95 a & b, and he said absolutely not. These two statutes control the “enemy”. That’s us folks. We have been indentured slaves because the slaves never look back in history to try to hold the criminals feet to the fire. Congress does not represent the masses called US or State citizens. They represent the private corporations called United State and States. Lysander Spooner was dead on point when he wrote The Constitution of No Authority and explained why no one in America is represented by the criminals calling them selves representatives of you and me and Joe the Plumber and Sally Homemaker. There is no sense in saying to the American , “Wake up”. They are too brain dead. They are too brain washed with the lies that have been driven into their heads since the day they were born as this quote explains what I am saying “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic”: Dresden James

      Since Congress is powerless to stop this, there is only one way to stop it. Every one of the masses has to get totally out of banking or suffer what they are going through forever with the controlled private IRS stealing your labor and the foreign powers controlling you forever. Now that is a peaceful solution. Don’t water the garden and it dries up, shrivels and dies.

      The Informer


    “It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!”~Emiliano Zapata

    • I remember reading about Tammany Hall during the pre Civil War era fixing the votes. They showed some of that in The Gangs of New York. I doubt this shit show ever had an honest election process. I doubt the Star Chamber process they used behind closed locked guarded doors when the Colonies now Estates allegedly voted to drop the Articles of Confederation for the Debt agreement called the COTUS. And that agreement was changed later to another COTUS.. Fake Ratifications are rigged votes inside secret chambers.. The notion of a Nation/State is the ultimate in hu-moon imaginations gone totally mental retarded in my opinion. A constitution is the obligation of a debt, a debt you cannot dispute according to the constitution itself and according to international law. Meaning you all owe you all owe.. Since 1783 they wanted a piece of whatever the chattel did.. Now they want it all which is why they’ve been instituting eugenics disguised as “social justice” for the poor, notice they keep creating more and more poor.. That because the Jesuit’s are poverty pimps.

      • Agreed g888, government is a racket! That is all it has ever been.
        A “Constitution”is a ‘contract’ that is presumed to do the impossible – bind the progeny to the signatures of their forefathers – actually a form of blood liable.
        You and I both know what bullshit it all is.
        Constitutionalists like NAPOLITANO do have one point to make to the cluelss sheeple however, and that is that even their limited understanding of what the Constitution is supposed to mean is breached by the current gang of hooligans squatting in DC.

  64. Interview 1163 – Spiro Skouras Explains the Agenda 2030 Ocean Takeover
    Spiro Skouras joins us today to discuss his recent expose on the UN’s Agenda 2030 global goals, its oiligarch and billionaire backers, and the attempt to take over the world’s oceans. From “no go zones” and hydrocarbon rights to the shady characters and groups that are funding this resource grab, you won’t want to miss this informative interview.


  65. Interview 1164 – Dan Sanchez on Elections as Power Ritual
    Elections are meaningless power rituals that only pit personas against each other in an establishment-endorsed Two Minutes Hate. So if these political wrestlemania matches don’t change society, what does? Join us today for a fascinating conversation with Dan Sanchez about his recent article, “What If the Empire Held an Election and Nobody Came?”


  66. “I think the word ‘war criminal’ should not be thrown around in the domestic debate,” said Kissinger. “It’s shameful, it’s a reflection on the people who use it. Let’s look at the situation. First, there was no carpet bombing.”

    Carpet bombing, or saturation bombing is the process of continuous and progressive aerial bombing designed to inflict damage on every piece of a targeted area. As part of Operation Menu, Cambodia was saturated with bombs, resulting in the deaths of around 4,000 civilians. Kissinger offered his view on the situation and explicitly states that he believes the civilian casualties were justified:

    The North Vietnamese moved four divisions into the border areas of Vietnam and Cambodia, and established bases from which they launched attacks into Vietnam. These divisions were put there in opposition to the Cambodian government. When Nixon took office he took a message to the North Vietnamese that he was eager for negotiations. At that point, the North Vietnamese began daily attacks, many of which came from the four divisions occupying Cambodian territory.

    After suffering 1,500 casualties, nearly as many as we suffered in ten years of war in Afghanistan, Nixon ordered an attack on the base areas within 5 miles of the Vietnamese border, which were essentially unpopulated. So when the phrase carpet bombing is used… the size of the attack was probably much less than what the Obama administration has done in similar areas. Which I think was justified and therefore I believe what was done in Cambodia was justified. And when we eventually wiped out the base areas the casualties dropped by 80%.

    I am a security adviser, I strongly favored it. I certainly was strongly supportive of it, it was correct. And it was in the American interest. And the civilian casualties from these bombings was justified. The argument against doing it was that Cambodia was a neutral country, but a country that 4 divisions on its soil is not a neutral country.

    When asked whether he had any regrets about the Vietnam War, Kissinger stated, “Mistakes were made…. But I am proud of the service… one should stand by one’s decisions.” The final question posed to Mr. Kissinger was how will history judge you? During a momentary pause two audience members yelled out “murderer,” before Kissinger explained that he loses no sleep over what the people think about him. He also said that due to the Internet it’s doubtful that he will receive a fair treatment in the history books.

    • Kissinger is a psychotic conscienceless mentality stewing away in a rotten corpse. He is beyond disgusting. I have no words, no explanation for describing his insanity, his sickness. The evil he has taken up with for so long. Serial killer, nothing more nothing less, just another serial killer. What all of these monsters did and still do has never been necessary beyond the fact that their small group of maniacs want to rule, own the entire earth. If this madness keeps going along, all life will be gone and they will fight amongst their sick selves over whats left until nothing is left.

  67. AN INTRODUCTION: Smart Power & The Human Rights Industrial Complex

    Patrick Henningsen
    21st Century Wire
    Human rights in the West: does the reality live up to the rhetoric? On the surface, the cultural narrative seems innocent enough: billionaire philanthropists, political luminaries and transnational corporations, along with legions of staff and volunteers – all working together in the name of social justice, forging a better, fairer and more accountable world.
    The story reads well on paper, and well it should. After all, the 20th century saw a string of apparent failures by various governments to curb and halt some of the most horrific exhibitions of genocide and crimes against humanity. As a result, the door has been opened for many high-profile charities and human rights organizations to play a bigger role in moderating international affairs.
    Upon more rigorous inspection, however, a number of uncomfortable realities emerge regarding the 21st century international human rights concern. Though many human rights charities still market themselves as ‘neutral’ and ‘nonpartisan’, the reality is something very different. Below, we will detail a number of high-profile cases where these organisations are being used as public relations organs to further western foreign policy objectives. With public skepticism of the charity sector already at an all-time high, the danger is clear: if conflicts of interest are not addressed in a serious way, they threaten to undermine the credibility of the entire non-governmental organization (NGO) sector internationally.
    One difficult aspect in analyzing this battle of ‘perception management’ is that there’s a real risk of wrongly demonising the entire NGO sector. The reality is that most human rights and aid organizations are staffed and run by good, hard-working and extremely well-educated individuals, many of whom carry out their roles with an altruistic heart and with the best of intentions. For the most part, many remain unaware or uninterested in who actually funds their organisations and what those financial strings mean in terms of the what a given organisation’s stance will be on any range of geopolitical issues or military conflicts. It’s certainly true that over the years, sincere and dedicated campaigning by organisations has helped to free individuals who were unjustly imprisoned and achieved due process and justice for the dispossessed. It’s also true that many of these same organizations have helped to raise awareness on many important social and environmental issues.
    Due to increased funding from corporate interests and direct links to government and defense policy think tanks in recent years, these organisations have become even more politicised, and more closely connected with western ‘agents of influence.’ As a result, an argument can be made that, on many levels, these ‘human rights’ organizations may be contributing to the very problem they profess to be working to abate: causing more suffering, death and instability worldwide through their co-marketing of the foreign policy objectives of Washington, London, Paris and Brussels.
    The problem is both systemic and institutional in nature. As a result, many of the western world’s leading human rights organizations based in North America and Europe have become mirror reflections of a western foreign policy agenda and have become virtual clearing houses for interventionist propaganda.
    Writer Stephanie McMillan describes the new role of the non governmental organizations in the 21st century:
    “Along with military invasions and missionaries, NGOs help crack countries open like ripe nuts, paving the way for intensifying waves of exploitation and extraction.”

  68. Jane Jacobs — Hundredth Birthday Today

    Jane Jacobs, then chairperson of a civic group in Greenwich Village, at a press conference in 1961.

    “The other threat to the security of our tradition, I believe, lies at home. It is the current fear of radical ideas and of people who propound them. I do not agree with the extremists of either the left or the right, but I think they should be allowed to speak and to publish, both because they themselves have, and ought to have, rights, and once their rights are gone, the rights of the rest of us are hardly safe …”~Jane Jacobs, response to Conrad E. Snow, chairman of the Loyalty Security Board, March 25, 1952

    Jane Jacobs OC OOnt (born Jane Butzner; May 4, 1916 – April 25, 2006) was a Canadian and American journalist, author, and activist best known for her influence on urban studies. Her influential book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) argued that urban renewal did not respect the needs of most city-dwellers. The book also introduced sociology concepts such as “eyes on the street” and “social capital”.[1][2]

    Jacobs was well known for organizing grassroots efforts to protect existing neighborhoods from “slum clearance” – and particularly for her opposition to Robert Moses in his plans to overhaul her neighborhood, Greenwich Village. She was instrumental in the eventual cancellation of the Lower Manhattan Expressway, which would have passed directly through SoHo and Little Italy, and was arrested in 1968 for inciting a crowd at a public hearing on the project. After moving to Toronto in 1968, she joined the opposition to the Spadina Expressway and the associated network of expressways in Toronto planned and under construction.

    As a mother and a female writer who criticized experts in the male-dominated field of urban planning, Jacobs endured scorn from established figures, who called her a “housewife” and a “crazy dame.” She did not have a college degree, or any formal training in urban planning, and was criticized for being unscholarly and imprecise. She was also accused of inattention to racial inequality, and her concept of “unslumming” has been compared with gentrification.

  69. America’s Legacy Will Be Its Downfall: Empire Always Comes Home
    — Brandon Turbeville

    Remember, it’s supposed to come right back here because that which the U.S. has created and maybe, perhaps, even the very reason for being that America was set up to do, is almost accomplished. Once it’s accomplished, they’ll be doing the same thing back home. You’ll SUBMERGE into the world system you helped create. – Alan Watt,

    s Western media outlets and the U.S. State Department attempt to gin up public sentiment surrounding alleged bombings of alleged hospitals that may or may not have even existed and that, even if they did, were nothing more than field hospitals for terrorists, the Syrian people are suffering under unimaginable conditions. These true victims, of course, are completely ignored by the same outlets that cry and pine over the deaths and setbacks of jihadists, rapists, torturers, and murderers.

    Amidst the constant propaganda and dehumanizing method of reporting “news” in the West, both the humanity and the wishes of the Syrian people are lost completely.

    In a video posted by the ANNA News Agency, one is able to see footage of Aleppo where Western-backed terrorists are lobbing missiles and bombs against civilian targets, film that would never be played on Western televisions under the guise of protecting a violence-ridden and violence-obsessed public from the “graphic images” of the results of their own intellectual laziness and lack of moral conviction. Graphic images are no problem when it is movie time, of course, but when violent images come home to roost, trigger warnings are required and censorship is always invoked. That is, unless the necessity of stirring up public support for foreign wars is dire enough to warrant its presentation.

    Indeed, scenes from Aleppo will only be shown when media outlets are able to twist the footage into a report on the “crimes of Assad” instead of the natural progression of acts of destabilization set into motion by the United States and its coalition. Indeed, these conditions are entirely the fault of the United States, Britain, France, the GCC, Israel and the NATO powers. In the ANNA news report, one can view footage that depicts a way of life – only five years old contrary to Western brainwashing – that is unimaginable to any sane person and, five years ago, would have been unimaginable to any Syrian. In the video report, the first scene is shortly after a terrorist bombing in West Aleppo where a young man can be heard speaking to his mother and saying “Hello? Hello? Mama I’ll talk to you later. Another bomb fell. Bye, Bye.”

    Amidst the screaming of women and children, the silence of the dead, and the blaring sirens trying to respond to the fires and carry away the injured, viewers can hear the shouts of men, some in anger and some in frenzied attempts to rescue those buried under rubble or critically injured by the bombs.

    In one clip, a woman can be seen shouting at a Syrian soldier, not in anger at the SAA or Assad for “bombing civilians,” but for not doing enough to stop America’s freedom fighters and moderate terrorists paraded before the Western public as the only hope for Syria. “I’m begging you. I’m begging you,” she says. “Aren’t you in the army? Save us! Save us please young man!” It should strike American audiences, if they are ever able to view this footage, as odd that a Syrian woman would be shouting for help from the Syrian military to protect her from the “rebels” America is supporting if Assad and the Syrian government are so incredibly cruel.

    Another woman is seen shouting similar sentiment. “Aleppo is steadfast, but this is enough!” A man shouts to the cameras, “Where is mercy? Where is God? The US is sending rockets to kill the Syrian people! We don’t want this! We want military aid for the Syrian army who are our sons! Our sons! Our sons who are defending us!” Needless to say, we do not expect this footage to be aired on FOX, CNN, or any other major corporate outlet in the United States.

    As they are presented by the U.S. media, the Syrian people, like most other people across the world are completely dehumanized. In American media, Syrians are not human. They are numbers. 100 died today. 86 died the day before. Syrians are not mothers or sons. They are not fathers or little children, grandparents. They are blips on a screen and data in a spreadsheet. At least, this is how they are presented to an increasingly hardened American public, a nation that is becoming more and more desensitized to death, destruction, and degradation both at home and abroad.

    Each one of the numbers Americans go about their day scarcely aware of had a mother and father. Many had children, girlfriends, husbands, careers, pets, hopes for the future. Each one had a history and a life story. For them, all of that is gone now and, presumably, its absence has left a massive hole in the life of someone else.

    In what amounts to three minutes of intense footage, the ANNA News report manages to sum up in minutes what will be the legacy of the United States. In Syria, even if the government is successful in returning the country to some sense of normalcy, a gaping hole in the collective consciousness of the people will remain along with the notable silence of hundreds of thousands of voices who would have been part of the cities, towns, and family dinners had the United States never put the country in its sights. In Libya, America’s legacy is thousands dead and a civilized country returned to barbarism and violence. In Iraq, unbelievable destruction and death continue while years of use of depleted uranium will leave a lasting reminder of the presence of America as generations will be born disfigured, deformed, and drastically ill. Even decades on, Vietnam bears the scars of America.

    All across the world, America has left a trail of destruction and death, both on massive scales. Only within its own borders does anyone think that the United States represents freedom and democracy. The additional tragedy is that a nation that could have become the greatest force for good in the world has been one of the greatest forces for evil the world has ever known.

    As the American people suffer daily under the same Anglo-American control system, it is imperative they understand that their own apathy is the silent acquiescence to the destruction abroad and the inevitable destruction at home. What has been set loose upon foreign peoples overseas cannot help but one day come home. Today it is Syrians who are burying their friends and their children but the meat grinder of empire always eventually comes back to turn on its own inhabitants what it unleashed in foreign lands. If Americans cannot speak out against the destruction of Syria by virtue of their own moral compass and their own humanity, they had better do so out of a sense of self-preservation.

  70. The Untold History of US War Crimes
    By Peter Kuzinick and Edu Montesanti
    Global Research, May 05, 2016

    In this exclusive interview, Prof Peter Kuznick speaks of: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagazaki; US crimes and lies behind the Vietnam war, and what was really behind that inhumane invasion; why the US engaged a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and how that war and the mainstream media influences the world today; the interests behind the assassinations of President Kennedy; US imperialism towards Latin America, during the Cold War and today, under the false premise of War on Terror and War on Drugs.

    Edu Montesanti: Professor Peter Kuznick, thank you so very much for granting me this interview. In the book The Untold History of the United States, Oliver Stone and you reveal that the the launch of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by President Harry Truman was militarily unnecessary, and the reasons behind it. Would you comment these versions, please?

    Peter Kuznick: It is interesting to me that when I speak to people from outside the United States, most think the atomic bombings were unnecessary and unjustifiable, but most Americans still believe that the atomic bombs were actually humane acts because they saved the lives of not only hundreds of thousands of Americans who would have died in an invasion but of millions of Japanese.

    That is a comforting illusion that is deeply held by many Americans, especially older ones. It is one of the fundamental myths emanating from World War II. It was deliberately propagated by President Truman, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and many others who also spread the erroneous information that the atomic bombs forced Japanese surrender. Truman claimed in his memoirs that the atomic bombs saved a half million American lives.

  71. America Threatens Russia: US-NATO Forces “Moving from a Training to a War Fighting Stance”
    The USA: How To Make Them Give A Damn?
    By Christopher Black
    Global Research, May 13, 2016
    New Eastern Outlook 12 May 2016

    “In a report published in the American journal, National Security News, on May 9th, the day of the celebration of the victory of Soviet and allied forces over the fascist forces in 1945, it was stated that, “in terms of the eastern threat-which is a reference to Russia-EUCOM (the American Forces European Command) will be moving from a training to a war fighting stance.”

    The article continues, “this does not mean that the U.S. is planning a war with Russia, merely that it will shift its force structure in a manner aimed at deterring Moscow and defending NATO and European partners should Russian President Vladimir Putin attempt what he has done in Ukraine.”

    Of course, the authors do not state what Russia “attempted in Ukraine,” because that phrase is a cover for the American arranged putsch that put in power the US puppet government in Kiev. That regime then attacked the peoples of the eastern Ukraine because they refused to accept the American backed coup against their democratically elected president and the crushing of their culture. And when Americans say that they “are not planning a war”, we know that is exactly what they are planning. What are the wars in Ukraine, in Syria, the destruction of Yugoslavia and Libya, but a part of the war against Russia?


    The article then refers to the “deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia, and Moscow’s continuing “aggressive, belligerent actions against U.S. warships and aircraft in international spaces.” This, again, is code meaning that “Russia will not let us walk all over them in the Baltic, Ukraine, Syria or anywhere else.”

    It confirms that preparations for war continue steadily, as I have related in previous articles, comparing the NATO build up of forces in the east of Europe to the build of German forces prior to the launching of Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis’ surprise attack on the Soviet Union, on June 21, 1941. The similarities mount with each passing month. The Russian government, well aware of what is happening, has responded with close surveillance of American combat ships entering the Baltic which threaten Kaliningrad, St. Petersburg and Russian access to the Atlantic. It has also created three new army divisions; two of which are to be placed on the western front facing NATO forces in Eastern Europe and one on the southern flank.

    Just recently, the Americans transferred their top general in Korea, General Scaparotti to the command of American forces in Europe, replacing the bellicose General Breedlove. The change is more than routine or cosmetic since Breedlove was an air force officer. Scaparotti, even more bellicose than Breedlove, is an army combat general with experience in several US attacks on sovereign nations

    His replacement in Korea, General also an army combat general who was deputy head of army operations in the attack on Iraq, and also has a record of being involved in American aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and the “war on terror” in the middle east, meaning the war on Iraq and Syria. Both these men are fighting generals, not office chair warmers. Their appointments suggest increased aggressive actions by the Americans on the Korean peninsular and on Russia’s borders. In fact on May 4th, the day he assumed command of the NATO forces in Europe, General Scaparotti stated that, “NATO needs to stay agile and ready to fight tonight.” Alarming words.

    In an attempt to counter the continued American pressure, President Putin, on Monday, May 9th called for the creation of a non-aligned system of international security to counter “global terror.” What he meant by that is unclear, non-aligned in what sense? What would a non-aligned system look like?”

    • banal
      so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.

      synonyms: trite, hackneyed, clichéd, platitudinous, vapid, commonplace, ordinary, common, stock, conventional, stereotyped, overused, overdone, overworked, stale, worn out, timeworn, tired, threadbare, hoary, hack, unimaginative, humdrum, ho-hum, unoriginal, uninteresting, dull, uninvolving, trivial; More..

  72. Deep History and the Global Drug Connection, Enter Al-Qaeda — Part IV
    By Prof Peter Dale Scott
    Global Research, May 13, 2016
    Who What Why

    Professor Peter Dale Scott sees what the rest of us miss. His decades-long investigation of the connections between the hugely lucrative and unstoppable global drug trade and the national security apparatus is unparalleled. The details are also highly complex and a challenge to absorb. Nevertheless, they demand our attention.

    In this excerpt from his new book, Scott focuses on the troubling relationship between Ronald Reagan’s CIA director, William Casey, and BCCI, a still-mysterious “outlaw bank” with tentacles everywhere, and extensive ties to the drug economy.

    This is Part 4 of a 5-part series. To see Parts 1, 2, and 3, please go here, here, and here.

    Excerpt from American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan ( Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2014), Introduction. Deep History and the Global Drug Connection:

    Creating an International Islamist Army: Casey, BCCI, and the Creation of al-Qaeda

    The other most significant case in which the CIA became a front for sanctioned violence was CIA Director William Casey’s use of the CIA in the 1980s to promote his own plans for Afghanistan. Casey’s Afghan initiatives aroused the concern of the CIA’s professional operatives and analysts, including his deputy directors, Bobby Ray Inman and John McMahon.(35) But this did not deter Casey from making high-level decisions about the Afghan campaign outside regular channels when meeting in secret with foreigners.

    President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters in 1983. Photo credit: White House / Reagan Library

    One man Casey dealt with in this fashion was Agha Hasan Abedi, a close adviser to General Zia of Pakistan and, more important, the head of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI):

    Abedi helped arrange Casey’s sojourns in Islamabad and met with the CIA director during visits to Washington. Typically, Abedi would stay in a hotel and Casey would go to his suite. The two men, who met intermittently over a three-year period, would spend hours talking about the war in Afghanistan, the Iran-Contra arms trades, Pakistani politics, and the situation in the Persian Gulf. (36)

    Members of Senator John Kerry’s staff, who investigated this relationship, concluded that Casey in his dealings with Abedi may have been acting not as CIA director but as an adviser to President Reagan, so that his actions were“undocumented, fully deniable, and effectively irretrievable.” (37) (Casey’s dealings with BCCI may not have been at arm’s length: the weapons pipeline to Afghanistan allegedly involved funding through a BCCI affiliate in Oman, in which Casey’s close friend and business associate Bruce Rappaport had a financial interest. (38)

    Unquestionably BCCI offered Casey an opportunity to conduct off-the-books operations, such as the Iran-Contra arms deal, in which BCCI was intimately involved. But the largest of these operations by far was the support to the Afghan mujahideen resistance against the Soviet invaders, where once again BCCI played a major role. Casey repeatedly held similar meetings with General Zia in Pakistan — arranged by Abedi (39)— and with Saudi intelligence chiefs Kamal Adham and Prince Turki al-Faisal (both BCCI shareholders).

    As a result of such conclaves, Prince Turki distributed more than $1 billion in cash to Afghan guerrillas, which was matched by another billion from the CIA. “When the Saudis provided the funding, the administration was able to bypass Congress.” (40)Meanwhile “BCCI handled transfers of funds through its Pakistani branches and acted as a collection agency for war matériel and even for the mujahideens’ pack animals”:(41)

    To access the CIA money was relatively easy. Bags of dollar bills were flown into Pakistan and handed over to Lieutenant General Akhtar Abdur Rahman, the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] director. Rahman banked the cash in ISI accounts held by the National Bank of Pakistan, the Pakistan-controlled Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and the Bank of Oman (one-third owned by the BCCI).(42)

    Yet there is not a word about BCCI in Ghost Wars, Steve Coll’s otherwise definitive history of the CIA’s campaign in Afghanistan. Similarly there is no mention of BCCI in Coll’s excellent book The Bin Ladens, even though he provides an extended description of how Prince Turki arranged for “transfers of government cash to Pakistan.” (43)

    C-5 air cargo plane

    Tons of drugs and billions of dollars were moved around the world
    Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from (US Air Force)

    Casey’s involvement with BCCI was not just a backdoor operation with a bank; it was a multi-billion-dollar backdoor operation with a criminal bank accused, even by its own insiders, of:

    Global involvement with drug shipments, smuggled gold, stolen military secrets, assassinations, bribery, extortion, covert intelligence operations, and weapons deals. These were the province of a Karachi-based cadre of bank operatives, paramilitary units, spies, and enforcers who handled BCCI’s darkest operations around the globe and trafficked in bribery and corruption. (44)

    There were huge and lasting historical consequences from Casey’s apparently unilateral decision to work with BCCI. One was that BCCI’s drug clients in Pakistan and Afghanistan, notably Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, emerged in the 1980s, with protection from General Zia, as dominant figures in an expanded Afghan heroin drug traffic that continues to afflict the world. (45) (According to McCoy, BCCI “played a critical role in facilitating the movement of Pakistani heroin money that reached $4 billion by 1989, more than the country’s legal exports.”(46)
    Read entire article here:


  73. And so for the first time in eons D’At He came down from the High Places and said unto Man;

    “So we see what is.”

    And Man agreed.

    And D’At He said;

    “And we see what is, is not how it should be.”

    And Man agreed.

    And D’At He said;

    “And what shall be done about it?”

    And Man wondered.


  74. US Special Forces In Libya To Fight the ISIS Problem They Created

    by James Corbett
    May 18, 2016

    In 2011 NATO rained bombs on Libya to remove the Gaddafi government from power. Openly backing known terrorists in their push to oust Gaddafi, the NATO powers, led by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy, ended up supporting, fostering and equipping battle-hardened jihadis that they then sent off as a proxy army to begin the destabilization of Syria. But now that proxy army is coming home to roost, with recent reports claiming as many as 6,500 Islamic State fighters are operating in Libya.

    So of course the US has responded to this mess in the only way it knows how: sending more troops. Well, to be more accurate, the troops have been there for half a year, but the government is just now getting around to announcing their presence…via an anonymous leak in the Washington Post, that is.

    That’s right, since late last year a team of US Special Operations commandos have been stationed in Libya in an attempt to “sort through the various factions and identify the potential recipients of American support in the future.” In other words, the same US government that knowingly backed the crazy jihadis in the first place are now there to vet which groups to back in their fight against the crazy jihadis.

    Summit-LibyaAppalled yet? Well the worst part isn’t the special forces on the ground at the moment. It’s not even the obligatory “regional powers” conference going on in Vienna that is likely to see thousands more troops sent to re-invade the country. Or even the fact that the US is now planning to break the UN’s own embargo against sending arms to Libya as long as they double-dog swear the arms are only used for fighting ISIS.

    No, the worst part is that there is arguably no “Libya” left to save even if the NATO vultures withdrew their talons and flew back to their cave. Since the murder of Gaddafi the country has descended into utter chaos. The “government” in Tripoli is a “government” in name only. In truth, it barely governs Tripoli, and the areas in the east are for all intents and purposes a separate country. This fundamental divide is perhaps best exemplified by the absolute insanity taking place at the country’s central bank.

    vaultYou might remember that one of the very first things the NATO-backed terrorists in Libya did after the fighting broke out was to found their own central bank in Benghazi. You might also know that the battle for control of the “legitimate” central bank and its $100 billion dollars in reserves has been one of the main struggles between the many warring factions in post-Gaddafi Libya, with rebel groups having seized the Benghazi branch early last year.

    Well that struggle has descended into a complete farce, with the central bank’s chief not having access to the bank’s funds or even its own vault. The bank, headquartered in the east of the country, is not entirely trusted by the Tripoli-based government, and for good reason: the bank has provided funds to some of the very groups that are waging war with the nominal government. So the government in Tripoli has been sending the central bank a stipend of $23.5 million a month for its operating expenses (a fraction of the $257 million the bank claims to need). The central bank’s vault contains an estimated $187 million in gold and silver which the bank says it desperately needs, but there’s a catch; there is a five digit access code to enter the vault and the Tripoli government won’t share it with the bank’s own governor. So the bank has taken matters into its own hands: it has brought in a pair of safe crackers to help break into the bank’s own vault.

    Libya_war_for_oilThis farce is illustrative of the utter breakdown of Libya as a whole. Any pretense that Libya cohered as a single country was shattered along with the government that was bombed off the face of the earth in 2011. That country may never exist again as anything other than the state-in-name-only that it has become in recent years.

    But one thing is for certain: if Libya does survive and its people can once again find a way to live together it won’t be due to the efforts of the US Special Forces or the powers-that-shouldn’t-be and their Vienna conference or an agreement to end the arms embargo on the country. Outside interference caused the problem; it won’t help to fix it.

  75. Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood?
    By Brandon Smith

    I recently received requests from two different readers, one asking for articles covering the “mindset” of globalists (why they do what they do), and another request for articles covering globalist “occultism.” I find that these two topics are very difficult to pursue with a large number of people for a few reasons:

    1) Many people do not accept the reality that a group of financial elitists colluding (conspiring) to obtain total global power even exists. Therefore, in order to delve into the topic of the globalist mindset with these “skeptics,” I would first have to re-cover page after page of evidence showing that they not only exist and collude, but that they openly boast about their plans on a regular basis. This is time consuming, to say the least.

    2) For some of the people that do eventually accept the reality of a globalist cabal, the argument eventually arises that “yes, there is collusion, but it is merely driven by greed and profit motive,” and not as nefarious as we conspiracy tin-foil mad-hatters imagine.

    3) For others, there is a full acceptance of the reality of an organized globalist cult, but they argue that these people are simply a product of a corrupt and ill-structured socio-political system. That is to say, they think that the globalists are a symptom of the troubles that plague humanity, rather than a cause.

    This argument is often made by people promoting their own collectivist agenda in one form or another (socialists, communists, scientific dictatorships controlled by people supposedly much smarter than the rest of us, one world-one mind spiritually unhinged theosophic weirdos, etc.). They claim a new system, their system, is the solution rather than getting rid of the globalists, which they say would only leave a “power vacuum” for more tyrants to take their place.

    4) Finally, there are the evangelical revelations seekers obsessed with Armageddon. They fully accept that the globalists exist, that they conspire internationally to gain power and influence towards the goal of a “new world order” and that they are essentially evil minded in their intentions. However, they argue that it is either futile to fight against such people because they are supported by power from somewhere beyond, or they even argue that to fight against the globalists is wrong because it is in defiance of the plan put forward in the Bible.

    So, as you can see, it is a veritable circus of horrors whenever I write on the subject of who the globalists really are and what they really want. Beyond that, it is very difficult to examine this subject matter, even with ample evidence, without coming off like a wackaloon.

    It is hard enough convincing people of the obvious economic crisis facing America and the rest of the world and convincing them to put in minimal effort to prepare, let alone convincing them of the psychopathic and cult-like nature of the elite behind that crisis. In other words, if you approach someone new to this information cold and hit them right away with tales of Luciferians, Washington D.C. child pedo-rings and gay romp power-club parties in the California Redwoods with a giant stone owl called “Molech,” you probably aren’t going to get your foot in the door.

    That said, I’ll address the inevitable arguments above very quickly before I begin my analysis of the Globalist mind.

    1) Psychopaths tend to naturally gravitate towards positions of power, and despite some foolish assumptions out there that these people are too volatile to play nice with others, they do in fact work together as long as there is a guarantee of mutual benefit.

    Elites have conspired throughout history, this is well-documented fact. I find it amazing that some folks cannot grasp the idea that they might also be conspiring today. If you need evidence of such collusion, you are welcome to read my articles The Fall Of America Signals The Rise Of The New World Order and Order Out Of Chaos: The Doctrine That Runs The World. If you want to know where to find these people simply look at the memberships of institutions designed specifically to promote globalism – Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations, Tavistock, the Trilateral Commission, The Club Of Rome, Rand Corporation, the IMF, the Bank for International Settlements, etc. Though they often obscure their more malicious intentions, globalists are relatively easy to find.

    One might argue that the problem of organized psychopathy cannot be dealt with unless one confronts individual psychopathy. I’m sorry to say that at least 10% of the population (according to psychologist Carl Gustav Jung) at any given time has elements of inborn latent psychopathy and at least 1% is actively psychopathic. You will NEVER remove psychopathy from humanity. It is an inborn quality. What you can do, though, is disrupt or destroy organizations of people that foster and elevate psychopaths. Organized psychopathy is the real and pressing problem.

    2) If you need convincing that the globalists are not just “greedy capitalists” out to make a buck at the expense of the world, check out my article Global Elitism: The Character Traits Of Truly Evil People and read some of the quotes directly attributed to them. Their goal is to gain as much power over the masses as possible. They see themselves as modern Pharaohs, not as businessmen. Wealth is a side-note.

    3) There have been only fleeting instances of societies without the all-pervasive influence of organized elitism in history. From these minor instances, though, we can see bursts of human potential, productivity and invention, as well as greater respect for inherent conscience and justice. Sadly, no one in the past has ever taken the action of removing elitist groups entirely as a factor of influence.

    Anyone who claims that the globalists are nothing more than a “symptom” is probably trying to sell you on an ideology rather than a real solution. The fact of the matter is, we have never lived in a world without the influence of globalist conspiracy. They are like a cancer that has turned psychopathy into a religion. Removing the globalists should be a top priority. NO system is going to succeed, regardless of how brilliantly conceived, unless the elitists are out of the picture.

    I would even venture to say that the people who argue that the globalists are nothing more than a symptom are in fact HELPING the globalists by distracting activists away from the real task at hand. Playing at philosophy and theoretical society building will not change the existing power structure in any way, nor will it remove the muzzle of a rifle from the back of your head as you stare down at the ditch that is to become your final resting place.

    4) The majority of the Bible is composed of stories of good standing against evil, and I simply cannot take anyone seriously who argues that the Bible demands we sit idle in the face of despotism. I don’t believe in the modernized “Left Behind” interpretations of “apocalypse” and even if I did, different groups have been saying that the end times are right around the corner for ages. Frankly, no one knows or will know if such an event of metaphysical proportions is taking place anyway.

    Now, I do believe in full-spectrum crisis and societal collapse, because these events have happened over and over again and can even be reasonably predicted according to past indicators. I also believe that current events are rife with such indicators and that a collapse is taking place in stages today. I also know that there are groups of elites engineering this collapse and I know exactly why because they have openly admitted their goals (read my article The Economic End Game Explained). Apocalypse is not my concern. Right and wrong, justice and tyranny are my concerns. I’ll leave the rest to more omniscient and omnipresent beings.

    The Problem We Face Is Organized Evil

    Now that the above questions are out of the way we can jump into the core of the problem. And no, the core of the problem is not the “system” we live in per se, or our methodology of living and progressing as a species. Again, there are too many eggheads in the liberty movement that like to pretend they have grand and ingenious new ways of looking at the world, and if only we would just “listen to their brilliant vision” everything would change for the better. When you boil down their philosophies you often find they have no new ideas whatsoever, or that their ideas cannot be implemented because they have not dealt with the elephant in the room — the globalists.

    Philosophy without tangible action and verifiable results is ultimately useless in the face of true evil. Intellectual warriors rarely win wars, but they do often die horribly as a result of their naivety and defenselessness.

    To answer the question in the title of this article, yes, the globalists are in fact evil and the only misunderstandings are on the part of wide-eyed skeptics that have bought into the idea that “evil” is a moral conception created by religion rather than an inherent quality of human beings.

    As Carl Jung discovered in his studies on the collective unconscious, people are born with inherent and conflicting conceptions and traits, or “dualities.” Good vs. Evil is an important duality we all come into the world dealing with, it is not a mere product of environment or religious influence. That which is “good” is often dictated by what we call “conscience,” which again is an inherent idea or “voice,” and is only partly influenced by environment. The fact of inherent character traits and universal moral codes is present in anthropological studies as well as psychological studies beyond Jung’s very extensive work.

    To define evil, we would have to look at those ideas and actions that are opposite inherent conscience. The globalists have basically constructed a festering belief system around everything that is contrary to our moral compass. I will attempt to dissect some elements of that belief system from a secular point of view. Wish me luck…


    Occultism in itself is not necessarily “evil,” it only means “secret knowledge.” But the history of occultism is plagued by rather evil deeds and attitudes. John F. Kennedy once warned of secret societies and secret proceedings, and with good reason. For thousands of years, occult groups often withheld valuable knowledge from the masses as a means to influence behavior and control the direction of society. This did not have to be “magical” knowledge, whatever that means. Usually, it was scientific or psychological knowledge.

    Say, for example, that a group of elitists withheld detailed knowledge of an impending economic collapse because this knowledge gave them a feeling of superiority and an advantage that they could exploit to gain power over others. Often, occult knowledge, secret knowledge, is driven by the selfish desire of one group to maintain a sense of dominance over another. Is it evil to withhold knowledge that could save lives for the sake of self-elevation? I would say absolutely.

    Occultism can also lead to temptations of ever increasing criminality. If groups of people in positions of power maintain a well-oiled machine of secrecy that draws a dark curtain on their behavior, a machine that allows them to cover for each other’s actions to ensure no repercussions from outsiders, it is only a matter of time before the lack of transparency opens a door to greater evil. One act of evil left unpunished tends to breed many future acts of evil practiced with impunity.


    So yeah, it’s almost impossible to broach this subject without sounding crazy to people who aren’t already familiar with it. But as requested, I’ll take a stab at it.

    Do globalists really believe in a devil with a pitchfork and hooves and horns? I really don’t know. What I do know is that many of them believe in the ideas behind the mythology of the figure (even Saul Alinsky dedicated his book Rules For Radicals to Lucifer).

    The Lucifer mythology is one of rebellion, a rebellion against the the Christian God. But how would this translate to elitist behavior? They define inherent conscience and moral compass (checks and balances put in place by God?) as a “restriction” or imprisonment of the individual, and they seem to only esteem individuals as those seeking their own “Godhood.”

    The way liberty proponents value individualism is very different from the way elitists value individualism.

    Lucifer as an archetypal figure represents a rebellion against almost EVERYTHING, including nature. Of course, nature is not a toy to be played with selfishly because catastrophe inevitably results. Moral compass is a guide that keeps humanity from destroying itself, and without it civilizations fall. Luciferianism, at the very least, fosters destructive tendencies and rebellion against the very fabric of humanity. With such people at the helm of entire nations, millions if not billions of innocents will suffer in the scorched path of elites seeking to revolt against inherent moral and natural boundaries as they role play in an ignorant daydream of satanic hero worship, and this is without a doubt evil.

    Do What Thou Wilt

    Attributed to Aleister Crowley, a self-professed satanist, you will see this ideology pop up in globalist circles and pop-culture icons alike. Crowley apologists often argue that the quote it is taken from refers to the “law of love.” But the love of what? The love of others, or the love of one’s self? Do what thou wilt as long as it does not hurt others, or do what thou wilt regardless of the consequences?

    The latter interpretation is clearly the one globalists have taken to heart. Since elitists consistently treat the lowly masses as vermin that need to be exterminated for the good of the planet (and their own amusement), I see little indication that they have the ability to conceive of love, let alone adopt a philosophy of love. Do what thou wilt, however the idea was originally intended, has become a rationale for the globalist propensity of crushing others in the name of “greatness.”

    Moral Relativism

    Evil people are not as immune to the judgments of others as you might think. In fact, many of them become a bit obsessive about people accepting or even praising the things they do. I can only theorize that if in their minds everyone else subscribes to an evil behavior then it is no longer evil, but normal.

    Moral relativism is the act of rationalizing a destructive or evil process by claiming that a positive end result or intention washes away responsibility. The ends justify the means. Globalists could not care less about the consequences of their actions to others, but they do feel the need to justify those actions in a way that people will embrace. From my observations, the majority of globalist propaganda revolves entirely around the concept of moral relativism and the lie that good is only about perception while evil is a “gray area,” or an illusion. As Kevin Spacey says in the movie The Usual Suspects, “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist…”

    The Solution

    As stated earlier, it really does not matter what brand of social system we implement. It really does not matter what kind of economic model we employ. It really does not matter if we somehow find a way to promote enlightened thinking on a massive scale. None of it matters if we do not also confront the organized evil of the globalist cabal.

    It is interesting how many people strive so hard to avoid acknowledging the fight that is coming by clinging to the notion that the globalists are “misunderstood” or “not important” in the grand scheme of things.

    While I work to promote alternative trade models through localism and alternative-security models through community preparedness teams, I also accept that these efforts are a half-measure; mere preparation for an unavoidable conflict between people who hold the contents of their conscience dear (those who view the non-aggression principle as an integral part of a free and healthy civilization), and the globalists, who hold nothing dear accept themselves, their cult and their ambitions.

    Evil is a part of every human being, just as good is a part of every human being. It is a battle we all struggle with until the day we die. But organized evil is something else entirely. It is not something we have to tolerate, and it is something we can change. Until it is expunged from our society, no other solutions can be fully enacted. Therefore, the solution begins with the end of organized evil, and it is a solution I plan to enact in my own way. The solution begins with the eradication of the globalists.”

  76. Elon Musk Funds $1B Project To Stop Human Destruction From “Demon” Of Artificial Intelligence
    By Brianna Blaschke

    Elon Musk’s contributions to society know no bounds: his latest scheme is intended to save humanity from being destroyed by artificial intelligence (AI).

    The billionaire, known for garnering a massive amount of wealth and attention with his revolutionary projects of PayPal, Tesla, and SpaceX, has consistently warned against AI, recently calling it humanity’s greatest existential threat.

    His belief of the detriment AI may cause has led him to pool forces with other well-known tech entrepreneurs to establish an investment fund intended for researchers to pursue actions with a positive social impact. The $1 billion fund is slated to assist humans in staying at least one step ahead of technology.

    According to a statement released by the group of investors, AI’s surprising history makes it difficult to “predict when human-level AI might come within reach.” The statement continued on to advise, “When it does, it’ll be important to have a leading research institution which can prioritize a good outcome for all over its own self-interest.”

    The debate within the technology world over the threats and benefits provided by rapid advances in computer intelligence is a long-standing one, with questions of whether or not legislation should be implemented to act as safeguards. A total moratorium on research has been contested as well, particularly as the scientific and technology worlds are arguably capable of advancing to the point of superseding humans. It is a very likely possibility that we may become redundant, unnecessary, and, thus, expendable.

    Scientists postulate that eventually AI systems will be able to intercommunicate exclusively among themselves, controlling entire transport networks and even national economies.

    Renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking told the BBC last year that technology could very well spell doom for the entire human race, warning of a type of system so advanced it could “re-design itself at an ever-increasing rate,” thus outpacing human improvements exponentially.

    At a recent symposium held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Musk spoke of the dangers of AI, stating that “we need to be very careful with the artificial intelligence. With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon.”

    PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, along with tech giant Infosys and Amazon Web Services, have contributed to the startup of OpenAI. The non-profit will work towards researching novel uses of AI and share the findings; with access to this knowledge, the idea is to guarantee that someone is examining the pros and cons sans the financial restraints imposed by the research and development departments of conglomerates like Google and IBM.

    According to OpenAI’s website, freedom from financial obligations allows for a “better focus on a positive human impact…AI should be an extension of individual human wills and, in the spirit of liberty, as broadly and evenly distributed as is possible safely.”

  77. Obama, Hiroshima, and the Politics of War Crimes
    Corbett • 05/21/2016 •

    “When it comes to American war crimes, there are no shortage of examples to choose from. For every well-known My Lai massacre there are a thousand lesser-known No Gun Ri massacres. For every Abu Ghraib that enters the lexicon there’s a thousand Azizabads that barely made the news. For every Wounded Knee there’s a thousand Camp Sumters.

    There are always reasons. “They did it first.” “They started it.” “They deserved it.” But the reasons are always just excuses. A war crime is a war crime is a war crime.

    And then there’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or should that be Fat Man and Little Boy? It has long been impossible to discuss the reality of these bombings, if it ever really was possible. It’s not just that the US government censored newspapers, silenced individuals and covered up medical reports to keep the public from learning the full truth about what happened in August of 1945; that much is understandable. It’s that when the Smithsonian tried to put those bombings in their context fifty years later there was such a public backlash against the idea that the museum scrapped the exhibit, saying they “made a basic error.” The public couldn’t handle the truth.”

  78. 6 Giant Corporations Control The Media, And Americans Consume 10 Hours Of “Programming” A Day
    by Michael Snyder

    If you allow someone to pump hours of “programming” into your mind every single day, it is inevitable that it is eventually going to have a major impact on how you view the world. In America today, the average person consumes approximately 10 hours of information, news and entertainment a day, and there are 6 giant media corporations that overwhelmingly dominate that market. In fact, it has been estimated that somewhere around 90 percent of the “programming” that we constantly feed our minds comes from them, and of course they are ultimately controlled by the elite of the world. So is there any hope for our country as long as the vast majority of the population is continually plugging themselves into this enormous “propaganda matrix”?

    Just think about your own behavior. Even as you are reading this article the television might be playing in the background or you may have some music on. Many of us have gotten to the point where we are literally addicted to media. In fact, there are people out there that become physically uncomfortable if everything is turned off and they have to deal with complete silence.

    It has been said that if you put garbage in, you are going to get garbage out. It is the things that we do consistently that define who we are, and so if you are feeding your mind with hours of “programming” from the big media corporations each day, that is going to have a dramatic affect on who you eventually become.

    These monolithic corporations really do set the agenda for what society focuses on. For example, when you engage in conversation with your family, friends or co-workers, what do you talk about? If you are like most people, you might talk about something currently in the news, a television show that you watched last night or some major sporting event that is taking place.

    Virtually all of that news and entertainment is controlled by the elite by virtue of their ownership of these giant media corporations.

    I want to share some numbers with you that may be hard to believe. They come directly out of Nielsen’s “Total Audience Report”, and they show how much news and entertainment the average American consumes through various methods each day…

    Watching live television: 4 hours, 32 minutes

    Watching time-shifted television: 30 minutes

    Listening to the radio: 2 hours, 44 minutes

    Using a smartphone: 1 hour, 33 minutes

    Using Internet on a computer: 1 hour, 6 minutes

    When you add all of those numbers together, it comes to a grand total of more than 10 hours.

    And keep in mind that going to movie theaters, playing video games and reading books are behaviors that are not even on this list.

    What in the world are we doing to ourselves?


  79. Home Newswire ‘Pharmaceutical Companies Have Pressured Doctors, Suppressed Evidence’
    ‘Pharmaceutical Companies Have Pressured Doctors, Suppressed Evidence’
    Jun 15, 2016 396 0
    Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter

    Janine Jackson interviewed Lee Fang about industry’s role in the opioid crisis for the June 10, 2016, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

    Lee Fang (image: David Feldman Show)
    Lee Fang: “They’ve coordinated a massive network of different foundations and medical societies to promote more use of these drugs for all kinds of different purposes.” (image: David Feldman Show)

    Janine Jackson: In 2014, a class of drugs known as opioids were involved in more than 28,000 deaths, or 61 percent of all drug overdose deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control. The rate of opioid overdoses has tripled since the year 2000. Recent data show two different but related trends: an increase in so-called illicit opioid overdoses, largely due to heroin, and then this 15-year increase in overdose deaths involving prescription opioid pain relievers. Those drugs, like oxycodone and hydrocodone, or brand names like OxyContin and Vicodin, account for more than 16,000 fatal overdoses each year. The CDC says they’re comfortable using the term “epidemic” to describe the crisis.

    Pharmaceutical companies say they lament the addiction and fatality problems tied to their products, but they also seem determined to resist efforts to address them, suggesting to do so would have to mean taking away relief from people in pain. It’s a medical story, certainly, but it’s also one that calls for following the money, and that’s what our guest does. Lee Fang is an investigative journalist whose work appears on The Intercept, among other places. He joins us now by phone from San Francisco. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Lee Fang.

    Lee Fang: Hey, thank you so much for having me.

    JJ: Let’s talk a little about how we got here, to an opioid crisis. Any time a powerful drug exists, there’s an opportunity for abuse, of course. But this isn’t just a tragic tale of unintended consequence; there are some factors, aren’t there, in how these particular drugs were introduced?

    Purdue Pharma logoLF: Right. For some of the bigger, well-known opioids, like OxyContin, manufactured by Purdue Pharma, these drugs were kind of rushed to market. There’s evidence to suggest that early warning signs that showed how truly addictive OxyContin is were ignored in the approval process, and that the company did not really present evidence showing how dangerous and how likely patients were to overdose on OxyContin through their approval process.

    But the larger story of how we got to where we are today, where there’s an epidemic that you referenced, not just from prescription opioids, but the recent surge in heroin use and heroin overdoses is also linked to the prescription opioid industry. Four out of five heroin users got started on opioid painkillers, many of those folks receiving those drugs just being prescribed by their doctors. And in America alone, about 81 percent of the global supply of oxycodone products, and almost 100 percent of hydrocodone products, such as Vicodin, are used by Americans. So this is a uniquely American crisis.

    But to understand where we got to where we are today, it’s really a marketing strategy that’s been employed over the last 20, 25 years, in which these pharmaceutical companies have pressured doctors, suppressed evidence, and they’ve coordinated a massive network of different foundations and medical societies to promote more use of these drugs for all kinds of different purposes, everything from minor tooth pain to minor back pain. There’s clear evidence that the pharmaceutical companies are part and parcel of the recent surge we see in opioid use.

    JJ: I want to just draw on one point that you just made. As you note, Americans are 5 percent of the world’s population, but we consume virtually all of the hydrocodone products like Vicodin and huge percentages of the oxycodone. And so you kind of have to ask, have other countries just not embraced the miracle? You know? They don’t understand that this is a better mousetrap? Or maybe it comes down to marketing.

    And that brings us back to a company like Purdue Pharma, that produced OxyContin for many years. You talk about downplaying risks of addiction. I understand that they were telling their sales representatives to tell doctors that the risk of addiction was less than 1 percent, and it seems as though there was a gap between what they knew internally and what they were putting out to the public. And, of course, that’s what’s so troubling to us on this, is to know that a company can know something and yet regulators don’t know it, and so of course the public doesn’t know it.

    LF: Yeah, that’s right. You know, this story is very similar to how, for example, tobacco companies use a vast political network and marketing strategy to push their product despite overwhelming signs showing the health concerns of their product. Or the oil industry using very sophisticated political strategies to suppress science.

    So for Purdue Pharma, they took a multi-pronged approach. In addition to the typical pharmaceutical strategies—aggressively bringing on sales reps to push doctors, to persuade them with different types of financial and other incentives to prescribe OxyContin and other opioids—there was also a more public-facing strategy, where Purdue Pharma created a national network of different pain foundations. So these pain foundations would create marketing tools that would bring in people suffering from certain types of pain, from pain doctors and specialists, and pressure them to use opioids as the main type of recourse.

    JJ: Right.

    LF: So between 1996 and 2002, Purdue Pharma funded more than 20,000 pain-related education programs, almost ten a day, seven days a week. During that time, Purdue conducted more than 40 national pain-management training conferences, in vacation spots like Boca Raton and Scottsdale, paying for more than 5,000 physicians to attend. And they also helped create and fund specialty centers, academies for pain sciences, that would take doctors and give them all types of materials, and prescribing guidelines to encourage the use of OxyContin and other opioids.

    And for certain areas of the country, they even created specialized regional pain foundations that would market the drug. So the Appalachian Pain Foundation, based in West Virginia, they were well-funded by Purdue Pharma, and they’d arrange meetings between doctors and local reporters.

    There’s also evidence to suggest that Purdue Pharma and other pain companies would coordinate grassroots networks of pain patients. So when reporters would write stories saying there’s this growing opioid epidemic, there are these problems with addiction, they would coordinate to send angry emails to reporters and claim that they were being stigmatized unfairly, to push back against reporters and editors who were starting to peek around and look at this type of dynamic.

    JJ: Right. And, of course, the reason that that would have resonance is that there was a moment in which it was understood that pain was undertreated. And there are people who have severe pain and who want it to be taken seriously, and none of this is to undermine the situation that those people face.

    But that’s why that kind of narrative, that claims to harness a grassroots voice or a voice of patients, particularly patients in pain, can be very persuasive. And yet you get another aspect of the story from the fact that Purdue, for example, the makers of OxyContin, they’re saying that they’re patient advocates, but when patients get together, like some in Ohio did, to have a class action to say that they’d become addicted to OxyContin, well, then Purdue wants to block that.

    LF: Right. But like for any grassroots lobbying campaign, they seized on a legitimate grievance, and that’s the undertreatment of some pain conditions. And they layered on some untrue claims, such as these guidelines and these marketing materials that claimed that opioids were not addictive, or were not at high risk of addiction, and they organized individuals and these kind of very PR-savvy foundations to push this false claim.

    CDC headquarters, Druid Hills, Georgia (cc photo: nrbelex/Wikimedia)
    CDC headquarters, Druid Hills, Georgia (cc photo: nrbelex/Wikimedia)

    JJ: Well, let’s talk about what’s going on now. Because in response to what even media are calling attention to as an alarming crisis going on, in terms of an explosion of abuse and of overdoses from opioids, the CDC said that they were going to put forward these non-binding guidelines to do with their prescription. And what happened then? The documents were leaked, essentially, and what happened?

    LF: Yeah, so last year, as the CDC took up guidelines that, as you mentioned, are voluntary but provide a government-endorsed idea of maybe best practices, as they were working on these guidelines to maybe discourage the high rates of opioid prescribing, a copy of the guidelines were leaked, and we really saw the political machine of the opioid companies move into high gear. We saw a number of pharma-funded groups immediately attack the CDC. So there’s evidence to suggest that members of Congress, working at some level in conjunction with pharma companies, threatened the CDC with an investigation, saying that this was unfair, that they were not having the right, open process.

    Another group, called the Washington Legal Foundation, which, speaking of tobacco, they were very famous during the ‘90s in taking tobacco money and then filing lawsuits against places that were attempting to regulate tobacco, acting kind of as a neutral-sounding front. I mean, “Washington Legal Foundation” is kind of benign-sounding. Anyways, Washington Legal Foundation is funded by Purdue Pharma, makers of OxyContin, and they threatened the CDC with legal action over the guidelines.

    And according to the Associated Press, a group called the Pain Care Forum, another one of these pharma-funded fronts for the opioid industry, organized regular meetings in Washington among lobbyists and other painkiller advocacy groups to start pressuring policymakers, pressuring the people at the CDC, to, if not back away from these guidelines, to water them down. So we know from a lawsuit filed by the city of Chicago that the top lobbyist for Purdue Pharma actually controlled the Pain Care Forum, and the company of course also funds Pain Care Forum. So it’s the same constellation of groups that has existed for a very long time now, kicking into political gear attacking the CDC.

    And after the CDC released a preliminary version of these guidelines, I believe last December, they received even more criticism, both from Capitol Hill, from some allies of the pharmaceutical industry, and from these political groups and these foundations, financed and controlled by pharmaceutical companies.

    And after an open comment period, finally the CDC handed down its guidelines in March of this year, and the guidelines basically say, for most types of routine pain-related health issues, doctors should not prescribe high dosages of opioids as the first choice. I mean, anything from ibuprofen to other kinds of pain-care management therapies should be tried first, and then, if those don’t work out, the high-dosage opioids might be acceptable. And, again, these are voluntary guidelines.

    JJ: And after the guidelines came out, has there not been pushback since, that we’re now going to revisit it and go back and bring more, quote unquote, “stakeholders” to the table? I thought that that sort of reopening had been achieved, in a way, by the industry side.

    LF: Yeah, and that’s the kind of interesting dynamic here. So we did a story recently, again on the guidelines. And, you know, as we go into midterm elections, we just kind of, by circumstance of the Senate election map, we have a lot of senators from the Northeast, which is a region that’s been heavily hit by the opioid and heroin epidemic, up for reelection this year. So these legislators, from places like New Hampshire and Pennsylvania and Ohio, are adamant about taking something to voters saying that they’ve dealt with the opioid crisis, they’ve been leaders in passing big legislation, fixing the problem. And the administration, the Obama administration, is also eager to say that they’ve done something big.

    But the big package coming out of Capitol Hill in just the last few weeks, that supposedly addresses the opioid crisis, mostly provides some money and incentives for drug treatment of addiction, and for increasing the supply for first responders with Narcan, which is an overdose drug that helps revive someone who’s in overdose on an opioid. And these are positive developments.

    But as we pointed out in our piece recently, the legislation does nothing to crack down on pharmaceutical companies to try to limit the overprescribing of opioids. And, in fact, might actually be a step backwards, because there is the provision in the bill that sets a new task force, which will have industry and other stakeholders in the process, to review the CDC guidelines. So there’s a potential in the future that the industry might have a second shot at going after the CDC guidelines that they’ve been so concerned about.

    JJ: It’s very interesting that the response is to put more of industry representation on the decision-making body. If I could just pull out to a bigger picture view, it sounds as though what we’re saying is, you can’t have a government panel on climate change without the oil industry, because that’s their thing, you know. There’s something funny about this philosophy that says that you can’t have a panel about change, it’s not legitimate, unless it’s like 50 percent ardent, invested advocates for the status quo. You know? As though you’re not legitimate to be in the room discussing something unless you make money off it. It seems a very kind of strange attitude for government regulators to take up, frankly.

    LF: Yeah, and we’ve seen this strategy employed recently on a whole number of issues where there’s a lot of public support. You know, the public is demanding some type of government response to the opioid crisis. And if you look at how lobbyists are attacking other popular issues, you know, payday lending is another one: Republicans on Capitol Hill have given up on trying to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Their claim now, their kind of strategy over the last few years, has been to instead say, these regulations, they need to be formulated with the input of industry. They’ve been trying to add new commissioners and advisors to the board that are representatives from the payday-lending industry and from other financial firms on Wall Street, hoping that by having more of a stake in the process of creating these rules, they can weaken them or make them effectively useless in a procedural way.

    So this is a similar strategy that we’re seeing here: Now it seems too difficult to repeal the CDC guidelines, the previous effort by these front groups to derail them through lawsuits, or the threat of lawsuits, that was a failure. So the next phase is, OK, we can’t get rid of the CDC guidelines, how do we create this new body that will oversee them that will have representatives from industry?

    Cannabis sativa
    Big Pharma has been funding the fight against legalizing marijuana.

    JJ: Let me ask you, finally—it’s not really a pivot, because it’s the same issue. If the industry backing didn’t raise questions about the sincerity of the claims of some of these groups and pain foundations and some of the individuals involved here, their claims that they’re really only concerned with people in pain and providing them access to pain relief, well, the role that some of these same folks are playing in the marijuana legalization story would seem to raise questions about that driving interest in pain relief. There is some connection between these two stories, isn’t there?

    LF: Yeah, that’s I think the next wave of reporting, and a big policy fight going into the future. We’re seeing a number of studies now suggesting that marijuana can be an effective treatment for some pain management, and in some cases even more effective than powerful prescription opioids. And so we’ve seen Elizabeth Warren and other legislators try to convince government agencies like Medicare and the Veterans Administration to at least allow some patients to seek medical marijuana, and that there should be more studies on this approach.

    But interestingly enough, as the opioid industry has attempted to gain influence or buy off the anti-drug and pain-related foundation world, some of the largest anti-drug advocacy groups in America, like the group called CADCA, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America — one of their largest donors is actually Purdue Pharma. And they, notably, even though opioid drug abuse is one of the biggest problems faced in the drug abuse community, mostly sat on the sidelines when it came to the CDC guidelines fight. They kept their mouth closed and did not encourage people to go and promote the guidelines, which really contrasts with their approach to marijuana, where they’ve held rallies and organized grassroots lobbying drives to keep marijuana prohibition, and to continue the criminalization of marijuana.

    JJ: It seems there’s just no substitute for following the money. I’d like to thank you very much for connecting those dots for us, Lee Fang. We’ve been speaking with Lee Fang. You can find his work on this and other issues online at

    LF: Thank you so much, Janine.

      • Asia-Pacific Research
        Global Research

        The Collapse of Western Democracy

        By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
        Global Research, July 01, 2016
        Paul Craig Roberts 29 June 2016

        Democracy no longer exists in the West. In the US powerful private interest groups, such as the military-security complex, Wall Street, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness and the extractive industries of energy, timber and mining, have long exercised more control over government than the people. But now even the semblance of democracy has been abandoned.

        In the US Donald Trump has won the Republican presidential nomination. However, Republican convention delegates are plotting to deny Trump the nomination that the people have voted him. The Republican political establishment is showing an unwillingness to accept democratic outcomes.

        The people chose, but their choice is unacceptable to the establishment which intends to substitute its choice for the people’s choice.

        Do you remember Dominic Strauss-Kahn? Strauss-Kahn is the Frenchman who was head of the IMF and, according to polls, the likely next president of France. He said something that sounded too favorable toward the Greek people. This concerned powerful banking interests who worried that he might get in the way of their plunder of Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. A hotel maid appeared who accused him of rape. He was arrested and held without bail. After the police and prosecutors had made fools of themselves, he was released with all charges dropped. But the goal was achieved. Strauss-Kahn had to resign as IMF director and kiss goodbye his chance for the presidency of France.

        Curious, isn’t it, that a woman has now appeared who claims Trump raped her when she was 13 years old.

        Consider the political establishment’s response to the Brexit vote. Members of Parliament are saying that the vote is unacceptable and that Parliament has the right and responsibility to ignore the voice of the people.

        The view now established in the West is that the people are not qualified to make political decisions. The position of the opponents of Brexit is clear: it simply is not a matter for the British people whether their sovereignty is given away to an unaccountable commission in Brussels.

        Martin Schultz, President of the EU Parliament, puts it clearly: “It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate.”

        The Western media have made it clear that they do not accept the people’s decision either. The vote is said to be “racist” and therefore can be disregarded as illegitimate.

        Washington has no intention of permitting the British to exit the European Union. Washington did not work for 60 years to put all of Europe in the EU bag that Washington can control only to let democracy undo its achievement.

        The Federal Reserve, its Wall Street allies, and its Bank of Japan and European Central Bank vassals will short the UK pound and equities, and the presstitutes will explain the decline in values as “the market’s” pronouncement that the British vote was a mistake. If Britain is actually permitted to leave, the two-year long negotiations will be used to tie the British into the EU so firmly that Britain leaves in name only.

        No one with a brain believes that Europeans are happy that Washington and NATO are driving them into conflict with Russia. Yet their protests have no effect on their governments.

        Consider the French protests of what the neoliberal French government, masquerading as socialist, calls “labor law reforms.” What the “reform” does is to take away the reforms that the French people achieved over decades of struggle. The French made employment more stable and less uncertain, thereby reducing stress and contributing to the happiness of life. But the corporations want more profit and regard regulations and laws that benefit people as barriers to higher profitability. Neoliberal economists backed the takeback of French labor rights with the false argument that a humane society causes unemployment. The neoliberal economists call it “liberating the employment market” from reforms achieved by the French people.

        The French government, of course, represents corporations, not the French people.

        The neoliberal economists and politicians have no qualms about sacrificing the quality of French life in order to clear the way for global corporations to make more profits. What is the value in “the global market” when the result is to worsen the fate of peoples?

        Consider the Germans. They are being overrun with refugees from Washington’s wars, wars that the stupid German government enabled. The German people are experiencing increases in crime and sexual attacks. They protest, but their government does not hear them. The German government is more concerned about the refugees than it is about the German people.

        Consider the Greeks and the Portuguese forced by their governments to accept personal financial ruin in order to boost the profits of foreign banks. These governments represent foreign bankers, not the Greek and Portuguese people.

        One wonders how long before all Western peoples conclude that only a French Revolution complete with guillotine can set them free.

        Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

      • Thank you Verity! An excellent and timely commentary from Paul Craig Roberts, who is so often timely and excellent in his analysis.

      • The 1 Percent’s Useful Idiots

        Posted on Jul 26, 2016

        By Chris Hedges

        PHILADELPHIA—The parade of useful idiots, the bankrupt liberal class that long ago sold its soul to corporate power, is now led by Sen. Bernie Sanders. His final capitulation, symbolized by his pathetic motion to suspend the roll call, giving Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination by acclamation, is an abject betrayal of millions of his supporters and his call for a political revolution.

        No doubt the Democrats will continue to let Sanders be a member of the Democratic Caucus. No doubt the Democrats will continue to agree not to run a serious candidate against him in Vermont. No doubt Sanders will be given an ample platform and media opportunities to shill for Clinton and the corporate machine. No doubt he will remain a member of the political establishment.

        Sanders squandered his most important historical moment. He had a chance, one chance, to take the energy, anger and momentum, walk out the doors of the Wells Fargo Center and into the streets to help build a third-party movement. His call to his delegates to face “reality” and support Clinton was an insulting repudiation of the reality his supporters, mostly young men and young women, had overcome by lifting him from an obscure candidate polling at 12 percent into a serious contender for the nomination. Sanders not only sold out his base, he mocked it. This was a spiritual wound, not a political one. For this he must ask forgiveness.

        Whatever resistance happens will happen without him. Whatever political revolution happens will happen without him. Whatever hope we have for a sustainable future will happen without him. Sanders, who once lifted up the yearnings of millions, has become an impediment to change. He took his 30 pieces of silver and joined with a bankrupt liberal establishment on behalf of a candidate who is a tool of Wall Street, a proponent of endless war and an enemy of the working class.

        Sanders, like all of the self-identified liberals who are whoring themselves out for the Democrats, will use fear as the primary reason to remain enslaved by the neoliberal assault. And, in return, the corporate state will allow him and the other useful idiots among the 1 percent to have their careers and construct pathetic monuments to themselves.

        The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will be pushed through whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. The fracking industry, fossil fuel industry and animal agriculture industry will ravage the ecosystem whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. The predatory financial institutions on Wall Street will trash the economy and loot the U.S. Treasury on the way to another economic collapse whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. Poor, unarmed people of color will be gunned down in the streets of our cities whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. The system of neoslavery in our prisons, where we keep poor men and poor women of color in cages because we have taken from them the possibility of employment, education and dignity, will be maintained whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. Millions of undocumented people will be deported whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. Austerity programs will cut or abolish public services, further decay the infrastructure and curtail social programs whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. Money will replace the vote whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. And half the country, which now lives in poverty, will remain in misery whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becomes president.

        This is not speculation. We know this because there has been total continuity on every issue, from trade agreements to war to mass deportations, between the Bush administration and the administration of Barack Obama. The problem is not Donald Trump. The problem is capitalism. And this is the beast we are called to fight and slay. Until that is done, nothing of substance will change.

        To reduce the political debate, as Sanders and others are doing, to political personalities is political infantilism. We have undergone a corporate coup. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will not reverse this coup. They, like Barack Obama, know where the centers of power lie. They serve these centers of power.

        Change will come when we have the tenacity, as many Sanders delegates did, to refuse to cooperate, to say no, to no longer participate in the political charade. Change will come when we begin acts of sustained mass civil disobedience. Change will come when the fear the corporate state uses to paralyze us is used by us to paralyze the corporate state.

        The Russian writer Alexander Herzen, speaking a century ago to a group of anarchists about how to overthrow the czar, reminded his listeners that it was not their job to save a dying system but to replace it: “We think we are the doctors. We are the disease.”

        We are here not to reform the system. We are here to overthrow it. And that is the only possibility left to restore our democracy and save our planet. If we fail in this task, if this system of corporate capitalism and globalization is not dismantled, we are doomed. And this is the reality no one wants to speak about.

        We will have to be in the political wilderness, perhaps for a decade. But a decade ago Syriza, the party now ruling Greece, was polling at only 4 percent. This is what the Green Party is polling today. We will not bring about systemic change in one or two election cycles. But we can begin to build a counterweight to the corporate state. We can begin to push back.

        We must find the courage not to be afraid. We must find the courage to follow our conscience. We must find the courage to defy the corporate forces of death in order to affirm the forces of life.

  80. Now, we just have to follow this one up with this. I’ve been recently reading about how amazing chili peppers are for pain relief both topically and internally. This adds to the story line, but then we over here tend to be somewhat opposed to the saying. “Bullshit makes the world go round” Big money in that saying for the select few.

    Chili peppers’ heat comes from capsaicin, a compound produced to protect them from fungal attack
    When you eat a chili pepper, capsaicin binds to and activates heat receptor proteins called TRPV1, so even though you’re not actually in danger, your body thinks it’s being exposed to extreme heat
    If exposed to capsaicin for long enough, your pain nerve cells will become de-sensitized to the painful stimulus
    Capsaicin is available in pain-relieving creams and patches, and has shown promise for relieving shingles pain, osteoarthritis, psoriasis symptoms, and more
    Capsaicin has both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, and has also shown some promise for cancer, weight loss, and allergy symptoms

    By Dr. Mercola

    Chili peppers are a staple part of the cuisine in Central America, Asia, and India, while in the US you can find countless varieties of hot sauce, often with the words “inferno,” “insanity,” or “fire” on the labels.

    It’s this heat, of course, that draws so many to add chili peppers to their meals, and it’s also the reason for their many medicinal properties, including pain relief.

    Chili peppers’ heat comes from capsaicin, a compound produced to protect the peppers from fungal attack.1 Capsaicin is colorless and odorless, but when you eat it, capsaicin tricks your brain into perceiving heat where it touches your body.2

    Birds, interestingly, are not affected by capsaicin, and this allows them to widely disperse chili seeds for the plants’ survival. Virtually every other mammal, however, is – although humans are believed to be the only animal that chooses to willingly eat them.

    How Chili Peppers Trick Your Brain

    Your nervous system contains heat-receptor proteins known as TRPV1 receptors. Located in cells in your skin and digestive system, these receptors remain inactive unless you’re exposed to temperatures above 107.6 degrees F (42 degrees C).

    At this point, you’ll experience heat and pain, warning you to stay away from the source of heat. When you eat a chili pepper, capsaicin binds to and activates TRPV1, so even though you’re not actually in danger, your body thinks it’s being exposed to extreme heat.3

    As explained by the New York Times:4

    “…in mammals it [capsaicin] stimulates the very same pain receptors that respond to actual heat. Chili pungency is not technically a taste; it is the sensation of burning, mediated by the same mechanism that would let you know that someone had set your tongue on fire.”

    The intensity of heat in peppers is measured by the Scoville scale, which was developed by pharmacist Wilbur Lincoln Scoville in 1912. While a bell (sweet) pepper has a score of zero, pure capsaicin can surpass 15 million Scoville Heat Units (SHU).

    For comparison, jalapeno peppers range from 2,500 to 8,000 SHU, while Scotch Bonnet peppers can be upwards of 350,000. Ghost chilies, which are even hotter, have a potency of about 900,000 SHU. I am growing three ghost pepper plants and can confirm they are indeed very hot.

    Chili Peppers’ Burning Sensation Ultimately Leads to Pain Relief

    Capsaicin helps alleviate pain in part by depleting your body’s supply of substance P, a chemical component of nerve cells that is involved in transmitting pain signals to your brain. It also works by de-sensitizing sensory receptors in your skin.5

    This is why it’s used in topical pain-relieving creams and patches (some of which contain the equivalent of 10 million SHU). It’s actually the very intense burning sensation that–ironically–ultimately relieves pain. Gizmodo explained:6

    “Applied externally, chilies cause a sensation of burning, as capsaicin activates TRPV1 in nerves in the skin. But, if exposed to capsaicin for long enough, these pain nerve cells will become ‘exhausted’, having depleted their internal chemical stores.

    The nerve cells are no longer able to respond to capsaicin (or indeed, anything that might cause pain) and so you are no longer able to perceive pain. This is why chronic exposure to capsaicin acts as an analgesic.”

    Most often, capsaicin has been studied for relieving postherpetic neuralgia, or pain associated with shingles, and HIV-associated neuropathy, although it has shown promise for treating other types of pain as well.

    In one study, a man with persistent pain due to wounds from a bomb explosion experienced an 80 percent reduction in pain symptoms after using a capsaicin (8 percent, known as high concentration) patch.7

    Topical treatment with 0.025 percent (low concentration) capsaicin cream has also been found to relieve pain associated with osteoarthritis, with 80 percent of patients experiencing a reduction in pain after two weeks of four-times-daily treatment.8

    It’s also been shown to help reduce or eliminate burning, stinging, itching, and redness of skin associated with moderate to severe psoriasis.9 There’s even a nasal spray containing capsaicin that significantly reduced nasal allergy symptoms in a 2009 study.10

    Capsaicin Also Has A Role in Weight Loss

    Capsaicin’s therapeutic properties aren’t limited to pain relief. Researchers have also explored its role for weight loss, including using capsaicin to selectively destroy nerve fibers that transmit information from your gut to your brain. While this procedure was said to have a “remarkable” impact on weight,11 destroying these nerve fibers could have serious long-term implications on your health.

    Fortunately, capsaicin may be effective for weight loss when added to your diet, as opposed to via surgery. Studies have shown the substance may help fight obesity by decreasing calorie intake, shrinking fat tissue, and lowering blood fat levels, as well as fight fat buildup by triggering beneficial protein changes in your body.12 Again, this was when capsaicin was used as a dietary addition… with no surgery required.

    Part of the benefit may be due to capsaicin’s heat potential, as it is a thermogenic substance that may temporarily increase thermogenesis in your body, a process where your body burns fuel such as fat to create heat, with beneficial impacts on your metabolism and fat-burning potential.

    Research suggests that consuming thermogenic ingredients may boost your metabolism by up to 5 percent, and increase fat burning by up to 16 percent.13 It may even help counteract the decrease in metabolic rate that often occurs during weight loss.

    Capsaicin May Help Kill Cancer Cells

    Capsaicin has both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, and has shown some promise for cancer treatment. Research has shown, for instance, that capsaicin suppresses the growth of human prostate cancer cells while leaving normal cells unharmed.14

    In one study, about 80 percent of the prostate cancer cells in mice were killed by capsaicin, while treated tumors shrank to about one-fifth the size of untreated tumors.15

    Capsaicin has also been shown to be effective against breast, pancreatic, and bladder cancer cells, although you might need to eat unrealistically large amounts of capsaicin to get such benefits (such as eight habanero peppers a week).16

    5 Additional Options for Natural Pain Relief

    If you’re looking for natural forms of pain relief, capsaicin cream is only one option. Five other options that have equal promise include:

    Boswellia: Also known as boswellin or “Indian frankincense,” this herb contains anti-inflammatory compounds. This is one of my personal favorites as I have seen it work well with many rheumatoid arthritis patients.
    Astaxanthin: Astaxanthin has been shown to be very useful against joint pain caused by inflammation. Studies have demonstrated astaxanthin reduces nuclear factor kappa beta; the master switch for the inflammatory response. It also reduces tumor necrosis factor and other pro-inflammatory cytokines that cause inflamattion and pain.17
    Medical cannabis has a long history as a natural analgesic.18 At present, 20 U.S. states have legalized cannabis for medical purposes. Its medicinal qualities are due to high amounts (about 10-20 percent) of cannabidiol (CBD), medicinal terpenes, and flavonoids.
    Varieties of cannabis exist that are very low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the psychoactive component of marijuana that makes you feel “stoned”—and high in medicinal CBD. The Journal of Pain,19 a publication by the American Pain Society, has a long list of studies on the pain-relieving effects of cannabis.

    Devil’s Claw. A South African herb found to be particularly effective against pain caused by inflammation, including arthritis, and muscle pain.
    K-Laser Class 4 Laser Therapy: If you suffer pain from an injury, arthritis, or other inflammation-based pain, I’d strongly encourage you to try out K-Laser therapy. It can be an excellent choice for many painful conditions, including acute injuries. K-Laser is a class 4 infrared laser therapy treatment that helps reduce pain, reduce inflammation, and enhance tissue healing—both in hard and soft tissues, including muscles, ligaments, or even bones. These benefits are believed to be the result of enhanced microcirculation, as the treatment stimulates red blood cell flow in the treatment area. Venous and lymphatic return is also enhanced, as is oxygenation of those tissues.
    You’re Wise to Seek Natural Pain Relief…

    Given the risks associated with commonly prescribed NSAIDs and other pain-relieving drugs, including narcotic painkillers (which now kill more people than murders and fatal car accidents in the US), I strongly recommend investigating safer options. And there are many. In addition to capsaicin and the alternatives already mentioned above, the following options can also provide pain relief.

    Eliminate or radically reduce processed foods, grains, and processed sugars from your diet. Avoiding grains (especially wheat) and processed sugars (especially concentrated fructose) will lower your insulin and leptin levels and decrease insulin and leptin resistance, which is one of the most important reasons why inflammatory prostaglandins are produced. That is why stopping sugar and sweets is so important to controlling your pain and other types of chronic illnesses.
    Start taking high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fat. My personal favorite is krill oil, due to its high bioavailability and naturally occurring astaxanthin which protects it against rancidity, among other health benefits. Omega-3 fats are precursors to the anti-inflammatory class of prostaglandins, which regulate inflammation. (In fact, that is how anti-inflammatory, painkilling drugs work; they manipulate prostaglandins, but in ways that can have devastating and even life-threatening side effects.)
    Optimize your production of vitamin D by getting regular, appropriate sun or safe tanning bed exposure, which will work through a variety of different mechanisms to reduce your pain.
    Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a drug-free approach for pain management of all kinds. EFT borrows from the principles of acupuncture, in that it helps you balance out your subtle energy system. It helps resolve underlying, often subconscious, negative emotions that may be exacerbating your physical pain. By stimulating (tapping) well-established acupuncture points with your fingertips, you rebalance your energy system, which tends to dissipate pain.
    Chiropractic. Many studies have confirmed that chiropractic management is much safer and less expensive than allopathic medical treatments, especially when used for pain, such as low-back pain. Qualified chiropractic, osteopathic, and naturopathic physicians are reliable, as they have received extensive training in the management of musculoskeletal disorders during their course of graduate healthcare training, which lasts between four to six years. These health experts have comprehensive training in musculoskeletal management.
    Acupuncture can also effectively reduce many kinds of pain. Human clinical research has discovered a “clear and robust” effect of acupuncture in the treatment of back, neck, and shoulder pain, osteoarthritis, and headaches.
    Physical and massage therapy has been shown to be as good as surgery for painful conditions such as torn cartilage and arthritis.
    Astaxanthin is one of the most effective fat-soluble antioxidants known. It has very potent anti-inflammatory properties and in many cases works far more effectively than anti-inflammatory drugs. In order to get an analgesic effect, higher doses are typically required; you may need 8 mg or more per day to achieve this benefit.
    Ginger: This herb has potent anti-inflammatory activity and offers pain relief and stomach-settling properties. Fresh ginger works well steeped in boiling water as a tea or grated into vegetable juice.
    Bromelain: This enzyme, found in pineapples, is a natural anti-inflammatory. It can be taken in supplement form but eating fresh pineapple, including some of the bromelain-rich stem, may also be helpful.
    Cetyl myristoleate (CMO): This oil, found in fish and dairy butter, acts as a “joint lubricant” and an anti-inflammatory. I have used this for myself to relieve ganglion cysts and a mild annoying carpal tunnel syndrome that pops up when I type too much on non-ergonomic keyboards. I used a topical preparation for this.
    Evening primrose, black currant, and borage oils: These contain the essential fatty acid gamma linolenic acid (GLA), which is useful for treating arthritic pain

  81. The One Percents Useful Idiots Part 2

    The 1 Percent’s Useful Idiots

    Posted on Jul 26, 2016

    By Chris Hedges

    (Page 2)

    This will not be easy. The corporate state—once its vast systems of indoctrination and propaganda do not work to keep us passive, once we are no longer afraid, once we make our own reality rather than accommodating ourselves to the reality imposed upon us—will employ more direct and coercive forms of control. The reign of terror, the revocation of civil liberties, the indiscriminate violence by the state will no longer be exercised only against poor people of color. The reality endured by our poor sisters and brothers of color, a reality we did not do enough to fight against, will become our own.

    To allow the ideological forces of neoliberalism to crush our ideals and our values is to fall into a deadly cynicism and despair. To allow the consumer culture and the cult of the self, which lies at the heart of capitalism, to seduce us is to kill our souls. Happiness does not come with the accumulation of wealth. Happiness does not come from possessions or power. These are narcotics. They numb and kill all that is noble and good within us. Happiness comes when you reach out in solidarity to your neighbor, when you lend your hand to the stranger or the outcast, when you are willing to lose your life to save it. Happiness comes when you have the capacity to love.

    Our span of life, in the vastness of the universe, is insignificant. I will be 60 soon. The arch of my own life is beginning to draw to a close. We all will die. How do we use the miracle of this flash of light that is called life?

    Albert Camus wrote, “One of the only coherent philosophical positions is revolt. It is a constant confrontation between [human beings] and [their] obscurity. It is not aspiration, for it is devoid of hope. That revolt is the certainty of a crushing fate, without the resignation that ought to accompany it.”

    He said further, “A living [person] can be enslaved and reduced to the historic condition of an object. But if he [or she] dies in refusing to be enslaved, he [or she] reaffirms the existence of another kind of human nature which refuses to be classified as an object.”

    There is only one way to rebel. You fight for all of the oppressed or none of the oppressed. You understand that there is no country. Our country is the earth. We are citizens of the world. Nationalism is a disease. It is a disease we must purge. As long as a Muslim family suffers in a refugee camp in Syria or an LGBT person suffers from the bigotry imposed by the Christian heretics in the Christian right, we all suffer.

    There are desperate single mothers struggling to raise children on less than $10,000 a year in some Philadelphia neighborhoods. Many of these children go to bed hungry. There are unemployed workers desperate to find a job and restore their dignity. There are mentally ill and homeless we have abandoned to the streets. There are Iraqi and Afghan families living in terror, a terror we have inflicted on them, in the futile and endless wars waged to enrich the arms industry. There are men and women being tortured in our worldwide archipelago of secret detention centers. There are undocumented workers whose families we have ripped apart, separating children from parents, or imprisoned.

    This is reality. It is the only reality that matters. It is a reality we must and will change. Because, as the great socialist Eugene V. Debs, who upon being sentenced in 1918 for violating the Sedition Act by defying the madness of World War I, said, “I recognized my kinship with all living beings. I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”

    Augustine wrote that hope has two beautiful daughters, anger and courage—anger at the way things are and the courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.

    The fight will be hard and difficult. It will require love and self-sacrifice. It will require anger and courage. It is the greatest moral imperative before us. Those who do not defy the evil become its accomplice. We may not succeed. But we must be among those of whom future generations will say: They tried. They dared to dream. They dared to care. They dared to love. They enabled those who followed to press on in the struggle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s