The War Narrative Concocted and Perfected by the United States

Jeffrey Sachs explains that we are being subjected to a war narrative, not meaningful discussions of the kinds of facts that nations should consider before deciding to engage in a war, especially a war of discretion:

The war in Syria. And you may actually hear from grown up reporters who are lying through their teeth or ignorant beyond imagining that, oh, the war in Syria? Yes, Russia intervened in Syria. Well, do you know that the Obama tasked the CIA to overthrow the Syrian Government, starting four years before Russia intervened? What kind of nonsense is that? And how many times did the New York Times report on Operation Timber Sycamore, which was the presidential order to the CIA to overthrow Bashar Al Assad? Three times in 10 years. This is not democracy. This is a game. And it's a game of narrative.

Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003 Well, first of all, it was completely phony pretenses. It wasn't, "Oh, we were so wrong. They didn't have weapons of mass destruction." They actually did focus groups in the fall of 2002 to find out what would sell that war to the American people. Abe Schulsky, the if you want to know the name of the PR genius. They did focus groups on the war. They wanted the war all the time. They had to figure out how to sell the war to the American people, how to scare the shit out of the American people. It was a phony war.

Where did that war come from? You know what? It's quite surprising that war came from Netanyahu, actually. You know that? It's weird, and the way it is, is that Netanyahu had, from 1995 onward, the theory that the only way we're going to get rid of Hamas and Hezbollah is by toppling the governments that support them. That's Iraq, Syria and Iran. And the guy's nothing if not obsessive, and he's still trying to get us to fight Iran this day, this week. He's a deep, dark son of a bitch. Sorry to tell you, because he's gotten us into endless wars, and because of the power of all of this in the US politics, he's gotten his way, but that war was totally phony. So what is this? Democracy versus dictatorship? Come on. This is these are not even sensible terms.

And consider this conversation offered 20 years ago by Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark:

About 10 days after 911 I went through the Pentagon, and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs, just to say hello to some of the people on the joint staff who used used to work for me and one of the generals called me and he said, "Sir, you got to come in. You got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No. Said, no, no. He says, we've made the decision. We're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq. Why?"

He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do?"

So I said, "Well, did they find some information collect connecting Saddam to al Qaeda?" And he said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way, they just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only two you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He said. He reached over on his desk, he picked up a piece of paper. He said, "I just, he said, I just got this down from upstairs," meaning the Secretary of Defense Office today. And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran."

George Carlin often discussed the power of words. I would propose that we re-re-name the Pentagon as the "War Department." In modern times, it rarely performs the function of a "Defense Department."

Carlin had it right so incredibly often:

What kind of wars do we typically fight? Carlin explained:

He goes on to describe that the U.S. government is especially fond of waging war against countries populated by brown people. He explains that bombing people is a good thing to be good at if you don’t have any other national talents.

Can’t build a decent car, can’t make a TV set or a VCR worth a fuck, got no steel industry left, can’t educate our young people, can’t get health care to our old people, but we can bomb the shit out of your country all right! Huh? Especially if your country is full of brown people—oh we like that don’t we? That’s our hobby! That’s our new job in the world: bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya, you got some brown people in your country, tell them to watch the fuck out or we’ll goddamn bomb them!

One last thing: How to quickly turn a terrorist group into a group of fighter that are loyal to the cause:

Continue ReadingThe War Narrative Concocted and Perfected by the United States

Kash Patel Calls Out Government “Gangsters”

Kash Patel, Trumps nominee to run th FBI:

THE GOVERNMENT GANGSTERS: Trumps FBI Director Kash Patel knew the Deep State's plan to remove Joe Biden and pardon Hunter to hide their crimes. Garland and Wray should have been impeached. Fauci, the CIA and the Media lied about the origins of Covid. Wray has the Epstein files.

He says the FBI can be fixed by shutting down the Hoover building immediately and opening it up the next day as a Museum of the Deep State letting everyone walk the halls for free and leaving it open 365 days a year. He says twenty people can run the FBI, the other seven thousand agents that are sitting in that building should be chasing criminals around America, not distorting statistics about January 6th so Christopher Wray can go to Congress and lie and say domestic violent terrorism is on the rise.

He encourages the arrest and prosecution of Hunter Biden over the crime of prostitution for calling a Hooker, which is prosecutable in almost every jurisdiction in America and he also says Joe Biden can be prosecuted for receiving money overseas, ill gotten gains, which is illegal. There are bigger crimes involving Ukraine and other matters, but these are simple and fast crimes to prosecute.

The investigation into the Hunter Biden Laptop was shutdown by the FBI and the Department of Justice with the help of the media, proving this was a coordinated Deep State effort.

He says the Obama-Clinton Administration has been running the White House for years, not Joe Biden. The Deep State is evil, vindictive and very smart.

He names the Top Five Deep State Operatives in America which are General Mark Milley of the U.S. Department of Defense, Mark T. Esper former Secretary of Defense, William Barr former U.S. Attorney General of the Department of Justice, Christopher Wray current FBI Director and Merrick Garland the current Attorney General of the Department of Justice.

He says the Deep State will be shattered under the second Trump Administration, but it will be a monster fight. He read the entire secret JFK files and the secret seven pages of the 9/11 report, he says he has seen it all and will recommend to President Trump to release all the files to the American people including the Epstein files. He refers to the Deep State Operatives as Government Gangsters that will be brought to justice.

Continue ReadingKash Patel Calls Out Government “Gangsters”

Marc Andreeson Discusses Oppressive Federal Government Financial Interventions Overreach with Joe Rogan

The corruption and incompetence of the federal government is stunning, much worse than even I had suspected. Marc Andreessen's conversation with Joe Rogan is jaw-droppingly depressing. The problems they are discussing should make for daily headlines in the news media, but no. Full episode on Spotify.

Continue ReadingMarc Andreeson Discusses Oppressive Federal Government Financial Interventions Overreach with Joe Rogan

Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn Discuss Ukraine, Censorship and Insanity

Fascinating discussion about Ukraine, censorship and the insanity of the neocons (of the U.S. and western Europe). Here's an excerpt from a much longer conversation titled "Gambling with Nukes" by Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn.

Matt Taibbi 0:16

There's a gamble implicit in it. You are firing missiles at a nuclear power and you are gambling that they are not going to fire them back, right? And there was, there were actually quotes from American officials talking about how, you know the real irresponsible people were the Russians. They were the ones you know, who were being irresponsible. Let's see what was the quote? The EU foreign policy chief Joseph Burrell said it's not the first time that Putin plays the nuclear gamble, okay? And this was before the launch of the British missiles, and after the launch of the of the ATACMS missiles. And then, and then this guy, [British Prime Minister, [Keir] Starmer, who comes out, and he looks like a cross of Max Headroom and Noel Coward. I mean, like, I can't even that the whole presentation is so disturbing. This like kind of blinking creature who speaks in that bizarre accent, just repeating catch phrases over and over again while he talks about firing missiles at Russia. It just seems crazy, right? And then that is succeeded by new news that came out that, apparently, the French are going to be next, and they're going to, they're going to be sending something called SCALP missiles into Russia. And, you know, then we get the ICBM fired back. Walter Kirn 1:59 Well, they're, they're all they're all making themselves targets, aren't they? I mean, they're lining up. Should there be any doubt about the legitimacy? Who cares about legitimacy? Who cares about all the rules anymore these? Who cares about the norms? Dude, they just broke the biggest norm in history, which was to send our missiles into a nuclear state to land and explode. That's the biggest norm in American or world history, since those kind of things were invented, frankly, so the rules based international order--that's out the window. Norms are out the window, not shooting missiles into the home territory of the greatest nuclear power next to the United States is out the window. All of this being led by a lame duck American president who is all week in South America, while his vice president, who just ran for president, is vacationing in Hawaii. Well, Aloha. The whole mask is off.

The thing that scares me is how these people ever expect that they and their party will be taken seriously for five seconds should they ever try to float a peace message or a humanitarian message. Again, the party of social justice, and in England, the left wing party, the Labor Party, to which Starmer belongs, are at a moment when we have actually, in the United States, the center, the crown, of this power structure, voted out our executive It is beyond insane, and it will not end well. Matt, just as I was upset on Monday, I can tell you that next week we will be even more upset. Things are going to happen, and things are already happening every day, when this missile went off this morning. Every power in the world that has modern warning systems had an alarm go off right for the first moments after its launch. The United States had to assume that it was under nuclear attack.

[MORE . . .]

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi and Walter Kirn Discuss Ukraine, Censorship and Insanity

Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson Discuss Ukraine and Propaganda

What follows is an excerpt from a Nov 20, 2024 discussion between Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson. This is a critically important discussion regarding recent developments in the Ukraine War and related U.S. Propaganda:

Glenn Greenwald [00:18:53] Tucker, there's nobody I'm certain of this in the United States, just an average, ordinary American voter who believes that their life is affected in any way by the question of who rules various provinces in the Donbass in eastern Ukraine. Nobody thinks about Ukraine, let alone the Donbass, let alone eastern Ukraine. It's an incredibly complex situation there in terms of the people's allegiances, which are far closer to Moscow than they are to Kiev. The question of what that territory should be, should it be somehow autonomous, should it be used as a buffer against the West? The whole framework, as you well know, and as other people have pointed out, when Russia agreed to the reunification of Germany, which was obviously an extraordinary thing for the Russians to agree to, given the Russian history in the 20th century with respect to Germany, when they opened, the Berlin Wall fell and they allowed the eastern and the western parts of Germany to reunite and to become part of the West and become part of the EU. The only concession they extracted in exchange for that was with reunification. NATO's now moving eastward, closer to our border in a country that has devastated our country twice in two world wars, invaded Russia twice, killed tens of millions of Russian citizens. The only thing we need as a security guarantee in exchange for allowing that is that NATO will never expand one inch eastward beyond what was East Germany and the United States agreed to that. And immediately in the 90s, an administration, the administration started talking about it and implementing NATO's expansion eastward toward Russia. Exactly what was promised to Gorbachev the United States would not do in exchange for them agreeing to reunification. And why? Why? Why did we need to expand eastward toward Russia. And now it's not just eastward in general. It's going directly up to the Russian border on the part of their border that has been invaded twice in Ukraine to destroy Russia. And both of those world wars, we also participated in the change of government. We removed the democratically elected leader of Ukraine before his constitutional term was expired in 2014 because we perceived him as being too friendly to Moscow, which is what the Ukrainians voted for and replaced him. [U.S. State Department's] Victoria Nuland constructed a government and they was replaced by a government that was more pro-U.S.. Imagine if the Russians engineered a coup in Mexico to take out the government because they were too friendly to us and put in a hard line, pro Russian, anti-American, anti-NATO president. Imagine how threatening we would regard that as. And that's exactly what we did in Ukraine. The question is, though, this has nothing to do with the national security of the American people. No American is threatened by who governs Ukraine. What they're threatened by is what the United States is doing in Ukraine, including this most recent act.

... This is not a lame duck decision and it's not like there was any emergency to it. It wasn't there was no emergency to it. They just wanted to escalate it because they thought Trump wouldn't. And so they did.

Tucker [00:27:52] It puts us in this remarkable moment where the only adult is Vladimir Putin. This person, we've been told, is Hitler and deranged, crazy, dying of nine different kinds of cancer can't be trusted like the only reason we're not. I mean, we're all relying on his restraint. That's just a fact right now. How weird is that?

Continue ReadingGlenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson Discuss Ukraine and Propaganda