Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Donald Jeffries, Kavanaugh: Another Fake Side-Show

Joe DeGenova blows the Kavanaugh accusations out of the water
When Donald Trump selected mainstream conservative Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee, those truly anxious to “drain the swamp” were disappointed once again. Even CNBC acknowledged that he was an “establishment favorite.” Kavanaugh has never been anyone’s kind of maverick. He has long been tied to former President George W. Bush.
The most troubling thing about Kavanaugh, to those of us who have bothered to investigate such things, is Kavanaugh’s role in covering up the death of Clinton White House counsel Vince Foster. Kavanaugh, as White House counsel under Bush, also sought to limit compensation under the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund.
With the anti-Trump fervor now at a fever pitch for half the country, it was inevitable that his nominee would be criticized. Predictably, none of the criticism leveled at Kavanaugh is based on his neocon fueled legal career. Instead, an alleged incident from thirty six years ago has now taken over all mainstream public discourse.
Christine Blasey Ford, a mainstream liberal professor with a background suitable for a political opponent of Donald Trump, has claimed that Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her while both were in high school. Not only are these allegations decades old, Ford evidently can’t remember anything specific about the incident; not the house, its location, how she arrived there, who was giving the party, etc. Only in our thoroughly divided country could such vague accusations from so long ago be taken seriously by anyone.
But this isn’t all. Ford has the most logical motive in the world to lodge a false accusation against Kavanaugh. In 1996, her parents were involved in foreclosure litigation, and Kavanaugh’s mother just happened to be the judge in the case, who ruled against them. An honest legal system would call that a conflict of interest. A mitigating factor. But as should be obvious to all living Americans at this point, we don’t have an honest legal system.
For those biased in favor of what I call the Evil Party, or the Democrats, Ford, like Anita Hill and anyone accusing Donald Trump of anything, has all the credibility in the world. They didn’t feel the same way about Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, or any of the countless women who accused Bill Clinton of harassing and even raping them. The Stupid Party, or the Republicans, found them entirely credible, or course. This is the nature of our two-party system. Pick a side, and stick with them always. Contradictions and hypocrisy be damned. Our side is better!
In reality, of course, the political “debate” in this country is ludicrously restricted, and those participating must adhere to laughably narrow guidelines. Battle over gay marriage and transgender bathrooms all you want. But don’t talk about the perpetual wars, bombings and occupations, or the top secret intelligence agency budgets. And never, ever mention anything about the Federal Reserve, or the counterfeit nature of our fractional banking system.
So this “debate” is perfect for America 2.0. Screams, profanities, and threats of violence over a claim alleged thirty six years after it happened. And even if it is true, why wasn’t the underage Kavanaugh (who was seventeen at the time) a “victim”  here, too? I’ve never understood how a minor, who is not legally able to consent to sex, can be charged with forcing someone else who cannot legally consent. But it’s impossible for anyone perceived to be associated with Trump to be considered a victim of anything, under any circumstances. As the establishment “liberals” love to say now: “punch a Nazi in the face” and all that.
I thought the selection of Brett Kavanaugh was stupid, much like all of Trump’s appointments have been stupid. It was clearly yet another capitulation on his part to a conservative, neocon establishment that opposed his candidacy and continues to oppose any real reforms he may attempt. But the phony debate taking center stage now is beyond stupid; it is state-sponsored theater for the dumbed-down masses. It’s hard to imagine a more fitting example of “bread and circuses.”
If a guy whose political mentor was George W. Bush can’t get approved to the Supreme Court, just who could Trump nominate that would be approved? John McCainiac’s daughter? Lindsay Graham’s child, if he had any? Barack Obama? Now that would be a nominee to make those with Trump Derangement Syndrome’s heads explode. Their ultimate object of scorn selecting their ultimate object of worship.
Those opposing Kavanaugh with all the fury they’ve opposed Trump simply have no idea why they oppose him. Sure, the usual fear mongering about overturning Roe vs. Wade has been trotted out there, but nothing else really associated with any issue. It’s just that Kavanaugh is Trump’s choice, and anyone Trump chooses has to be bad. It’s the triumph of personality over politics, and it’s Trump’s personality they hate, because his politics, at least thus far, has been little different than Dubya’s.
I’ve tried to divert the Kavanaugh-haters’ attention away from this foaming at the mouth, this unclear pussy hat rage, into productive areas. Like the fact he led the Starr “investigation” into the death of Vince Foster, and concluded against all logic and all the evidence that he killed himself in Fort Marcy Park. You have to be quite a “judge” to support these kinds of impossible official narratives. By anyone’s standards, Kavanaugh proved his establishment mantle in that “investigation” alone.
The majority of still asleep Americans will be glued to their television sets, breathlessly awaiting the showdown between the dastardly attempted teen rapist Kavanaugh, and his honorable accusers like Charles Schumer. Those of us who are awake will try to change the subject, or get them to actually think, but that’s never been an easy thing for people to do. Poet E.E. Cummings reacted to Ezra Pound’s Cantos by exclaiming, “You bastard! You’re trying to get them to think.”
Whether Brett Kavanaugh is approved or not will matter little to the average citizen. Good Supreme Court decisions are about as rare as obese Victoria’s Secret models. The last decent Supreme Court justice, in my view, was William O. Douglas, and I’m not entirely certain about him.
Instead of fretting over whether the Court will go “conservative” as opposed to “liberal,” Americans should worry about the impact they can have on our civil liberties, and the kind of world our children and grandchildren will live in. Regardless of their alleged political persuasions, Supreme Court justices, like judges at every level of the system, have prove utterly unworthy of such power.

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Owl: Accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Works for CIA, Second Generation, MKULTRA Ties, Very Suspect

Owl: Accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Works for CIA, Second Generation, MKULTRA Ties, Very Suspect 


Cultural Intelligence
Who? Who?
Although Sorcha Faal is a known fabricator, they weave a wonderous narrative and their links and graphics are always very high quality and confirmable.  This counter-accusation against CIA contractor Dr. Christine Blasey should be taken seriously.
…she currently oversees the CIA Undergraduate Internship Program Stanford University developed by the notorious CIA-connected Stanford University Psychiatric Professor Dr. Frederick T. Melges—who himself, in 1985, took into his care the homeless woman Lois Lang who assassinated CIA paymaster Nick Deak—and that afterwards saw the CIA’s black operations monies being controlled by Ralph G. Blasey Jr.—who, not so mysteriously, just happens to be the father of Dr. Christine Blasey.
Robert David STEELE Vivas
ROBERT STEELE: I’m going to put my name on this comment because I am sick and tired of rogue elements of the CIA and the FBI and NSA playing politics….I also feel very strongly that we need to get out of covert operations including regime change, assassination, mind-control, and blackmail. I would remind everyone that we went to war in Kuwait based in part of the daughter of the Kuwait Ambassador to DC being trained by Hill & Knowlton to lie to Congress (Congress was surely complicit, there must have been more than one Member who had met the daughter at a social function).We went to war in Iraq the second time based on 935 lies.  I assess this woman’s accusation as lies based on both the passage of time (there is a good reason there are statutes of limitations) and her association with the CIA (and Stanford, like Yale, a fully vested left wing liberal arm of the CIA). While it is alleged that she told these stories years ago to her husband and therapist, Justice Kavanaugh has always been a rising star and known right of center judge target, and it is very likely that he did not fall prey to the standard pedophilia blackmail and outright bribery approaches normally used by the Deep State to control judges and prosecutors across the USA, hence the Deep State element of CIA “salted” stories about Kavanaugh as an advance poison pill to be used in extremis. If I were on the Committee — or in a jury — I would dismiss this woman’s accusations out of hand. Kavanaugh has every right to sue her for defamation and use the legal discovery process to take a deep dive into every single cell call and every single email and every single CIA-related contact she has had in the last decade. There is absolutely no question in my mind, as a former clandestine operations officer, that this woman is “dirty” in every possible sense of the word, and she — and her handlers — should fry. I hope the President will announce some of the high-level Democratic pedophilia arrests soon — I dare to hope that both the Clintons, both the Obamas, and Joe Biden will be the first to be charged as elite pedophiles, presuming grand jury indictments based on marshalled evidence. This last minute endeavor to derail the nomination will not end well for the Democrats — or the CIA.
The male classmate she named as a witness has categorically stated in writing that he does not remember any such incident and such behavior is totally inconsistent with the Kavanaugh he knew.

Sunday, September 16, 2018

September Issue of PENN Magazinie: "The CIA IS The American Media"

A Conspiracy Theory ...
The C.I.A. IS The American Media

Penn Magazine
September 2018

Here in flip-page format:

Mike Palecek, editor
Chuck Gregory, publisher

It’s a conspiracy.

It just is.

How do you know? Are you one of those?

I guess I am.

My wife doesn’t believe me. I don’t think there is anyone I see on a daily basis that really believes me, but anyway we don’t talk about it.

You don’t talk about these things.

Some things are just not said, and I would imagine that’s according to some plan on some white board in some fourth story building in some town in Virginia.

Of course I don’t know. 

You can only think and worry and wonder and surmise.

It’s like trying to tell what’s going on in the game by standing outside the stadium and hearing the crowd noise. How could you even tell what’s going on inside?

You hear what those who come out of the game tell you is going on.
And you hear what those who are covering the game tell you.

“This is what’s going on.”

Oh, okay.

And if they tell you over days, weeks, years and decades and lifetimes that this is what is going on, why would you ever doubt them? They are good, reasonably intelligent, nice people, right?

Not necessarily.

We find out much, muuuuch later.

And so, you, still standing outside the stadium, grow impatient, maybe even stomp your feet, throw up your arms.
And you try to find out for yourself in the only ways you can.

And after a while you find out a lot.

But you would have found out a lot quicker if those inside had told you the truth.

Why didn’t they tell you the truth?
Why? Why?

Yes, you want to know what’s going on in the game, and finally you have found out, but the question remains, the question you have not found the answer for,.

Why did they lie to you.


The CIA coined the term Conspiracy Theory 
in order to cut off at the pass the criticism of the Warren Commission 
brewing like strong coffee to wake up the people of America.
And people like Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, Wolf Blitzer, Peter Jennings ... Anderson Cooper, Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Mike Wallace, Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, Brian Williams, Lester Holt, Stephen Colbert have been glad to carry the torch of the CIA over the years and decades, so that the American people, not geniuses to begin with, are even more stupid than when we started.

We are getting nowhere thanks to the esteemed United States 
profession of journalism.

But, thanks to people like James Tracy, Jim Fetzer, Paul Craig Roberts, Kevin Barrett, Gordon Duff, Wolfgang Halbig and Penn Jones Jr., all is not lost. 
There is hope. There is life. We go on.

Penn Magazine is named in honor of Penn Jones, Jr., 
one of the first researchers into 
the John F. Kennedy murder, 
an honest newsman, who did not lie to us.

Mike Palecek, editor
Chuck Gregory, publisher

Friday, September 14, 2018

Palestinian farmers mourn crops lost to settler attacks in this year’s grape harvest

  • e
 Yumna Patel

Every year, in late August, Palestinians begin celebrating the grape harvest, a quintessential part of Palestinian life and heritage.
Grape vines can be found on nearly every street in Palestine — on apartment balconies in cramped refugee camps, to sprawling fields and courtyards in cities and villages.
For farmers, a years worth of intensive labor has led up to this moment, when they cut the grapes off the vines and take their goods to markets and street carts. For most, the profits made off of a year’s harvest will support their entire family financially until the next year.
This year’s harvest, for many farmers across the occupied West Bank, is bittersweet, marred by the violence of months past.
Between the months of May and July 7, according to documentation from NGO B’Tselem, more than 2,000 grape vines were cut down, directly affecting dozens of farmers and hundreds of their family members, amounting to material damages in the hundreds of thousands of shekels.
While settler attacks on Palestinian farmers is nothing new, this years marked a significant uptick in violence, drawing the attention of rights groups, and Israeli and Palestinian media alike.
In addition to direct attacks on grapevines, and other crops, in several incidents, several Palestinians were assaulted while tending to their land.
Though attacks on grapevines have seemingly quieted down since July, the violence against Palestinian farmers and their crops have remained steady, with settlers setting their sights now on olive trees ahead of the olive harvest which begins in October.

A lifetime of work lost

For many farmers, the vines to which they tend had been tended by their fathers and grandfathers. The grapes are more than just a fruit to enjoy or a means to sustain families economically, but a skill, and love for the craft passed down generation by generation.
The story of the family of Ameen Issa, 74, and their grapevines is no different.
Within seconds of arriving to Issa’s home, the deteriorating walls plastered with photos of his eight children, she sets a plate of freshly picked grapes from their vineyard on the table.
“Eat the grapes, eat,” she insists, over and over again, a look of pride on her face. The grapes that she so graciously offers to her guests are the product of years of her husband and nephews’ work. They are also some of the only grapes that the family has left.
On July 7th, after a few days of not tending to his crops, Ameena’s husband Hassan went to check on his land just off of Route 60, some five kilometers away from his home in the al-Khader village, in the southern occupied West Bank district of Bethlehem.
Expecting to find his grapes slowly beginning to ripen, he instead found them dead, beginning to dry up.
Khader Issa, 46, Hassan’s nephew, recounted to Mondoweiss what happened that day.
“My uncle called me and said come quickly, the grapes are dry the grapes are dry!”
“My brothers and I went to the land and found my cousin Omar with his father, my uncle, who was on the ground crying next to the trees, which had been cut near the roots,” Khader said.

“He couldn’t bear to even look at the trees. They were his whole life; he spent years taking care of them and loving them, and then they were gone.”
“It was like losing a child, like there is a death in the family. We took care of these grapes, cultivating them, giving them water, and caring for them, just as we do our children,” Ameena said.
The family believes the trees, 168 of them, were cut down by settlers from the Israeli settlement of Elazar, which was built just opposite of his plot of land, which measures around half of a hectare.
“One of my uncle’s friends called the DCO,” Khader said, referring to Israeli Civil Administration authorities, who are responsible for enforcing the government’s policies in the occupied territory.
“When they arrived, with the police, they started to take photos of the damage and told us to go file a report in the Beitar Illit settlement police station.” Almost two months later, Khader told Mondoweiss that Israeli police had made no arrests in connection to the attack.
“These trees that were cut down, they were new. We had planted them three years ago, and this was the first year that we were planning on harvesting the grapes and selling them,” Ameena said. “And now there are only a few trees left, not enough grapes to sell”
Khader estimated the material damages amounted to some 100,000 shekels. “It’s a lot of money, but the emotional damage, it is far worse.”
He added that Israeli authorities offered the family material compensation for slashed trees, but they refused.
According to him, they were asked to sign documents, all in Hebrew, saying that the family  have accepted compensation for damage to the land.
“We didn’t want to sign the papers because you never know, they can use it in the future to say that we sold the land and then take it away from us,” Khader said.

Becoming a statistic

In B’Tselem documentation of settler attacks on Palestinian agriculture between May and July, the group reported at least 440,000 shekels ($123,200) in damages in five out of the 10 cases recorded, excluding the case of Hassan Issa.
The attacks took place across the occupied West Bank, from the southern Hebron-area town of Yatta, to the northern West Bank district of Nablus.
In several cases of settler attacks documented by local Palestinian and Israeli media, Hebrew graffiti was found on the site of the attack saying “we will reach every place” and “enough of the agricultural terrorism,” a phrase used by Israeli settlers to describe attacks on their crops allegedly carried out by Palestinians.
Though settler attacks on Palestinian property, including agriculture, have long been a part of life in the occupied territory, B’Tselem noted the increase in attacks over the past few months as “unusual.
In April of this year, The Shin Bet, Israel’s internal intelligence agency, said that there were 13 attacks in the first four months of the year – more than in the whole of 2017, when there were eight, according to the agency.
Despite widespread documentation of attacks, Israeli authorities rarely arrest or prosecute the settlers responsible.
According to Israeli rights group Yesh Din, Israeli authorities in the past three years served indictments in only 8.2 percent of cases of Israeli settlers committing anti-Palestinian crimes in the occupied West Bank.
“The police makes no substantial effort to investigate the incidents, nor takes measures to prevent them or stop them in real time,” B’Tselem said in their report.
“Israel benefits from the repercussions, as settler violence has gradually dispossessed Palestinians of more and more areas in the West Bank, paving the way for a state takeover of land and resources.”
While the Issa family has suffered the same fate as hundreds of other Palestinian farmers and their families, with, to their knowledge, no action being taken against the settlers responsible for the attack on their land, they say they refuse to become another statistic.
“This was devastating for our family,” Ameera told Mondoweiss, as she washed and plated more grapes. “But we have been here for hundreds of years, and we will stay. My children and their children. Nothing can make us leave our land.”
“Even if they were to offer us a million shekels, we would never give even a handful of soil to the Israelis. Never.”

About Yumna Patel

Yumna Patel is a multimedia journalist based in Bethlehem, Palestine. Follow her on Twitter at @yumna_patel
About Yumna Patel
Yumna Patel is a multimedia journalist based in Bethlehem, Palestine. Follow her on Twitter at @yumna_patel

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Gordon Duff, Will Russia Call America's Bluff?

Will Russia Call America’s Bluff?


America is threatening war in Syria. The Wall Street Journal says Russian troops will be targeted. Though this story from September 10, 2018 is fake, there is a sinister method behind it.

Trump wants a war with Russia, a war he thinks Russia will fight half-heartedly, a few ships sunk, a few planes downed, no American ground troops, perhaps with Trump able to use his secret arsenal of biological and chemical weapons and deniable tactical nukes as well.

Trump has long stated that he loves war, in fact loves nuclear war. Trump never served in the military and knows nothing of war or suffering. Blind and delusional love of war is easy for the privileged.

Trump is assured Russia will back down, act with sanity and restraint, things no longer in America’s tool box. Russia is to be crushed forever, beyond sanctions, pushed to demilitarize, denuclearize, become the puppet state America envisioned with the fall of the Soviet Union.

America needs to crush Russia now, something we will discuss. Timing is all important, and to Washington, the clock is ticking and Russia must be crushed as soon as possible.

Trump’s primary task, as more and more analysts see it, is to not crush Iran but crush one man, Vladimir Putin.

Someone has told Trump this is possible. Moreover, someone seems to be telling Trump lots of things, giving him orders, not taking orders from him. Who is doing this is the real question, the “Deep State” or perhaps Israel or a cabal of war mongering bankers, oil executives and the infamous “military industrial complex.”

What is clear is what is being said by America, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Trump himself and America’s mainstream media has long crossed over into the realm of insanity, something polls indicate at least 61% of Americans believe as well.

It is the worst kept secret in the world that millions of Americans are so upset with their own government that the idea of the United States losing a major war, even facing occupation, is no longer seen as a “negative.” Millions of Americans believe it already happened, by dark of night, rigged elections, bribed officials, Israeli trained militarized police, massive internet spying, dead end low paying jobs, a rigged game, a life of subsistence and slavery, and end to hope.

In America, the anger in the air is so thick you can feel it, an undercurrent of murderous rage, none aimed at Russia or Syria. Most of it is aimed at Donald Trump while others who have partaken of the “Kool-Aid” blame immigrants, African Americans and Hispanics or liberals and progressives.

We are now entering a time of brinksmanship, not so much a facing-off of nuclear super powers but rather something far more sinister. America is proving to those who pay attention that it has become a madhouse and that the descriptions coming out of former Trump associates, the raving lunacy attributed to Trump himself, is now unbridled and ready for Armageddon.

The fanaticism was always there, the real root cause of 9/11 and the wars since, based on a system that exalts psychopathy cloaked in religion, patriotism and, worst of all, racial purity. At the heart of the “Trump base” are things we have all seen before, eugenics, White Supremacy, race identity, intolerance or, using a term too often misapplied, “Nazism.”

Forces Align

Russia is holding the largest military exercises in recent history with 300,000 and more taking part while the US is moving forces forward as well.

One thing is clear, Donald Trump wants to push Russia into a retaliatory attack on America and continually makes outlandish statements threatening Russia. Britain and France are doing the same, yet neither Britain nor France, not even the United States, is militarily capable of anything but taking “pot shots” at soft targets in Syria.

America’s navy is a “fake deterrent,” its ships easily sunk, its carrier-based planes easily downed, most being 4th generation and vulnerable to air attack.

Past that, America is using tanks from 1970, their carcasses are strewn across Iraq where small children with aging Soviet weapons had destroyed them, reminiscent of Israel’s debacle into Lebanon in 2006.

Hezbollah maintains a museum of destroyed Israeli armor outside Beirut.

The date is 9/11, 2018. With the actual cause for the decades long and now totally discredited “War on Terror” still a major controversy, the roles of Israel and Saudi Arabia a subject of continual speculation, America is looking for a new war.

According to the media, the war will be against Syria and will be based on retaliation for chlorine attacks ordered by President Assad on his own people. Reports to the contrary, totally censored by the US media and being cleaned off the internet by Google and Facebook, are now being taken to the United Nations Security Council and International Criminal Court at The Hague.

The US ignores both institutions. Presidential Advisor John Bolton recently threatened the justices of the ICC with personal retaliation if any cases were brought against American war criminals, himself included.

A History of Crimes

The US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Commission as well, though individual Americans, this writer included, maintain delegate status despite threats from the Department of Homeland Security.

The US long quit the Geneva Convention, dropped out of nuclear and space weapon treaties, yet few Americans are aware, no vote was held, no reporting in the media, no consequences debated.

America’s naval activities in the Black Sea violate treaties there, their threats against Iran over that nation’s legal control of the Straits of Hormuz are equally illegal. Trump’s support of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is a war crime as was moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

America’s role in Syria is illegal as is America’s role in the war on Yemen as well. Drone attacks on Pakistan are illegal as is CIA complicity in attacks in Iran.

Past this, America has been caught, particularly in the issue of the National Reference Laboratory in Tbilisi, Georgia, of manufacturing and deploying biological weapons.

America’s rendition program, largely run covertly from Tripoli, Libya through cooperation with the Gaddafi regime, violated not only the rules of war but constituted kidnapping and murder in over 40 nations. Innocents were detained for more than a decade, subjected to illegal military tribunals, tortured and killed, mass graves in Poland, Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya and places few are aware of while one of those responsible, Gina Haspel, has been promoted to head the CIA.

Morally Off-Center

To properly understand the threat, notions long outdated, of American democracy or “Christian decency” must be abandoned. By the 1980’s a “religion of convenience” had supplanted the normal majority sects of Protestant Christianity. Under the heretic doctrine of “Dominionism,” a religion paralleling Christianity arose, melding the back woods “speaking in tongues” and snake handling sects of the primitive and violent regions of poverty-stricken Appalachia with newly formed apocalypse cults centered on support of Zionism and Israel.

Spreading like wildfire, these extremist cults centered on bizarre mistranslations of odd and contradictory bible passages, seeded themselves into dozens of pseudo-Christian sects “infecting” up to 45 million Americans.

Behind it all was, of course, extremism at its purest and the political organizations ready to exploit the ignorant and angry through religious leaders more closely akin to game show hosts and carnival barkers.

At the base of it all were undercurrents of class envy, race hatred, resentment of women and fear, a powerful concoction. Feeding the frenzy was a newly legalized foreign controlled media organization run by Rupert Murdoch, joining a bevy of corporate entities that had long since gutted American journalistic integrity.

Add to this Google and Facebook, their NSA partners and a deterioration of individual protections under legislation such as the Patriot Acts, and the America many believe exists is now and has been long dead.

The Bloodletting

America is terrified of seeing its aircraft and ships sunk. Vietnam destroyed America’s willingness to lose troops publicly. Wars are now fought using mercenaries and terrorists, using missiles and sanctions, fought with propaganda and bluster, cowardice for sure, and cowardice may well be America’s new religion.

The only thing that stops a coward and bully is a bloody nose, this is the lesson of the schoolyard. Donald Trump is often portrayed as a child. He speaks and acts like a spoiled child and those around him are, for all intents and purposes, even those who claim to “rebel,” simply the weak and inadequate, losers and malcontents hiding behind a bully and tyrant.

The situation we are faced with is backing down to a bully and coward, and for those of us living in America, quite shamefully recognizing that the “bully and coward” is in fact “us,” or fighting back.
Domestically, fighting back is considered treason. Even reporting the truth is criminalized and all that is preventing the rounding up of real journalists is the ability of the internet to censor and silence or smear.
For some vague reason, any opposition to America’s insane policies is considered “anti-Semitism.”

The Options

When America attacks Syria, which will be an attack on Russia as well, admittedly or not, there are choices. If nothing is done, knowing America can’t prevent the freeing of Idlib from US backed terror, the world will be safer, for a while.

From there, America will move on to Iran, a base of operations against Russia. America is already moving against Belarus.

To Trump, or more appropriately, those who control Trump, if controlling an angry child is possible at all, pushing Russia to fight back is the Holy Grail. Seeing an American aircraft carrier sunk, American planes down by the S400, the media is waiting to scream “Pearl Harbor” and “9/11.”

Russia won’t use its nuclear arsenal and doesn’t have an economy that will sustain a war against NATO. You see, though NATO has already died, just hasn’t been buried yet, pushing Russia into a shooting war might well reinvigorate NATO. France is onboard, Macron a long proven “tool” and “asset.”

Britain is ungoverned entirely, with madman Boris Johnson ready to seize power.

America believes China is a decade away from military confrontation with the United States. This, perhaps, drives America to push for war now more than anything else. Once China has more aircraft carriers, and this is how America gauges power, America will feel “flanked” in Asia.

If Russia is taken out now, China will stand alone. If Russia is pushed to war now, Europe will fall under America rule again, as it did in 1945, rule by an America that is no longer “American” in any way, manner, shape or form.

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of  Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Edward Curtin, Why I Don't Speak of the Fake News of "9/11" Anymore

Why I Don’t Speak of the Fake News of “9/11” Anymore

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was a non-teaching day for me.  I was home when the phone rang at 9 A.M.  It was my daughter, who was on a week’s vacation with her future husband.  “Turn on the TV,” she said.  “Why?” I asked.  “Haven’t you heard?  A plane hit the World Trade Tower.”
I turned the TV on and watched a plane crash into the Tower.  I said, “They just showed a replay.”  She quickly corrected me, “No, that’s another plane.”  And we talked as we watched in horror, learning that it was the South Tower this time.  Sitting next to my daughter was my future son-in-law; he had not had a day off from work in a year.  He had finally taken a week’s vacation so they could go to Cape Cod.  He worked on the 100th floor of the South Tower.  By chance, he had escaped the death that claimed 176 of his co-workers.
That was my introduction to the attacks.  Seventeen years have disappeared behind us, yet it seems like yesterday.  And yet again, it seems like long, long ago.
Over the next few days, as the government and the media accused Osama bin Laden and 19 Arabs of being responsible for the attacks, I told a friend that what I was hearing wasn’t believable; the official story was full of holes. I am a born and bred New Yorker with a long family history rooted in the NYC Fire and Police Departments, one grandfather having been the Deputy Chief of the Fire Department, the highest ranking uniformed firefighter, and the other a NYPD cop; a niece and her husband were NYPD detectives deeply involved in the response to that day’s attacks. Hearing the absurd official explanations and the deaths of so many innocent people, including many hundreds of firefighters, cops, and emergency workers, I felt a suspicious rage. It was a reaction that I couldn’t fully explain, but it set me on a search for the truth.  I proceeded in fits and starts, but by the fall of 2004, with the help of the extraordinary work of David Ray Griffin, Michael Ruppert, and other early skeptics, I could articulate the reasons for my initial intuition.  I set about creating and teaching a college course on what had come to be called 9/11.
But I no longer refer to the events of that day by those numbers.  Let me explain why.
By 2004 I had enough solid evidence to convince me that the U.S. government’s claims (and The 9/11 Commission Report) were fictitious.  They seemed so blatantly false that I concluded the attacks were a deep-state intelligence operation whose purpose was to initiate a national state of emergency to justify wars of aggression, known euphemistically as “the war on terror.”  The sophistication of the attacks, and the lack of any proffered evidence for the government’s claims, suggested that a great deal of planning had been involved.
Yet I was chagrined and amazed by so many people’s insouciant lack of interest in questioning and researching the most important world event since the assassination of President Kennedy.  I understood the various psychological dimensions of this denial, the fear, cognitive dissonance, etc., but I sensed something else as well.  For so many people their minds seemed to have been “made up” from the start.  I found that many young people were the exceptions, while most of their elders dared not question the official narrative.  These included many prominent leftist critics of American foreign policy, such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Alexander Cockburn, and others, whose defenses of the official government and media explanations (when they even made such defenses; often they just trashed skeptics as “9/11 conspiracy nuts,” to quote Cockburn) totally lacked any scientific or logical rigor or even knowledge of the facts.  Now that seventeen years have elapsed, this seems truer than ever.  There is a long list of leftists who refuse to examine matter to this very day.  And most interestingly, they also do the same with the assassination of JFK, the other key seminal event of recent American history.
I kept thinking of the ongoing language and logic used to describe what had happened that terrible day in 2001 and in the weeks to follow.  It all seemed so clich├ęd and surreal, as if set phrases had it been extracted from some secret manual, phrases that rung with an historical resonance that cast a spell on the public, as if mass hypnosis were involved.  People seemed mesmerized as they spoke of the events in the official language that had been presented to them.
So with the promptings of people like Graeme MacQueen, Lance deHaven-Smith, T.H. Meyer, et al., and much study and research, I have concluded that my initial intuitive skepticism was correct and that a process of linguistic mind-control was in place before, during, and after the attacks.  As with all good propaganda, the language had to be insinuated over time and introduced through intermediaries.  It had to seem “natural” and to flow out of events, not to precede them.  And it had to be repeated over and over again.
In summary form, I will list the language I believe “made up the minds” of those who have refused to examine the government’s claims about the September 11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks.
  1. Pearl Harbor. As pointed out by David Ray Griffin and others, this term was used in September 2000 in The Project for the New American Century’s (PNAC) report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (p.51).  Its neo-con authors argued that the U.S. wouldn’t be able to attack Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. “absent some catastrophic event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”  Then on January 11, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s “Space Commission” warned that the U.S. could face a “space Pearl Harbor” if it weren’t careful and didn’t increase space security.  Rumsfeld urged support for the proposed U.S. national missile defense system opposed by Russia and China and massive funding for the increased weaponization of space.  At the same time he went around handing out and recommending Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (1962) by Roberta Wohlstetter, who had spent almost two decades working for The Rand Corporation and who claimed that Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack that shocked U.S. leaders. Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor – those words and images dominated public consciousness for many months before 11 September 2001, and of course after.  The film Pearl Harbor, made with Pentagon assistance and a massive budget, was released on May 25, 2001 and was a box office hit.   It was in the theatres throughout the summer.  The thought of the attack on Pearl Harbor (not a surprise to the U.S. government, but presented as such) was in the news all summer despite the fact that the 60th anniversary of that attack was not until December 7, 2001, a more likely release date. So why was it released so early?  Once the September 11 attacks occurred, the Pearl Harbor analogy was “plucked out” of the social atmosphere and used constantly, beginning immediately. Another “Day of Infamy,” another surprise attack blared the media and government officials.  A New Pearl Harbor!  George W.  Bush was widely reported to have had the time that night, after a busy day of flying hither and yon to avoid the terrorists who for some reason had forgotten he was in a classroom in Florida, to allegedly use it in his diary, writing that “the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century took place today.  We think it is Osama bin Laden.”  Shortly after the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor on December 7th, Bush then formerly announced, referencing the attacks of September 11, that the U. S. would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The examples of this Pearl Harbor/ September 11 analogy are manifold, but I am summarizing, so I will skip giving them.  Any casual researcher can confirm this.
  2. Homeland. This strange un-American term, another WW II word associated with another enemy – Nazi Germany – was also used many times by the neo-con authors of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.”  I doubt any average American referred to this country by that term before.  Of course it became the moniker for The Department of Homeland Security, marrying home with security to form a comforting name that simultaneously and unconsciously suggests a defense against Hitler-like evil coming from the outside.  Not coincidentally, Hitler introduced it into the Nazi propaganda vernacular at the 1934 Nuremberg rally. Both usages conjured up images of a home besieged by alien forces intent on its destruction; thus preemptive action was in order.  Now the Department of Homeland Security with its massive budget is lodged permanently in popular consciousness.
  3. Ground Zero. This is a third WWII (“the Good War”) term first used at 11:55 A.M. on September 11 by Mark Walsh (aka “the Harley Guy” because he was wearing a Harley-Davidson tee shirt) in an interview on the street by a Fox News reporter, Rick Leventhal. Identified as a Fox free-lancer, Walsh also explained the Twin Towers collapse in a precise, well-rehearsed manner that would be the same illogical and anti-scientific explanation later given by the government: “mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense.” Ground zero – a nuclear bomb term first used by U.S. scientists to refer to the spot where they exploded the first nuclear bomb in New Mexico in 1945 – became another meme adopted by the media that suggested a nuclear attack had occurred or might in the future if the U.S. didn’t act. The nuclear scare was raised again and again by George W. Bush and U.S. officials in the days and months following the attacks, although nuclear weapons were beside the point in terms of the 11 September attacks, but surely not as a scare tactic and as part of the plan to withdraw from the ABM treaty that would be announced in December.  But the conjoining of “nuclear” with “ground zero” served to raise the fear factor dramatically.  Ironically, the project to develop the nuclear bomb was called the Manhattan Project and was headquartered at 270 Broadway, NYC, a few short blocks north of the World Trade Center.
  4. The Unthinkable. This is another nuclear term whose usage as linguistic mind control and propaganda is brilliantly analyzed by Graeme MacQueen in the penultimate chapter of his very important book, .  He notes the patterned use of this term before and after September 11, while saying “the pattern may not signify a grand plan …. It deserves investigation and contemplation.”  He then presents a convincing case that the use of this term couldn’t be accidental.  He notes how George W. Bush, in a major foreign policy speech on May 1, 2001, “gave informal public notice that the United States intended to withdraw unilaterally from the ABM Treaty”; Bush said the U.S. must be willing to “rethink the unthinkable.”  This was necessary because of terrorism and rogue states with “weapons of mass destruction.”  PNAC also argued that the U.S. should withdraw from the treaty.  A signatory to the treaty could only withdraw after giving six months notice and because of “extraordinary events” that “jeopardized its supreme interests.” Once the September 11 attacks occurred, Bush rethought the unthinkable and officially gave formal notice on December 13 to withdraw the U.S. from the ABM Treaty, as previously noted.  MacQueen specifies the many times different media used the term “unthinkable” in October 2001 in reference to the anthrax attacks.  He explicates its usage in one of the anthrax letters – “The Unthinkabel” [sic].  He explains how the media that used the term so often were at the time unaware of its usage in the anthrax letter since that letter’s content had not yet been revealed, and how the letter writer had mailed the letter before the media started using the word.  He makes a rock solid case showing the U.S. government’s complicity in the anthrax attacks and therefore in the Sept 11 attacks.  While calling the use of the term “unthinkable” in all its iterations “problematic,” he writes, “The truth is that the employment of ‘the unthinkable’ in this letter, when weight is given both to the meaning of this term in U.S. strategic circles and to the other relevant uses of the term in 2001, points us in the direction of the U.S. military and intelligence communities.”  I am reminded of Orwell’s point in 1984: “a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words.”  Thus the government and media’s use of “unthinkable” becomes a classic case of “doublethink.”  The unthinkable is unthinkable.
  5. 9/11. This is the key usage that has reverberated down the years around which the others revolve. It is an anomalous numerical designation applied to an historical event, and obviously also the emergency telephone number.  Try to think of another numerical appellation for an important event in American history.  It’s impossible.  But if you have a good historical sense, you will remember that the cornerstone for the Pentagon was lain on September 11, 1941, three months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and that the CIA engineered a coup against the Allende government in Chile on Sept 11, 1973.  Just strange coincidences?  The future editor of The New York Times and Iraq war promoter, Bill Keller, introduced the emergency phone connection on the morning of September 12th in a NY Times op-ed piece, “America’s Emergency Line: 911.”  The linkage of the attacks to a permanent national emergency was thus subliminally introduced, as Keller mentioned Israel nine times and seven times compared the U.S. situation to that of Israel as a target for terrorists.  His first sentence reads: “An Israeli response to America’s aptly dated wake-up call might well be, ‘Now you know.’”  By referring to September 11 as 9/11, an endless national emergency fear became wedded to an endless war on terror aimed at preventing Hitler-like terrorists from obliterating us with nuclear weapons that could create another ground zero or holocaust.  Mentioning Israel (“America is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world,” George W. Bush would tell the Israeli Knesset) so many times, Keller was not very subtly performing an act of legerdemain with multiple meanings.  By comparing the victims of the 11 September attacks to Israeli “victims,” he was implying, among other things, that the Israelis are innocent victims who are not involved in terrorism, but are terrorized by Palestinians, as Americans are terrorized by fanatical Muslims.  Palestinians/Al-Qaeda.  Israel/U.S.  Explicit and implicit parallels of the guilty and the innocent.  Keller tells us who the real killers are.  His use of the term 9/11 is a term that pushes all the right buttons, evoking unending social fear and anxiety.  It is language as sorcery. It is propaganda at its best. Even well-respected critics of the U.S. government’s explanation use the term that has become a fixture of public consciousness through endless repetition.   As George W. Bush would later put it, as he connected Saddam Hussein to “9/11” and pushed for the Iraq war, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”  All the ingredients for a linguistic mind-control smoothie had been blended.
I have concluded – and this is impossible to prove definitively because of the nature of such propagandistic techniques – that the use of all these words/numbers is part of a highly sophisticated linguistic mind-control campaign waged to create a narrative that has lodged in the minds of hundreds of millions of people and is very hard to dislodge.
It is why I don’t speak of “9/11” any more. I refer to those events as the attacks of September 11, 2001, which is a mouth-full and not easily digested in the age of Twitter and texting.  But I am not sure how to be more succinct or how to undo the damage, except by writing what I have written here.
Lance deHaven-Smith puts it well in .
The rapidity with which the new language of the war on terror appeared and took hold; the synergy between terms and their mutual connections to WW II nomenclatures; and above all the connections between many terms and the emergency motif of “9/11” and “9-1-1” – any one of these factors alone, but certainly all of them together – raise the possibility that work on this linguistic construct began long before 9/11….It turns out that elite political crime, even treason, may actually be official policy.
Needless to say, his use of the words “possibility” and “may” are in order when one sticks to strict empiricism.  However, when one reads his full text, it is apparent to me that he considers these “coincidences” part of a conspiracy.  I have also reached that conclusion.  As Thoreau put in his underappreciated humorous way, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
The evidence for linguistic mind control, while the subject of this essay, does not stand alone, of course.  It underpins the actual attacks of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks that are linked.  The official explanations for these events by themselves do not stand up to elementary logic and are patently false, as proven by thousands of well-respected professional researchers from all walks of life – i.e. engineers, pilots, scientists, architects, and scholars from many disciplines (see the upcoming 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, to be released September 11, 2018).  To paraphrase the prescient Vince Salandria, who said it long ago concerning the government’s assassination of President Kennedy, the attacks of 2001 are “a false mystery concealing state crimes.”  If one objectively studies the 2001 attacks together with the language adopted to explain and preserve them in social memory, the “mystery” emerges from the realm of the unthinkable and becomes utterable. “There is no mystery.” The truth becomes obvious.
How to communicate this when the corporate mainstream media serve the function of the government’s mockingbird (as in Operation Mockingbird), repeating and repeating and repeating the same narrative in the same language; that is the difficult task we are faced with, but there are signs today that breakthroughs are occurring, as growing numbers of international academic scholars are pushing to incorporate the analysis of the official propaganda surrounding 11 September 2001 into their work within the academy, a turnabout from years of general silence.  And more and more people are coming to realize that the official lies about 11 September are the biggest example of fake news in this century.  Fake news used to justify endless wars and the slaughter of so many innocents around the world.
Words have a power to enchant and mesmerize.  Linguistic mind-control, especially when linked to traumatic events such as the September 11 and the anthrax attacks, can strike people dumb and blind.  It often makes some subjects “unthinkable” and “unspeakable” (to quote Jim Douglass quoting Thomas Merton in JFK and the Unspeakable: the unspeakable “is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said.”).
We need a new vocabulary to speak of these terrible things.  Let us learn, as Chief Joseph said, to speak with a straight tongue, and in language that doesn’t do the enemies work of mind control, but snaps the world awake to the truth of the mass murders of September 11, 2001 that have been used to massacre millions across the world.