Checkmate
John F. Kennedy had it in mind to assassinate Fidel Castro. Operation Mongoose, a linking of the CIA with the American Mafia, overseen by John and Robert Kennedy, was a program designed to seek and execute ways of killing Castro as well as to subvert the Cuban government's ability to provide for its citizens. They had their good qualities but their Cuba policy was one of the ways the Kennedy Brothers were shits.
John Kennedy inherited from Eisenhower what came to be known as the Bay of Pigs operation (or fiasco). In April 1961, CIA-trained Cuban paramilitary units attacked Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, but were decimated or captured by the Cuban air force and army, who were, understandably, defending their country against invasion. Kennedy withheld air cover for the invasion, not wanting to overtly involve the United States military. His actions spared the United States being regarded in the international community as a perpetrator of naked aggression against a sovereign nation, but earned him the enmity of CIA officials (including that agency's Director, Allen Dulles, who was fired by President Kennedy after the botched invasion). Cubans in exile from Castro's new order also turned against Kennedy. Many of these exiles had been among the lost island's upper class. They had the attitude one would expect from rich people who've lost their property, estates, casinos, their economy based on oppression of the working class. They'd had it good under U.S.-backed dictators like Fulgencio Batista. The U.S. Mafia owned and operated casinos in Havana until Castro closed them.
The main motive for U.S. elites (including Mafia chiefs) in the elimination of Fidel Castro was monetary and exploitation of natural resources, but over the next fifty-plus years this was translated by the U.S. news media as Democracy versus Communism.
In the 1980s, columnist Jack Anderson had a plausible enough theory about the John F. Kennedy assassination. He took as his starting point Operation Mongoose, specifically Attorney General Robert Kennedy's involvement in it. Robert Kennedy was an exceptionally complicated man, someone who evolved over time, ending up as a peace candidate for President (what got him killed). Deeply focused on prosecuting organized crime personalities during the Kennedy Administration, he nevertheless participated in anti-Castro activities also engaged in by the same organized crime personalities he was opposed to. He probably played a "long game," justifying his actions according to the ends desired.
Jack Anderson's theory has some anti-Castro Cuban exiles, connected to Operation Mongoose, planning an assassination attempt involving snipers against Castro, but later turning the same plot against John F. Kennedy after the President's "betrayal" in the Bay of Pigs disaster.
The CIA handlers overseeing the Bay of Pigs invasion were deeply dismayed by Kennedy's lack of action in committing U.S. Navy warplanes. One of them, David Atlee Phillips, described the scene as CIA men monitored the invasion by radio. He said that once it was clear the invasion had failed, that Kennedy had betrayed them all, a CIA man puked into a garbage can. Phillips was involved in the overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala. He also may have had ties to Lee Harvey Oswald under the alias "Maurice Bishop." Curiously, E. Howard Hunt, best known as one of the Watergate burglars but also implicated, by his own deathbed confession, in the JFK assassination, was known as "Knight." It begs the question: were other CIA agents known by the names of chess pieces? It seems to me that Lee Harvey Oswald should've been called "Pawn."
Cuba, it seems to me, is the foundation of the John F. Kennedy assassination. When Anderson presented his "backfire" reverse-engineered JFK kill theory during a TV special airing in 1988, twenty-five years after the assassination, his program was just one of several then dealing with the event. At that time, there was more of a willingness in the news media to at least entertain some ideas about this important turning point in U.S. and world history. Pushback came from the usual voices who had been saying all along that JFK was murdered by one man with no connections to anyone. Yet, the strangeness of Oswald's activities couldn't be explained away. He'd been a U.S. Marine based at Atsugi Air Base in Japan, operating radar. From that base flew the top secret spy plane, U-2, in missions over the Soviet Union. When Oswald defected to the Soviet Union, it wasn't long before the Soviets shot down a U-2. They suddenly knew the high altitude at which the plane flew. The plane's pilot, Francis Gary Powers, was captured and later revealed his suspicion that Oswald had traded his knowledge of the U-2s altitude capabilities for his stay in the Soviet Union.
Oswald was allowed back into the U.S., without being questioned by the CIA (or so the CIA claimed), although in recent years they admitted the obvious fact that they questioned him extensively. The CIA is, of course, an outfit based on lies. True in 1963 and in 2018.
Oswald spent a lot of time in the Dallas area with a White Russian right winger, George De Mohrenshildt, who also knew George H.W. Bush. Bush was Director of the CIA in the mid-1970s. He's one of only two people I'm aware of who, when asked where he was the day John Kennedy was killed, couldn't remember where. For younger readers, imagine not remembering how you found out about the 9/11 attacks or where you were when you found out about them. It means, quite obviously, that Bush and Richard Nixon (the other person I know of who didn't recall his whereabouts on the day JFK died) lied when they said they didn't know the answer to that easily answered question. Bush, as it turns out, was in Dallas that day, and so was Richard Nixon.
This doesn't necessarily mean anything, although it's weird that the only two people I've ever heard of who were unable to answer the question "Where were you when JFK died," both later became U.S. Presidents. What are the chances of that? Pretty good, perhaps, if the two men in question are intimately connected to the national security state at the highest level and are both mass murderers involved often in the subversion of other nation's governments including our own.
It says something meaningful about the real nature of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Powerful men are, at least tangentially, involved. George H.W. Bush, as well as being close to George De Mohrenshildt, is also friends with John Hinckley's father. This means that Bush is two degrees of separation from Lee Harvey Oswald, and two degrees from John Hinckley, two infamous American assassins. Can you say that about yourself?
Who stood to gain from Ronald Reagan's death in 1981? Is it wrong of me to ask such a question when the man who stood to gain the most from that death has just lost his wife, Barbara?
Jack Anderson's theory, as I mentioned above, is plausible enough; it's one of many plausible theories, but the truth of the matter was probably a mixture of elements that didn't necessarily involve a large number of people, but could've been coordinated by intelligence professionals (like David Atlee Phillips) skilled at subversion, the spreading of misinformation, the use of unwitting human tools (Oswald himself possibly).
CIA professionals had, by the early 1960s, been fucking with people for quite a while; they're even better at it now. One theory, explicated in a thick book, has it that Allen Dulles himself engineered the JFK assassination. Maybe so. He was intimately involved in smuggling Nazis out of Europe at the end of World War Two. What kind of son of a bitch can do something like that? The kind of evil piece of shit that engineers the killing of a U.S. President and then gets himself onto the official board of inquiry investigating the murder? Dulles served on the Warren Commission, what is still the official version of events in Dallas in 1963. In spite of grievous logical flaws, the findings of the Commission place all the blame on the confused alleged Communist, Oswald, leaving the CIA, Mafia, Operation Mongoose, out of it almost entirely. It's as if there's nothing weird about a Marine defecting to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, and being allowed to return to the U.S. with no trouble at all, married to a young Russian woman, too, and then hanging out with right wing Russian exiles of an aristocratic bent rather than Communists.
The U.S. news media have cooperated willingly in the cover-up of the truth about the JFK murder. It's an unsolved case. A homeless person's death by stabbing under a railway bridge might get more closure in an investigation than JFK received. Both such murders should always be investigated and, if possible, solved. I don't think Sherlock Holmes would disagree with that.
Donald Trump has given indications that he believes JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy. This kind of speculation on his part gets pooh-poohed by news media people, but Trump is actually part of the majority of Americans who don't accept the official version. Trump, himself on the receiving end of U.S. intelligence activities attempting, successfully, to steer his policies towards aggressive war and subversion toward Russia, must know by now that he, too, could be bumped off by the same kinds of human reptiles who killed both Kennedys, so our current President more and more pulls the rope that rings the bell the intelligence community wants to hear. Hence, his recent reversal on Syria.
Vic Neptune
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Sunday, April 15, 2018
The Mask of Compassion
Donald Trump met with the Secretary of Defense and top military brass in the Pentagon on January 18, 2018. He proposed a military parade in Washington, D.C. to "celebrate" our troops, our military, our war effort. Secretary "Mad Dog" Mattis and the Generals liked the idea. Veterans Day, November 11, 2018, could be the event date. Of course, a daily barrage of Trump's utterances and tweets have occurred since then, making the parade proposal seem a dim memory. At the time, some journalists in mainstream media compared the parade idea with the regular military parades in Pyongyang attended by a smiling Kim Jong-un, the familiar images of goose-stepping soldiers watched proudly by North Korea's Supreme Leader meant to compare his bellicose vanity with Donald Trump's.
I was struck by the lack of comparison to similar past parades in the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany. The idea of a big military parade in the U.S. isn't unheard of: General Schwarzkopf in 1991, hero of the Gulf War, paraded with Mickey Mouse in Tampa, Florida, with chorus girls in New York. The U.S. had won the Cold War, celebrating it with a crushing victory (mostly from the air) against Iraq, a nation run by a dictator so evil he merited a comparison to Hitler by President Bush, yet, unlike Hitler, wasn't overcome and allowed to rule another twelve years.
Americans don't have a problem with military parades. What's Memorial Day except an excuse to flaunt militarism? Professional sports, the NFL especially, have joined with the military to the extent that the singing or instrumental performing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is done, as announcers put it, in "honor of those who serve and have served their country in our nation's armed forces."
Flyovers of military jets or helicopters often accompany these spectacles, but really, it's just a game, though one connected thoroughly to the free market, the promotion of which leads to the invasions and overthrows of governments like Iraq.
Trump loves a parade; at heart he's a simple man. He enjoys eating McDonald's hamburgers and fries. He likes commanding the world's hugest war machine. It's slightly less shocking that he wants to put on a big military parade than the easy acquiescence of Mad Dog Mattis and other Generals who also want the parade. Display of military hardware helps business, increases sales for the world's behemoth arms dealer, the Pentagon.
On Friday, April 13, 2018, responding to the Syrian government's alleged use of chlorine against civilians, Trump, obedient puppy of the Neoconservatives he's become, ordered a multi-pronged attack against Syria, hitting Damascus itself, the targets reportedly relating to Assad's chemical weapons production facilities, although it's more likely that the main target in Damascus was the headquarters of Hezbollah. Syrian reports of civilians killed in two neighborhoods struck haven't been confirmed in the U.S. but I'll accept their viewpoint before that of the Pentagon any day. Trump did this in concert with France and the United Kingdom, two countries that, after World War One, drew lines on a map of the Middle East, creating Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, and a host of troubles following.
In the mainstream news, much has been made of the care taken not to kill Russian "advisers" and troops in Syria. Syrian civilians, like the civilians allegedly killed in the chlorine attack, don't merit our concern. Suffice it to say, Friday night and Saturday morning were loud and violent in Syria. International and neutral WMD inspectors who were to investigate the alleged chlorine attack site were supposed to begin their work on Saturday. Macron's, May's, and Trump's hysterical overreaction (attacking Syria without evidence of WMD being used by that country's government) has certainly made objective analysis of the issue of chemical weapons attack precarious.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, continues her harangues against Syrian government forces, Assad, and Russia, making it out like she's really concerned about the lives and safety of children in war zones. She's demonstrated her clear disdain for human lives called Palestinians and Yemenis. She has no credibility on the subject of human rights, but U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N. tend to be mouthpieces defending the extension of American power even to absurd levels of logic--recall former Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright's rationalization of the deaths by neglect (from the U.S.-driven embargo) of an estimated half-million Iraqi children in the 1990s.
I don't know if it's deliberate, but the job of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. has been given to at least three women, Samantha Power being the third mentioned here, who employ selective outrage, ignoring crimes against humanity committed by Israel and the United States, lending their voices, thus, to silent assent of the practices of mass murder, illegal warfare, meddling in the politics of other countries, torture, racism. Ironically, while Albright, Power, and Haley have all spoken out about their heartfelt concerns for suffering children, they overlook millions of children suffering and killed by policies concocted and carried out by the same goddamn government they represent!
How do they do this? Are they unaware of their hypocrisy? If so, they must be psychopaths, do-gooders who help commit mass murder, lacking awareness of how horribly wrong they are. Another possibility is that they know exactly what they're saying, what those implications are. They've swallowed whatever objections they may have ever had years ago and now help enact and apologize for policies they believe to be "for the greater good."
Albright served under Bill Clinton, a Democrat; Power served under another Democrat, Barack Obama; Haley serves under a Republican, Donald Trump. All three of these Presidents have never questioned the Israeli government's atrocities against Palestinians. It begs the question: Does it matter to these people, Haley, Trump, Clinton, et al, that human beings are human beings, regardless of nationality, race, or religion? By neglecting to feel for the Palestinians and Yemenis, Haley and people like her, may be classifying them in her own unfathomable mind as sub-humans, unworthy of civilized consideration. Haley was born into a Sikh family, her parents are from India, a country
dominated for about 150 years by the British Empire. Her ancestors living under British rule were not regarded on the same level of worth as the White occupiers. Her ancestors were, in essence, Palestinians, i.e. second class citizens, judged by their skin color, religion, by their being in the way of the superior race.
This, apparently, doesn't matter to her as she does her job in the U.N., lying on behalf of another empire.
Let the parade be held, why should we care that Kim Jong-un does the same thing? Shouldn't we celebrate our weapons? We don't have parades for writers and painters, nurses and teachers. It's important to recognize the hard military tool that helps America accomplish its deceptive practices, its righteous and justified killings of civilians using non-WMD means.
Vic Neptune
Donald Trump met with the Secretary of Defense and top military brass in the Pentagon on January 18, 2018. He proposed a military parade in Washington, D.C. to "celebrate" our troops, our military, our war effort. Secretary "Mad Dog" Mattis and the Generals liked the idea. Veterans Day, November 11, 2018, could be the event date. Of course, a daily barrage of Trump's utterances and tweets have occurred since then, making the parade proposal seem a dim memory. At the time, some journalists in mainstream media compared the parade idea with the regular military parades in Pyongyang attended by a smiling Kim Jong-un, the familiar images of goose-stepping soldiers watched proudly by North Korea's Supreme Leader meant to compare his bellicose vanity with Donald Trump's.
I was struck by the lack of comparison to similar past parades in the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany. The idea of a big military parade in the U.S. isn't unheard of: General Schwarzkopf in 1991, hero of the Gulf War, paraded with Mickey Mouse in Tampa, Florida, with chorus girls in New York. The U.S. had won the Cold War, celebrating it with a crushing victory (mostly from the air) against Iraq, a nation run by a dictator so evil he merited a comparison to Hitler by President Bush, yet, unlike Hitler, wasn't overcome and allowed to rule another twelve years.
Americans don't have a problem with military parades. What's Memorial Day except an excuse to flaunt militarism? Professional sports, the NFL especially, have joined with the military to the extent that the singing or instrumental performing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is done, as announcers put it, in "honor of those who serve and have served their country in our nation's armed forces."
Flyovers of military jets or helicopters often accompany these spectacles, but really, it's just a game, though one connected thoroughly to the free market, the promotion of which leads to the invasions and overthrows of governments like Iraq.
Trump loves a parade; at heart he's a simple man. He enjoys eating McDonald's hamburgers and fries. He likes commanding the world's hugest war machine. It's slightly less shocking that he wants to put on a big military parade than the easy acquiescence of Mad Dog Mattis and other Generals who also want the parade. Display of military hardware helps business, increases sales for the world's behemoth arms dealer, the Pentagon.
On Friday, April 13, 2018, responding to the Syrian government's alleged use of chlorine against civilians, Trump, obedient puppy of the Neoconservatives he's become, ordered a multi-pronged attack against Syria, hitting Damascus itself, the targets reportedly relating to Assad's chemical weapons production facilities, although it's more likely that the main target in Damascus was the headquarters of Hezbollah. Syrian reports of civilians killed in two neighborhoods struck haven't been confirmed in the U.S. but I'll accept their viewpoint before that of the Pentagon any day. Trump did this in concert with France and the United Kingdom, two countries that, after World War One, drew lines on a map of the Middle East, creating Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, and a host of troubles following.
In the mainstream news, much has been made of the care taken not to kill Russian "advisers" and troops in Syria. Syrian civilians, like the civilians allegedly killed in the chlorine attack, don't merit our concern. Suffice it to say, Friday night and Saturday morning were loud and violent in Syria. International and neutral WMD inspectors who were to investigate the alleged chlorine attack site were supposed to begin their work on Saturday. Macron's, May's, and Trump's hysterical overreaction (attacking Syria without evidence of WMD being used by that country's government) has certainly made objective analysis of the issue of chemical weapons attack precarious.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, continues her harangues against Syrian government forces, Assad, and Russia, making it out like she's really concerned about the lives and safety of children in war zones. She's demonstrated her clear disdain for human lives called Palestinians and Yemenis. She has no credibility on the subject of human rights, but U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N. tend to be mouthpieces defending the extension of American power even to absurd levels of logic--recall former Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright's rationalization of the deaths by neglect (from the U.S.-driven embargo) of an estimated half-million Iraqi children in the 1990s.
I don't know if it's deliberate, but the job of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. has been given to at least three women, Samantha Power being the third mentioned here, who employ selective outrage, ignoring crimes against humanity committed by Israel and the United States, lending their voices, thus, to silent assent of the practices of mass murder, illegal warfare, meddling in the politics of other countries, torture, racism. Ironically, while Albright, Power, and Haley have all spoken out about their heartfelt concerns for suffering children, they overlook millions of children suffering and killed by policies concocted and carried out by the same goddamn government they represent!
How do they do this? Are they unaware of their hypocrisy? If so, they must be psychopaths, do-gooders who help commit mass murder, lacking awareness of how horribly wrong they are. Another possibility is that they know exactly what they're saying, what those implications are. They've swallowed whatever objections they may have ever had years ago and now help enact and apologize for policies they believe to be "for the greater good."
Albright served under Bill Clinton, a Democrat; Power served under another Democrat, Barack Obama; Haley serves under a Republican, Donald Trump. All three of these Presidents have never questioned the Israeli government's atrocities against Palestinians. It begs the question: Does it matter to these people, Haley, Trump, Clinton, et al, that human beings are human beings, regardless of nationality, race, or religion? By neglecting to feel for the Palestinians and Yemenis, Haley and people like her, may be classifying them in her own unfathomable mind as sub-humans, unworthy of civilized consideration. Haley was born into a Sikh family, her parents are from India, a country
dominated for about 150 years by the British Empire. Her ancestors living under British rule were not regarded on the same level of worth as the White occupiers. Her ancestors were, in essence, Palestinians, i.e. second class citizens, judged by their skin color, religion, by their being in the way of the superior race.
This, apparently, doesn't matter to her as she does her job in the U.N., lying on behalf of another empire.
Let the parade be held, why should we care that Kim Jong-un does the same thing? Shouldn't we celebrate our weapons? We don't have parades for writers and painters, nurses and teachers. It's important to recognize the hard military tool that helps America accomplish its deceptive practices, its righteous and justified killings of civilians using non-WMD means.
Vic Neptune
Thursday, April 12, 2018
In the News Media There Are Grownups Collecting Paychecks For Pretending To Be Stupid
What do I think about chemical weapons allegedly used by Assad's forces against innocent children? It sounds like Assad must be an idiot; it sounds like Secretary of Defense Mattis must've been lying last February when he admitted there was no evidence that Assad, in April 2017, used Sarin on Syrian civilians. The result of that chemical weapons use a year ago caused Donald Trump to fire fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase, enriching himself in the process since he owns Raytheon stock, Raytheon being the manufacturer of Tomahawks. Capitalism, deception, and murder combined.
Trump also received a boost in his popularity rating and mainstream news media people praised his missile strike. Fareed Zakaria, a supposedly even-handed and sober voice on geopolitical matters, called Trump "presidential." In this century that started with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney running America like a business concerned mostly with committing acts of profitable mayhem, being "presidential" means launching a missile strike for dubious reasons against a government that didn't do the thing it's accused of doing.
This should be familiar to anyone old enough to remember the run-up to the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein supposedly had weapons of mass destruction, except that he didn't. Prisoners were tortured to supply false information then presented to the United Nations by the lying Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Bush Administration made up the story and then moved backwards to make plausible-seeming facts fit, as MI-6, the British spy agency, discovered but didn't report to the world at the time, thank you very much you fucking English assholes.
Theresa May, Britain's current Prime Minister, is convinced, with no evidence, that a Russian national and his daughter, poisoned in Salisbury, England, with some kind of nerve agent, are the victims of Vladimir Putin. The alleged nerve agent, Novichok, is of Russian make, supposed to be ten times more lethal than VX, yet whoever tried to kill the Russian former spy apparently botched the job badly, for he and his daughter survived. They're going into protective custody, intelligence agencies keeping an eye on them to make sure nothing happens further. In my view, it seems most likely that the CIA or MI-6 or both staged this attempted assassination to put the blame on Putin at a time when anti-Russia hysteria grips the Western World.
The chlorine gas attack in a rebel-controlled enclave (rebels in Syria, many of them supported by the U.S., have chemical weapons) fits the same pattern of jumping to conclusions and pushing a very familiar narrative in order to bring about conflict for the sake of satisfying the interests of warmongers.
Most news media people are marching in step on both the poisoning in England and the chlorine gas attack allegedly committed by Assad. Donald Trump, just a week ago, announced his wish to withdraw American troops from Syria. Voila, a gas attack followed. A year ago, the same desire to disengage from Syria as ISIS was losing lots of ground was followed by a Sarin attack, with, like this time, no legitimate evidence presented that Assad did these crimes. What's going on? Are news media people idiots because they can't see through these lies? Such lies lead to warfare, to pain, to disruption and destruction, to evil men and women profiting from misery and death. Is Rachel Maddow unable to see through this? Tucker Carlson on Fox News (amazingly, yes) delivered a withering commentary on Syria, the latest chemical attack, America's relation to all this. His entire commentary was sound, intelligent, and the product of someone using his brain to analyze a by-now familiar situation; a familiar con job played out in Iraq twice, Afghanistan, Libya, used successfully against Noriega in Panama. Whenever the U.S. gets worked up over something in another country, it never acknowledges its own roles played in these messes. 9/11 would not have happened if the United States had stayed clear of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that Assad didn't gas his own people last Saturday. Maybe he is an evil nutcase who makes weird irrational decisions that run against his own chances of success in a long war. I feel confident though that I'm right in thinking that governments and news agencies lie all the fucking time and that the U.S. intelligence community has a strong grip on this country's affairs; that their key trait is deception, that they began infiltrating conventional U.S. news media decades ago; that truth is a weapon against these motherfuckers--that's why whistleblowers like Private Manning was locked up for seven years because he dared to prove that members of the U.S. military machine slaughter civilians and get off on it.
Go ahead and believe the latest news commentary about Assad's alleged gas attack, but also realize that if you do believe that you might need to get your head examined.
Vic Neptune
What do I think about chemical weapons allegedly used by Assad's forces against innocent children? It sounds like Assad must be an idiot; it sounds like Secretary of Defense Mattis must've been lying last February when he admitted there was no evidence that Assad, in April 2017, used Sarin on Syrian civilians. The result of that chemical weapons use a year ago caused Donald Trump to fire fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase, enriching himself in the process since he owns Raytheon stock, Raytheon being the manufacturer of Tomahawks. Capitalism, deception, and murder combined.
Trump also received a boost in his popularity rating and mainstream news media people praised his missile strike. Fareed Zakaria, a supposedly even-handed and sober voice on geopolitical matters, called Trump "presidential." In this century that started with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney running America like a business concerned mostly with committing acts of profitable mayhem, being "presidential" means launching a missile strike for dubious reasons against a government that didn't do the thing it's accused of doing.
This should be familiar to anyone old enough to remember the run-up to the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein supposedly had weapons of mass destruction, except that he didn't. Prisoners were tortured to supply false information then presented to the United Nations by the lying Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Bush Administration made up the story and then moved backwards to make plausible-seeming facts fit, as MI-6, the British spy agency, discovered but didn't report to the world at the time, thank you very much you fucking English assholes.
Theresa May, Britain's current Prime Minister, is convinced, with no evidence, that a Russian national and his daughter, poisoned in Salisbury, England, with some kind of nerve agent, are the victims of Vladimir Putin. The alleged nerve agent, Novichok, is of Russian make, supposed to be ten times more lethal than VX, yet whoever tried to kill the Russian former spy apparently botched the job badly, for he and his daughter survived. They're going into protective custody, intelligence agencies keeping an eye on them to make sure nothing happens further. In my view, it seems most likely that the CIA or MI-6 or both staged this attempted assassination to put the blame on Putin at a time when anti-Russia hysteria grips the Western World.
The chlorine gas attack in a rebel-controlled enclave (rebels in Syria, many of them supported by the U.S., have chemical weapons) fits the same pattern of jumping to conclusions and pushing a very familiar narrative in order to bring about conflict for the sake of satisfying the interests of warmongers.
Most news media people are marching in step on both the poisoning in England and the chlorine gas attack allegedly committed by Assad. Donald Trump, just a week ago, announced his wish to withdraw American troops from Syria. Voila, a gas attack followed. A year ago, the same desire to disengage from Syria as ISIS was losing lots of ground was followed by a Sarin attack, with, like this time, no legitimate evidence presented that Assad did these crimes. What's going on? Are news media people idiots because they can't see through these lies? Such lies lead to warfare, to pain, to disruption and destruction, to evil men and women profiting from misery and death. Is Rachel Maddow unable to see through this? Tucker Carlson on Fox News (amazingly, yes) delivered a withering commentary on Syria, the latest chemical attack, America's relation to all this. His entire commentary was sound, intelligent, and the product of someone using his brain to analyze a by-now familiar situation; a familiar con job played out in Iraq twice, Afghanistan, Libya, used successfully against Noriega in Panama. Whenever the U.S. gets worked up over something in another country, it never acknowledges its own roles played in these messes. 9/11 would not have happened if the United States had stayed clear of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that Assad didn't gas his own people last Saturday. Maybe he is an evil nutcase who makes weird irrational decisions that run against his own chances of success in a long war. I feel confident though that I'm right in thinking that governments and news agencies lie all the fucking time and that the U.S. intelligence community has a strong grip on this country's affairs; that their key trait is deception, that they began infiltrating conventional U.S. news media decades ago; that truth is a weapon against these motherfuckers--that's why whistleblowers like Private Manning was locked up for seven years because he dared to prove that members of the U.S. military machine slaughter civilians and get off on it.
Go ahead and believe the latest news commentary about Assad's alleged gas attack, but also realize that if you do believe that you might need to get your head examined.
Vic Neptune
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)