Destroying Libya to ‘save it’

“If separation is not possible, Israel will increasingly run the risk of becoming a binational, Arab-Jewish state. That would compromise the Zionist mission and its Jewish-democratic ethos, and tear at the fabric that has bound America and Israel together.”

The White House’s policy advisor and Israeli lobby official Dennis Ross claimed that “up to 100,000 people could be massacred, and everyone would blame us for it.”
Ross has produced no proof of a massacre—and Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen both confirmed, “We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.”
Russian military has been monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, and they say that the claimed “slaughter” is imaginary. CIA √

Libyans are already reeling from nine years of conflict in which families have been bombed out of their homes, health care facilities have been destroyed, infrastructure has crumbled, and the economy has collapsed, Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said at the end of a visit to the country this week.

“In Benghazi and Tripoli, I saw first-hand how civilians are suffering because of the catastrophic consequences of this conflict,” said Maurer. “

Neighbourhoods on the former front lines in Tripoli are badly scarred and families have little if anything to return to.

People are also at risk of being killed or injured by dangerous unexploded munitions. At the same time, infrastructure all over the country is falling apart.

People have little electricity, drinking water, sanitation, or medical care in the middle of a growing pandemic.”

In Benghazi, Maurer met with Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA), followed by a meeting in Tripoli with Fayez Al-Sarraj, head of the Presidential Council and Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord (GNA) of Libya.

In Benghazi, he also met leadership of the Libyan Red Crescent, which has been playing a role in stopping the spread of COVID-19.

The conflict has battered Libya’s health system. Hospitals and clinics have been damaged in the fighting, while others were forced to shut their doors because they were close to the frontlines.

Other facilities are decaying from underinvestment.

The Anger Campaign Against China

Nothing was permitted that might prevent the successful recruitment of American soldiers for a war that only the Jews wanted.

Larry Romanoff • August 6, 2020

Introduction

It shouldn’t be a secret, though it still seems to be, that neither of the two World Wars were started (or desired) by Germany, but were the creation of a group of European Zionist Jews with the stated intent of the total destruction of Germany.

However, that thesis is not the purpose of this essay and I will not expand on it here, but the content should prove to the average reader that World War I certainly fits this description.

The main purpose of this essay is to demonstrate not only that ‘history repeats itself’ but that the history being repeated today is a mass grooming of the Western world’s people (but most especially Americans) in preparation for World War III – which I believe is now imminent.

In 1940, these European Zionist and media owners (hiding behind the stage-set of the UK government) initiated what they called an “anger campaign” with the stated cause of “instilling personal hatred against the German people and Germany”, the related parties pleased that the original 6% of the British population that ‘hated Germany’ increased to over 50% by the end of the campaign, and it didn’t stop there.

The radio waves were full of descriptions of the “cruelty and blackness of the German soul”.

There were articles in the British newspapers advocating the “systematic extermination of the entire German nation” to be carried out after the war ended.

Thus, after victory over Germany, every person of German extraction was to be executed and the nation of Germany itself to disappear forever.

Those executions were actually begun – Eisenhower’s Death Camps, followed by the Morgenthau Plan, both of which eventually failed.

The methods of “instilling personal hatred” of Germany was perhaps too successful.

The anti-German hysteria became so severe that King George V had to change his German name of ‘Saxe-Coburg’ to ‘Windsor’, and relinquish all his German titles.

It wasn’t only the US and UK where this hatred of Germans was being propagated.

In countries all around the world, the media spread the same message of hatred against Germany and the Germans.

Teams of ‘specialists’ were following the same script in most other nations, all instilling massive hatred for the Germans who were in every nation vehemently portrayed as evil incarnate, this nature stemming merely from the fact of their being of German origin.

In Brazil, anti-German demonstrations and riots consumed the country, with German businesses being destroyed and Germans being assaulted and killed.

In almost every nation, the German-language press and use of the German language completely disappeared during the war from fear of reprisal, as did all German schools and most businesses.

None re-opened. Brazil initially was determined to remain neutral, but a newly-created university student union was co-opted and used with such great effectiveness that within a year Brazil declared war on Germany.[9]

In Brazil, the US, Canada and Australia, many names of towns, streets, foods, were changed to eliminate their German origin.

Throughout the world, as in the US, false wartime propaganda was used during both World Wars to incite entire populations into an irrational hatred of everything German, even to the extent of powerful media recommendations that the entire German race be exterminated – in all nations.

With all of this and much more, America was a hotbed of hatred for the entire German population.

After the Second World War, Germany was widely accused of using propaganda against the Jews, while our history books have airbrushed out the massive and unspeakably evil storm of worldwide hate propaganda against Germans by the Jews prior to and during both World Wars. Details below.

The Origins of Mass Manipulation of the Public Mind

Many years ago, the Jewish-American political commentator Walter Lippmann realised that political ideology could be completely fabricated, using the media to control both presentation and conceptualisation, not only to create deeply-ingrained false beliefs in a population, but also to entirely erase undesirable political ideas from the public mind.

This was the beginning of not only the American hysteria for freedom, democracy and patriotism, but of all manufactured political opinion, a process that has been operative ever since.

Lippmann created these theories of mass persuasion of the public, using totally fabricated “facts” deeply insinuated into the minds of a gullible public, but there is much more to this story.

An Austrian Jew named Edward Louis Bernays who was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was one of Lippmann’s most precocious students and it was he who put Lippmann’s theories into practice.

Bernays is widely known in America as the father of Public Relations, but he would be much more accurately described as the father of American war marketing as well as the father of mass manipulation of the public mind.

Bernays claimed “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind” it will be possible “to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it”.

He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the ‘engineering of consent’, and to accomplish it he merged theories of crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle Sigmund Freud.

Bernays regarded society as irrational and dangerous, with a “herd instinct”, and that if the multi-party electoral system (which evidence indicates was created by a group of European elites as a population control mechanism) were to survive and continue to serve those elites, massive manipulation of the public mind was necessary.

These elites, “invisible people”, would have, through their influence on government and their control of the media, a monopoly on the power to shape thoughts, values, and responses of the citizenry.

His conviction was that this group should flood the public with misinformation and emotionally-loaded propaganda to “engineer” the acquiescence of the masses and thereby rule over them.

According to Bernays, this manufactured consent of the masses, creating conformity of opinion molded by the tool of false propaganda, would be vital for the survival of “democracy”. Bernays wrote:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.

Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

People are governed, their minds molded, their tastes formed, their ideas suggested, largely by men they have never heard of.

This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner .

In almost every act of our daily lives we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.

It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

In his main work titled ‘Propaganda’, which he wrote in 1928, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy because individuals were inherently dangerous (to the control and looting of the elites) but could be harnessed and channeled by these same elites for their economic benefit.

He clearly believed that virtually total control of a population was possible, and perhaps easy to accomplish. He wrote further that:

“No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any … wise idea.

The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by … those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion.

It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.

Fortunately, the … politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold and form the will of the people.

So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented, and so tenacious are they when regimented, that [they produce] an irresistible pressure before which legislators, editors, and teachers are helpless.

And it wasn’t only the public masses that were ‘inherently dangerous’, but a nation’s leaders fit this description as well, therefore also requiring manipulation and control.

Bernays realised that if you can influence the leaders of a nation, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you can control the government and the country, and that is precisely where he set his sights. Bernays again:

“In some departments of our daily life, in which we imagine ourselves free agents, we are ruled by dictators exercising great power.

There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions.False Prophets Invisible People mLP - YouTube

It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.

Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits are modified by authorities.

The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses.”

And in this case, the “few” are the wealthy industrial elites, their even wealthier banker friends, and their brethren who control the media, publishing and entertainment industries.

Until the First World War, these theories of creating an entirely false public opinion based on misinformation, then manipulating this for population control, were still only theories, but the astounding success of propaganda by Bernays and his group during the war laid bare the possibilities of perpetually controlling the public mind on all matters.

The “shrewd” designers of Bernays’ “invisible government” developed a standard technique for what was essentially propaganda and mind control, or at least opinion control, and infiltrated it throughout the US government, its departments and agencies, and its leaders and politicians.

Coincident with this, they practiced infecting the leaders of every identifiable group – fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social – and encouraging these men to likewise infect their supporters.

Many have noted the black and white mentality that pervades America.

Much of the blame must be laid on Bernays’ propaganda methods.

Bernays himself asserted that propaganda could produce rapid and strong emotional responses in the public, but that the range of these responses was limited because the emotional loading inherent in his propaganda would create a kind of binary mentality, eventually forcing the population into a programmed black and white world – which is precisely what we see in the US today.

This isn’t difficult to understand. When Bernays flooded the public with fabricated tales of Germans shiskababbing babies, the range of potential responses was entirely emotional and would be limited to either abhorrence or perhaps a blocking of the information.

In a sense, our emotional switch will be forced into either an ‘on’ or ‘off’ position, with no other reasonable choices.

The elite few, as Bernays called them, realized early on the potential for control of governments, and in every subsequent US administration the president and his White House staff, the politicians, the leaders of the military and intelligence agencies, all fell prey to this same disease of shrewd manipulation.

Roosevelt’s “intense desire for war” in 1939 was the result of this same infection process and, once infected, he of course approved of the infection of the entire American population.

Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

Bernays – Marketing War

In the discovery of propaganda as a tool of public mind control and in its use for war marketing, it is worthwhile to take a quick look at the historical background of Bernays’ war effort.

At the time, the European Zionist Jews had made an agreement with England to bring the US into the war against Germany, on the side of England, a favor for which England would grant the Jews the possession of Palestine as a location for a new homeland.

Palestine did not ‘belong’ to England, it was not England’s to give, and England had no legal or moral right to make such an agreement, but it was made nevertheless.

US President Wilson was desperate to fulfill his obligations to his handlers by putting the US into the First World War as they wished, but the American population had no interest in the European war and public sentiment was entirely against participating.

To facilitate the desired result, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (The Creel Commission), to propagandise the war by the mass brainwashing of America, but Creel was merely the ‘front’ of a group that consisted of specially hand-picked men from the media, advertising, the movie industry, and academia, as well as specialists in psychology.

The two most important members were Walter Lippman, whom Wilson described as “the most brilliant man of his age”, and Bernays who was the group’s top mind-control expert, both Jews and both aware of the stakes in this game.

Bernays planned to combine his uncle Freud’s psychiatric insights with mass psychology blended with modern advertising techniques, and apply them to the task of mass mind control.

It was Bernays’ vast propaganda schemes and his influence in promoting the patently false idea that US entry to the war was primarily aimed at “bringing democracy to all of Europe”, that proved so successful in altering public opinion about the war.

Thanks to Edward Bernays, American war marketing was born and would never die.

Note to Readers: Some portion of the immediately following content which details the specifics of the propaganda of Lippman and Bernays for World War I is not my own work. It was extracted some years ago from a longer document for which I cannot now locate the original source. If a reader is able to identify this source, I would be grateful to receive that information so I can properly credit the author for his extensive research.

“Wilson’s creation of the CPI was a turning point in world history, the first truly scientific attempt to form, manipulate and control the perceptions and beliefs of an entire population.”

With Wilson’s authority, these men were given almost unlimited scope to work their magic, and in order to ensure the success of their program and guarantee the eventual possession of Palestine, these men and their committee carried out “a program of psychological warfare against the American people on a scale unprecedented in human history and with a degree of success that most propagandists could only dream about”.

Having received permission and broad authority from the US President and the White House to “lead the public mind into war”[21] and, with their success threatened by widespread anti-war sentiment among the public, these men determined to engineer what Lippman called “the manufacture of consent”.

The committee assumed the task to “examine the different ways that information flowed to the population and to flood these channels with pro-war material”.

Their effort was unparalleled in its scale and sophistication, since the Committee had the power not only to officially censor news and withhold information from the public, but to manufacture false news and distribute it nationally through all channels.

In a very short time, Lippman and Bernays were well enough organised to begin flooding the US with anti-German propaganda consisting of hate literature, movies, songs, media articles and much more.

According to Bernays, the key was to dehumanize and demonize the German people by filling American minds with fabricated tales of horror.

The compliant media, largely Jewish-owned, obediently carried fake stories of poisoned candy being dropped from airplanes, German soldiers skewering babies like shish kebabs, the raping of nuns, and so much more.

Eventually, the stories were accepted as true and the public’s natural resistance to war was overcome.

They [Bernays and his group] practiced revealing fabricated stories of atrocities, false accusations of terror and brutality against any nation or people they wanted the public mind to view as “the enemy”, then tested and evaluated public reactions to their manipulations of this false propaganda.”

In his 1922 book Public Opinion, Lippman wrote, “The only feeling that anyone can have about an event he does not experience is the feeling aroused by his mental image of that event … For it is clear enough that under certain conditions men respond as powerfully to fictions as they do to realities.”

And it was this psychological manipulation that these men employed to turn an entire nation of peaceful Americans into rabid war-mongers.

The historical record of this years-long tapestry of lies and hate has been quite well buried, and the White House, Congress and the Committee conspired after the war to destroy most of the evidence of their crimes, but I believe both America and the Jews will one day need to openly acknowledge this chapter of history.

Because of Bernays, atrocity propaganda – the deliberate spreading of fabricated evils and inhuman war crimes – became the foundation of the Committee’s efforts. Harold Lasswell wrote,

“So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about who the public is to hate … if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity.

It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man.”

Of course, the causes and aims of the propaganda were far more evil than anything the supposed ‘enemy’ had contemplated, but the goal was to not only invent an enemy but to make that enemy “appear savage, barbaric, and inhumane”, and thus worthy of destruction.

“Halt communist aggression in Vietnam” United Front in Support of South Vietnam, 1968

Usually, the compliant media repeat and embellish the stories without attempt at confirmation and, in virtually every instance, later attempts to confirm the atrocity tales prove fruitless with researchers able to uncover no evidence whatever of the events, the Bryce Report being typical, the entire catalogue of “authoritative documentation of German atrocities” suddenly disappearing without a trace when time came to confirm them.

Lippman and Bernays divided their Committee into nineteen ‘divisions’, each responsible for a different type of propaganda, and each utilizing the abilities of vast numbers of psychologists, advertising experts and media personnel.

The intention was to flood every means of communication with the goal of inciting hatred of everything German and to promote American entry into the war as the only option for patriotic Americans.

Their new Committee produced tens of thousands of articles filled with anti-German hate propaganda and literally stuffed every part of US print media with them .

In an average week more than 20,000 newspaper columns carried entirely false propaganda articles produced by the Committee, promoting hatred of Germany and Germans, describing atrocities that had never occurred and painting Germans as vicious and inhuman monsters.

The Committee enforced a powerful self-censorship in the American media by implementing “voluntary guidelines” meant to suppress contradictory content.

They created a ‘Syndicated Features’ Division employing popular writers to produce essays containing “official” propaganda, and which reached 10 to 15 million people each month.

Another division was responsible for the cartoon sections of newspapers and other media, with the stated intention to “mobilize and direct the scattered cartoon power of the country for constructive war work”.

They employed thousands of cartoonists who “achieved new heights in hate-mongering”, picturing the Germans as primitive and evil animals who stole, killed or raped everything they encountered.[28]

They created a similar Division for cinema that resulted in the production of dozens of outrageous and virulently anti-German movies, hate films containing completely fictional tales of atrocities and bestialities committed by the Germans.

This was the source of the movie scenes where Germans (and Japanese) machine-gunned brave American pilots while parachuting to the ground.

None of these tales were ever true; these and many more were total fabrications.

Then, as now, the motion picture industry in the US was mostly controlled by Jews, who were eager to assist.

One Jewish editorial stated that “every individual at work in this industry wants to do his share” and that “through slides, film leaders and trailers, posters and newspaper publicity they will spread that propaganda so necessary to the immediate mobilization of the country’s great resources”.

In addition to movies produced by the film studios, the CPI created its own Film Division which produced 60 or 70 “official” films that were viewed by many tens of millions of people each week.

They created an Advertising Division to influence general commercial advertising, and which inserted anti-German war propaganda into advertising in newspapers and magazines which often gave them free space, with almost every major US publication carrying a large quota of these ads.

They also produced and distributed many thousands of ‘official’ press releases, virtually functioning as the information arm of the US government and were in fact the major provider of war news to the nation.

They enlisted the aid of most of America’s Christian religions that were more than eager to cooperate in warmongering as they had always done.

Lippmann and Bernays organised the “Four Minute Men”, with 75,000 volunteers delivering nearly 8 million prepared brief speeches on German atrocities in schools, movie theaters, churches, synagogues, union halls, anywhere and everywhere.

Bernays claimed they delivered nearly 8 million speeches to about 315 million people. A huge amount of this was conducted by Jews. See the extensive note

They created a ‘Division of Work With The Foreign Born’ to reach all immigrants in the country in their own languages, and used members of these communities to propagandize their own people, and especially targeted all military-age foreigners who might be conscripted in a war. Lippman and Bernays wrote:

“It is a matter of pride to the Committee on Public Information, as it should be to America, that the directors of English, French, and Italian propaganda were a unit in agreeing that our literature was remarkable above all others for its brilliant and concentrated effectiveness”.

They used farmers to appeal to farmers and businessmen to appeal to businessmen. In total, their speakers gave more than 7 million speeches to more than 300 million Americans, all provoking hatred of Germany and Germans, and urging war.

After many of these emotional travesties, people from the audience would gather into mobs that would attack and destroy German homes and businesses in their city.

The Committee particularly targeted women, establishing a major women’s Division to counter female resistance, from fear that women “might constitute a subversive element in the nation, detrimental to wartime unity and the smooth functioning of [mandatory military conscription]”.

Through their close media contacts, they controlled the cover and much of the content of many women’s magazines, which they used to encourage women to send their sons to war, claiming he would return as “a man” instead of as a corpse.

They created a music division and hired thousands of songwriters to create songs with anti-German lyrics, then again milked their media contacts to have these played constantly on the nation’s radio stations.

Another division was responsible for public library content, tasked with the removal of all German books, including the works of famous German authors and philosophers.

Everything favorably German was censored, removed from public accessibility, or destroyed.

Perhaps the division most indicative of the moral bankruptcy of these men was their work with public school children.

They heavily utilised psychologists in programs to spread hatred of Germany throughout America’s public school system where small children were taught the full gamut of Bernays’ hateful propaganda, then used as traveling salesmen to visit other schools and spread the propaganda to their classmates, instilling totally fabricated tales of German atrocities into the minds of all small children.

After these inflamed propaganda sessions, many American children demonstrated their “patriotism” by attacking German-Americans in groups and stoning them, sometimes being congratulated by local newspapers for “doing their duty”.

Bernays’ group published many thousands of children’s books and comics containing the most vile and hateful propaganda lies.

Sunday School children were given coloring books depicting and encouraging violence against Germans. Libraries sponsored anti-German children’s’ ‘story hours’ that used hate propaganda supplied by Bernays.

Bernays’ Public literature attacked everything German in America, including schools and churches.

In many schools the German language was forbidden to be taught to “pure Americans”, and administrators were urged to fire “all disloyal teachers”, meaning any Germans.

The names of countless towns and cities were changed to eliminate their German origin: Berlin, Iowa became Lincoln, Iowa.

German foods and food names were purged from restaurants; sauerkraut became ‘liberty cabbage’; dachshunds became ‘liberty dogs’ and German Shepherds became ‘Alsatians’.

All American orchestras were ordered to eliminate from their performances any music by classic German composers like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.

In some states, the use of the German language was prohibited in public and on the telephone.

German professors were fired from their universities, German-language or German-owned local newspapers were denied advertising revenue, constantly harassed, and often forced out of business.

The ‘patriotic’ Boy Scouts of America contributed to the effort by regularly burning bundles of German newspapers that were on sale, and Germans were regularly insulted and spat upon by other citizens.

Bernays instituted a program of questioning the patriotism and loyalty of all Germans in America, labeling any with anti-war views as prima facie evidence of treason.

Germans were forced to gather in public meetings and denounce Germany and its leaders.

They were forced to purchase war bonds and publicly declare their allegiance to the US flag. As Bernays’ rhetoric reached dangerous levels, the anti-German hysteria and violence increased proportionately.

Many Germans were forcibly removed from their homes, often torn from their beds during the night, taken out into the street and stripped naked, beaten and whipped, then forced to kneel and kiss the American flag.

Many were tarred and feathered, then forced to leave their cities or towns. Some were lynched from trees. Priests and pastors were dragged out of their churches and beaten for giving sermons in German.

The anti-German hysteria had people seeing spies everywhere, with House and Bernays greatly inflaming this trend by preparing Wilson’s infamous “Flag Day” speech where he claimed “The military masters of Germany have filled our unsuspecting communities with vicious spies and conspirators and have sought to corrupt the opinion of our people”.

Newspaper editors were screaming that all Germans were spies who were poisoning American water supplies or infecting medical shipments to hospitals, and that most “ought to be taken out at sunrise and shot for treason”.

Congressmen recommended hanging or otherwise executing all Germans in America, State Governors urging the use of firing squads to eliminate “the disloyal element” from the entire state.

The US Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels stated that Americans would “put the fear of God into the hearts” of these people.

Most Americans are aware that during the [again Bernays-induced] national hysteria during the Second World War the US government forced more than 100,000 US-born Japanese into concentration camps, but history has deleted the fact that many more Germans were interned in concentration camps in the US prior to and during the First War, and again during the Second World War, after which all their assets were seized.

While Bernays was “making the world safe for democracy”, that safety was not meant for Americans.

Under the coaching of Col. E. M. House who was Wilson’s Jewish handler, Wilson passed oppressive legislation including the Espionage Act and Sedition Act that were entirely fascist in content and which made illegal anything that might hinder American entry into the war.

Freedom of speech and assembly, and press freedom virtually disappeared from America during this time, it eventually becoming illegal to say or write anything critical of the US government, its officials and even its “symbols”.

Any expression of objection to American entrance into the war would result in a fine of $10,000 (ten years’ average wages at the time) or 20 years in prison, with much of the policing power given to what were in effect private vigilante groups like the infamous American Protective League that operated virtually without oversight.

The suppression of public opinion and of dissent, and the control exercised on anti-war communication was universal.

The Espionage Act stated “Every letter, writing, circular, postal card, picture, print, engraving, photograph, newspaper, pamphlet, book, or other publication, matter or thing of any kind containing any matter which is intended to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States is hereby declared to be non-mailable.”

Nothing was permitted that might prevent the successful recruitment of American soldiers for a war that only the Jews wanted.

With all of this and much more, Bernays and Lippman turned America into a hotbed of hatred for the entire German population, accomplishing the goal of the Zionist Jews to use the US military as a tool, their own private army, in the European war to fulfill their ambition for Palestine, and thus these two men changed the course of history.

This wouldn’t be the last time Lippman and Bernays would use these techniques against Germany.

This massive attack was repeated little more than ten years later to destroy Germany and push it into yet another war the Germans didn’t want.

In the 1930s, the same Jewish European bankers with largely the same agenda wanted the US to join another war they planned to initiate against Germany .

In 1933 they embarked on an extensive worldwide commercial war intended to destroy Germany financially, with newspaper headlines reading “Judea Declares War on Germany”.

[33][34][35][36] They had already induced in Roosevelt “an intense desire for war”, but were having the same problem again with the unwilling American public, hence the “anger campaign” referred to earlier, and they repeated the German atrocity stories in all Western countries until almost the entire world wanted to kill all Germans.

Bernays theories and the template for the manipulation of public opinion would form the plan and pattern that the US government would use repeatedly for the next century to successfully deceive the American public about its motivations and actions in more than 100 military adventures, and to blind everyone to the tragic results of America’s brutal foreign policy.

In all of this, Lippman and Bernays were not working independently or without guidance.

Prior to their massive ‘war effort’ in the US for World War I, they had operated a successful pilot test case in the UK, using British newspapers owned by Rothschild and other Jews, to determine the efficacy of their methods.

The plan to mass-engineer public opinion began in a propaganda factory at Wellington House in London in the early 1900s, with Lords Northcliffe and Rothmere, Arnold Toynbee, and of course our two war-marketing geniuses Lippman and Bernays.

It was from this source that the scheme was hatched to force the Rothschild’s privately-owned Federal Reserve banks onto the US Congress, and that trained and coached Lippman and Bernays on the methods of molding American public opinion to push the US into the First World War for the promotion of Zionism.

Bernays’ book ‘Propaganda’ offers a clear vision of his training, not only for war marketing but for the pathology of American consumption, automobiles, the hysteria of patriotism and much more.

Wellington House eventually morphed into the Tavistock Institute, which was created at Oxford University in London by the founders of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Round Table, and was essentially a kind of mass brainwashing facility beginning as a psychological warfare bureau.

It was the Tavistock Institute’s studies in psychological programming that were used to create and then exploit a grand mass hysteria during the cold war, evoking fearful delusions of a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union that even led to millions of Americans building bomb shelters in their back yards.

In Tye’s biography of Bernays, he wrote that “It is impossible to fundamentally grasp the social, political, economic and cultural developments of the past 100 years without some understanding of Bernays and his professional heirs.”

Funding reportedly came from the UK Royal Family, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, and eventually included the formation of trans-Atlantic relationships.

At various periods, memberships in the Tavistock Institute, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Rothschild’s Round Table, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, the Stanford Research Institute, the Trilateral Commission and NATO, were interchangeable.

They also created the ideology for the large American Foundations like Rockefeller and Carnegie that today play a silent but major role in population management.

Many dirty things emerged from this rat’s nest of Satan-worshippers, one being Britain’s Psychological Warfare Bureau which hatched a plan to destroy Germany not by attacking the military but by virtual genocide of the population.

It seems that international bankers owned munitions plants and other valuable military targets on both sides of the war fence, and wanted their property maintained in working order in spite of the war.

The Jewish solution recommended to Churchill was saturation bombing of the civilian population to collapse the morale of the German people.

These ‘scientific sociologists’ determined that the destruction of 65% of German housing, usually including its occupants, would be sufficient to achieve such a collapse.

This was the origin of the fame of the British aviation hero “Bomber” Harris, who carried out these night raids – always at night – that culminated in the fire-bombing of Dresden.

The explanation of night raids is usually given as safety for the bomber crews, but its purpose was mostly to engender more terror among the civilian population.

Harris himself testified that his directive was to not specifically aim at anything, but just “blast German cities as a whole. Working class housing areas were targeted because they had a higher density and firestorms were more likely.”

This would disrupt the German workforce and Germany’s ability to produce war materials in its defense.

Harris’ widespread deliberate massacres of German civilians – and those by the Americans as well – were desperately kept secret from the public and still appear nowhere in history books in useful detail or with any sincere attempt to accurately estimate civilian casualties.

This was the plan that US General Curtis Lemay was following, the same low-level night raids attempting to exterminate the populations of Japan and Korea.

Everything we have read above about the marketing of war during preparation for the two World Wars, is from a template created by Lippman and Bernays exclusively to support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and to promote the agenda of Zionism.

That template has been in constant use by the US government (as the Bankers’ Private Army) since the Second World War, ‘engineering consent and ignorance’ in the American and Western populations to mask almost seven decades of atrocities, demonizing innocent countries and peoples in preparation for 60 or 70 politically-inspired color revolutions or ‘wars of liberation’ fought exclusively for the financial and political benefit of a handful of European bankers using the US military as a private army for this purpose, resulting in the deaths and miseries of hundreds of millions of innocent civilians.

Bernays carries the blame for more than American entry into the two world wars, having been instrumental in paving the way for the US cannibalization and military colonization of much of the world, and for the US installing and supporting the dozens of brutal military dictatorships around the world.

His first international project was helping to engineer the US overthrow of the popular elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

The US government launched a coup against the elected government of Guatemala on the flimsy grounds of Guatamala becoming a hotbed for Soviet/Communist activity when in reality it was really a powerful American owned company that had its business interests threatened.

At the time, the Rockefellers’ United Fruit Company and various US elites and international financiers owned most of Guatemala including 70% of all the arable land, the communications facilities, the only railroad and shipping port, and controlled most exports.

When Arbenz commenced expropriations and land redistribution, Bernays developed a massive propaganda campaign that colored Arbenz as communist, a terrorist, an enemy to democracy, a blot on humanity, and much more, to the extent that American public opinion supported an outrageous travesty and one of the most brutal violations of human rights in US history.

Bernays’ template has been used about 70 times with US invasions of that many nations, which is one source of the vast disconnect between what the American people believe their government has done and what it has actually done.

As a side note, Guatemala appealed to the United Nations to stop the Americans’ massive interference in their country, a plea that was sympathetically received by UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold who proved troublesome for the US. He would do so again a few years later, and would be assassinated by the CIA for his trouble.

Quick Summary

Many of us have seen stories of German soldiers skewering babies on bayonets, of machine-gunning parachuting soldiers, tales of tubs-full of eyeballs collected by the Nazis, of Germans slashing off the breasts of every woman they encountered, of eating babies, of rendering the bodies of massacred civilians for fat and glycerine to make weapons.

After the war, Bernays openly admitted that he used fabricated atrocities to provoke hatred against Germany and, in both World Wars, no evidence was ever discovered to prove any of these outrageous accusations.

We can easily think of George W. Bush’s demonisation of Iraq, the sordid tales of mass slaughters, the gassing of hundreds of thousands and burial in mass graves, the nuclear weapons ready to launch within 15 minutes, the responsibility for 9-11, the babies tossed out of incubators, Saddam using wood shredders to eliminate political opponents and dissidents.

We can think of the tales of Libyan Viagra, all proven to have been groundless fabrications – typical atrocity propaganda. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and dozens of other wars and invasions followed this same template to get the public mind onside for an unjustified war launched only for political and commercial objectives.

Fast Forward to 2020

We are at the same place today, with the same people conducting the same “anger campaign” against China in preparation for World War III. John Pilger agrees with me, evidenced in his recent article “Another Hiroshima is coming – unless we stop it now.” And so does Gordon Duff.

The signs now are everywhere, and the campaign is successful. It is necessary to point out the need for an ‘anger campaign’ as opposed to a ‘hate campaign’.

We are not moved to action from hate, but from anger. I may thoroughly despise you, but that in itself will do nothing.

It is only if I am moved to anger that I want to punch your lights out. And this, as Lippman and Bernays so clearly noted, requires emotionally-charged atrocity propaganda of the kind used so well against Germany and being so well used against China today.

Since we need atrocity propaganda to start a war, there seems to be no shortage.

Then we have Huawei, the world’s single most dangerous spying entity, who are no doubt responsible for “Beijing trying to ‘steal’ the American COVID-19 vaccine” but, in further breaking news, the Chinese are “Trying to steal everything”.

Not only that, but China recently hacked into the Vatican, and here’s why they did it.

Everyone knows that Hong Kong’s new Security Law spells “the death knell of freedom and democracy in Hong Kong”.

We have read much of China’s “threatening militarism” in its own China Pond, but not everyone knows that China is presenting the Japanese air force with “a relentless burden” with 947 (count them) incursions into Japanese airspace “in the last fiscal year ending in March.”

I didn’t know that provocative military incursions operated on a fiscal year, but maybe things are different in Japan.

Then, Mr. Pompeo tells us, “The truth is that our policies . . . resurrected China’s failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it.”

Further, that (due to COVID-19) China “caused an enormous amount of pain, loss of life,” and the “Chinese Communist Party will pay a price”. Of course, we all know that “China” stole the COVID-19 virus from a lab in Winnipeg, Canada, then released it onto the world – and Pompeo has proof, and even “A Chinese virologist has proof” that “China” engaged in a massive cover-up while contaminating the world and then “fleeing Hong Kong” because “I know how they treat whistle-blowers.”

And of course, “China needs to be held accountable for Covid-19’s destruction” which is why everyone in the US wants to sue “China”. “Australia” demands an international criminal investigation of China’s role in COVID-19.What a surprise.

And of course we have an almost unlimited number of serious provocations, from Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the South China Seas, to Chinese consulates, media reporters, students, researchers, visa restrictions, spying, Huawei, the trade war, all done in the hope of making the Chinese leaders panic and over-react, the easiest way to justify a new war.

The list could continue for several hundred pages. Never in my life have I seen such a continuous, unabating flood of hate propaganda against one nation, surely equivalent to what was done against Germany as described above to prepare for US entry into the First World War.

And it’s working, doing what it is intended to do. Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, India, Brazil, are buying into the war-mongering and turning against China. More will follow.

The Global Times reported “Mutual trust between Australia and China at all-time low”.

“Boycott China” T-shirts and caps are flooding India, Huawei is being increasingly banned from Western nations, Chinese social media APPs like Tik-Tok are being banned, and Bryan Adams recently slammed all Chinese as “Bat-eating, wet-market-animal-selling, virus-making, greedy bastards”

In a recent poll (taken because we need to measure the success of our handiwork in the same way Bernays and the Tavistock Institute did as noted earlier), half of all ethnic Chinese in Canada have been threatened and harassed over COVID-19.

About 45% of Chinese in Canada said they had been ” threatened or intimidated in some way”, fully 50% said they had recently been insulted in public, 30% said they had experienced . . . “some kind of physical altercation”, and 60% said the abuse was so bad “they had to reorganise their daily routine to avoid it”. One woman in her 60s said a man told her and her daughter “Every day I pray that you people die”.

This deliberate, systematic targeting of China and the Chinese (by the Jewish media, I’m sorry to say) has resulted in a 700% increase in hate crimes against Chinese, and Canada is by no means the only country experiencing this phenomenon.

It is not better in the US, the UK, Australia, and much of Europe. It would seem the laws against hate speech are only for the benefit of the Jews, certainly not for the Chinese. Lippmann and Bernays would be proud.

Several years ago, CNN was sued by one of their news anchors for being ordered to lie in the newscasts. CNN won the case.

They did not deny ordering the news anchor to lie. Their defense was based simply on the position that American news media have “no obligation to tell the truth”.

And RT recently reported that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans see a “medium or high” bias in all media coverage, yet, as we can see, most of those same people, and a very large portion of the population of many nations still succumb to the same hate propaganda.

I would add four final points to this essay.

(1) There is no way to avoid the conclusion that history is indeed repeating itself, demonizing yet another nation, deliberately engendering sufficient hatred and anger to justify another world war.

(2) While the impetus for this is surely from the US, the Americans are not entirely to blame because they are merely following orders.

The root of all this absolutely resides in Europe among the cabal of International Jews and Zionists, with the Americans once again being “The Bankers’ Private Army”.

Our New World Government cannot come into existence without the destruction of both China and Russia (and Iran), but China is the primary stumbling block and must be eliminated.

World War Three will have China and Russia on the same side and, with luck, both will be destroyed in one swoop. That is the plan. Your belief in it is not material to its execution.

(3) The International Jews have some reason (in their minds) to resent China.

For one, China was intended to be dismembered and turned into a perpetual cash cow, a plan frustrated by Mao and his revolution.

Everyone is aware that the Jews had been evicted from many countries many times over many hundreds of years, but no one seems aware that two of these evictions occurred relatively recently, one from Japan immediately prior to World War Two (the source of the huge Jewish Ghetto in Shanghai, not escapees from Hitler as the myths tell us), and the second from China.

It was not “the British” but the International Jewish banking families, the Rothschilds, Sassoons, Kadoories and others that were entirely responsible for China’s 150 years-long opium travesty.

I won’t go into details here, but immediately after World War Two, one of Mao’s first acts was to expel all the Jews from China and confiscate all their opium assets – including all of the city of Shanghai and the Mainland Branches of the HSBC. They haven’t forgotten, and they want their money back.

(4) Given the source of the push for a Third World War and the planned destruction of China, one is left to consider what, if anything, can be done to prevent a third worldwide holocaust.

Even knowing the sources, it is hardly practical to declare war on at most a few thousand individuals scattered among perhaps ten nations.

I know of only one way to prevent the World War Three that is now imminent: make Israel pay for it.

If in the final position of authority, I would call in the Israeli ambassador and inform him that if my nation were pushed into a war with the US, my first retaliation would be not against the US but against Israel, that I would apply whatever portion of my nuclear arsenal was necessary to achieve that.

It is my thesis that Israel is too important to these people to be sacrificed, and that faced with such a threat deemed credible, they would back off. With everything I know, I do not believe a third world war can be otherwise prevented.

Notes

[1] https://hofs.online/david-irving-churchills-war/

[2] https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/01/13/germanys-war-chapter-4-the-allied-conspiracy-to-instigate-prolong-wwii/

[3] https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/the-war-criminal-churchill/

[4] ttps://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/schul05.htm

[5] “Germany is getting too strong. We’ve got to smash her.” – Winston Churchill speaking during a private lunch in 1936. Reminiscenses in 1961 of General Robert E. Wood. World War II. By Carl J. Schneider, Dorothy Schneider. Page 15.

[6] “We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast). “This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany.” – Winston Churchill (Autumn 1939 broadcast)

[7] “You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler of a Jesuit priest.” – Winston Churchill [1940]; Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 45); This book was published in Great Britain in 1950 under the title “Winston Churchill in war and peace.” The American version titled “Winston Churchill: British bulldog : his career in war and peace”, was published in 1955 and was an edited version with selected quotations removed.

John Foster Dulles’ initiation of covert actions in Vietnam

Ho Che Minh wrote President Harry S. Truman on Feb. 15, 1946, to request the U.S. support for Vietnam’s independence:

“Our Vietnam people, as early as 1941, stood by the Allies’ side and fought against the Japanese and their associates, the French colonialists…. But the French Colonialists… have come back and are waging on us a murderous and pitiless war….  we request of the United States as guardians and champions of World Justice to take a decisive step in support of our independence.”

Truman did not respond.

James DiEugenio:

It was not just ideological because the Dulles Brothers, prior to becoming parts of the government, had pretty high positions in one of the giant, probably the predominant corporate law firm in the United States called Sullivan & Cromwell.

In fact, John Foster Dulles was actually the managing partner there and he brought his younger brother Allen in as a senior partner. It’s not completely correct to say that this was all ideological because it wasn’t.

A large part of this was for commercial reasons in the sense that a lot of the clients that the Sullivan & Cromwell law firm represented had these large business interests in all different parts of the globe and sometimes this included Third World countries.

That’s another reason of course the Dulles Brothers were so intent upon putting down this rebellion against the French attempt to recolonize the area.

Because to them, it was an example of an industrial or already commercialized western power going ahead and exploiting cheap labor and cheap materials in the Third World.

In large part, that’s what that law firm represented. So that’s absolutely correct. It was not just ideological.

It was also a commercial view of the world and what the Dulles Brothers stood for in relation to the use of the natural resources in the Third World.

Now, what happened at Dien Bien Phu, and I don’t think the Burns-Novick film really explained this as well as it should have, is that the French under Henri Navarre decided that they were losing the guerrilla war.

NARMIC’s top 100 defense contractors list, which continued after the war. Here is a 1977 edition.

“In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.”

So they decided to try and pull out the North Vietnamese forces, led by General Giap, into a more open air kind of a battle ground.

They took over this low-lying valley in the northern part of Vietnam, not very far from the western border.

The strategic idea was to get involved in a large scale battle where they would be able to use their air power and overpowering artillery to smash Giap’s forces.

Well, it didn’t work out that way for a number of reasons. But one of them was that the Russians went ahead and transported these huge siege cannons to Giap, and Giap used literally tens of thousands of civilian supporters to transport these huge siege guns up this incline overlooking Dien Bien Phu.

They began to bombard the airfield there, which negated a lot of the military advantage that the French thought they were going to be able to use.

When that started happening, John Foster Dulles began to arrange direct American aid. And I’m talking about military aid.

He actually began to go ahead and give them fighter planes, which he had repainted and drawn with French insignia run by CIA pilots.

I think there were about 24 of them that he let them use. Then when that didn’t work, then he went ahead and started giving them large imports of other weapons to try and see if they could hold off the siege that was going to come.

Finally, when that didn’t work, he arranged for Operation Vulture. Operation Vulture was the arrangement of a giant air armada.

It was originally planned as something like, if I recall correctly: 60 small bombers, 150 jet fighters in case the Chinese intervened and also, three, I think there were B-36 Convair planes to carry three atomic bombs.

Dulles could not get this through Eisenhower. Eisenhower refused to agree to it because the British had turned him down.

He didn’t want to do this by himself. Even though Dulles tried to convince the British to help, they turned them down twice.

Then Dulles, in a very strange move, he actually offered the atomic bombs to the French Foreign Secretary Bidault, Georges Bidault, in a separate private exchange which is a really remarkable thing to do because I’ve never been able to find any evidence that Eisenhower knew about that.

That’s how desperate he was not to see Dien Bien Phu fall. But the French refused, the guy said straight to Foster Dulles, “If I use those, I’m going to kill as many of my troops as I will General Giap’s.”

Dien Bien Phu fell, and at this point, two things happened that will more or less ensure American involvement in Vietnam.

At the subsequent peace conference in Geneva, Switzerland, it’s very clear that the United States is calling the shots.

Secondly, when the Chinese and Russians see that, they advised Ho Chi Minh to go along with whatever the western powers leaned towards.

If not, they feared that the Americans would intervene immediately. In fact, Richard Nixon in a private talk with American newspaper editors, actually floated the idea of using American ground troops to intervene at Dien Bien Phu.

What happens now is that, John Forster Dulles goes ahead and orally agrees that there will be general elections held in two years in 1956, and whoever wins, will then unify Vietnam.

He didn’t sign it because the lawyer that he was understood that that would expose him later, but he did advise his representative at the conference to go ahead and say they will abide by that decision.

This begins, for all intents and purposes, the American intervention in Vietnam and it begins – and this is really incredible to me that the Burns-Novick series never mentioned – Ed Lansdale, and how you can

make a series, an 18-hour series about Vietnam and American involvement there and not mention Lansdale is mind-boggling.

They did show his picture but they didn’t say his name. The reason it’s so mind-boggling is that Allan Dulles now made Lansdale more or less the action officer for the whole Vietnam enterprise.

In other words, the objective was, number one to create an American state in South Vietnam, and number two, to prop up an American chosen leader to be the American president of this new state.

Lansdale did it and I’ll tell you, it’s an incredible achievement what he did. Because he set up this giant psychological propaganda campaign, that scared the heck out of all the Catholics because the French had occupied the country.

We found some letters, John Newman and myself, up at Hoover Institute near Stanford in which he essentially admitted that he was really working for the CIA the whole time.

He had done a lot of covert operations, most famously in the Philippines before he was chosen by Allen Dulles to lead this giant – which I’m pretty sure at that time – was the biggest CIA operation in their history.

What he was doing here with this pure psychological warfare to get all these people to come south.

And if you expose who Lansdale is, there isn’t any way that you can say that this was not a CIA-run operation.

This whole idea is to thwart the whole Geneva agreement, and number two to thwart the will of the people of Vietnam.

Because the reason this was done of course, and Eisenhower admitted this later, was that there was no way in the world that the CIA could find any kind of a candidate that was going to beat Ho Chi Minh in a national election.

The CIA did these polls and they found out that Ho Chi Minh would win with probably 75 to 80% of the vote if there was an honest, real election.

That’s why the CIA under Lansdale decided first to get all these new people into the south and then prop up this new government in the south to separate it from what they then called Ho Chi Minh’s area in the north.

Now, understand: that didn’t exist before. France had colonized the whole country.

So now you had the beginning of this entirely new country created by the CIA. There’s no other way around that statement and I really think that the Burns-Novick film to be mild, really underplayed that.

There would have been no South Vietnam if it had not been for Lansdale.

He’s the guy who created the whole country. Now, they picked a leader, a guy named Ngo Dinh Diem who was going to be their opposition to Ho Chi Minh.

Well, the problem with picking Ngo Dinh Diem was number one, he spoke perfect fluent English; number two, he dressed like a westerner that is, he wore sport coats and suits and white shirts and ties and number three, he even had his hair cut like an American.

His family was the same thing: his brother Nhu and Nhu’s wife Madame Nhu.

How on earth anybody could think that somehow Diem and his family was going to win the allegiance of all the people in Vietnam and win elections… well, that wasn’t going to happen.

What Lansdale did is and … You got to admire the way these guys think even if you don’t like the goals they achieve, the way they do it is very clever.

Lansdale, number one, wanted to get rid of Bao Dai because he did not want to have anymore – him and John Foster Dulles had agreed – they had to get rid of the stigma of French colonialism.

They sponsored a phony plebiscite, an up or down plebiscite on bringing Bao Dai back in 1955.

Now, anybody who analyzes that election in 1955 will be able to tell you very clearly that it was rigged.

To give you one example, Bao Dai was not allowed to campaign. It was pretty easy to beat somebody if the other guy cannot campaign, and Lansdale, for all practical purposes, there’s no other way to say this, he was Diem’s campaign manager.

Ed Lansdale

It was CIA money going in and running his campaign and there’s a famous conversation where Lansdale, because he has all this money and because they’ve already built up a police force in South Vietnam, he essentially tells Diem that, “I don’t think that we should make this very blatant. I don’t think you should win with over 65% of the vote.”

Well, Lansdale decided he should be out of the country during the actual election so it wouldn’t look too obvious.

So Diem then went ahead and decided he wanted to win with over 90% of the vote and that’s what it was rigged for. And as everybody who analyzed that election knows it was so bad that you actually had more people voting for Diem in certain provinces than actually lived there.

That’s how bad the ballots were rigged. But it did what they wanted to do. It got rid of Bao Dai, so now in a famous quote by John Foster Dulles, he said words to the effect that: Good, we have a clean face there now. Without any kind of hint of colonialism.

Now, you can believe he said that, it’s actually true. And it shows you the disconnect between the Dulles Brothers and Eisenhower with the reality that’s on the ground there because Diem is going to be nothing but a losing cause.

Now that Diem is in power, Lansdale then goes ahead and advises him to negate the 1956 election and that’s what happens. The agreements that were made in Geneva were now cancelled, and this is the beginning of two separate countries.

You get the north part of Vietnam led by Ho Chi Minh and with its capital at Hanoi and you get South Vietnam which is a complete American creation with its capital at Saigon led by Diem.

By the end of 1957, and this is another problem I had with the Burns-Novick series – they try and say and imply that the war began under Kennedy. Simply not true.

And by the way, this is something that Richard Nixon liked to say. He liked to say that, “Well, when I became President I was given this problem by my two predecessors.” No no, not at all.

In the latter part of 1957, I think in either November or December, the leadership in the North, that is Ho Chi Minh and Le Duan and General Giap, they had decided they were now going to have to go to war with the United States.

They began to make war plans at that early date and those war plans were then approved by the Russian Politburo.

And both Russia and China, because in some ways it had been their fault that this happened by advising Ho Chi Minh to be meek and mild at the Geneva conference; they agreed to go ahead and supply Ho Chi Minh with weaponry, supplies and money.

The war now begins. In the first Indochina War, France against the Vietnamese, the rebels in the south were called the Viet Minh.

While now the Viet Minh are converted into the Viet Cong. This rebel force in the south now begins to materialize again except their enemy is Diem.

Now begins the construction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail which crosses down through Laos and Cambodia and this is going to be a supply route to supply these rebels in the south and actually infiltrate troops into the south.

The other way they’re going to do it is through a place called Sihanoukville in Southern Cambodia, there they’re going to bring in supplies by sea.

Now, for all intents and purposes, the war now begins in around 1958.

There begins to be hit and run raids against the Diem regime in the south.

The United States now begins to really build up, not just a police force, which they had done before, but they now begin to build up a military attaché in the south.

By the end of the Eisenhower regime, there’s something like about, if I recall, about 650 military advisers there with the police force that is trained at Michigan State University under a secret program.

The battle in the countryside now begins in earnest: 1958, 1959, 1960. Diem, as he begins to be attacked, now gets more and more tyrannical.

He begins to imprison tens of thousands of suspects in his famous tiger cages.

These bamboo like 2′ by 4′ cages which people are rolled up like cinnamon rolls and kept prisoner, there were literally tens of thousand of those kinds of prisoners by 1960. He actually began to guillotine suspects in the countryside.

As more and more of this militarized situation takes place, it begins to show that the idea that the United States is supporting a democracy is a farcical idea: because it’s not a democracy in the South because the police force is run by his brother Nhu and Diem is very much pro-Catholic and anti-Buddhist and unfortunately, for the United States, about 70% of the population in South Vietnam was Buddhist, even with the hundreds of thousands of people who fled south.

The situation, and by the way, Lansdale was still there. He’s still supervising Diem, trying to hold on to this thing because he had so much invested there.

As time goes on and the situation becomes more militarized, there actually comes to be a coup attempt against Diem in 1960, and the American ambassador in Saigon, I think his name was Elbridge Durbrow, he even lectures Diem that you’ve got to democratize this country, or else you’re going to be the symbol of this whole militaristic situation and you’re going to be under a state of siege, and this won’t work.

That’s the situation that occurs during the election of 1960 with Kennedy versus Nixon. That’s the situation that whoever wins that election is going to be presented with.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

Israel has a long history of actions against its Christian minority. Israeli forces have desecrated churches, rabbis have endorsed killing non-Jewish civilians (including children), New Testaments have been burned. While there are many Israelis who have opposed these actions and respect Christians, the fact is that discrimination against Christians is endemic in the Israeli system. Like Muslims, Christians have been persecuted by Israel ever since it was established in 1948…

‘It is permitted to kill non-Jews, rape women, burn down churches’

The Holy Land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea contains some of the most sacred spaces for Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike. Jerusalem is the holiest site in Judaism, the home of Jewish patriarchs and prophets since the 10th century BCE.

On the same land, Muhammad both received revelation and ascended into heaven at the Dome of the Rock. For Christians, it is the birthplace of Jesus and the site of his crucifixion and ascension into heaven.

The Christian population in this area has long thrived among its Jewish and Muslim neighbors. However, the increasingly destructive Israeli occupation, endorsed by the current U.S. administration, has made the area essentially uninhabitable.

The result is a noticeable exodus of Christians from this territory. Before 1948, Palestinian Christians made up about 18 percent of the region’s population. Today they make up less than one percent.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

If the current trend persists, pilgrims and tourists will likely be the only Christian representatives in the region in years to come.

Causes of Exodus

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

A dhimmi kneels before Muslim leaders 

Christian Zionist media, including the Christian Friends of Israel, presents the Palestinian Christian population as a recently-formed community of Arab migrants.

In reality, Palestinian Christians are some of the most deeply-connected members of the faith, tracing their ancestry in the region back to Biblical times.

Pro-Israel sources report that the exodus of Palestinian Christians is caused by two factors.

Firstly, they suggest that many Christians convert and intermarry with Muslims as a result of declining Christian birthrates. Secondly, they argue that Palestinian migration is part of a larger, historical exodus of Christians from the Holy Land.

They believe that migration dates back to the Ottoman Empire when Christians sought jobs in North and Latin America. This exodus is largely blamed on Islamic Fundamentalism and the discord between Islam and Christianity. After the 2003 Iraq War, one theory posits, destabilization allowed extremist groups to gain power. The violence of ISIS in the region is frequently cited as evidence of this religious discord.

Some reference the ancient dhimmi system as evidence of discrimination within the Muslim faith.

This historical distinction, meaning “protection” or “protected person,” was used to distinguish and ensure the legal rights of non-Muslims living in an Islamic state. Its use today, however, is an outdated scapegoat for the real cause of the exodus.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

While the claims of the religious-discord argument are not entirely false, the larger flaw of this position is its problematic revisionist narrative that erases the struggles of Palestinian people.

The exodus of Christians actually betrays the oppressive ethnic cleansing inflicted upon the people of Palestine by the Israeli government.

As the U.S. continues to extend a hand to the Israeli regime, Palestinians are increasingly more opposed to the U.S. than to their Muslim neighbors.

Arab America interviewed with Rateb Rabie, founder, and president of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HCEF), he revealed the real reasons of the exodus, as well as his own predictions for future peace in the region.

While some point to the religious tension between Muslims and Christians, most Palestinian Christians report that it is Israeli oppression that pushes them from their native land. Rabie cites discrimination against Palestinians as the primary cause of the exodus.

2017 study by the Dar al-Kalima University in the West Bank has found that “the pressure of Israeli occupation, ongoing constraints, discriminatory policies, arbitrary arrests, confiscation of lands” has contributed to “the general sense of hopelessness among Palestinian Christians.” Only a two percent minority of Palestinian Christians cite Muslim violence and extremism as the reason for their departure.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

While it is true that Christians face persecution and are not guaranteed the same rights as their Muslim counterparts, at its heart the conflict is political, not religious. It is a “landed conflict,” Rabie says, stemming from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. “We are Palestinian first before we are Christian,” Rabie states.

The conflict (and subsequent exodus) is a question of identity and ownership above religious belief.

Aside from their minority status, the relative ease with which the Christian population is able to assimilate into the culture of Western host countries also accounts for their particular population decrease.

Rabie suggests that “Muslims would leave if possible,” or if the process of cultural assimilation was less draining and demeaning.

The discrimination and Islamophobia that many Muslims face is a major deterrent to immigration. Because of their shared faith, Western societies are more accepting of Palestinian Christians than Palestinian Muslims.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

While the population of historical Palestinian (including Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel) today has increased to six million, Christians make up less than 1.7 percent. The majority of Palestinian Christians are Greek Orthodox.

Christianity itself began in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians living there were the original followers of Jesus. As Rateb Rabie says, Palestinians have been “saving the face” of the Christain faith for over 2,000 years. In spite of oppression and discrimination, they have nobly upheld their practice and traditions.

Today, the plight of Palestinians is intertwined with Islamophobia. Western Christian organizations are eager to offer charitable support, especially when their donation is inspired by a deep-seated Islamophobia that encourages them to selectively help Christian populations in Muslim-majority countries.

Other Christians in countries like Syria, Rabie points out, avoid getting directly involved to distance themselves from the Islamophobia of Western Christian donors.

Restrictions on Faith and Livelihood

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

On a fundamental level, the Israeli occupation has made it very difficult for Palestinian Christians to practice their faith.

Restrictions imposed by the Israeli government prevent Christians from accessing their holy sites, as described in the 2011 State Department “Report on International Religious Freedom:”

“Strict closures and curfews imposed by the Israeli government negatively affected residents’ ability to practice their religion at holy sites, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, as well as the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.”

“The separation barrier significantly impeded Bethlehem-area Christians from reaching the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and made visits to Christian sites in Bethany and Bethlehem difficult for Palestinian Christians who live on the Jerusalem side of the barrier.”

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

Physical barriers and other limitations prevent a complete celebration of faith. In addition, non-Christian settlers in Israel take out their anger toward the Israeli government on the Palestinian population. These attacks often involve the desecration and vandalism of Christian and Muslim holy sites and the targeting of religious leaders.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has even admitted to this brand of ethnic cleansing, stating that:

“The government has been taking actions to increase the number of Jews, and reduce the number of Palestinians, living in the city”

Denied access to ancient holy sites, Palestinian Christians struggle to prove that their “center of life” rests in Jerusalem.

Without this confirmation, they are liable to have their residency rights and social benefits revoked. While the illegally-housed Jewish population has the right to move freely throughout the region, native Christian Palestinians are bombarded by arbitrary borders and restrictive permits.

It is very difficult for Palestinians to find jobs under the occupation. There is currently a 22 percent unemployment rate in the region, and many families struggle to support themselves financially.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

Furthermore, the Israeli government protects Jewish extremists in their brutal, physically violent attacks on Palestinian Christians.

In March of this year, Israeli forces carried out attacks on Christian worshippers during a Palm Sunday procession in Jerusalem.

Bombs, guns, and knives have all been used against Palestinians, who may also be subject to arbitrary arrests.

Extremists burn farmland and destroy crops, making livelihood and sustenance impossible.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

These attacks on Christian territory, as on the entire Palestinian population, are justified using religion. Zionists claim that the Jewish people have an inherent religious connection to the land.

This is a complete oversight of the religious ties of both Christians and Muslims. The brutality of the attacks contrast the sanctity and divinity of a religious appeal, and many wonder how faith can be used to so blatantly defend massacre.

False Narratives in Tourism

Even in tourism, an economic staple in the region, the narrative and perception of Palestinians, and Palestinian Christians is highly distortedby Israeli tour guides.

This false, damaging narrative reached nearly 3.5 million tourists in 2013. Christians taken to the Holy Land on educational tours are given a skewed version of the region’s history, one in which the role of Christianity is highly downplayed, if not entirely neglected.

 Palestinians are painted in a very negative light, and their persecution is glossed over entirely.

Israeli tour guides often completely avoid Christian holy sites on their tours, largely to prevent showcasing the abuses and destruction these areas have endured under the occupation.

Tourists have reported on the crude insensitivities of Isreali tour guides, describing how they were made to participate in role-playing simulations of Israeli soldiers attacking Palestinian “terrorists.”

U.S. Involvement: “Trump Handed Israel Policy to Evangelicals”

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

Vice President Mike Pence has been at the center of the controversy since Trump’s Jerusalem declaration last December. Pence’s Evangelical Christian faith aligns him with the Jewish Zionists. In his speech at the beginning of this year to the Knesset, the Israeli legislature, Pence stated:

“We stand with Israel because your cause is our cause, your values are our values, and your fight is our fight…we stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny.”

In an interview with Vox, American politics professor Elizabeth Oldmixon explains the American Christian Evangelical support of Israel. Evangelicals see the “gathering of Jews in exile” in the Holy Land as an indication of the highly awaited “end of times,” or Christ’s reign on Earth.

As strict followers of the Bible, Christian Zionists strictly abide by the passage in which God grants the Holy Land to the Jewish people.

Religious faith translates directly into political belief. Fifty-three percent of Trump’s evangelical demographic supported the Jerusalem move.

Palestinian Christian is not evangelical, so they do not possess the same religious vision.

Israeli control, coupled with Mike Pence’s faith-based declaration of American support, has wreaked havoc on the Palestinian population and ostracized their faith.

Understandably, Palestinians are broadly opposed to the current administration.

With America’s damaging influence exacted through the Israeli government, many have chosen to flee their native land altogether, escaping oppression both locally and from the West.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

Pence had originally planned a pilgrimage to the Holy Lands, including meetings with many regional Christian leaders, but travel plans were canceled following uproar and protest about the Jerusalem move. Many church leaders felt the move would increase hatred and violence in the region. Although the protests were more muted than expected, the oppression continues for the Palestinian population.

The Exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Holy Land

“To declare Jerusalem as the capital based on some biblical argument is a dangerous thing,” said Father Jamal Khader, the Catholic parish priest of Ramallah.

 “He’s wanting to separate Christians from the rest of the community. But we are part of the community.”

This sentiment resonates in the hearts of many Christians in the region for whom removal from their native land is an absolute last resort.

Iskander El Hinn, a Christian Palestinian who fled to Ramallah with his family in 1948, is emboldened by his Palestinian identity and connection to the land:

“As a Palestinian, I am living where I belong, everywhere I go here is Palestine to me and Jerusalem is its capital…we have been living here for thousands of years; no one can take us away from here.”

Future Hopes

In spite of the exodus and the immense suffering of the Palestinian people, Rabie is encouraged by the dramatic increase in media coverage of the conflict in the past 30 years. He sees the increased exposure of the human rights violations as indicative of the “beginning of the end of Zionist Israel.”

The public has come a long way in terms of its perception of Israel and support for Palestine, thanks to organizations like Rabie’s.

He says that Palestinians at home and abroad are hopeful for peace, but he emphasizes the need for continued education of American Christians on the severity of the conflict.

He recognizes that, even within Israel, much of the Jewish population and social media influencers are pro-peace. These incentives for peace, he argues, must be implemented.

Above all, Palestinians need justice. American Christians must commit themselves to this cause. Rabie discourages them from picking a side-Palestinian or Israeli.

Instead, he encourages Christians, Americans, and global activists to focus their energies and intentions on delivering justice where it is most needed to the long-suffering people of Palestine.

Perhaps then their land will become a home once more.

When israel Says Jump, US Asks How High

During Israel’s 2014 onslaught against Gaza, Israel said ‘jump,’ and Obama and Biden jumped… to the tune of a quarter of a billion taxpayer dollars

By Alison Weir 

President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor – and current Biden campaign senior advisor – recently described how Obama and Biden had helped Israel during its 2014 onslaught against Gaza.

Israel had said ‘jump,’ and Obama and Biden had jumped – to the tune of a quarter of a billion dollars. (This is on top of the $10 million per day that Israel was already getting from American taxpayers.)

Here’s the story:

Tony Blinken served as Deputy National Security Advisor under President Barack Obama and currently is a senior advisor to presidential candidate Joe Biden.

He recently participated in the American Jewish Committee’s virtual Global Forum.

During the Forum he debated with Republican former Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland about which party is more pro-Israel.

In the course of the debate, Blinken boasted of an incident in which Obama and Biden had instantly done Israel’s bidding.

The incident took place during Israel’s 2014 onslaught against Gaza.

Keep in mind that Israeli forces had waged a massive air and land assault on Gaza in July 2014, killing about 2200 Palestinians – of which 1500 were civilians, including 500 children, 16 health care workers, and 9 journalists.

In response, Palestinian resistance fighters had killed 66 Israeli soldiers and 6 Israeli civilians and injured 550 Israelis – 85% of them invading soldiers.

In addition to the deaths, Israeli forces had damaged or destroyed 116,000 Gazan homes, leaving over 100,000 people homeless.

They had also destroyed or damaged 216 Gazan schools and 67 Gazan health care facilities.

Of the 11,000 Gazans injured, 3,300 were children; 1,000 of them are permanently disabled.

More than 1,500 Palestinian children were orphaned. (For more details go here.)

To demonstrate how pro-Israel the Obama administration was, Blinken proudly described to the virtual forum audience Obama and Biden’s role (and his own) in assisting Israel’s pulverization of Gaza.

He began dramatically:

“I got a call late one night from the Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, and he said, ‘Can I come over tonight? It’s something urgent.’

“And I said, of course, come on over.

“This is about 9 o’clock at night at the White House. And he and the military attache from the [Israeli] embassy laid out to me in detail why Israel urgently needed a replenishment of Iron Dome interceptors that were saving lives from missile attacks.”

(Gazan resistance fighters had begun launching rockets in 2001 following Israeli attacks.)

By 2014 the rockets – most of them small, home-made, largely ineffectual projectiles – had killed a total of 23 Israelis.

During the same time period, Israeli air strikes had killed thousands of Gazans.

“The next day,” Blinken continued, “I went to the Oval Office. I sat with President Obama and Vice President Biden.

I laid out what I’d heard from the ambassador and the military attache, and I got three words from both of them in response: ‘Get it done.’

“That was Friday morning. Tuesday, we had a quarter of a billion dollars from Congress to replenish Israel’s Iron Dome supply.

That’s the kind of real action — real deeds — that go to the heart of Israel’s security.”

Israel not ally – Congress to give it $38 billion

While Blinken was trying to claim that Democrats were more pro-Israel than Republicans, the fact is that politicians from both parties have kowtowed to Israel for decades, with only a few exceptions (see this, this, and this).

Today, a bill before Congress will give Israel a minimum of $38 billion over ten years – the largest military aid package in U.S. history.

The bill is co-sponsored equally by Republicans and Democrats. It has already passed the House, and last month the Senate Foreign Relations committee passed it in a unanimous voice vote, paving the way for it to be adopted sometime in the near future. U.S. media have failed to tell Americans about it.

While Americans are often led to believe that Israel is a U.S. ally, the reality is that Israel spies on us, steals our technology, involves us in wars on its behalf, and tried to sink a U.S. Navy ship, killing 34 Americans and injuring over 170.

The pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., the most powerful and pervasive lobby for a foreign country in our nation, is responsible for the massive financial and human capital that our politicians have expended on Israel, one of the world’s smallest nations – and one that was established through a war of ethnic cleansing.

The large majority of Gazans are refugee families violently expelled by Israel, their homes and lands confiscated for the new Jewish state.

Blinken’s 20+ years of senior foreign policy positions – more to come?

Joe Biden sits next to Tony Blinken in airliner
Photo from a tweet by Biden in December 2014: “Congrats to my close friend, Tony Blinken, the new Dep. Secretary of State. Admired in every corner of the world. -vp” (Twitter)

A longtime Israel partisan, Blinken has held senior foreign policy positions in two administrations over two decades.

 He is close to Biden and is currently a senior advisor to the campaign.

On May 18, 2020 he was featured in a video by the Democratic Majority for Israel, which works to rally liberal and progressives to support Israel, despite its long record of human rights abuses and systemic racism.

Oliver Stone, the Most Honest 3 minutes

I also roll my eyes whenever people hate on one president! As if one is destroying the country above the others. Isn’t it obvious we are being had?

This is a choice?

english.khamenei.ir🔻

Ever since the revolution, the government of the United States of America has shown hostility towards the Islamic Republic during terms of different presidents.

Therefore, no one should say that a particular plot was hatched during the time of one president, and not during the time of the current US President. They’re all the same.

The plots that have been hatched against Iran have occurred under various US presidents. But they’re all of the same nature. 


First, they provoked ethnicities in Iran to turn against each other, then they launched a coup, and after that they made Iraq attack Iran.

The next thing that they did was to help our enemy–which was the regime of Saddam–in his war against us, and after the war they imposed sanctions on us.

Then, they provoked all world media networks, and they made them align themselves against the Islamic Republic.

All of these things had been carried out during the time of different presidents of the US, and now, too, these things are being carried out.

During the 2009 sedition, one of the social networks, which could be used to further the goals of the sedition and those who provoked the chaos, needed to fix some technical problems.

The US government asked them to postpone fixing the technical problems because they hoped to overthrow the Islamic Republic with the help of media activities and networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and other networks.

They had these foolish delusions. Therefore, they did not let this network fix its technical problems, and they asked them to postpone it, attending to this task which is more important.

They used all kinds of methods against the Islamic Republic: sanctions are one of these methods. From their viewpoint, this method is aimed at defeating the Islamic Republic.

Their mistake is that they do not know the Iranian nation. Their mistake is that they do not know about the element of faith and unity among our people. Their mistake is that they did not learn a single lesson from their past mistakes.

Trump Ending Wars Gimmick

Trump has sent more new troops to the Middle East than he’s bringing home from Afghanistan. Are we suckers? Yes we are, they know it and they love it.

By Khury Petersen-Smith

When President Trump spoke to army wife Amy Wiliams during his speech and told her he’d arranged her husband’s return home from Afghanistan as a “special surprise,” it was difficult to watch.

Sgt. Townsend Williams then descended the stairs to reunite with his family after seven months of deployment. Congress cheered.

A military family’s reunion — with its complicated feelings that are typically handled in private or on a base — was used for an applause line.

That gimmick was the only glimpse many Americans will get of the human reality of our wars overseas.

There is no such window into the lives or suffering of people in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, or beyond.

That’s unacceptable. And so is the myth that Trump is actually ending the wars.

As German soldiers’ scribbles on the walls of troops’ quarters or train compartments put it: “We have to fight only for the purse of others. Anything else they keep telling us is rubbish.”

The ‘war on terror’ was not designed to end.

The U.S. has reached a deal with the Taliban to remove 3,400 of the 12,000 U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, with the pledge to withdraw more if certain conditions are met.

That’s a long overdue first step, as U.S. officials are finally recognizing the war is a disaster and are negotiating an exit.

But taking a step back reveals a bigger picture in which, from West Africa to Central Asia, Trump is expanding and deepening the War on Terror — and making it deadlier.

Far from ending the wars, U.S. airstrikes in Somalia and Syria have skyrocketed under Trump, leading to more civilian casualties in both countries.

In Somalia, the forces U.S. operations are supposedly targeting have not been defeated after 18 years of war.

Where is the anti-war movement?

It received little coverage in the U.S., but the first week of this year saw a truck bombing in Mogadishu that killed more than 80 people.

Everywhere, ordinary people, people just like us except they happen to live in other countries, pay the price of these wars.

Last year saw over 10,000 Afghan civilian casualties — the sixth year in a row to reach those grim heights.

And don’t forget, 2020 opened with Trump bringing the U.S. to the brink of a potentially catastrophic war with Iran.

And he continues to escalate punishing sanctions on the country, devastating women, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable people.

Trump is not ending wars, but preparing for more war. Over the past year, he has deployed 14,000 more troops in the Middle East — beyond the tens of thousands already there.

If this seems surprising, it’s in part because the problem has been bipartisan. Indeed, many congressional Democrats have actually supported these escalations.

In December, 188 House Democrats joined Republicans in passing a nearly $740 billion military budget that continues the wars.

They passed the budget after abandoning anti-war measures put forward by California Representative Barbara Lee and the precious few others trying to rein in the wars.

It’s worth remembering that State of the Union visual, of Congress rising in unison and joining the president in applause for his stunt with the Williams family.

Because there has been nearly that level of consensus year after year in funding, and expanding, the wars.

Ending them will not be easy. Too many powerful interests — from weapons manufacturers to politicians — are too invested.

But ending the wars begins with rejecting the idea that real opposition will come from inside the White House.

As with so many other issues — like when Trump first enacted the Muslim Ban and people flocked to airports nationwide in protest, or the outpouring against caging children at the border — those of us who oppose the wars need to raise our voices, and make the leaders follow.

How to Know If America Is Your Enemy

February 24, 2020

If your country is friendly toward Russia, China, or Iran, then today’s American Government is probably applying subversion, economic sanctions, or maybe even planning a coup, or (if none of those will succeed) probably is war-gaming now for a possible military invasion and permanent military occupation, of your country.

These things have been done to Russia, Iran, China, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Ukraine, Georgia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and some other countries.

However, after the 9/11 attacks in America, the U.S. Government has added another system for selecting countries to immiserate, and those are mainly the countries that already suffer the most misery — some of them are countries that were listed above, but others (many others) are not, and are selected instead largely because they are already in misery, and also because America — that is, the Deep State which controls it, America’s hundreds of billionaires, who control international corporations and the press in America, and not just control the politicians who win public offices — wants to control the given target country in order to extract its natural resources or simply in order to place some of U.S. military bases there so as to be better able to invade other countries.

This relatively new category of America’s targeted enemies was invented, mainly, in 2003 and 2004, by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a Professor at the U.S. Naval College and columnist and writer for various popular magazines, as well as of best-selling books.

Exhibiting megalomania in the highest degree.

His 2004 book The Pentagon’s New Map, presents that map, to show the areas, mainly around the Equator and including all of Central America; plus all of South America except Chile, Argentina, and Brazil; plus all of Africa except South Africa, all countries of which are supposedly not connected to globalization — i.e., they are Third World instead of First World — and he says that they are unstable and therefore need to be policed by the world’s policeman, which is the U.S. Government, to serve there as the judge, jury, and executioner, of anyone who lives there and who resists that judge, jury, and executioner.

His key statement is on page 227, “A country’s potential to warrant a U.S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity.”

Here is the map, which shows which countries are supposedly high globalization connectivity and therefore inappropriate for America to sanction, coup, or invade and occupy; and which countries are supposedly low globalization connectivity and therefore appropriate for America to sanction, coup, or invade and occupy:

http://archive.is/2Pjqp

As can be seen there, the following countries are not to be policed by the U.S. Government: Canada, U.S., Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, UK, Greenland, Iceland, EU, Switzerland, Ukraine, Georgia, South Africa, Russia, Mongolia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, N.Z.

He calls those the “Globalized Functioning Core.” All others are “the Non-Integrated Gap” countries, America’s virtual free-fire zones, to control so as to ‘prevent terrorism’.

Instead of international law being what the United Nations says it is, this “new map” theory says that international law in the “Non-Integrated Gap” countries should be what the U.S. Government says it is.

According to Barnett’s theory, as he expressed it in its original version in an Esquire magazine article titled “Why the Pentagon Changes Its Maps: And why we’ll keep going to war,” he listed these countries as “THE GAP” or third-world countries, “My list of real trouble for the world in the 1990s, today, and tomorrow, starting in our own backyard” (and these are listed here by the names that he gave to them): Haiti, Colombia, Brazil and Argentina, Former Yugoslavia, Congo and Rwanda/Burundi, Angola, South Africa, Israel-Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Indonesia.

 Then he listed “CORE MEMBERS I WORRY WE MAY LOSE:” China, Russia, India.

So, if you live in any of those countries, then Barnett, and the many U.S. generals who respect his theory, and the U.S. billionaires, who want the resources in those countries or else just want military bases there, view you as an enemy, not as a citizen of a sovereign foreign country.

His Esquire article says, “it is always possible to fall off this bandwagon called globalization. And when you do, bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky, so will American troops.”

He assumes that you need a “policeman” from America because what your own country provides is too primitive. And, “Conversely, if a country is largely functioning within globalization, we tend not to have to send our forces there to restore order or eradicate threats.”

On 22 August 2017, Thierry Meyssan at Voltairenet headlined “The US military project for the world” and gave his progressive critical interpretation of Barnett’s theory by placing it into the long-term evolution of U.S. geostrategy.

On 26 September 2004, Razib Khan gave his admiring racist-fascist or ideologically nazi interpretation of it, under the headline “IQ And The Non-Integrating Gap”.

He assumed there that lower-income countries are “lower IQ” and therefore need to be directed according to the master’s whip, not as sovereign countries.

The book’s publisher places online an informative excerpt from the work. under the headline “An Operating Theory of the World” and Barnett says there:

As the “vision guy,” my job was to generate and deliver a compelling brief that would mobilize the Defense Department toward generating the future fighting force demanded by the post-9/11 strategic environment. Over the next two years I gave that brief well over a hundred times to several thousand Defense Department officials. Through this intense give-and-take, my material grew far beyond my original inputs to include the insider logic driving all of the major policy decisions promulgated by the department’s senior leadership. Over time, senior military officials began citing the brief as a Rosetta stone for the Bush Administration’s new national security strategy.

The strategy remains in force, though there now is a return to focusing on the main enemies being Russia, China, and Iran. The “gap” countries are currently viewed not only according to the “gap” but also according to their relationships to Russia, China, and Iran.

On “Humanitarian Intervention”

The specific use of the term “humanitarian” in Western discourse, when applied to an act of war, seems to have started with NATO’s 1999 war for Kosovo.  It was right around then that the term “intervention” became commonly used in place of war.

By Helena Cobban

I am old enough to remember when a “humanitarian intervention” meant organizing collections of food and blankets to send to distant communities in distress. Heck, in my elementary school in England we knitted little 6-inch squares to make up such blankets: they were taken away, sewn together, and delivered to the Red Cross by the teachers.

Nowadays, though, the term “humanitarian intervention” is nearly always understood to mean military action-or, in short, war. How did this happen?

The first move in this weasel-ish double rebranding was to re-describe war as merely “intervention.” That started happening in Western discourse right after the end of the Cold War, in discussions of what policies Western governments should adopt toward crises in Bosnia, Somalia, or Rwanda.

At that time, Western governments and publics were still prepared to consider deploying numerous more pacific tools from the traditional diplomats’ tool-box, so “intervention” could still mean engaging in a broad range of diplomatic activities.

But after the horrors of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, the posture the United States and its allies adopted toward political crises in places of geostrategic interest shifted strongly toward a greater reliance on the use or threat of force, and the term “intervention” became increasingly synonymous with acts of war.

That shift became solidified in the over-militarized years after 9/11. Today, politicians, journalists, think tankers, and academics often unthinkingly conduct entire, lengthy discussions of whether Washington should “intervene” in crises in Syria, Venezuela, or wherever, when what they are actually discussing is whether Washington should use military action against that country.

As they do that, they are de-facto setting aside any consideration of the numerous other tools of diplomacy.

The addition of the descriptor “humanitarian” to any such war/intervention is possibly an even more dangerous rhetorical move since, as explained below, it degrades the very concept of humanitarianism.

It is easy to see why warmongers have often wanted to describe their plans as “humanitarian”: it clothes their military campaigns in all the fuzzy feelings of the do-gooder. In one way or another, imperial and colonial powers have been doing just that for nearly 200 years.

In the early days of the European empires, perhaps it was okay for the architects of their wars of expansion to describe their campaigns in purely selfish terms. “We’ll grab those crown jewels from the rulers of India!”

“We’ll seize control of those lucrative trade routes!” “We’ll find great new acreage for our farmers to settle on and use!” But with the growth of literacy and the spread of newspapers, it became necessary to temper such displays of avarice and ascribe more noble goals to the continuing wars of expansion.

Saving the “natives” of the targeted lands from some form of civilizational blight became a greater part of the empire-building rhetoric. And if the representations of that blight had to be exaggerated to some extent by the imperialists’ spokesmen and their allies in the national media, in order to strengthen the case for a “salvationist” imperial war-as happened very frequently-then so be it.

(The counterpoint to that was always to downplay, or hide altogether wherever possible, any accounts of the much greater violence employed by the imperial armies and the much greater human suffering that they inflicted…)

The specific use of the term “humanitarian” in Western discourse, when applied to an act of war, seems to have started with NATO’s 1999 war for Kosovo. As noted above, it was right around then that the term “intervention” became commonly used in place of war.

Perhaps the rhetoricians who made that move realized that-due to the still-prevalent understandings about the nature and definition of “humanitarianism”-the term “humanitarian war” was just too much a contradiction in terms.

I can state unequivocally, based on my personal experience, that there is no such thing as a “humanitarian war.” For six years, 1975 through 1981, I lived as a civilian and struggled to maintain our family’s household in war-torn Lebanon.

Then, in the early 2000s, I did some in-depth research (including field research) into the legacies of earlier armed conflicts in three countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In every one of those conflicts, as in others around the world, it is the poorest and most vulnerable of the civilians trapped inside the war zone who suffer the worst losses and abuses.

Organizations like the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Iraq Body Count, and Brown University’s “Costs of War” project all confirm that conclusion.

Over the past 20 years, the increasing use of the term “humanitarian intervention” to mean military action has been accompanied by the efforts major Western governments have pursued to co-opt and distort the work of non-governmental organizations with previously long records of providing humanitarian aid on a relatively non-political basis.

Two big U.S. examples of this are the New York-based International Rescue Committee (IRC) and Portland-based Mercy Corps. Both of these bodies have worked closely with the U.S. government on projects in Syria and elsewhere.

In Syria, they have only ever provided relief services to people in areas controlled by the anti-Assad opposition. This politically discriminatory delivery of services runs directly counter to the core humanitarian-aid principles of impartiality and neutrality.

(These and similar organizations, meanwhile, mounted broad, highly alarmist media campaigns that featured only the casualties in areas of Syria controlled by anti-Assad forces, while remaining mum on the also-high number of casualties suffered in the government-held areas that hold the majority of the country’s population.

Those campaigns, coming from respected aid organizations, reinforced the perception among Western publics that the Syrian government and its allies are somehow uniquely evil, while Syria’s anti-government forces act only like Boy Scouts.)

Both the IRC and Mercy Corps have taken considerable amounts of money from government sources in recent years. As reported in the IRC’s “Form 990” filing for 2016, $415.4 million (58%) of its $710.3 million income over the preceding year came from government grants, while for Mercy Corps, the corresponding proportion in its 2017 filing was 57% of its $308.2 million income.

It seems plausible to conclude, therefore, that these organizations (and many smaller aid groups that acted in accordance with U.S. or UK political objectives in Syria) have also violated the core humanitarian principle of independence from the actions or policies of governments.

This conclusion is strengthened when we learn that the Executive President of the IRC is David Milliband, a former British Foreign Secretary who was a long-time Blairite operative in 10 Downing Street, or that the former President of Mercy Corps, Nancy Lindborg, now heads the disturbingly hawkish, Congressionally-funded U.S. Institute of Peace.

For his part, Milliband has a nice gig at the IRC, where in 2016 he pulled in a compensation package totaling $885,000.

The use of the term “humanitarian intervention” for war and the co-optation and distortion of the work of aid organizations have, between them, had the further effect of decreasing the understanding among Western publics of principles of humanitarian action in times of war that had more than proven their worth over the preceding 140 years.

Those principles were closely tied to the emergence and development since the 1860s of the international “Red Cross” movement (to whose British affiliate, in late 1950s, my classmates and I contributed our little knitted squares).

Almost since its inception, the Red Cross movement has had two parts, both dedicated to upholding the same core principles. One part is the globe-spanning International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, made up of affiliated national-level societies that pursue their humanitarian work in many different contexts, mostly relating to natural disasters, not war.

The other wing of the movement is the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which focuses more tightly on the challenges of humanitarian action in times of war.

The ICRC has long worked with national governments, international organizations, and civil society to develop principles that ensure that wars, when fought, inflict as little damage on combatants and noncombatants as possible.

In times of conflict, it works with all those parties and the national Red Cross/Crescent societies to try to implement those principles. One of the best-known achievements of the ICRC is the set of four Geneva Conventions it midwifed in 1949.

These treaties, to which nearly all the world’s governments have acceded, lay out the rules for how armed forces must treat wounded or detained prisoners-of-war and how they must treat civilian residents of “foreign” areas that fall under their control in the course of any battle. Other ICRC-midwifed treaties dictate what kinds of weapons can be used in warfare and also, crucially, how they can be used.

All these fundamental principles of humanitarian action in time of war put clear constraints on how warfare can be waged-precisely because their authors recognized that in and of itself warfare is profoundly inimical to human life and wellbeing. Hence the deep contradiction of the idea of any “humanitarian war.”

It is time, therefore, to lay aside all the weasel-words and euphemisms that members of Western political elites have used in recent year to mask the realities of the nature of war. Military action is not just an “intervention.”

In many circumstances, it is an act of war, and it should be recognized as such. And military action can never, in itself, be described as “humanitarian.” As General Sherman recognized, war is indeed hell.

US Interventions For +Military Bases

the U.S. and British governments exiled the Chagossian people from their homeland in the Indian Ocean’s Chagos Archipelago to create a secretive military base on Chagos’ largest island, Diego Garcia. the base on British-controlled Diego Garcia helped launch the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and was part of the CIA’s secret “rendition” program for captured terrorist suspects.

Third World Traveler

As each intervention was being planned, planners focused on building new U.S. military installations, or securing basing rights at foreign facilities, in order to support the coming war.

But after the war ended, the U.S. forces did not withdraw, but stayed behind, often creating suspicion and resentment among local populations, much as the Soviet forces faced after liberating Eastern Europe in World War II.

The new U.S. military bases were not merely built to aid the interventions, but the interventions also conveniently afforded an opportunity to station the bases.

Indeed, the establishment of new bases may in the long run be more critical to U.S. war planners than the wars themselves, as well as to enemies of the U.S.

The massacre of September 11 were not directly tied to the Gulf War; Osama bin Laden had backed the Saudi fundamentalist dictatorship against the Iraqi secular dictatorship in the war. The attacks mainly had their roots in the U.S. decision to leave behind bases in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

The permanent stationing of new U.S. forces in and around the Balkans and Afghanistan could easily generate a similar terrorist “blowback” years from now.

This is not to say that all U.S. wars of the past decade have been the result of some coordinated conspiracy to make Americans the overlords of the belt between Bosnia and Pakistan.

But it is to recast the interventions as opportunistic responses to events, which have enabled Washington to gain a foothold in the “middle ground” between Europe to the west, Russia to the north, and China to the east, and turn this region increasingly into an American “sphere of influence.”

The series of interventions have also virtually secured U.S. corporate control over the oil supplies for both Europe and East Asia. It’s not a conspiracy; it’s just business as usual.

Gulf War.

Contrary to original U.S. promises to its Arab allies, the 1991 Gulf War left behind large military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and basing rights in the other Gulf states of Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. The war also heightened the profile of existing U.S. air bases in Turkey.

The war completed the American inheritance of the oil region from which the British had withdrawn in the early 1970s. Yet the U.S. itself only imports about 5 percent of its oil from the Gulf; the rest is exported mainly to Europe and Japan.

French President Jacques Chirac correctly viewed the U.S. role in the Persian Gulf as securing control over oil sources for the European and East Asian economic powers. The U.S. decided to permanently station bases around the Gulf after 1991 not only to counter Saddam Hussein, and to support the continued bombing against Iraq, but to quell potential internal dissent in the oil-rich monarchies.

Somalia War.

The intervention in Somalia in 1992-93 ended in defeat for the U.S., but it is important to understand why the so-called “humanitarian” intervention took place. In the 1970s-80s, the U.S. had backed Somali dictator Siad Barre in his wars against Soviet-backed Ethiopia.

In return, Barre had granted the U.S. Navy the rights to use Somali naval ports, which were strategically situated at the southern end of the Red Sea, linking the Suez Canal to the Indian Ocean.

After Barre was overthrown, the U.S. used the ensuing chaos and famine as its excuse to move back in, but made the mistake of siding with one group of warlords against the Mogadishu warlord Mohamed Aidid.

In the battle of Mogadishu, romanticized in the movie “Black Hawk Down,” 18 U.S. troops and many hundreds of Somalis were killed. The U.S. withdrew, and eventually gained naval basing rights in the port of Aden, just across the Red Sea in Yemen.

Balkan Wars.

The U.S. interventions in Bosnia in 1995, and Kosovo in 1999, were ostensibly reactions to Serbian “ethnic cleansing,” yet the U.S. had not intervened to prevent similar “ethnic cleansing” by its Croatian or Albanian allies in the Balkans.

The U.S. military interventions in former Yugoslavia resulted in new U.S. military bases in five countries: Hungary, Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, and the sprawling Camp Bondsteel complex in southeastern Kosovo. NATO allies have also participated in the interventions, though not always with the same political priorities.

As in the Gulf and Afghan conflicts, European Union allies may be joining the U.S. wars not simply out of solidarity, but out of fear of being completely excluded from carving out the postwar order in the region

. The Kosovo intervention, in particular, was followed by stepped-up European efforts to form an independent military force outside of the U.S.-commanded NATO.

The U.S. stationing of huge bases along the eastern edge of the E.U., which can be used to project forces into the Middle East, was carried out partly in anticipation of European militaries one day going their own way.

Afghan War.

The U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was ostensibly a reaction to the September 11 attacks, and to some extent was aimed at toppling the Taliban. But Afghanistan has historically been in an extremely strategic location straddling South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

The country also conveniently lies along a proposed Unocal oil pipeline route from the Caspian Sea oil fields to the Indian Ocean. The U.S. had already been situating forces in the neighboring ex-Soviet republic of Uzbekistan before September 11.

During the war, it has used its new bases and basing rights in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, and to a lesser extent Tajikistan.

It is using the continued instability in Afghanistan (like in Somalia, largely a result of setting warlords against warlords) as an excuse to station a permanent military presence throughout the region, and it even plans to institute the dollar as the new Afghan currency.

The new string of U.S. military bases are becoming permanent outposts guarding a new Caspian Sea oil infrastructure.

Why War?

Geopolitical priorities may help explain why Washington went to war in all these countries, even as paths to peace remained open. President George Bush launched the February 1991 ground war against Iraq, even though Saddam was already withdrawing from Kuwait under Soviet disengagement plan.

He also sent forces into Somalia in 1992, even though the famine he used as a justification had already lessened. President Clinton launched a war on Serbia in 1999 to force a withdraw from Kosovo, even though Yugoslavia had already met many of his withdrawal terms at the Rambouillet conference.

President George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan in 2001 without having put much diplomatic pressure on the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden, or letting anti-Taliban forces (such as Pashtun commander Abdul Haq) win over Taliban forces on their own.

Washington went to war not as a last resort, but because it saw war as a convenient opportunity to further larger goals.

Geopolitical priorities may also help explain the reluctance of the U.S. to declare victory in these wars. If the U.S. had ousted Saddam from power in 1991, his Gulf allies would have demanded the withdrawal of U.S. bases, but his continued hold onto power justifies intensive U.S. bombing of Iraq and a continued hold over the Gulf oil region.

The fact that Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar have not been captured in four months of war also provides convenient justification for the permanent stationing of U.S. bases in Central and South Asia. All three men are more useful to U.S. plans if they are alive and free, at least for the time being.

Wars in the Making.

Iraq is certainly the primary target for a new U.S. war, for President Bush to “finish the job” that his daddy left unfinished.

Now that the American sphere of influence is taking hold in the “middle ground” between Europe and East Asia, the attention may be turned on both Iraq and its former enemy Iran as the only remaining regional powers to stand in the way.

Bush may be under the illusion that Iraqi opposition forces can be refashioned into a pro-U.S. force like the Northern Alliance or Kosovo Liberation Army.

He may also be under the illusion that his threats against Iran will help Iranian “moderate” reformers, even though it is already dangerously strengthening the hand of Islamist hard-liners.

A U.S. war against either Iraq or Iran will destroy any bridges recently built to Islamic states, especially as Bush also abandons even the pretense of even-handedness between Israelis and Palestinians.

U.S. war planners are also openly targeting Somalia and Yemen, and are patrolling their shores with Navy ships, though they may decide to intervene indirectly to avoid the disasters of Mogadishu in 1993 and Aden in 2000.

Why Osama Bin-Laden?

Anti-Imperialist

Bin Laden had backed Aidid to prevent new U.S. bases in Somalia, and his father is from the historically rebellious Hadhramaut region of southeastern Yemen. Yet Washington’s priority would not be to eliminate Bin Laden’s influence, leaving that role mainly to local forces.

Rather the priority would be to regain naval access to strategic Somali and Yemeni ports.

The most direct U.S. intervention since the Afghan invasion has been in the southern Philippines, against the Moro (Muslim) guerrilla militia Abu Sayyaf.

The U.S. sees the tiny Abu Sayyaf group as inspired by Bin Laden, rather than a thuggish outgrowth of decades of Moro insurgency in Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago. U.S. special forces “trainers” are carrying out joint “exercises” with Philippine troops in the active combat zone.

Their goal may be to achieve an easy Grenada-style victory over the 200 rebels, for the global propaganda effect against Bin Laden. But once in place, the counterinsurgency campaign could easily be redirected against other

Moro or even Communist rebel groups in Mindanao. It could also help achieve the other major U.S. goal in the Philippines: to fully reestablish U.S. military basing rights, which ended when the Philippine Senate terminated U.S. control of Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base, after the Cold War ended and a volcanic eruption damaged both bases.

Such a move back into the country would be strongly resisted, however, by both leftist and rightist Filipino nationalists.

The U.S. return to the Philippines, like Bush’s newest threats against North Korea, may also be an effort to assert U.S. influence in East Asia, as China rises as a global power and other Asian economies recover from financial crises.

A growing U.S. military role throughout Asia could counteract increasing criticism of U.S. bases in Japan. The moves could also raise fears in China of a U.S. sphere of influence intruding on its borders.

The new U.S. air base in the ex-Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan is too close to China for comfort. (Russian fears of U.S. encirclement may also be rekindled, though Russia may instead join the U.S. in using its oil to lessen the power of OPEC. )

Meanwhile, other regions of the world are also being targeted in the U.S. “war on terror,” notably South America. Just as Cold War propaganda recast leftist rebels in South Vietnam and El Salvador as puppets of North Vietnam or Cuba, U.S. “war on terror” propaganda is casting Colombian rebels as the allies of neighboring oil-rich Venezuela.

The beret-clad Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, is described loosely as sympathetic to Bin Laden and Fidel Castro, and as possibly turning OPEC against the U.S. Chavez could serve as an ideal new enemy if Bin Laden is eliminated.

“Hello Mr. President,” he told off Bush in English, saying: “You are a donkey.” Noam Chomsky is not.

The crisis in South America, though it cannot be tied to Islamic militancy, may be the most dangerous new war in the making.

Common themes.

Whether we look at the U.S. wars of the past decade in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, the Balkans, or Afghanistan, or at the possible new wars in Yemen, the Philippines, or Colombia/Venezuela, or even at Bush’s new “axis of evil” of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, the same common themes arise.

The U.S. military interventions cannot all be tied to the insatiable U.S. thirst for oil (or rather for oil profits), even though many of the recent wars do have their roots in oil politics.

They can nearly all be tied to the U.S. desire to build or rebuild military bases.

The new U.S. military bases, and increasing control over oil supplies, can in turn be tied to the historical shift taking place since the 1980s: the rise of European and East Asian blocs that have the potential to replace the United States and Soviet Union as the world’s economic superpowers.

Much as the Roman Empire tried to use its military power to buttress its weakening economic and political hold over its colonies, the United States is aggressively inserting itself into new regions of the world to prevent its competitors from doing the same.

The goal is not to end “terror” or encourage “democracy,” and Bush will not accomplish either of these claimed goals. The short-term goal is to station U.S. military forces in regions where local nationalists had evicted them.

The long-term goal is to increase U.S. corporate control over the oil needed by Europe and East Asia, whether the oil is in around the Caspian or the Caribbean seas.

The ultimate goal is to establish new American spheres of influence, and eliminate any obstacles– religious militants, secular nationalists, enemy governments, or even allies–who stand in the way.

U.S. citizens may welcome the interventions to defend the “homeland” from attack, or even to build new bases or oil pipelines to preserve U.S. economic power.

But as the dangers of this strategy become more apparent, Americans may begin to realize that they are being led down a risky path that will turn even more of the world against them, and lead inevitably to future September 11s (false flags)

VETERAN’S DAY: Watching My Students Turn into Soldiers of Empire

A new generation of West Pointers joins America’s hopeless wars

 

I imagined a life of fancy uniforms; tough masculine training; and maybe, at worst, some photo opportunities during a safe, “peace-keeping” deployment in a place like Kosovo.
Sure, the U.S. was then quietly starving hundreds of thousands of children with a crippling sanctions regime against autocrat Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, occasionally lobbing cruise missiles at “terrorist” encampments here or there, and garrisoning much of the globe

 

November 11, 2019

Patches, pins, medals, and badges are the visible signs of an exclusive military culture, a silent language by which soldiers and officers judge each other’s experiences, accomplishments, and general worth.

In July 2001, when I first walked through the gate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point at the ripe young age of 17, the “combat patch” on one’s right shoulder — evidence of a deployment with a specific unit — had more resonance than colorful medals like Ranger badges reflecting specific skills.

Back then, before the 9/11 attacks ushered in a series of revenge wars “on terror,” the vast majority of officers stationed at West Point didn’t boast a right shoulder patch.

Those who did were mostly veterans of modest combat in the first Gulf War of 1990-1991.

Nonetheless, even those officers were regarded by the likes of me as gods. After all, they’d seen “the elephant.”

We young cadets arrived then with far different expectations about Army life and our futures, ones that would prove incompatible with the realities of military service in a post-9/11 world.

When my mother — as was mandatory for a 17-year-old — put her signature on my future Army career, I imagined a life of fancy uniforms; tough masculine training; and maybe, at worst, some photo opportunities during a safe, “peace-keeping” deployment in a place like Kosovo.

Sure, the U.S. was then quietly starving hundreds of thousands of children with a crippling sanctions regime against autocrat Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, occasionally lobbing cruise missiles at “terrorist” encampments here or there, and garrisoning much of the globe.

Still, the life of a conventional Army officer in the late 1990s did fit pretty closely with my high-school fantasies.

You won’t be surprised to learn, however, that the world of future officers at the Academy irreparably changed when those towers collapsed in my home town of New York.

By the following May, it wasn’t uncommon to overhear senior cadets on the phone with girlfriends or fiancées explaining that they were heading for war upon graduation. 

As a plebe (freshman), I still had years ahead in my West Point journey during which our world changed even more. Older cadets I’d known would soon be part of the invasion of Afghanistan.

Drinking excessively at a New York Irish bar on St. Patrick’s Day in 2003, I watched in wonder as, on TV, U.S. bombs and missiles rained down on Iraq as part of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s promised “shock-and-awe“ campaign. 

The system for endless war and debt.

Soon enough, the names of former cadets I knew well were being announced over the mess hall loudspeaker at breakfast. They’d been killed in Afghanistan or, more commonly, in Iraq.

My greatest fear then, I’m embarrassed to admit, was that I’d miss the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn’t long after my May 28, 2005, graduation that I’d serve in Baghdad. Later, I would be sent to Kandahar, Afghanistan. I buried eight young men under my direct command.

Five died in combat; three took their own lives. After surviving the worst of it with my body (though not my mind) intact, I was offered a teaching position back at my alma mater. During my few years in the history department at West Point, I taught some 300 or more cadets. It was the best job I ever had.

I think about them often, the ones I’m still in touch with and the majority whom I’ll never hear from or of again. Many graduated last year and are already out there carrying water for empire. The last batch will enter the regular Army next May.

Recently, my mother asked me what I thought my former students were now doing or would be doing after graduation. I was taken aback and didn’t quite know how to answer. 

Wasting their time and their lives was, I suppose, what I wanted to say. But a more serious analysis, based on a survey of U.S. Army missions in 2019 and bolstered by my communications with peers still in the service, leaves me with an even more disturbing answer.

A new generation of West Point educated officers, graduating a decade and a half after me, faces potential tours of duty in… hmm, Afghanistan, Iraq, or other countries involved in the never-ending American war on terror, missions that will not make this country any safer or lead to “victory” of any sort, no matter how defined.

New Generation of Cadets Serving the Empire Abroad

West Point seniors (“first-class cadets”) choose their military specialties and their first duty-station locations in a manner reminiscent of the National Football League draft.

This is unique to Academy grads and differs markedly from the more limited choices and options available to the 80 percent of officers commissioned through the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) or Officer Candidate School (OCS).

Throughout the 47-month academy experience, West Pointers are ranked based on a combination of academic grades, physical fitness scores, and military-training evaluations. Then, on a booze-fueled, epic night, the cadets choose jobs in their assigned order of merit.

Highly ranked seniors get to pick what are considered the most desirable jobs and duty locations (helicopter pilot, Hawaii). Bottom-feeding cadets choose from the remaining scraps (field artillery, Fort Sill, Oklahoma).

In truth, though, it matters remarkably little which stateside or overseas base one first reports to. Within a year or two, most young lieutenants in today’s Army will serve in any number of diverse “contingency” deployments overseas. Some will indeed be in America’s mostly unsanctioned wars abroad, while others will straddle the line between combat and training in, say, “advise-and-assist” missions in Africa.

Now, here’s the rub: given the range of missions that my former students are sure to participate in, I can’t help but feel frustration.

After all, it should be clear 18 years after the 9/11 attacks that almost none of those missions have a chance in hell of succeeding.

Worse yet, the killing my beloved students might take part in (and the possibility of them being maimed or dying) won’t make America any safer or better. They are, in other words, doomed to repeat my own unfulfilling, damaging journey — in some cases, on the very same ground in Iraq and Afghanistan where I fought.

Consider just a quick survey of some of the possible missions that await them. Some will head for Iraq — my first and formative war — though it’s unclear just what they’ll be expected to do there.

ISIS has been attritted to a point where indigenous security forces could assumedly handle the ongoing low-intensity fight, though they will undoubtedly assist in that effort.

What they can’t do is reform a corrupt, oppressive Shia-chauvinist sectarian government in Baghdad that guns down its own protesting people, repeating the very mistakes that fueled the rise of the Islamic State in the first place.

Oh, and the Iraqi government, and a huge chunk of Iraqis as well, don’t wantany more American troops in their country. But when has national sovereignty or popular demand stopped Washington before?

Others are sure to join the thousands of servicemen still in Afghanistan in the 19th year of America’s longest ever war — and that’s even if you don’t count our first Afghan War (1979-1989) in the mix.

And keep in mind that most of the cadets-turned-officers I taught were born in 1998 or thereafter and so were all of three years old or younger when the Twin Towers crumbled.

The first of our wars to come from that nightmare has always been unwinnable. All the Afghan metrics — the U.S. military’s own “measures for success” — continue to trend badly, worse than ever in fact. The futility of the entire endeavor borders on the absurd.

It makes me sad to think that my former officemate and fellow West Point history instructor, Mark, is once again over there. Along with just about every serving officer I’ve known, he would laugh if asked whether he could foresee –or even define – “victory” in that country.

Take my word for it, after 18-plus years, whatever idealism might once have been in the Army has almost completely evaporated.

Resignation is what remains among most of the officer corps. As for me, I’ll be left hoping against hope that someone I know or taught isn’t the last to die in that never-ending war from hell.

My former cadets who ended up in armor (tanks and reconnaissance) or ventured into the Special Forces might now find themselves in Syria — the war President Donald Trump “ended” by withdrawing American troops from that country, until, of course, almost as many of them were more or less instantly sent back in.

Some of the armor officers among my students might even have the pleasure of indefinitely guarding that country’s oil fields, which — if the U.S. takes some of that liquid gold for itself — might just violate international law. But hey, what else is new?

Still more — mostly intelligence officers, logisticians, and special operators — can expect to deploy to any one of the dozen or so West African or Horn of Africa countries that the U.S. military now calls home.

In the name of “advising and assisting” the local security forces of often autocratic African regimes, American troops still occasionally, if quietly, die in “non-combat” missions in places like Niger or Somalia.

Afghan interpreter, left, and U.S. solider, on a mountain ridge near Forward Operation Base Lane, Zabul Province, Afghanistan, Feb. 21, 2009. (DoD/Staff Sgt. Adam Mancini)

None of these combat operations have been approved, or even meaningfully debated, by Congress. But in the America of 2019 that doesn’t qualify as a problem. There are, however, problems of a more strategic variety.

After all, it’s demonstrably clear that, since the founding of the U.S. military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2008, violence on the continent has only increased, while Islamist terror and insurgent groups have proliferated in an exponential fashion.

To be fair, though, such counterproductivity has been the name of the game in the “war on terror” since it began.

Another group of new academy graduates will spend up to a year in Poland, Romania, or the Baltic states of Eastern Europe. There, they’ll ostensibly train the paltry armies of those relatively new NATO countries — added to the alliance in foolish violation of repeated American promises not to expand eastward as the Cold War ended.

In reality, though, they’ll be serving as provocative “signals” to a supposedly expansionist Russia. With the Russian threat wildly exaggerated, just as it was in the Cold War era, the very presence of my Baltic-based former cadets will only heighten tensions between the two over-armed nuclear heavyweights. Such military missions are too big not to be provocative, but too small to survive a real (if essentially unimaginable) war.

The intelligence officers among my cadets might, on the other hand, get the “honor” of helping the Saudi Air Force through intelligence-sharing to doom some Yemeni targets — often civilian — to oblivion thanks to U.S. manufactured munitions. In other words, these young officers could be made complicit in what’s already the worst humanitarian disaster in the world.

Other recent cadets of mine might even have the ignominious distinction of being part of military convoys driving along interstate highways to America’s southern border to emplace what Trump has termed “beautiful“ barbed wire there, while helping detain refugees of wars and disorder that Washington often helped to fuel.

Yet other graduates may already have found themselves in the barren deserts of Saudi Arabia, since Trump has dispatched 3,000 U.S. troops to that country in recent months.

There, those young officers can expect to go full mercenary, since the president defended his deployment of those troops (plus two jet fighter squadrons and two batteries of Patriot missiles) by noting that the Saudis would “pay” for “our help.”

Setting aside for the moment the fact that basing American troops near the Islamic holy cities of the Arabian Peninsula didn’t exactly end well the last time around – you undoubtedly remember a guy named bin Laden who protested that deployment so violently – the latest troop buildup in Saudi Arabia portends a disastrous future war with Iran.

None of these potential tasks awaiting my former students is even remotely linked to the oath (to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”) that newly commissioned officers swear on day one.

They are instead all unconstitutional, ill-advised distractions that benefit mainly an entrenched national security state and the arms-makers that go with them.

The tragedy is that a few of my beloved cadets with whom I once played touch football, who babysat my children, who shed tears of anxiety and fear during private lunches in my office might well sustain injuries that will last a lifetime or die in one of this country’s endless hegemonic wars.

Sgt. John Hoxie, watches 82nd Airborne Division’s All American Week celebration May 18, 2009. Hoxie returned to Fort Bragg for the first time since he was injured during a 2007 deployment to Iraq. (The U.S. Army/Flickr)

A Nightmare Come True

This May, the last of the freshman cadets I once taught will graduate from the Academy. Commissioned that same afternoon as second lieutenants in the Army, they will head off to “serve” their country (and its imperial ambitions) across the wide expanse of the continental United States and a broader world peppered with American military bases.

Given my own tortured path of dissent while in that military (and my relief on leaving it), knowing where they’re heading leaves me with a feeling of melancholy.

In a sense, it represents the severing of my last tenuous connection with the institutions to which I dedicated my adult life.

Though I was already skeptical and antiwar, I still imagined that teaching those cadets an alternative, more progressive version of our history would represent a last service to an Army I once unconditionally loved.

My romantic hope was that I’d help develop future officers imbued with critical thinking and with the integrity to oppose unjust wars.

It was a fantasy that helped me get up each morning, don a uniform, and do my job with competence and enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, as my last semester as an assistant professor of history wound down, I felt a growing sense of dread.

Partly it was the realization that I’d soon return to the decidedly unstimulating “real Army,” but it was more than that, too. I loved academia and “my” students, yet I also knew that I couldn’t save them.

I knew that they were indeed doomed to take the same path I did.

My last day in front of a class, I skipped the planned lesson and leveled with the young men and women seated before me. We discussed my own once bright, now troubled career and my struggles with my emotional health.

We talked about the complexities, horror, and macabre humor of combat and they asked me blunt questions about what they could expect in their future as graduates.

Then, in my last few minutes as a teacher, I broke down. I hadn’t planned this, nor could I control it.

My greatest fear, I said, was that their budding young lives might closely track my own journey of disillusionment, emotional trauma, divorce, and moral injury. The thought that they would soon serve in the same pointless, horrifying wars, I told them, made me “want to puke in a trash bin.”

The clock struck 1600 (4:00 pm), class time was up, yet not a single one of those stunned cadets — unsure undoubtedly of what to make of a superior officer’s streaming tears — moved for the door. I assured them that it was okay to leave, hugged each of them as they finally exited, and soon found myself disconcertingly alone. So, I erased my chalkboards and also left.

Three years have passed. About 130 students of mine graduated in May. My last group will pin on the gold bars of brand-new army officers in late May 2020. I’m still in touch with several former cadets and, long after I did so, students of mine are now driving down the dusty lanes of Iraq or tramping the narrow footpaths of Afghanistan.

My nightmare has come true.

Iran, The world’s leading State Sponsor of Terrorism

Fantasy and fiction

“The Big Lie: We were out to rain fire and brimstone on those who had attacked us on our own soil.

We were out to depose the Taliban rulers who sheltered Osama Bin Laden, and we were determined to drive al-Qaida from its safe haven in Afghanistan.”

The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of November 2018, at least 244,000 civilians in these three countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars.

Civilian deaths have also resulted from the US military operations in Yemen, Syria, Somalia and other countries in the U.S. war on terrorism.

People living in the war zones have been killed in their homes, in markets, and on roadways. They have been killed by bombs, bullets, fire, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and drones.

Civilians die at checkpoints, as they are run off the road by military vehicles, when they step on a mine or cluster bomb, as they collect wood or tend to their fields, and when they are kidnapped and executed for purposes of revenge or intimidation.

They are killed by the United States, by its allies, and by insurgents and sectarians in the civil wars spawned by the invasions.

Death can also happen weeks or months after a battle. Many times more Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis have died as a result of battered infrastructure and poor health conditions arising from the wars than directly from its violence.

For example, war refugees often lose access to a stable food supply or to their jobs, resulting in increased malnutrition and vulnerability to disease.

The Costs of War reports document the direct and indirect toll that war takes on civilians and their livelihoods, including the lingering effects of war death and injury on survivors and their families.

The West views Syria as a place for flexing muscles with rivals, while at the same time it could well serve as a basin for terrorists and their affiliates in the Western countries.

Benefits of Syria crisis for West

A girl stands amidst the rubble of damaged buildings in the northern Syrian town of al-Bab, Syria, February 28, 2017. REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

The weapon of mass immigration