Minimal Media Coverage of Attempted Assassinations and The Dog the Didn’t Bark

If they were real journalists, the U.S. corporate media would be vigorously examining the many claims raised in this video (and many similar videos and posts on X (Twitter). It would be nonstop, 24/7. Similarly, if someone tried to shoot Kamala Harris, the "news" media would stop at NOTHING to find out exactly and precisely what happened, how it happened and why.

Too many things simply don't add up regarding the two recent attempts on Donald Trump's life, but revealing the facts might not be convenient for the big media corporations. Vigorously investigating how these two allegedly unfunded and unconnected "renegades" came so close to killing Donald Trump might even impugn the operations and intentions of the U.S. security state. It is stunning to watch "journalists" doing the bare minimum, repeatedly taking the attitude: Just move on . . . nothing to see here. They are working hard to normalize the fact that people sometimes try to kill a major candidate for president. This lack of interest, the failure or journalists to care about major stories, is as disturbing as the blatant censorship and government funded propaganda we've seen over the past five years.

For those who think all of the questions and suspicions of this young woman on TikTok are far-fetched, that the U.S. security state would never do the terrible things that it does to other countries to our own country, consider that the ubiquitous censorship, government propaganda (including the claim of Russian collusion), the abject disinterest of our corporate media and perhaps much much more might be the most recent manifestations of a 60+ year work in progress.

If you think that the constant state of war promoted by the U.S. is the only option, your brain has been broken by sophisticated U.S. government psy-ops. You can't simply make these serious concerns magically disappear by uttering "conspiracy theory" as though this phrase were one of Harry Potter's incantations.

Continue ReadingMinimal Media Coverage of Attempted Assassinations and The Dog the Didn’t Bark

What is the Deep State?

What is the "Deep State"? No one exemplifies this reality more than Victoria Nuland. To understand and acknowledge the deep state is to recognize the primary tectonic plate of the US, the thing that drives our constant warmongering, our interference with the governance of other countries, our constance forceful confiscation of the natural recesses of other countries and the ubiquitous censorship that is preventing you for seeing all of this for what it is.

Jeffrey Sachs I think it's obvious there's basically one deep state party, and that is the party of Cheney Harris, Biden, Victoria Nuland,--my colleague at Columbia University now-- and Nuland is kind of the face of all of this, because she has been in every administration for the last 30 years. She was in the Clinton administration, wrecking our policies towards Russia in the 1990s. She was in the Bush Administration, Jr, with Cheney, wrecking our policies towards NATO enlargement. She was in then the Obama administration as Hillary's spokesperson first, and then making a coup in Ukraine in February 2014, not a Great move, started a war. Then she was Biden's Undersecretary of State. Now that's both parties. It's a colossal mess, and she's been Cheney's advisor. She's been Biden's adviser. Makes perfect sense ....

John Mearsheimer When we talk about the deep state, we're talking really about the administrative state. It's very important to understand that, starting in the late 19th, early 20th century, given developments in the American economy, it was imperative that we developed--and this was true of all Western countries--a very powerful central state that could run the country, and over time, that state has grown in power. And since World War Two, the United States, as you all know, has been involved in every nook and cranny of the world, fighting wars here, there and everywhere. And to do that, you need a very powerful administrative state that can help manage that foreign policy. But in the process, what happens is you get all of these high level bureaucrats, middle level and low level bureaucrats who become established in positions in the Pentagon, the State Department, the intelligence community, you name it, and they end up having a vested interest in pursuing a particular foreign policy. And the particular foreign policy that they like to pursue is the one that the Democrats and the Republicans are pushing. And that's why we talk about Tweedledee and Tweedledum, with regard to the two parties you could throw in the deep state as being on the same page as those other two institutions.

Jeffrey Sachs There's a very interesting interview of Putin in Figaro in 2017 and he says, I've dealt with three presidents now. They come into office with some ideas even. But then the men in the dark suits and the blue ties--and then he says, I wear red ties, but they wear blue ties--they come in and explain the way the world really is. And there go the ideas. And I think that's Putin's experience, that's our experience, that's my experience, which is that there's a deeply entrained foreign policy. It has been in place in my interpretation, for many decades, but arguably a variant of it has been in place since 1992. I got to watch some of it early on, because I was an advisor to Gorbachev and I was an advisor to Yeltsin, and so I saw early makings of this, though I didn't fully understand it, except in retrospect, but that policy has been mostly in place pretty consistently for 30 years, and it didn't really matter whether it was Bush Senior, whether it was Clinton, whether it was Bush Jr, whether it was Obama, whether it was Trump. After all, who did Trump hire? He hired John Bolton. Well, the pretty deep state. That was the end of they told, you know, he explained, this is the way it is. And by the way, Bolton explained also in his memoirs, when when Trump didn't agree, "we figured out ways to trick him."

Continue ReadingWhat is the Deep State?

Speech and Being Offended

Two of my favorite memes on speech. People who don't sometimes use words that cause others to be offended are failing to engage meaningfully with others. They are not having real conversations.

Once we realize that ALL of us are, some of the time, fonts of misinformation, it should put up big red flags to anyone who advocates for censorship. This goes both for formal and informal censorship. Both are dangerous, whether it is by operation of government or whether it comes from your well-meaning finger-wagging friends and acquaintances who are scolding you to stop saying 'offensive" things, falsely suggesting that it is possible for a respectable person to avoid offending others. Especially in this day and age of fragile adults and even more fragile young adults and teenagers. It is impossible to communicate meaningfully without sometimes contesting/challenging the facts and ideas of others, and that is quite often what growing numbers of people consider "offensive."

So let's all agree, shall we, that it is our civic duty as good-hearted people to sometimes offend others. Without the free-exchange of ideas, what makes us human is destroyed. And it is equally the our duty to hear each other out, at least some of the time, instead of tsk-taking each other, trying to cancel each other and pretending that words and ideas are the moral equivalent of physical harm. We need to take to heart the playground chant: "Sticks and stones will hurt my bones but words will never hurt me." It's time for all of us to grow up, to get some thicker skin, and to courageously engage with others who think differently.

Only weak and lazy people refuse to do these things. If we fail to grow up, we will destroy what is left of human flourishing in this country. There will still be plenty of human animals roaming around, but we will no longer have a functional society.

Continue ReadingSpeech and Being Offended