Unspinning Official Stories 2011
Hope for change
drowned out by pro-democracy propaganda
February 2011: On January 30, a real news item,
though deeply buried, actually barely appeared in Al Jazeera's
otherwise useless story of the hollow Tunisian revolt. It was
probably accidentally unintentionally revealed that there may
be people in the Middle East who aren't stupid, when a group of
"about a dozen secularists" were reported holding up banners reading:
No Islamism, no theocracy, no Sharia and no stupidity!
Of course in the Middle East (or in California,
either) they wouldn't have banners saying: Democracy is not
the point, either, dammit! Nor is how long a president stays in
office! The point is that a civilized state's function is to provide
a good life for every human, including social and economic equality
(and to stop the destruction of the eco-system! - excuse me,
I'm dreaming) Not to hold elections, spread religion and keep
the insiders rich!
Good luck! Loose talk about things like
social and economic equality is a threat to profit. Democracy,
which can always be manipulated and has never been a threat to
profit is a much safer talking point. And a week later, I hope
you noticed that the rich insiders (who occupy all governments
and the UN), all their office holding puppets, their
media, even their lumpen masses (who've been suckered all
their lives), and even their silly pseudo-progressive opposition
(who surrendered in 1989), spent the whole week singing the pro-democracy
hymn TOGETHER, thus smothering any faint hope of any movement
away from the Islamic philosophical jungle toward civilization
somewhere at last - if there ever was any. Now watch the lumpen
in the streets of Tunisia accept the new demagogue they're handed, kidding
themselves that THEY selected and elected the ass, while everything
goes back to normal.
If you clip every article in the papers
about foreign turmoil, or rumored turmoil, or turmoil the media
want you to think exists, about Suu Kyi, Tibet, Iran, Venezuela,
Cuba or any of the Arab countries involved in the current street show
epidemic, and then circle the word democracy every time
it appears, you'll see that the word is being beaten at you like
a drum. Then see if there's anything else to circle. There's not
much. You'd think democracy was the only issue. Why? If you're
one of the quislings who call themselves progressives and
think being pro-democracy allies you with "THE" people against
entrenched power, don't you ever wonder why the mouthpieces of
the rich never stop beating the pro-democracy drum for you - louder
than you could ever beat it for yourself?
The answer is that it's THEIR
drum. The US State Department invented it before you thought of
it. They were already exchanging puppet dictators like Marcos
and Duvalier for puppet democracies before Tiananmen Square, because
the Latin American revolutions calling for unthinkable social
and economic equality were gaining too much credibility. They
needed a better game - a game you and the masses would fall for.
So, because it sounds so nice - because it's so flattering to
the suckers, implying they're running things - THEY invented the
pro-democracy movement, and you fell for it. How does it work?
Great! Everybody's minds are occupied with democracy, which is
easy to manipulate and doesn't threaten profit flow, and everybody
forgets equality, which does, and the demagogues go on replacing
each other, one after another, black or white, it doesn't matter,
and nothing changes, and the profits keep flowing. It's sustainable.
Don't go into a denial mode and deliberately
blur what I just told you. However pretty the concept, in context,
democracy has to be and is a scam. Political leaders use the democracy
scam to keep people in line and voting for them. Media use the
scam to distract readers from the things they should be thinking
about. See Civil
State and Democracy.
All the usual lies by omission remain "sustainable" in 2011
Biggest story cover-up ever - world population now 7 billion
19 February 2011: A month and a half ago, on January
1 of this year, world population reached 7,074,193,720. This story
is late, because New Year's day I couldn't find the University
of North Carolina's World Population Clock. On 1 January 2010,
the year before, I'd predicted correctly that humanity's nose
count would pass 7 billion that year and that this would be covered
up. This happened, but you probably missed it since cover-ups
are, by their nature, covered up. The pending disaster wasn't
mentioned by growth loving media in January 2010, And a year later,
January 2011, an amazing lie was substituted - that the world
faces a critical population deficit. Really!
Way, way down in that stupid story, it
was claimed that the incredible human hulk would reach 7 billion
in July of 2012, as if THAT, had it been true, were a mere foot
note (!!!!!!). But it wasn't true. It was a misstatement based
on the growth loving US Census Bureau's slow count showing a January
1 world population of only (only is reverse hyperbole)
A whole year earlier, on January 1 2010, I'd found several population clocks, including
one (the most reliable), the UNC clock, showing 6,973,027,500
THEN. That clock had gone under "Java" cover by this year and,
because I'm not a nerd with "an updated Java IM" (I still don't
know why such things exist), I only learned today that the UNC
clock was still ticking and showed 7,074,193,720 as this year
tick-tocked in, indicating (by my pocket calculator) that the
7 billion mark had been passed about 9 months earlier - just about
a year AGO come this April Fool's Day.
Note, first, the overtly business and
growth loving US government has long coveted and nursed the myth
that overpopulation stopped being important in 1990, and the media
that belong to the same people the government belongs to have
promoted that myth energetically. Second, the US Census Bureau,
the primary mission of which is to assist and promote business,
is a department of the US government. Third, the appearance on
the first day of the second decade of the 21st century of the
news (had it appeared that day, which it didn't) that human population
had passed 7 billion DURING THE FIRST DECADE OF THE 21ST CENTURY,
would have been so dramatic that even some US type lumpen might
have gasped and said, "Wow! How can you be telling us that we're
in danger of depopulation when a world population that grew only
4.5 billion in the whole 20th century has grown another billion
in only one decade of the 21st century?"
Fourth, note two things, (1) that judging
population growth by percentage growth rate, which is what all
the usual sources do, obscures the fact that a lower percentage
of a higher number can be a higher number than a higher percentage
of a lower number - and so far always has been in reference to
monster population growth, AND (2) that world human population
has been so far beyond the catastrophe level for so long, that
to pretend that, since a billion is a smaller percentage of 6
billion than it was of 5 billion, growth may be about to stop
- is raving lunacy (or an insidiously convenient lie). Also note
that the highest population count is only the closest to high
enough, since, obviously, population (except by regions trying
to obtain head-count money) is always under-counted because nobody
really counts the poor.
And, excuse me, note this, too, that
just in case you think the government and its side-kick media
wouldn't try to fool you, they do it all the time. Read on.
During much of
2010, the same media I've been talking about, the media you shouldn't
trust, willing to scapegoat one British business to keep the smoke
screen billowing, labored almost daily to convince you that a
giant oil blow-out (which they constantly coyly called a spill)
was a one-time incident affecting only one coastline,
caused only by a mechanical mistake that only one business made,
which can be prevented in the future, so business can go on doing
what business does. Bull shit! The problem that surfaced in Louisiana
was NOT and isn't one company and one coastline and one mistake.
The problem was and still is more and more people everywhere needing
more and more resources and a greedy careless uncontrolled growth
and profit driven monster system of capitalism that keeps growing
and stays profitable only by more and more carelessly destroying
the eco-world to keep filling its market's ever-growing belly.
That's why there will be more disasters coming. See if you can
find that explained in the New York or LA Times.
For almost 10 years,
that same media has maintained an almost perfect silence about
why it was the WTC and the Pentagon which were attacked on September
11, 2001. Many, probably most Americans still believe the
Twin Towers were attacked because they were tall American buildings
and Americans are hated because they're good guys. This delusion
has fueled a near-religious revival of "homeland" defense in America
designed to keep Americans feeling together in their fortress
against the world, to discourage domestic rebellion, to make "homeland"
defense related industries (including the arms industry) even
richer, and to justify the growth of an often worse-than-third-world
security system in America more closely watching Americans. Clip
and send me the NY Times article explaining that the WTC is world
headquarters for the capitalist monster that sucks the world dry
so less than 20 per cent of humanity living in a handful of countries
can consume almost all the world's product; and that the Pentagon
is world headquarters for the military now based everywhere on
Earth that protects the insiders from the outsiders. If you understood
that, would you so willingly take seriously homeland defense evacuation
drills in the generic public buildings of places like Vista, California?
For 20 years, media
have been publicly spinning the fairy tale that, since (according
to them) all communist revolution vanished in 1990, the only cause
espoused by rebellious poor people anywhere and everywhere now
has to be Democracy - because they all want to be like
us. THEREFORE, a more than continent-wide movement all over Latin
America to follow the example of Cuba has been disappeared from
the news for years now, while Americans have been kidded that
Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are just nut-cases misleading poor
people who only yearn for democracy and freedom and that Cubans
are starving to death (see Misconceptions
about Cuba). And for weeks, now, hoping they can get it to
spread to Cuba, US media have been trying to turn a chaotic, directionless
epidemic of street scenes in the Middle East, some not even related
to the others, some mindless copycat circuses, all badly warped
by religious band-wagon jumpers, some even hopelessly attended
(maybe even started and then lost) by never mentioned communist
groups, into a simplistic protest against long-time leaders (like
Fidel, of course) and a replay of the 1989 CIA inspired pro-democracy
movement in China.
For the last three
years, that same media have deliberately confused you every single
day for the benefit of relevant companies owned by THEIR owners,
that a health insurance industry subsidy is, somehow, health CARE.
Pick up any newspaper. They call Obama's health insurance industry
subsidization plan a health care plan in headlines and
leads and presidential quotes several times a day every single
day. It's not. It's a way of forcing you to buy insurance and
making the insurance and pharmaceutical companies richer. And
in keeping with the spirit of that glorious campaign, (don't forget)
they go on defying logic and even a lot of doctors by keeping
you convinced that you must never commit suicide and cease being
a profitable customer of the "health" industry.
all your life, that same supposedly objective media have encouraged
you to believe in a god who believes in capitalism and
(in spite of being a long term dictator himself) democracy, assuring
you that you care that each of your presidents is a Christian,
and you're currently being conned that the only thing wrong with
dumb, barbaric (but religious) Republicans, who only want their
turn, although what they really want is to repeal every step toward
civilization taken in the last 150 years and to restore medieval
feudalism and superstition and 20th century fascism, is that they
say some funny things sometimes.
Do you remember what they feed mushrooms?
Your mass media, from which many of you never take your eyes and
ears, think you are mushrooms. And maybe they're right.
atrocity yet, unprovoked attack on Libya
21 March 2011: I
have nothing I know of against Muammar Al Qathafi (spelling by
Tripoli Post). I'm certain that not even one American in 20 can
coherently articulate even a wrong reason for having a grudge
against Qathafi. How long Qathafi has been in office is not a
sensible reason. That some internal Libyan dissidents are copy-catting
"face-book revolutions" in neighboring countries isn't a sensible
reason, either. And certainly the government's crack-down on those
self-appointed heroes isn't a reason - to Americans. So why is
Washington invading Libya? It's not on my behalf, for sure, nor
is it, in any demonstrable sense, to protect America or even America's
mysterious "national security."
Before the Iraqi invasion, the embedded
media spent a lot of time trying to convince us there was a reason
for that barbaric adventure, printing days and days of reportedly
"compelling" blather by Colin Powell, who pointed at views of
rooftops and told us WMD's were being made or stored under those
roofs. And after that, when it became clear Powell was lying and
the media were aiding and abetting his lies, more than a few Americans
realized, maybe at a sub-intellectual level, that the supposed
"preemptive" attack was both unethical and illegal and dishonestly
foisted on the American public. When the undeclared drone war
on parts of Pakistan began, without a word of dismay from US media
or their stupid readers, there was at least the excuse that the
Taliban we shouldn't have been fighting were jumping back and
forth across the border.
But this time the government and the
embedded media, acting in concert as usual, have gone too far.
The sudden attack on Libya, without any sensible explanation from
Washington, is totally unprovoked. And the media are carefully
concealing the only real probable motive for it - that Libya may
be guilty of the supposed (US right-wing designated) crime of
being a some-what communist country providing most of its people
with economic and social equality and the highest standard of
living in Africa (quite a few sources on the internet say that).
Almost all governments are made up of
the wrong people, I have no doubt that in Egypt, for example,
there is a lot of ugly poverty and unacceptable brutality the
government has made no effort to resolve, and it would have made
sense if the face-bookers in Egypt had revolted on those grounds.
I doubt that they did, though. There is no evidence they have
any agenda at all.
But in Libya, it makes less sense. The
only reason for the so-called Arab "Spring" epidemic to have reached Libya that
I can think of is that the CIA, pursuing their eternal mission
(never never never questioned by them or the media or most Americans),
i.e. to "stop communism," instigated it on orders from Washington,
while NATO got ready for an immediate attack on whatever day they
decided was best.
I have no reason I know of to respect the Middle-East
Arab-Spring face-book revolutionaries, but it would be perfectly respectable if
Americans flooded the capitol mall in DC and demanded the immediate
resignation of THEIR government, a ban on either Republicans or
Democrats ever again running for or holding public office, and
a new Constitution defining the American civil state's purpose
as to provide its own people, each and every one of them, a good
life, including economic and social equality, freedom from being
ripped off by oil companies, banks and insurance companies (and
other apparently officially blessed usurers), and freedom from
foreign wars and from any war except to defend actual US soil
But that's not going to happen because
of the amazing passivity of the hopelessly lumpen American electorate.
So what's to stop Obama now, a man who ran for office claiming
he'd end his predecessor's two wars and who now has FOUR wars
going on (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Libya), from invading
North Korea or Iran or Syria and then Venezuela and then Cuba? Not the stupid American
voters, that's for sure, and certainly not the complicit American
What's happening in Libya is a crime,
and it seems to be the American way of the future, or at least
the Obama/Clinton way of today. The new president of Brazil should
have distinguished herself when she met Obama yesterday by telling
him emphatically that an invasion of Cuba would be regarded as
an invasion of Brazil and all of Latin America. Unless the media
decided not to report it, which is possible, she didn't, though.
news elements unspoken by embedded media
On Japan and Libya
24 March 2011: There are things people should
be thinking of that the rich insiders who run the world don't
want them thinking of, because, regardless of ecological and social
consequences, they intend to protect the stability of their profit
flow from such thoughts. So the media they own, the people's own
relentless and apparently irresistible minders, don't talk about
such ideas except to scornfully dismiss them.
Consider what's omitted from this
month's two biggest stories, the stories of the tragedy in Japan
and of Washington's criminally unprovoked attack on Libya.
Their readers aren't supposed to remember,
so the media WILL NOT mention that JAPAN
IS UNMENTIONABLY OVERPOPULATED
, a topic scorned for
the last 20 years while readers have been taught to believe overpopulation
doesn't exist anymore. But Japan, an ant-heap of people on a scatter
of small islands, is 3 or 4 times as densely packed as California,
which is now 6 or 7 times more overstuffed than it was in 1950,
when the already visibly exploding cancer of its "development"
provoked ME to start using my new typewriter (a grammar school
graduation gift) to attack the already unforgivable blindness
of media and political leaders to - I'm going to say it - overpopulation.
Excess population everywhere, including
in Japan and California, is almost always partly housed in substandard
buildings on unstable ground and in low-lying areas vulnerable
to flooding, and bulging populations these days CAN'T be provided
with enough goods and services, including energy, except through
the use of dangerous technology. And that's an important lesson
people could learn from the Japanese tragedy, if they were allowed
Just think! If world population, including
Japanese and California population, could be reduced as much as
it should be, down to certainly no more than 1/50 of what it is
now (i.e. back to about half of what it was when POPULATION PRESSURE
pushed Columbus west), it would be like discovering 49 new virgin
planets, without the expensive and destructive help of NASA.
That would take a long time, of course
(probably too long), but that's not the media's concern. Their
problem is that it couldn't be done without killing and burying
capitalism, which can't live its ugly lifestyle without constant
ugly GROWTH. But if an ecologically sane world population of,
say, 125 million could be someday attained and permanently stabilized,
the appropriate departments of a civilized, well organized, secular,
communist (and therefore benign) one-world state could relatively
easily make sure that everyone lived in solid homes on high and
solid ground. Resources would be plentiful, and it would take
no more than just the right carefully moderate touch of high tech
to make everyone's life as near perfect as it needs to be (though
probably without things like private jets and Tokyo's artificial
For those people who shouldn't be
reading this website, if, about 50 words ago, you followed your
media training and dutifully groaned, "Oh no-o-o! Not communism!"
I'm not at all sorry to tell you, since you need to be told (and
who else will do it?) that a Civilized
has to be communist, because, besides being by nature
benign and well organized, communism doesn't depend on growth.
See the correct definition of Communism
on this website so you'll have a faint chance of understanding
what I'm talking about.
the link and transition to my other subject, the unprovoked US
attack on Libya.
To avoid really explaining it, the
embedded cheer leading media, the LA Times, the NY Times, the
Al Jazeera Times, keep up a rhythmic yell of "pro-democracy, pro-democracy,
pro-democracy, rah, rah, rah!" and "41 years in office, 41 years
in office, 41 years in office, bah, bah, bah!" But that's just
noise to cloud people's minds. In fact, the US invasion of Libya
was unprovoked - or the provocation was one it was considered
better not to mention.
So what was the disgusting reason
for the attack? Well the insider media don't care if even Americans
think it's about oil. Americans are used to greed and suspecting
the oil motive never interferes with their willingness to accept
US foreign policy atrocities. The insider media love the suckers
thinking it's to help the heroic underdogs in Libya, even though
that makes no sense at all, but the lumpen always swallow that
kind of mushroom food. Hey! Libya always had oil, and there's
always oppression of protesters everywhere, which clearly never
upsets Washington, and there's no reason to consider the Libyan
rebels, of whom we've never been provided a coherent description,
especially heroic or supportable.
So, come on and think. Unlike Tunisia,
Egypt, Yemen, and Bahrain and their leaders, the US has been down
on Libya and has been demonizing Muammar Qathafi forever (doesn't
everyone know that?), because Libya is supposed to be somewhat,
quasi-communist or maybe socialist (which it may not be, I don't
know), and in any case friendly with communist countries and,
like them, unacceptably defiant toward the US. Add that the CIA's
eternal mission, which they never never never question (and neither
do their fellow Americans) is to "stop communism" or anything
like it and, if they get away with stirring up protests there
and then attacking Libya, because the lumpen US public doesn't
even react, then another precedent will have been set, and the
normally anti-communist, power-loving president and his equally
awful secretary of state can then attack North Korea, which they've
been dying to do ever since they entered office, and after that,
Venezuela, and then maybe even Cuba. And what will the US electorate
do about that? Hell! Thrilled by their fascist triumphs, they'll
be waving their bloody flag like mad.
I think, for excellent
and very near conclusive reasons, that the
secret truth the media are hiding is that Libya was first set
up (by the CIA) and then attacked because it is supposedly a leftist
(slightly communist, for sure anti-US) state, and the epidemic
of face-book revolutions in the Arab world provided an opportunity
And why can't they admit that? After all, the lumpen would probably
go for it. But the current stupid lumpen belief that communism
(like overpopulation) ended 20 years ago is critical to preventing
their noticing the never reported rise of communist revolution
again all over South America, a realization which might even prompt
them to wonder why it's happening and what's wrong with it - a
thought that must never be allowed to enter their heads, if the
ugly system of capitalism is to remain safe and stable. Better
to claim Libya was attacked because it's not democratic and Qathafi
has been in office for a long time, a pair of stupid reasons (non-reasons)
Americans have been well brain-washed to take seriously, which,
if they work in Libya's case, can be used again to justify an
unprovoked attack on Cuba. You see?
Last night, I watched a 2005 movie
("Good Night, and Good Luck") that won 6 academy awards for pushing
over a half-century old push-over paper tiger for the umpteenth
harmless time - the McCarthy hearings. Like the 1001 movies demonizing
the long dead Hitler and his black uniformed Nazis, this movie
was no threat to American philosophical innocence. It did not
threaten profits. It had no disturbing substance. It was only
about people UNJUSTLY accused of being communists, with a newsman
hero who assured the audience that he was NOT a communist. The
outcry way back in 1953 that the hearings were a "witch hunt"
was more dangerously thought provoking than that. Over 50 years
later, Americans could be safely and correctly assumed to have
learned nothing and to salivate in the same old 1953 way. When
brain washing works that well, why should the media ever stop
Of course, I wondered if the director
(who was definitely NOT Woody Allen) couldn't have found one unknown
hero, maybe a blue-collar worker, who told McCarthy, "Hey! There's
no point in telling you I'm not a joiner, since facts don't interest
you. My answer to your question is that of course I AM a communist,
and as soon as I leave this room, I'm going to find a Communist
Party office and join, because the important question isn't -
am I a communist. The important question is - why shouldn't I
be? What's wrong with advocating social and economic equality?
I don't know if it's true, but a bunch
of sources, including conservative sources like Time Magazine
and the CIA Fact Book, indicate that Qathafi has provided Libyans
with the highest standard of living in Africa, including good
modern housing for everyone, except the continually entering immigrants.
Of course, that suggests that there was no reason for an uprising
in Libya, but just that the Libyans were given housing and free
health care and education instead of being forced to work for
it in a US owned oil field would certainly explain American antagonism
(and why I think the CIA may have stirred up the revolt). And
it also suggests what the lumpen masses must never be allowed
to suspect - that whatever system the Lybyans have may be what
the Egyptians and Tunisians and Yemenese and the people of East
LA need, too.
Obama, and the CIA conquer Libya,
how will the rebels fit into the picture?
April 2011: The trouble with Obama's plea
that he sent US shooting jets and bombers into Libya to stop Qathafi
from "killing his people" is that the US was already meddling
in Libya before his supposed motive materialized, and it was very
probably US meddling and encouragement that kept the protest movement
going and escalating until it drew fire.
I told you weeks ago that I thought the
CIA started or helped start the protests in Libya. I guessed that,
because I knew Libya was supposedly a quasi-socialist country
with a high standard of living and little reason for revolt compared
to Egypt, and because I noticed that almost all the Libyan "news"
was based on phone calls from reporters somewhere else TO dissidents
in Libya. I wondered where they got the phone numbers, and I guessed
the CIA had probably supplied them.
An obscure news item, that quickly came
and went a few days ago, both verifying my guess and exposing
Obama's lie, said the CIA had been sent to Libya to "help" as
soon as the protest there surfaced - but that was a lie, too.
How do I know? Because the CIA fact book
says the CIA has had a long standing presence in Libya, because
I know (and you should know) that the CIA is always inside leftist
countries keeping the dissidents stirred up and helping them commit
sabotage, while always also infiltrating ALL organizations they
think they might be able to use.
It's been happening forever. All I had
to do was open Philip Agee's long ago published (1975) "CIA Diary,"
which is jam packed with examples, to a random page to find an
account of CIA "exhilaration" in 1964 over their successful meddling
...two and a half years of (CIA)
operations to prevent Brazil's slide to the left under (President
Jose) Goulart have suddenly bloomed. Our campaign against him
took much the same line as the ones against communist infiltration
in the Velasco and Arosemena governments of two and three years
ago in Ecuador. According to Holman, the Rio (CIA) station and
its larger bases were financing the mass urban demonstrations
against the Goulart government, proving the themes of God, country,
family and liberty to be effective as ever. Goulart's fall is
without doubt largely due to the careful planning and consistent
(CIA) propaganda campaigns dating at least back to the 1962 election
I don't suppose you remember when a series
of US presidents and the CIA were, without a qualm, helping Latin
American governments kill their own people wholesale - to "stop
communism" at any cost.
In the 80's, the mantra of "God, country,
family and liberty" was replaced by the "pro-democracy movement,"
to sucker naive pseudo-progressives (which worked), and an artificial
anguish was trumped up about how long some demonized presidents
or "regimes" stayed in "power" to prepare Americans for whatever
strategy might be gotten up against Cuba, "the only country in
the western hemisphere still not free." Though Cuba went on surviving
and inspiring the thinking poor everywhere, this strategy got
the CIA, VOA, and the rest of their undercover apparatus (whatever
it was) enough turnovers in power in Eastern Europe, anyway, to
characterize what happened as the end of communism, even though
several communist states remained and they needed a lot of embedded
media help to keep it quiet that new ones were rising.
So, when the epidemic of protests recently
began in the Middle East (probably with VOA and CIA help), embedded
media quickly bestowed the mantras of pro-democracy and term limits
on every one of them, covering up the more likely issues of poverty
and religious zealotry and the fact that most of the face-book
revolutionaries had no agenda of their own at all, thus preparing
you for the CIA (and Obama/Clinton) plan to take advantage of
the situation to stir up look-alike uprisings in leftist Libya
and Syria that could be used as an excuse for the ouster of Qathafi,
anyway, and then maybe Syrian President Assad.
And then, if Americans remain glassy-eyed,
which they mostly have so far, maybe North Korea can be attacked
(maybe not, since it has few resources to steal and may have the
bomb), and then Venezuela (which has oil), and maybe, finally,
Cuba (which now has oil, too).
Please note that, in this series of articles,
there's not a word of criticism or support for Muammar Qathafi
as a man or as a president. What Libya is charged with (even if
the charges are valid, which you should make sure YOU know before
reacting) is common, redundant, not specifically threatening to
the world or to me, and not the kind of thing that should be dealt
with separately or through military force. WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
are the US government and their NATO allies, the insidious propaganda
of all embedded western media, and the danger THEIR regressive
agenda poses for the eco-system and for the few clearly progressive
(mostly Latin American) countries in this barbaric and chaotic
us daily NATO's might makes it right
June 2011: It's par for the course that, in spite
of never headlining the frustration of possibly millions of people
who, at least a little like me, are telling each other daily that
THEY are fed up with NATO's arrogant unprovoked attack on Libya
and all the hints that NATO may decide any day now, just as independently
and arrogantly and without provocation, to attack Syria, the Times'
front page today (I'd say stupidly) shouts at us that "Gates Faults
NATO Allies' Resolve."
The story pretends to be news, though
we've been constantly told for days, and days, weeks even, how
frustrated the big three rogue heads of state, Obama, Sarkozy
and Cameron, are that, never mind most of the world including
most Americans, Frenchmen, and Brits, there are members of NATO
(or rather NATO heads of state) not willing to participate in
their unjustifiable adventure. Actually, the story cites Gates
that "less than half (my emphasis) the 28 members of NATO
(over 20 of which I doubt you can name) are engaged in the Libyan
conflict, and that less than a third are conducting air
strikes," because, he says with contempt, they "don't want to
share the risks and the costs," and he goes on to "warn" us, says
the Times, of the "blunt reality" that "Congress and the American
public have dwindling appetite and patience" with those slackers.
WHAT SHIT! Mr. editor, you probably are
successfully kidding most of your lumpen readers, but the "less
than half" mentioned above are no more than about six heads of
state, and the "less than a third" are Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron
and, maybe, to some slight indefinable extent, the disreputable
Italian, Berlusconi (without any significant support from the
Italian people). Other heads of state rolling over and letting
air bases be used to launch the rogue three's planes or giving
lip service approval from their safely distant pulpits can't seriously
be counted. And, as for the "American public," even the lumpen
majority know they have no say about NATO's activities. That is,
they know it, they accept it stupidly. and they DON'T THINK ABOUT
IT (your bulletins to them about what they supposedly think notwithstanding).
If they DID think about it without your help, like their countrymen
who do think, they'd quickly lose their "appetite and patience"
for the UNELECTED rogue acronym's use of their US tax dollars
to usurp the UN and run the world with bombing planes.
To anybody with no vested interest, the
plainest truth about Libya is that the bloodshed and destruction
would have ended long ago if NATO hadn't butted in; yet NOBODY,
including any honest representative of the rogue-state trio, has
ever coherently explained why they ARE in it; the UN is just looking
on stupidly and speechlessly; and the apparently drunken media
are cheering for no apparent reason for the totally undefined
Just a few days ago, a US general was
carelessly quoted as admitting "we" (not me, by the way) don't
really know who "we" are supporting. Hey! Why the hell not? US
tax dollars are also paying for the CIA's unmonitored activities
inside Libya where they've been for years. What good is the supposed
"intelligence" agency if they don't know who the rebels that the
Times calls "the guys" are? And what good is the Times, if they
can't find out what the CIA knows? Why, when NATO introduced some
of the rebels on the floor of the UN, did they make sure the "guys"
didn't say anything? Why is there information all over the internet
indicating the "guys" are muslim extremists, even including Al
Qaida and Taliban delegates, who, once "we" have given them Libya
(if that's in the rogue big three's secret plans at all), may
turn out to be the Mujahideen all over again?
I don't think the Times has ever acknowledged
that there are those, undoubtedly smarter than Gates, who wonder
why NATO is going after Qathafi. But it's not true that nobody
is wondering that. I am, for one. In spite of implications by
the Times, it's NOT obvious that any leader in office for 4l years
should be overthrown, or that some vague desire for democracy
justifies any rebellion sanctified by NATO against any leader
demonized by NATO, or that rebels killed in a rebellion they (with
CIA help I'm sure) started deserve protection from a mysteriously
demonized government that they're trying for unknown reasons (mysteriously
sanctioned by NATO) to overthrow.
I have no delusions that the Times will
suddenly start doing what they claim they do, but they should
be trying, for once, to honestly explain to their glassy-eyed
readers what the hell NATO is and why the hell it has so much
power and so many arms at its disposal.
IN A SANE WORLD, there WOULD BE a
United Nations organization, of course. And in that imaginary
sane world, the purpose of the UN would of course initially
be to ensure peaceful co-existence between the nearly 200
now separately barbaric nations all incoherently babbling
OVER 200 languages at each other. At the same time, though,
if the world were sane and the UN were a sanely formed organization,
it's most important purpose would be to CIVILIZE all those
barbaric nations and press and motivate them separately and
together to start making life not just better but very good,
certainly CIVILIZED, comfortable, peaceful, dignified, and
(for the sake of that dignity) at least economically and socially
equal for every single human. In fact, if it were sane, it's
purpose would be to slowly"unite" all those "nations" (get
it?) into a one-language actually cooperative one-world, at
least socialist (but preferably communist), at least secular
(but preferably atheist) state, with an eventual target population
of way under 250 million people all living in harmony with
That would be sane.
But in the clearly insane real world,
where, in spite of frequent vague, random, and cynically phony
allusions to some of the concepts above, to con the suckers of
course, the purpose of the embedded media is to serve the interests
of the rich insiders who own them, and the UN was formed mainly
to facilitate business, so instead of a useful world organization
helping the entire human race achieve a civilized world, we have
a deliberately emasculated UN manipulated and bullied by several
other more exclusively aligned international powers, each and
all militarily and/or financially more powerful than the UN, including
NATO, the G8, the WTO, and the World Bank, all working in the
interest of a few rich nations (or rather of the insider owners
of those few rich nations and of their stooges in other countries)
to dominate, subjugate, sabotage, and exploit the rest of humanity,
while the one richest nation brazenly deploys its own military
and secret agents everywhere to promote an ongoing and permanently
profitable state of global war and to force its own self-serving
and very unequal economic dictatorship on everyone else.
Of course you will sneer (and so will
I, because we SHOULD sneer) that none of this is apparently crazy
for the rich insiders who own and run the world, but, in fact,
there are very real ecological factors that MAKE it both stupid
AND insane EVEN for those rats, and there are multiple factors
that make the vast lumpen majority both stupid and insane to put
up with all the crap - from their rogue misleaders AND from the
Not only do
Libyan rebels enjoy air support from NATO,
it appears they are rebels on a salary - paid by US!
20 June 2011: Could be! In fact, I think so. I
told you 3 months ago (21 and 23 March) that, under cover of a
spate of middle-eastern "face-book revolutions" (yeee gods!),
the CIA had almost certainly stirred up the revolt in Libya, but
it didn't occur to me that the forces they created might be paid
mercenaries. Now Al Jazeera reports that the EU is looking for
funds to keep paying the rebels' expenses and "salaries."
Yes it does. It says exactly that. And
since this follows a move in the US Congress to cut Obama's war
funds, it makes sense that, possibly unable to go on guaranteeing
the rebels a US salary to stage a convenient war for American
oil and arms companies, Obama has asked his European cohorts to pick up
the tab. It's also possible that the word rebels is an
example of language abuse.
related language abuses: An incredible sidebar to this
story, underscoring the brutal disregard for the English language
by US conservative types, is that Republican Congressmen who love
the ongoing wars are calling their friends who want to cut the
funds "isolationists!" I didn't make that up, either. So the new
American right-wing definition of an isolationist must be a
politician who wants his country to keeps its bombs to itself.
Another baffling example is the US claim
that the home of a Libyan general that they just bombed, killing
several civilians, was a "legitimate military target." A legitimate
military target in a humanitarian action, don't forget, undertaken
only to protect innocent civilians. Besides being an example of
language abuse, this is an admission of guilt, since the UN did
not authorize NATO to bomb military targets, but only to protect
civilians from stray bullets. And it's also a (probably justified)
insult to the intelligence of media readers, since the fact that
it is reported with a straight face by embedded media who have
been jumping up and down like pom pom girls cheering for the undefined
rebels is a revelation that the US and NATO military and the embedded
media know damn well they are involved together, pom pom girls
and heroes, not in a humanitarian action but in a full scale football
game. Oops! I must mean war, huh?
A good example of an abuse of mathematics
is the ongoing pretense that the supposedly gentle new US president
is only involved in two wars (2), when, obviously, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Pakistan, and Libya add up to four wars (4). Right?
news of 'the economy' comes by surprise,
doesn't that mean nobody knows how it works?
10 July 2011: Yesterday's (July 9) main headline groaned,
"Dismal job figures jolt confidence." What
does that mean besides what it says? It means that nobody's in
control. The new numbers are JOLTING, because they are a surprise,
because those supposedly in charge of the state, including things
like employment and production, aren't keeping track of anything
but cash flow, and all they do about that even is perform some
traditional money related voodoo ceremony (which doesn't interfere
with the fucking freedom of the rich insiders) on the altar of
the cash-flow god, hoping he'll be appeased.
This is how capitalism works - or rather
doesn't work - or rather just happens. What happens happens, as
if some unpredictable force of nature (private greed freedom)
were in charge, and not even the government finds out anything
has happened at all, until later, when a private survey group
or a curious professor takes a survey - or does an analysis -
exactly like biologists studying the behavior of fruit flies.
And the misleaders of America (the stooges of the rich) at least
publicly assume and expect you to assume that that's the way it
should be - that there's nothing to do but accommodate whatever
happens. Do you really believe that?
Here's what COULD BE DONE about
employment in a sane world. First, NATIONALIZE EVERYTHING.
Then make a list of all goods and services everyone NEEDS
to live an equally good life. Leave out war, insurance,
pure money tending services, over-tech toys and other obviously
unnecessary shit. Then figure out the work and working hours
required to produce the needed goods and services. Distribute
that work to all able-bodied working-age men and women.
Fix the prices of all goods and services forever. Pay all
adult consumers the same salary, i.e. enough to buy the
goods and services they need. Then, though nobody would
have anything close to a 40-hour work week, everybody would
this will not work in an insane world full of 7 billion people
(which media owned by the rich insiders tell you MUST keep growing
so the MARKET will keep growing for whatever the rich insiders
sell). It would work perfectly, though, in a sane world the same
size as Earth with a human population of, say, 125 million, and
a benign, actually intelligently organized and managed system.
See "In a sane world" (a boxed
red-letter passage like the one above) in the article dated June
Do I know what I'm suggesting? Of course
I do. There are a number of essays on this site explaining things
like this. You should read them all.
hell is the US?
10 July 2011: Besides wondering who the hell NATO is,
are you prompted each day to wonder, like me, who the US is? The
headline says, "U.S. is open to leaving a force in Iraq,"
and adds in the subhead, "if Baghdad wants them." One thing
you know for sure is that the "U.S." mentioned in this headline
isn't you and me. Our grammar school teachers lied to us when they
told us that, in a democracy, the country IS the people. You HAVE
figured that out by now, right? The noun US in this headline
doesn't even mean Washington. It means the White House and the rich
insiders who own the White House, the media, and all of Congress
they need to own. And the noun Baghdad is a horse of the
same color. And neither the White House nor their Iraqi puppets
are merely "open to" ongoing war. It's already in the script. THEIR
script. Not your or my script.
Lumpen are lumpen everywhere and usually
believe what they're told they believe about most things. But, eight
years after the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, I bet a lot more Americans
AND Iraqis than just the coffee-house intellectuals would be glad
to be counted out of those misleading supposedly collective nouns.
All told, those two grandiose nouns (NATO and the US) probably
refer to no more than a few dozen people. So how do they get away
with that? If you aren't asking, maybe you should start asking.
Our grammar school teachers did have a point. Didn't they?
lie goes on about Libya
10 July 2011:
The headline actually says "NATO Feels Libya Mission Fatigue,"
but that certainly doesn't mean they're tired of killing people.
The truth, which is much further than that from the headline, is
that the rogue acronym, NATO ("western allies" the hysterically
pro-NATO newspaper calls them, trying to echo WWII rah-rah jargon),
is getting more and more heat from the African Union, Russia, China,
most of the other NATO members and, finally, even from US, UK, and
French citizens about their apparently mindless behavior in Libya
Deep in the story, the deeply embedded
reporter admits that "officials and outside observers also acknowledge
that pressure is growing for the coalition to deliver a knockout
blow." Pressure from whom? You? Not me. Well, of course the
same paper has already instructed its readers about a tiny sector
- a few hundred people in a big big world, who hate Qathafi for
reasons as vague as Obama's - but odds are that a million times
that many Earthlings only wish NATO would back off and shut up.
I don't think I'm exaggerating.
to rule the world with bombing airplanes
2 September 2011: Furthermore, nobody
elected Barack Obama "leader of the free world." I'm pretty sure
that most humans who DIDN'T vote for any such "world leader" think
they "believe in" democracy, too. Personally, I never "believe
IN" anything, because it's bad grammar, and I'm neither grammatically
nor ungrammatically hot for democracy, anyway.
But if you are, then when you read my obviously
true assertions that "nobody elected NATO to rule the world with
bombing airplanes" and "nobody elected Barack Obama leader of
the free world," you should have responded, "Know what? That's
true." Did you? And have you e-mailed a protest against this short-circuiting
of democracy to everyone you can think of?
NATO isn't just arrogantly assuming rights
they don't have. They're killing people, destroying buildings,
crippling entire economies, setting a dangerous precedent for
a world-wide blitzkrieg, and doing these things with no concern
for public reaction or nonreaction. And they're doing this at
your expense, using arms you paid for to defend your country,
risking or throwing away the lives of your children and neighbors,
and ruining your credibility and reputation in the world.
UNSPINNING OFFICIAL STORIES 2010
BACK TO THE FRONT PAGE
TO GO ON TO 2012 OR ANY YEAR UP TO THE PRESENT - PICK A YEAR:
2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015; 2016