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

Biden Advocates for Impeaching Biden

Joe Biden in 2007: "I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years, as a ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutes law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate, pointing out the President has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war against the country of 70 million people, unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The house obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing--and I don't say it lightly. I don't say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what was adding up to be, what looked like to the rest of the world what we're about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done at this moment in our history that I can think of."

Continue ReadingBiden Advocates for Impeaching Biden

Coleman Hughes Misfires on Tulsi Gabbard as DNI

I very much admire Coleman Hughes. He bravely stood up to the race-hucksters over the past five years and advocated for the type of color-blindness embraced by almost all classical liberals. But on CNN he naively stepped into an area in which he is not well informed: National Security. Almost everything he says in opposition to Tulsi Gabbard is incorrect and it wouldn't have taken much time to get informed before going live. Very disappointing, but this illustrates something ubiquitous. Everyone I know (even myself) who gets a lot right sometimes falls off the rails. The causes are many: tribalism, hubris, fatigue and failing to be self-critical. It happens to all of us, some of the time and free speech is the best approach we know to limit these missteps. So here is Glenn Greenwald speaking freely about Coleman's embarrassing moment on CNN:

Glenn Greenwald:

There was a panel discussion about why Tulsi Gabbard is this great evil, and the opposition to her was led by Coleman Hughes, who--I don't really understand when he became an expert on foreign policy. He became known speaking, I think, quite insightfully, about things like race and class and the intersection of them. I've been on his show before. He's been on mine.

Suddenly, though, he's now a great expert in the Middle East, he's a vehement supporter of Israel--as much as Barry Weiss or Sam Harris or people like that are. And here he is on CNN, maligning Tulsi Gabbard, who knows 10 million times more about foreign policy in her toenail than Coleman Hughes has in his entire arsenal of knowledge. But here he is expressing why she's such a terrible choice as DNI [Director of National Intelligence].

Coleman Hughes:

It's a very confounding. Look, call me crazy, but I think the Director of National Intelligence should be a person who, A) trusts US intelligence, and B) likes US intelligence. What do we know about Tulsi Gabbard? We know that when Assad gassed civilians in 2017 and our intelligence agencies determined that and Trump decided to strike those facilities, Gabbard doubted that. She doubted the findings of our own intelligence and she went to go visit Assad. And we know that she defends Julian Assange, who released classified informations that imperiled the people we were working with in Afghanistan and the Taliban went out there and were able to kill them one by one. And so, you know, this is exactly the opposite of the person you would want leading national intelligence.

Glenn Greenwald:

He's saying that the only kinds of people you want to lead the intelligence agencies are people who A) trust what they tell you and B) like how they operate. How can any sentient human being who knows anything about the last 25 years of American history, --and even if you want to go back much further--and it's the same thing. But just going back to the last 25 years since the war in Iraq and the run up to it, going all the way through things like Syria and Libya and Russiagate and the Hunter Biden laptop, and all the different ways that these intelligence agencies have interfered in our politics, improperly and based on lies--It's not disqualifying to distrust the intelligence agencies or to dislike how they operate and want to change it. What's disqualifying is to trust the intelligence agencies. How mindless must somebody be to say, "Yeah, I really trust the CIA. I think their pronouncements are all correct."

Oh, the audacity of her to question anything that the CIA was saying about the war in Syria, when the CIA was leading, one of those dirty wars that they love to fight at a billion dollars a year that Obama unleashed them to fight in order to remove Bashar Al Assad from power and replace [him with] someone else they wanted. Oh no, questioning the intelligence agencies. Tulsi Gabbard questioned what they said, doubted some of their pronouncements, and now she's somehow ineligible to lead them, because she doesn't have blind, mindless faith in them.

This is conventional wisdom in Washington. Coleman doesn't know anything about the topics of which he's opining, including what he said about WikiLeaks. And the idea that WikiLeaks is supposed to be considered some sort of nefarious group that nobody can defend when they've done more than anybody to bring transparency to our government, including the lies they told about the wars in which Tulsi Gabbard fought and the corruption of our allies, and all the lies that we've been told as the public about what our government was doing.

The idea that defending Julian Assange for bringing transparency is somehow disqualifying? I'm sure he would say the same thing about Edward Snowden, who Tulsi Gabbard also supports, is just mind-blowingly dumb. But this we showed you this because it's so reflective of how Washington thinks. Coleman Hughes--what he does when he doesn't know what he's talking about, is--he just picks up on conventional wisdom and the world in which he resides with Bari Weiss and those kind of people, he just repeats what that world thinks without an even an inch of knowledge. But it's nonetheless worth seeing, because that is the opposition to Tulsi Gabbard: "Oh, she's not a fan of the CIA. She's not a fan of the NSA. She doesn't think the intelligence agencies like Homeland Security have been doing a good job, have been honest with the American people. This is what Donald Trump ran on. He didn't run on appointing the kind of people that Coleman Hughes thinks should be appointed: people who think the intelligence communities are so trustworthy in whatever they're doing.

[Trump] ran on a campaign promise to uproot them, to fundamentally drain their swamp and to rebuild them into more ethical and trustworthy institutions, and Tulsi Gabbard represents that. The only people scared of her are the people who should be scared, the people who want to keep those institutions in place, despite all the lies they told and the corruption they've imposed, precisely because they're the ones who benefit most from it. But they don't want any one questioning, let alone changing, how Washington works.

Continue ReadingColeman Hughes Misfires on Tulsi Gabbard as DNI