Modern Lefties Are Neither Left Nor Liberal

In the interest of preserving words whose meanings are threatened by the Orwellian redefinition of everything, it becomes necessary to reevaluate one of the most glaring contradictions that daily confronts the mass of western society.

Namely, how can millions of people self-identify as “left” while supporting the very antithesis of lefty values through the promotion of endless wars for profit, unfettered surveillance and centralized censorship?

Furthermore, what does it actually mean to be “left-wing”?

The American Eagle stamped into coins and carved into courtrooms clutches 13 arrows in its right talon, symbolizing armed defense. Conversely, the eagle clutches an olive branch with 13 olives in its left talon, symbolizing peace, diplomacy and reconciliation. By definition, identifying with the “right-wing” of this bird of prey signifies a “hawkish” pro-war stance and the “left-wing” signifies an anti-war position. This is why, historically speaking, the “left” stood for human rights and the pursuits championed by leftists were thus humanistic. In recent times this stance has become known as the “classical left”. In a similar way the word “liberal” extends as a branch from the ideals of “liberty.” If you don’t earnestly believe in liberty of the individual, you cannot call yourself liberal.

Why then are so-called “leftists” so bloodthirsty for military conflicts and international war? Biden’s apparently “liberal” administration provided billions upon billions of dollars and weapons to fund an endless and bloody quagmire in Ukraine while Maui survivors received a measly $700 in “relief” as corporate vultures flocked in to capitalize on their misery.

We live in an era when black Americans are jailed as “white supremacists” and political candidates are criminalized for holding different beliefs by people who call themselves “liberal”. How was such a large group of college-educated suburbanites ever persuaded to continuously support the very antithesis of their own purported beliefs?

As David Rubin articulated in his essay, Why I Left The Left, “Defending my liberal values has suddenly become a conservative position.” Rubin refers to the “regressive left” who falsely believe it somehow “progressive” to prohibit politically incorrect words or to ban speakers whose opinions you don’t agree with from participating in public forums:

“Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream that his children would be judged by their character and not their skin color was a liberal idea, but these days, it’s not a progressive ideal. …

“Today’s progressivism has become a faux-moral movement, hurling charges of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia and a slew of other meaningless buzzwords at anyone they disagree with. The battle of ideas has been replaced by a battle of feelings, and outrage has replaced honesty. Diversity reigns supreme – as long as it’s not that pesky diversity of thought.

“This isn’t the recipe for a free society, it’s a recipe for authoritarianism.”

COEXIST OR DIE

As a matter of cultural normalcy, most “Libs” are the way they are because they were trained to be accepting of everything and everyone, however dysfunctional or harmful. Their instincts were gradually weaponized against them as they were encouraged to ignore obvious red flags in the name of compassion, tolerance and inclusion. But this perverted version of “liberalism” actually encourages an embrace of something called idiot compassion, a term coined by Tibetan teacher Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. Greg Graber summarizes this concept aptly:

Idiot Compassion takes place when during times of trying to display compassion to others we end up letting them walk all over us. This often happens when we try to avoid conflict. In these instances, we learn quickly that this is not compassion at all, because it actually increases suffering. Sometimes people need to be told they are wrong. There are even instances when people need to be given a hard time.”

Lori Gottlieb elaborates, “In idiot compassion, you avoid rocking the boat to spare people’s feelings, even though the boat needs rocking and your compassion ends up being more harmful than your honesty.” Idiot Compassion is not fueled by a desire to lessen suffering, but by the ego’s obsession with external approval.

Today’s so-called “liberals” also tend to conflate compassion with outright cowardice. When the impulse to “be accepting of everything” gets taken to unhealthy extremes, the lib program makes a litany of excuses. The “lib” continues to accept the unacceptable while pretending it’s normal because otherwise they’d have to something about it. This helps explain the pathological aversion to the news that’s so freakishly common among this demographic. It seems easier to ignore reality and live in delusion, but only to the naive mind. The experienced mind knows that ignorance is not bliss; it is only oblivion. Being unaware is only acceptable if you’ve never been confronted with the facts before (nescience). Conversely, being unaware of the facts makes you look stupid if you’ve been confronted with them and willfully chosen to ignore them (ignorance).

Today’s so-called “liberals” couldn’t be more contradictory. They spew blatantly racist hate speech in the name of so-called “anti-racism”. They employ the ruthlessly violent tactics of fascism in the name of “anti-fascism”. They foment intolerance toward the majority of Americans in the name of “tolerance”.

Most quintessential of all, so-called “lefties” exclude the majority of the population in the name of so-called “inclusivity”. The rainbow flag hung in the widows of Biden’s White House is a literal banner of exclusion. If you’re white, straight and/or hetero (i.e. most Americans), it’s not a fan of you.

Malcolm X understood the flip-flopping nature of modern leftists, famously saying, “The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative.”

It follows that the US military’s covert sabotage of the Nordstream Pipeline at the behest of the Biden Administration proves what little regard the Democratic Party has for the environment that they claim to care so much about. The Nordstream explosion caused the single largest emission of “greenhouse gasses” and represents the single most destructive act of international eco-terrorism in recorded history. But so-called “liberals” ignore this giant elephant in the room, favoring instead to sacrifice the poor and underclasses in the name of overpopulation and anthropogenic climate change absent any discussion about geoengineering or military emissions.

If “my body, my choice” is not a statement of bodily autonomy but only a political statement about abortion you’ve succumbed to Orwellian doublethink. The same goes for wearing masks that are demonstrably harmful and ineffective against sickness.

Some things should not be tolerated, and what determines those taboos should not be decided by The State in a society that’s supposed to be free. Many New Yorkers are beginning to understand why this is so as their “sanctuary cities” are overrun by swarms of invading illegals. The overwhelming burden on social services in blue cities has caused Democrats to suddenly turn against the very open border policies that only a year ago they insisted you’d have to be racist to oppose.

How Did The “Classical Left” Lose It’s Way?

In principal, the left is supposed to represent the voice of the underclass. Chris Hedges likewise argues that a functioning Liberal Class exists as an institutional check that made incremental reforms for the working class possible. He also clearly defines “classical liberalism”:

“Classical liberalism was formulated largely as a response to the dissolution of feudalism and church authoritarianism. It argued for non-interference or independence under the rule of law. … Classical liberalism has, the philosopher John Gray writes,

“four principle features, or perspectives, which give it a recognizable identity: it is individualist, in that it asserts the moral primacy of the person against any collectivity; egalitarian, in that it confers on all human beings the same basic moral status; universalist, affirming the moral unity of the species; and meliorist, in that it asserts the open-ended improvability, by use of critical reason, of human life.”

How did the left become today’s “establishment loyalists” rather than a group of principled individuals dedicated to the pursuit of justice and truth?

Hedges traces the Death of the Liberal Class to the First World War and illustrates how state and corporate power were consolidated over every aspect of western life. “With the rise of the corporate state,” he writes, the Liberal Class, “has been rendered impotent by its embrace of unfettered capitalism, the national security state, globalization, and staggering income inequalities.”

Following this birth of neo-Liberalism, politicians continue to speak in the “feel your pain” rhetoric feigned for the working class while simultaneously selling out to anonymous corporate forces. As the demented geriatric stumbling through his role as the American president amply proves, no one’s in charge whose face you can see. Hedges elaborates:

“The anemic liberal class continues to assert, despite ample evidence to the contrary, that human freedom and equality can be achieved through the charade of electoral politics and constitutional reform. It refuses to acknowledge the corporate domination of traditional democratic channels for ensuring broad participatory power. …

The inability of the liberal class to acknowledge that corporations have wrested power from the hands of citizens, that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty have become irrelevant, and that the phrase consent of the governed is meaningless, has left it speaking and acting in ways that no longer correspond to reality.”

Journalist Matt Taibbi traced the transformation of what he calls “former liberals” into their modern expression back to the year 1972 when lefties mourned the defeat of George McGovern to Richard Nixon. He says that during the 2016 presidential campaign season he observed the Democratic Party publicly lamenting McGovern’s loss as proof that the ends always justify the means. Since winning became more important than ideology, the Party made a show of tossing notions of idealism aside.

This brings us to the “left’s” inability to peacefully debate and disagree with other viewpoints. Their minds are made up already. They are certain that anyone questioning the orthodox narrative is automatically a bigot, or a racist, or “extreme right wing” especially if those are the behavioral characteristics intrinsic to their own character. Such intractability reveals a great deal, including a lack of sophistication and an absence of intellectual acumen. Their fanatic embrace of censorship reveals authoritarian beliefs, not liberal values. Likewise the ugly insults spewed against heretics of the corporate order stand as revealing projections of their own inner filth.

Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication “language of life” has proven to be, in practice, little more than a carefully camouflaged dictatorial control of communication by fragile hysterics who feebly pretend that the Cancel Culture is fundamentally concerned with civility and manners. The same went for pronoun enforcement. This demographic cannot cope with the fundamental differences between facts and feelings.

Emotional statements are opinions, evidence-based statements are facts, and facts don’t give a damn how you feel about them. But that doesn’t stop modern liberals from contorting themselves into paralyzed pretzels through the mental gymnastics of corporate anti-logic. Like the ironic disconnect that emerged within environmentalists who can’t identify plant species but sure know how to whine about carbon. They forgot that a classical liberal would punch up at the powerful people and organizations that daily undermine everyone’s health. Instead, these “leftists” routinely waste their limited political energy by attacking ordinary people with little money, power or influence.

“The liberal class found it was more prudent to engage in empty moral posturing than confront the power elite,” Hedges writes. “They busied themselves with the boutique activism of political correctness.” Chris continues:

“Liberals, who claim to support the working class, vote for candidates who glibly defend NAFTA and increased globalization. Liberals, who claim to want an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to back a party that funds and expands these wars. Liberals, who say they are the champions of basic civil liberties, do not challenge politicians who take these liberties from them.”

Thus the manufactured “climate crisis” happening before us has become an engineered class war masquerading as an ecological movement. It’s leaders are hypocrites who expend more fossil fuel volume in one private jet trip than most Americans burn in an entire year. The evangelical priests of the corporate climate movement buy multi-million dollar beachfront properties that would ostensibly be underwater if any of the things they tell us about rising sea levels were true. To add insult to injury, their proposed “solutions” to the crisis always involve further gouging poor people who can’t afford access to energy in the first place.

It is said that tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance. Today this is true in the sense that any utterance critical of the imposed status quo is automatically branded by the orthodox cultural priesthood as disinformation linked to MAGA extremism and therefore Trump and therefore Russia (all of which are assumed to be irrevocably evil). Why even have a conversation with this “basket of deplorables” if not to try to change them?

So what do we call this segment of the population? Those who uncritically repeat mainstream media lies at all of their acquaintances and unquestioningly repeat the pro-war propaganda spewed by the Party and its media? The smug automaton who mindlessly parrots corporate talking points on masks, mandates, lockdowns and jabs? The intolerant bigots who repeat harmful lies fed to them by criminals? The myopic morons who give standing ovations to Nazi SS officers of Hitler’s Third Reich in the halls of parliamentary democracy?

Authoritarian leftists are so common they’re almost cliché. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, etc. Today’s so-called “leftists”are no exception. They don’t believe in democracy, as evidenced by their allegiance to unelected bureaucracies like NATO, the UN, WHO, CDC and WEF. Instead, they tend to kneel at the feet of rogue military agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA, ICE and DIA. This is why Barack Obama’s apparently “liberal” Administration repealed Habius Corpus and in turn removed due process for any protester or dissident (who could now be arrested by military personnel or even assassinated), all justified by rebranding political opponents of the globalist agenda as “terrorist” threats.

THINK FOR YOURSELF

If you’ve fallen for this divide-and-conquer psyop you’re not alone and it’s not too late to get off the backwards ride. Everyone who succumbs to The Crowd unwittingly submits to an explicit form of hypnosis, or “mass formation psychosis.” Gustav Le Bon elaborates on the inherent and inevitable barbarism of The Crowd:

“Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—that is, a creature acting by instinct. … “It is for these reasons that juries are seen to deliver verdicts of which each individual juror would disapprove, that parliamentary assemblies adopt laws and measures of which each of their members would disapprove in his own person. Taken separately, the men of the Convention were enlightened citizens of peaceful habits. United in a crowd, they did not hesitate to give their adhesion to the most savage proposals, to guillotine individuals most clearly innocent, and, contrary to their interests, to renounce their inviolability and to decimate themselves.”

To get off the ride ultimately requires the genuine courage to acknowledge your own vulnerability and weakness (human) and admit to yourself and to others that you were wrong. But to transcend requires an admission of fallibility; an admission of imperfection. Admit it first to yourself and then to everyone else. You’ll be glad you did.

Next, put aside the notion that people who hold different views, opinions and perspectives than you are the enemy and need to be corrected for the betterment of humanity. That’s just entrenching division, and precisely what our unelected masters want us to continue doing. We must quit rushing to take sides in contrived arguments that are deliberately rigged to sow division among those who ought to be working together. On this point, Chris Hedges asserts that the divide in America is not between Republican and Democrat, but rather that, “It is a divide between the corporate state and the citizen.”

For those genuinely interested in embracing classical liberalism, these are some of the philosophical dilemmas that must be pondered with sincerity. It means seriously considering whether our actions, speech and thoughts have lead us toward harmony or away from it.

If you live in America, please remember that you’re allowed to utter sentences that are factually incorrect, and you’re allowed to make honest mistakes and you’re allowed to learn from them. You’re allowed to insult people. You’re allowed to make people feel uncomfortable. You have the right to offend. It’s the only way to ensure an honest conversation among equals. By contrast, censoring and canceling everyone arbitrarily ensures that we can never have an open conversation between equals based on truth, facts, logic, reason or common sense. Conflict is necessary to prevent bloodshed. Unresolved conflict leads to violence. A riot in the street is ultimately the language of the unheard.

Should those who are on the fence fail to recognize how their compassion and empathy have been weaponized against them through the sophisticated emotional manipulation of modern propagandists, they will be led unwittingly into the jaws of a war they’re not prepared to fight and impoverish the entire world in doing so.

The Limousine Liberals with the wealth and resources to survive what is coming are also themselves dangerously out of touch with reality beyond their feeble attempts to impose their will over it. For those sincerely interested in enduring the upcoming hardships, it seems extremely foolish to follow the increasingly dangerous delusions of this demographic.

The hardest part of getting off the ride is admitting that you were wrong and that you could be fooled. It seems that many people would rather die than admit they’ve been deceived. If you have, don’t feel too bad about being duped by very sophisticated predatory interests because they’re skilled in what they do and have successfully fooled a great many for a very long time. But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time, and the truth cannot stay hidden forever. The ongoing corporate cavalcade of bullshit stories based on lies will expire eventually, as it always does, and those who stood for truth in times of universal deceit are usually vindicated in the long run. Above all, no matter how far you have walked down the wrong path, turn around!

The First Rule of BlackRock is You Do Not Talk About BlackRock

Last month a loose-lipped BlackRock recruiter confirmed what George Carlin said twenty years ago: that politicians are for sale; that war is good for Wall Street; that the captains of industry own everything, including all of the big media companies; that “they’ve got you by the balls!”

James O’Keefe’s latest hidden camera investigation pulls the curtain back on the singular company that leverages more control over the entire world than any other. The curt concessions came from a young BlackRock headhunter named Serge Varlay, who probably thought his date would be impressed with BlackRock’s absolute power when he so eagerly spilled the beans about their methods of manipulating the world to their will.

The shocking admissions caught on tape include Serge ominously leaning over the table toward his date and saying to her, “Let me tell you, it’s not who the president is. It’s who’s controlling the wallet of the president.

His date asks, “And who’s that?”

“The hedge funds, BlackRock, the banks,” Varlay says. “These guys run the world.

He goes on to admit that “You can buy your candidates,” through campaign financing.

His date asks, “How so?”

“All of these financial institutions, they buy politicians.

“How do they run the world?”

“You acquire stuff,” Serge explains. “You diversify. You acquire. You keep acquiring. You spend whatever you make in acquiring more.”

His date ponders this for a moment before asking, “And then once you just own a little bit of everything, is that where the control–”

“Yeah. You own a little bit of everything and that little bit of everything gives you so much money on a yearly basis that you can take this big fuck-ton of money and then you can start to buy people. Obviously we have this system in place. First, there’s the senators. These guys are fucking cheap. You got ten grand? You can buy a senator. It doesn’t matter who wins. They’re in my pocket at this point. … I could give you $500k right now, no questions asked. Are you gonna do what needs to be done? Yeah! Of course! Why not?”

“Yeah. You own a little bit of everything and that little bit of everything gives you so much money on a yearly basis that you can take this big fuck-ton of money and then you can start to buy people. Obviously we have this system in place. First, there’s the senators. These guys are fucking cheap. You got ten grand? You can buy a senator. It doesn’t matter who wins. They’re in my pocket at this point. … I could give you $500k right now, no questions asked. Are you gonna do what needs to be done? Yeah! Of course! Why not?”

“Does like, everybody do that? Does BlackRock do that?”

Varlay smiles, “Everyone does that.”

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink

BlackRock was founded in partnership with Blackstone Group in 1988. Within just five years, BlackRock’s founder, Larry Fink, grew the company from $5 million in value to over $8 Billion. The investment firm that today controls a massive number of shares in the largest companies in the world began by managing pensions and university endowments, as well as the portfolios of their super wealthy clients.

The lion’s share of BlackRock’s business model hinges on Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). Not unlike mutual funds, ETFs contain diversified investments that reduce investor risk. Rather than buying stock in a single company, this fund purchases and bundles a wide variety of stocks, commodities and securities together into a low-risk investment for clients to buy into.

In 1998 BlackRock created their highly lucrative Aladdin portfolio management system that can predict the possible outcome of every investment and collect information on all investors who contribute to their profits. The software ultimately predicts the likelihood of investment failures.

As the name indicates, the Aladdin technology proved to be a magical Genie that took Fink and BlackRock straight to the top of the market. Today BlackRock has over $9 trillion in Assets Under Management (AUM) and another $20 Trillion managed by Aladdin.

Keen to “never let a good crisis go to waste,” exploiting economic uncertainty has proven to be the key that unlocked BlackRock’s rise to absolute power. After promoting the very Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) that unleashed the housing bubble crisis in 2008, the subsequent financial crash allowed BlackRock to secure uncontested control of many failing banks and their assets. It also provided Larry Fink with a direct line to the American Federal Government.

The same thing happened in 2020 during the early days of the Plandemic when the American government asked BlackRock to funnel Federal Reserve money into “special purpose vehicles” to acquire risky debt under the CARES Act with a $4.5 trillion leveraged buyout. The following year BlackRock began gobbling up entire neighborhoods, buying up houses and properties as investments that no one will ever live in. This lowered the total supply of housing which contributed to higher demand and in turn skyrocketing housing prices. It also forced would-be home buyers to compete with the giant multinational investment firm for housing. Real estate consultant John Burns estimated at the time that “roughly 20% of homes sold are bought by someone who never moves in.

BlackRock has consolidated so much power that it essentially controls the world, as their total global assets amount to a sum greater than America’s total GDP. They enjoy so much power that they’ve even been referred to as “the Fourth Branch of Government” by Bloomberg. With all of those resources controlled by a single monolith, one might wonder how this gargantuan monopoly monstrosity is allowed to exist. But BlackRock doesn’t technically own these companies, nor does it even own shares of them. It’s their clients who own the shares. BlackRock just manages them. And many of BlackRock’s investors don’t even know they’re investors because they’re simply part of a pension fund or an endowment that BlackRock manages.

Through these mechanisms, a single company now controls such large ratios of stock that many large corporations cannot make significant moves without BlackRock’s approval.

Today BlackRock manages approximately 10% of the entire world economy through its constituent assets. Because BlackRock is one of the biggest investors in global giants like Amazon, Microsoft, Anheuser-Busch, Meta, Target, Proctor & Gamble, Comcast, CNN, Disney, Fox and Pfizer, these companies must consult with BlackRock before doing anything of consequence. By owning huge pieces of all competing corporations they’ve created a global monopoly spiderweb.

To maintain their ever-growing dominance, it’s important for the giant to avoid making headlines as a matter of corporate policy.

As Serge Varlay told his date, They [Blackrock] don’t want to be in the news. They don’t want people to talk about them. They don’t want to be anywhere on the radar.”

She asked, “Why not?”

Varlay pondered for a moment before responding, “I don’t know, but I suspect it’s probably because it’s easier to do things when people aren’t thinking about it.”

BlackRock would definitely prefer you never think about them at all, and if you must, they want you to think they’re socially and environmentally responsible. So in the wake of the 2020 George Floyd protests BlackRock publicly stated that companies must serve a social purpose, pledging that they would now score businesses on an ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) score to “force behaviors” on individuals and companies.

The ESG concept was formed in 2004 but didn’t achieve critical mass until BlackRock began sporting it in 2020, when the timing was right. ESG essentially ranks how “woke” a company is like a dystopian social credit score for businesses. The Consumers’ Research nonprofit asserts that, “political activists use ESG as a way to drive a progressive agenda” to “help push this agenda through economic coercion and ignoring democratic processes.”

Companies are not just competing with each other for best credit score or highest quarterly earnings statement anymore, but now for the highest ESG score. This feat is ostensibly earned through the promise of increased diversity hires and embrace of environmentally friendly policies. But this pursuit has only resulted in a massive resurgence of corporate greenwashing; advertising campaigns designed to fool consumers into believing that dirty companies are cleaner than they actually are.

While BlackRock claims to champion ESG investing, BlackRock itself remains the largest investor in fossil fuels and war profiteering, maintaining friendly relationships with human rights violators the world over. Moreover, the company admitted to the business community that it’s only pretending to be woke. In his 2022 letter to CEO’s, Larry Fink writes,

It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not “woke”. It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper. This is the power of capitalism.”

Corporate advertisements have always embraced whatever flavor-of-the-week suited them to earn consumer confidence and score a short-term profit. They don’t actually believe in anything, and the exploitation of your beliefs is just routine business to them.

BlackRock claims that climate risk equates to investment risk. So in 2021 BlackRock reshaped Exxon Mobile’s board of directors to “help combat climate change”. But the fact that BlackRock remained the world’s single biggest investor in fossil fuels confirms the rhetoric was just more focus-grouped virtue signaling.

Similarly, while BlackRock whines publicly about the atrocities of gun violence, they’re simultaneously the single-largest investor in gun manufacturing. This seems especially difficult to fathom when BlackRock engages in the deliberate irony of blaming gun manufacturers for not doing more to protect the lives of the American people.

Meanwhile BlackRock’s U.S. Aerospace and Defense Fund invests billions in major weapons contractors like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and other merchants of death. These companies receive billions in Pentagon contracts to literally weaponize taxpayer money to fund unprovoked bombings and illegal wars around the globe that produce lots of civilian casualties. Often these weapons are supplied to foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, which received weapons from the U.S. government before using them to indiscriminately commit genocide against civilians in Yemen.

Serge Varlay confirms that war is damn good for BlackRock’s bottom line, jovially telling his date that, “Ukraine is good for business. You know that, right?”

He went to admit that, “We [BlackRock] don’t want the conflict to end.”

“Why?”

“We don’t want the conflict to end as a country. The longer this goes on, the weaker Russia is. … I’ll give an example: Russia blows up Ukraine’s grain silos. Price of wheat’s gonna go mad up. So what are you gonna do if you’re a trading firm? The moment that news hits–within a millisecond–you’re going to pump trades into whoever the wheat suppliers are; into their stocks. Within an hour or two, that stock goes fucking up. And then you sell and you just made, I don’t know, however many mil.”

Next she asks him, “Why would a news channel promote a side in war?”

“Because it’s also good for business too. I mean, what’s news? News right? What does news feed on? They feed on tragedy. They feed on fucked up events. That’s what people like to watch. So when it happens, it’s good business. More viewers. When nothing’s happening, who the fuck watches news? I don’t watch the news.”

“They’re all pushing like, the same talking point. Like generally, when you look at news, like–”

It’s propaganda,” Varlay tells her. “The Ukrainian economy is very largely tied to the wheat market; global wheat market. This is fantastic if you’re trading. Volatility creates opportunity to make profit. … War is real fucking good for business.”

Then Serge reveals the true sociopath mentality that lives within firms like BlackRock, gleefully confiding in his new friend that, “It’s exciting when shit goes wrong. Right?

BlackRock has poised itself to be a chief benefactor in the effort to fund Ukraine’s push to Build Back Better. The investment giant recently teamed up with JP Morgan to set up a “reconstruction bank” to fund the half-trillion dollar investment to rebuild war torn Ukraine:

The Ukraine Development Fund is still in the early stages of setting up the reconstruction bank, but potential investors will get an inside preview of how things will look during a London conference that is set to take place this week. With the steep cost to rebuild, the Ukrainian government reached out to BlackRock in November to see if there was a conceivable way of attracting investments. JP Morgan was soon added in February.

Despite it’s emphasis on ESG investing, BlackRock consistently and predictably overlooks human rights in favor of monetary gain.

Putting all of this into perspective, we can better understand the following warning about BlackRock from Consumers’ Research:

U.S. Consumers should be wary of investments managed by BlackRock Investment Management Company. Led by Chairman and CEO Larry Fink, the company uses its clout to push a radical agenda in coordination with other financiers through a network of international organizations. This Consumer Warning highlights the commitments BlackRock has made with their investors’ money—commitments that adversely impact the U.S. economy and likely violate their fiduciary duty to seek the best return, putting your retirement at risk in the name of progressive politics.”

Investing in Chinese military companies and praising totalitarian governments are chilling indications of the management empire that BlackRock is working to finalize. BlackRock is also officially the first global asset manager to have access to the Chinese Communist Party’s mutual fund. When we consider that Larry Fink also serves on the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum, we can better understand why the BlackRock monolith now attempts to foist violent changes upon existing social and political systems of the world, in lockstep with Davos’ other true believers of the “Great Reset” agenda. This is why the sudden and overwhelming prevalence of bewildering woke ideology in every facet of the business world. It’s part of a coordinated effort to socially engineer the populace into such a hypnosis that we’ll accept their New World Order nightmare as a dream. In short, the plan is for us to own nothing and “be happy.”

Through a stalwart commitment to acquisition, investment firms like BlackRock wield more power than the executives at the companies they own shares in. Laws could ostensibly be passed limiting how much influence an investment firm can have over companies it’s invested in, but since they own the politicians who pass the laws it seems highly unlikely that such an outcome would ever be allowed to occur.

BlackRock isn’t the only mechanism for worldwide institutional control. The second and third largest investment firms in the world, Vanguard and State Street, respectively, are guilty of the exact same behavior. Together, these three investment giants became the largest shareholders in 90% of S&P 500 firms. And the list of worthy runners-up who would each kill for a chance at a promotion to King Asshole looks endless.

And while it may be true that businesses that go woke do, in fact, go broke, the money doesn’t seem to matter as much to the multinational corporations as their ESG score. As companies like Anheuser-Busch hemorrhage profits in the wake of a woke Bud Light scandal, they’re quietly assured behind the scenes that they’ll be allowed to exist in “the new economy” regardless of how much money they lose, as long as their score remains high.

In the weeks after James O’Keefe’s hidden camera viral video put BlackRock into the spotlight, Larry Fink publicly back-peddled on ESG, insisting that it was always an apolitical term that has since become “weaponized”. Fink comically insisted that “ESG issues were never meant to be political statements,” and stated that he’s “ashamed” to be part of the debate. Fink now pledges his allegiance to something called “conscientious capitalism” announcing that the semantic re-branding will displace ESG in the future.

The truth seems obvious enough. Fink is trying to get out in front of the blowback because he knows it’s only a matter of time before the mass of people figure out how much influence this one man enjoys. And with his name in the media this much, it seems like that time is about up.

Wake Up And Smell The Thermite

building-7-animation-footage

WE WILL NEVER FORGET… BUILDING 7 WAS NOT HIT BY A JET

There’s been a lot of talk of patriotism lately, so much so that I’ve begun to wonder to myself, what exactly is patriotism? I think all patriotism really is, is a love of one’s own country that is great enough to prompt a willingness to defend its edicts. But it becomes a challenging concept for those whose goodwill inadvertently creates a nation that no longer resembles the original object of their admiration.

Do you remember America the way she was prior to 9/11? If you’re younger than 25 you might not. The way the country was before Bush stole the election might come as a surprise to you; before protesters threw eggs at the presidential limousine on the day of his inauguration; before the creation of the TSA and Homeland Security; before Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib became household names; before the war on whistleblowers and the war on terror; before killer drones; before the illegal occupation of Iraq; before, before, before. To say that the last 14 years have transformed America into something quite unrecognizable from her previous shape, is an understatement tantamount to declaring that Hiroshima experienced slight “urban renewal” in 1945.

Ever since this War on Terror began, a divide has emerged within the country, especially within the veteran population. On one side are those who miss the country the way she used to be, and have grown disgusted with our abuse of military power for resource exploitation, the murder and subsequent radicalization of civilian populations for sport, and the evisceration of civil liberties here at home. But on the other hand are numerous true believers who remain absolutely convinced that our purpose in Iraq was and continues to be aimed toward liberation and democracy, that Muslims are unequivocally evil, and that George W had our best interests in mind.

Despite all of our “Support the Troops,” red-white-and-blue, patriotic posturing, there are 60 thousand homeless veterans in the United States. I ask you, what kind of country that claims to support the troops would allow so many veterans to wind up homeless? What kind of system stands idly by while 23 of these veterans commit suicide every single day? What kind of country would continue down this road when the recurrent results are so painfully obvious?

All of this was running through my mind last Saturday, when, at the Farmer’s Market, a procession of veterans, ROTC cadets, and active duty soldiers made their way down Higgins Avenue in a march dubbed the “Patriot Parade.” I initially determined to endorse the parade. It did, after all, coincide with Patriot Day – the 14th anniversary of 9/11, and I saw it as an opportunity to honor the fallen, including my uncle Dane whose life was claimed by 9/11. But I was a little surprised when several armored Humvees were wheeled onto the street alongside soldiers brandishing an “Army Strong” recruitment banner. Was this a patriot parade or a celebration of war?

I was even more surprised when an organizer of the event proclaimed that Missoula hated the military. But nothing astonished me more than his proclamation that if it wasn’t for “us” [veterans] “these people” would all be speaking German or Arabic (I presume what he meant by “these people” was the civilian population, many of whom are composed of veterans). While many of the assumptions behind this comment are unfounded for a wide variety of reasons, I couldn’t help but focus in on the most obvious inconsistency, and vocalize my most sincere doubts that “Missoula hates the military.” He insisted this accusation had to be true because he’d lived most of his life here. I told him I was born in Missoula, know the people here, and assured him that the world is not that black and white. Missoulians don’t hate the military in principal, just our illegal wars, which is not unique to Missoula or to civilians. But this anecdote is illustrative of something I like to remind myself of as often as possible – I used to see the world exactly as he does.

And while it may be true that we certainly aren’t speaking German, our country seems to strongly resemble many aspects of Nazi Germany. The NSA spies on our every word, and while they’re tell us they’re doing this to keep us safe, the threat of an unknown terrorist threat seems more imminent than ever if you watch television. Many states are criminalizing homelessness and we imprison more people than any country on the Planet. America has the biggest military budget in recorded human history but simultaneously ignore 60 thousand homeless veterans. We say we’re doing it all so our children can know peace, while simultaneously our military sends recruiters into educational institutions to swindle young generations into the fold of unending war. The CIA have institutionalized torture while police tanks rumble through the streets of our cities.

Worst of all, many Americans cannot or will not read the writing on the wall, however obvious it may seem to those whose eyes are open. Wishful thinking is confused in this country for positivity while uneasy truths are denounced as negativity or cynicism. As Dresden James prophetically announced, “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and it’s speaker a raving lunatic.”

The arrogance of “American Exceptionalism” has a tendency to remain even when our preconceived notions are proven wrong. Our country rarely acts surprised to learn of yesteryear’s corruption even if we all denied it while it was happening. Yet no matter how many times the establishment and ownership class betray our trust, we keep putting our faith in them. Even after Watergate, Enron, Chinagate, Iran Contra, Fast and Furious and hundreds of other scandals rock the headlines, many remain convinced that these instances were isolated, and that the corruption was confined to individual personalities. And the establishment will tell us whatever they think we’ll believe to play damage control after the fact.

Their lies aren’t surprising, but our willingness to believe them is.

Today it’s common knowledge that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Colin Powell admitted that his  February 5th 2003 presentation to the United Nations on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was “the lowest point” in his life; that the so-called “intelligence” he presented that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was “dead wrong.” Former NSA Chief William Binney as well as National Security Council counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke have admitted that the Bush Administration, “trotted out to Congress, the American people and the United Nations a series of fabricated intelligence reports.” But even without the testimonies of such reputable individuals, it seems perfectly obvious that the purported weapons were never there from a vantage of common sense logic; if Saddam had indeed possessed say, a nuclear weapon, would the US have done something as reckless as a full-scale military ground assault? Nuclear weapons are coveted by regimes explicitly for their deterrence. If Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, the United States would never have invaded for fear of the consequences and the casualties.

America acknowledges the reason for the Iraq invasion as an obvious fallacy. We all know it was a lie. So how then does anyone believe that the same administration – the Bush Administration – told us the truth about 9/11? Why is it easier to fool the people than it is to convince them that they’ve been fooled?

I didn’t myself question 9/11 until I took a course here at our very own University of Montana that recommended we read the 9/11 Commission Report. I, like most people in this country, arrogantly assumed that I knew everything there was to know about 9/11, but wanting to do well on the test acknowledged that there were probably specific numbers, statistics, names and dates that I was not aware of, and knew that I’d better at least skim the report over. So after class I walked to the Mansfield Library, logged onto a computer, downloaded a PDF of the 9/11 Commission Report and immediately began devouring page after page of its contents. By the time I was three-quarters of the way through, something didn’t feel right. I knew from my military service that this wasn’t how a government report is supposed to read. The writing seemed so phony, and the disingenuous tone seemed the result of something worse than incompetence. The dialogue read like cellphone talk between people who have never met. It felt like I was reading a Dean Koontz novel, but I’m confident that Koontz could draft a more convincing report than Philip Zelikow’s 9/11 Commission did.

Shortly after this literary encounter, an acquaintance gave me a copy of Peter Joseph’s Zeitgeist. After watching the 9/11 segment of that documentary I turned it off and became so outraged by Joseph’s conclusions that I set out to disprove every assertion made in the film. Having stood up to defend my country and losing friends in the process, I interpreted the information presented by these so-called truthers as an attack on what I held to be sacred and, in-turn, a personal attack on me directly. I loathed Peter Joseph and couldn’t tolerate the heresy of anyone who could even suggest that our government was complicit.

So I launched my own investigation, seeking to assemble the most comprehensive caché of evidence to debunk these blasphemous claims once and for all. But the more I looked for information to debunk the truth movement, the less certain I became about my convictions to do so. Eventually, as is inevitable with any honest investigation into this subject, I stepped into the first stage of grief – I fell into denial. And like a warm blanket, Popular Mechanics and metabunk were there to catch me, providing a false comfort, at least for a while. But I could not un-see the evidence, I could not un-hear the testimonies, and in turn the flaw of the so-called debunkers became immediately obvious to me.

All “debunkers” make one or more of three fundamental mistakes:  They do not know the evidence, they ignore the evidence, or they distort the evidence.

Truth is the first casualty of war, but if I can wake up anybody can, because nobody bought the lies more deeply than I. My conviction to speak about this stems not from the presumption that I’m superior to anyone else, as my willingness to sign up for the infantry should more than aptly illustrate. I was an ROTC cadet in 2001 and on the morning of 9/11 I was reporting in to my battalion. As the cadets and soldiers gathered around the television we watched as the news replayed the collapse of the towers again and again and again and again. When one cadet surmised that this was a bad time to join the army, I demanded that this was a great time to join because “we’d get our chance to kill terrorists.” For the rest of the school year my locker was covered in American flags that were, from time to time, vandalized by other students who I dismissed as unpatriotic buffoons. American flags and military posters papered my walls. If I wasn’t doing something with the ROTC battalion I was hanging out with the recruiters. I was the ultimate true believer. I bought every single one of their lies hook, line and sinker.

So believe me when I tell you that if I can wake up, anybody can. But even more importantly, my history should more than aptly demonstrate that my own resistance to the truth, however fierce, did not prevent me from eventually recognizing it.

I don’t blame anyone who chooses to resist or avoid this information. It’s not easy. The truth can often be annoying. But none of us know everything, and learning is not about agreement. Denial is the first stage of grief and it is an absolutely necessary phase, through it isn’t healthy to remain there forever. I’m living proof that the more one studies September 11th, the more obvious it becomes that the official story cannot be true. Anyone who says otherwise is either unaware of the evidence, has ignored the evidence, or is distorting the evidence.

Once my mind evolved beyond the programmed indoctrination of the state, it was not difficult to begin spotting inconsistencies everywhere. Leaning on what I knew from my own military service, I began to wonder why no F-16’s were scrambled on the morning of 9/11 until it was far too late to matter? Why was a Boeing E-4B – the infamous “Doomsday Plane” – spotted above Washington D.C. that morning with no fighter escorts? Why were crime scenes not preserved.


SMOKING GUNS AND TWO-WAY MIRRORS

Historically speaking, studying 9/11 is important for it can serve as a Rosetta Stone for understanding how false flags events are used to shape foreign and domestic policy; it provides insight into how this classic technique of social manipulation is enacted; it illustrates how the business of war is prioritized over public health; and it exemplifies how we can always be manipulated when we’re scared and insecure.

And however disingenuous the slogan “Never Forget,” seems to be, we have more incentives than ever before to forever remember. 9/11 is the singular justification for NSA spying, CIA torture, endless wars, the end of habeas corpus, the end of posse comitatus, the murder of unarmed civilians in the streets of our cities, the creation of euphemistic dystopian legislation such as the Patriot act, Freedom act and NDAA, the illegal occupation of foreign countries and endless wars.

Despite these rationales, there are many who ask why we continue to talk about this. Why pour salt on old wounds? Why bring this up every September? Can’t we just forget about it? Can’t we just accept the official story and shut up? At a bare minimum we cannot let this go until someone is at least charged or indicted for the most violent crime ever committed on American soil because no one ever was. The American Justice Department has never charged anyone for 9/11 – not even the alleged 19 hijackers or anyone connected to or associated with them. Instead, government officials did the opposite.

In the days following 9/11, when American airports were shut down coast to coast and all flights grounded, the state department shuttled 142 Saudis – including two dozen members of the binLaden family –out of the country via private jets. You’d think authorities would question the suspects’ family members, but in a miraculous disregard for standard procedure, no such questioning was ever permitted to take place. This was especially suspicious since 15 of the alleged 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. This sudden evacuation of Saudis and bin Ladens has been confirmed by Richard Clark, who was serving as chief of the Counterterrorism Security Group for the National Security Council when it took place. The private flights didn’t happen in spite of the Bush Administration, but because of it.

Craig Unger at the time wrote:

“How was it possible that, just as President Bush declared a no-holds-barred global war on terrorism that would send hundreds of thousands of US troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, and just as Osama bin Laden became Public Enemy No. 1 and the target of a worldwide manhunt, the White House would expedite the departure of so many potential witnesses, including two dozen relatives of the man behind the attack itself?”

This might also be why the FBI’s “wanted” poster for Osama didn’t even list 9/11 as one of his crimes.

When the impossible has been eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. So let us eliminate the impossible. We know that it is impossible for a steel-framed building to fall into the path of greatest resistance, disintegrating into its own footprint at free-fall speed without explosives being involved. We know it is impossible for office fires to create pools of molten metal that were discovered beneath the rubble of ground zero. We know that it was impossible to make cell phone calls from 32,000 feet until 2004. It is impossible for several of the alleged hijackers to still be alive if they were part of a kamikaze mission. It is impossible for a Boeing 767 to go anywhere near 500 miles per hour at sea level. And regarding American 77, we know it is impossible for a Boeing 757 to execute a 270-degree downward spiral without stalling, and we know that it is impossible for 100 tons of tempered steel, titanium and aluminum to vaporize due to jet fuel yet leave human bodies and paper identification cards intact.

In this way “We Will Never Forget” is a double-edged sword that doth cut both ways. We will never forget that a third tower fell on 9/11 and it wasn’t hit by a jet. We will never forget that at least 7 of the alleged 19 hijackers are still alive, and some have even filed suit against our government for character defamation. We will never forget that sophisticated military-grade nano-thermite was discovered in all of the dust that covered New York City. We will never forget that not one steel-framed building in history has collapsed solely due to fire, and 9/11 is not an exception. And we will never forget that before 9/11, the term “global collapse” did not exist, as buildings routinely survived fires, plane crashes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, botched demolitions, and even nuclear explosions.Several of the buildings in Hiroshima remain standing to this day despite the H-bomb.

We don’t know the whole story, but we know for a fact that the official story cannot be true.

001-0910142323-911-Holes

We need but to observe the discernible reality of the situation and then ask the basic and obvious questions that such an examination arouses. And it’s important to remember who exactly were the first to raise these questions, because it certainly wasn’t anyone within the Bush Administration. The first truthers were the 9/11 victims’ families, the first responders of the New York City Fire Department and NYPD, the architects and engineers who constructed the towers – these are the people who were first labeled as liars by the Bush administration, labeled charlatans by the corporate media and in turn labeled conspiracy kooks by the unconscious masses.


COINCIDENCE, INCOMPETENCE OR CONSPIRACY?

More than 600 families filed law suits against either senior members of the Bush Administration or Saudi Arabia because the death of their loved ones left them with questions that our government failed to adequately answer. The 9/11 victims’ families were the ones who spearheaded the demand for and eventually forced the creation of an investigatory commission. There would have never been a 9/11 Commission Report if the victims’ families had not insisted on it, though sadly that commission’s final report left most of their questions unanswered.

Nevertheless, talking heads like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity who pigeon-hole such voices with the derogatory label “conspiracy theorist” are responsible for perpetuating something that is genuinely insane – Coincidence Theory. Coincidence theory supposes that every single smoking gun and discernible inconsistency with the official story is nothing but a coincidence that we should ignore. This would be reasonable perhaps if there were only one or two anomalies, but this kind of thinking is dangerous when there are noted to be hundreds if not thousands of such coincidences. Correlation may not be causation, but a refusal to acknowledge an abundance of evidence is a mark of pathological denial.

Beyond coincidence theory is something even more insulting to our intelligence; the incompetence theory. The incompetence theory would have us believe that the heads of our government simply fell asleep at the wheel and did nothing on the morning of 9/11. But as USAF General Robert Bowman pointed out, “If they had done nothing and just let normal procedures take their course, those twin towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.”

If it really was a matter of incompetence, then why has no government official ever been so much as reprimanded, demoted, dismissed or even publicly scolded for what we are told was the greatest intelligence failure in US history? Why were they all instead promoted? Why has no person in our government (with the exception of Richard Clark) felt the need to apologize to the American people for this catastrophic security failure? And why were the agencies which failed the nation so drastically, rewarded with unprecedented budgetary increases?

Yet another obstacle that prevents many from acknowledging the obviousness of the truth stems from the belief that if government officials were complicit in such a large-scale operation, “someone would have talked.” More importantly, this perspective assumes that if whistleblowers do step forward, our media will make sure we hear from them. Despite the fact that numerous whistleblowers have gone public, this sort of delusion assumes that we have a media that is in any way dedicated to journalism.

The initial suspicion that “someone would talk” is actually quite apt, for there are countless examples of whistleblowers stepping forward in sincere attempts to vent unpopular truths that stand in stark contrast to the government-approved narrative. People have talked. And many of them paid a price for doing so.

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer of the US Army’s Able Danger, PFC Nelson of Fort Meade’s NSA Headquarters, Sibel Edmonds of FBI, Suzan Lindauer of CIA, retired Army Colonel Donn de Grand Pre, World Trade Center employee William Rodriguez, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, and countless others have stepped forward. Let us not confuse their courageous words with the mainstream media’s willingness to listen to them, or even provide air time.


HINDSIGHT IS 9/11

And many whistleblowers have been brutally murdered for making their information public. Barry Jennings, for example, former NY housing authority emergency coordinator, worked in and escaped from World Trade Center Building 7 – that third tower that fell that no one seems to know about. On 9/11 Barry reported that he and Michael Hess had been blown back by a big explosion inside building 7. He later said in an interview that he had heard explosions in Building 7 before either tower collapsed. He also reported that he was stepping over bodies, contradicting the official government claim that no one died in Building 7 and that there were no explosions. Barry died of mysterious circumstances on 19 August, 2008, just two days prior to the publication of the NIST report’s first draft.

Beverly Eckert who lost her husband on 9/11 did not believe the official story and was among the families organizing for disclosure and contributing to a law suit against the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia. After turning down a bribe by the US government to keep quiet, she met with President Barack Obama as an advocate for those affected by 9/11. A week after this meeting she died in a mysterious commuter airplane crash on 12 February 2009.

Kenneth Johannemann was a janitor at the WTC who reported seeing explosions inside the towers and rescued someone covered in burns from an explosion that occurred in the basement. But in September 2008 Kenneth died from a gunshot to the head in an apparent suicide that family members insist was a murder.

Michael H. Doran was a lawyer who volunteered his services to help the 9/11 victims’ families receive compensation. He died on 28 April 2009 when his single engine airplane crashed in Ohio.

Christopher Landis was the former Operations Manager for Safety Service Patrol for the Virginia Department of Transportation who had an unobstructed view of the Pentagon crash site and amazing unseen pictures. A week after submitting this collection of photographs and a brief interview to filmmakers compiling a documentary called the “Pentacon,” he died in what officials declared a suicide.

Bertha Champagne was the babysitter for Marvin Bush’s family prior to, during and after 9/11. On 10 October 2003, Bertha Champagne was found crushed to death by her own vehicle in Marvin Bush’s driveway. Marvin is the lesser-known younger brother of George W. Bush and until June of 2000 was the director of Securacom/Stratesec, a Kuwaiti/Saudi-backed company. This company is particularly interesting because it’s the same agency that provided electronic security systems for the World Trade Center in the days before the event, and also just happened to be the agency providing security for the Dulles International Airport (where American 77 took off from), the agency providing security for United Airlines, and the agency providing security for Los Alamos Laboratories who invented the sophisticated, weapons-grade nano-thermite discovered in the dust at ground zero. Marvin Bush was also on the board of HCC Insurance Holdings Incorporated, responsible for insuring the World Trade Center complex.

Then there’s Paul Smith who was the pilot of ABC’s “International Shot” helicopter that recorded the second plane flying into the South Tower. On 7 October 2007, Paul Smith was killed when he was run over by a cab driver who, according to authorities, was cut off by an unidentified black car.

Deborah Palfrey was the leader of a prostitution ring whose clients included many of the scapegoat perpetrators of 9/11. A former NSA official noted that some of Palfrey’s call girls were being chauffeured by Sherlington Limousines to poker parties attended by former CIA director and co-chair of the Joint 9/11 Intelligence Inquiry, Porter Goss. On the morning of 9/11, Goss was having breakfast with the head of Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence General Mahmud Ahmed, the man ordered a wire transfer of $100,000 to alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. In May of 2006 Goss abruptly resigned amid the fallout associated with this prostitution scandal. According to former NSA official Wayne Madsen, Palfrey may have also known that Jack Abramoff who was connected to the DC Madam scandal, allowed at least two of the 9/11 hijackers to use one of his casino boats. In the days leading up to 9/11 Deborah Palfrey said, “I have information that would have been of great interest to the 9/11 Commission. There’s information that they have that would have been very important for the 9/11 Commission to know having to do with the intelligence they picked up about 9/11 before it happened.” Despite appearances on the Larry King show and other prominent broadcasts, she didn’t disclose her information publicly due to a desire to present it before a judge in a court of law. But then on 15 April 2008 Deborah’s body was found by her daughter hung from a metal beam in their shed – this despite her own repeated public announcements that she had no plans of committing suicide because of the suspicion that her information was important enough to kill for.

Then there’s Major General David Wherley who was the Air Force officer who scrambled fighter jets into Washington airspace on the day of 9/11. On 22 June 2009 General Wherley was killed when two commuter trains crashed into each other. Both trains were torn open in the worst Metrorail accident in the system’s 33 year history. Investigators determined that the striking train was under automatic, rather than manual control at the time of the collision.

Then we have Salvatore Princiotta who was a first responder firefighter for Ladder 9 in New York – a fire truck so close to ground zero when the explosions began to occur that all of its windows were blown out. On 23 May 2007 Salvatore was found murdered.

David Graham saw three of the alleged hijackers in Shreveport with a Pakistani businessman prior to 9/11. He approached the FBI with his information and promptly began receiving threats from federal agents. Then on 17 September 2006, David Graham was found poisoned to death – a murder that was never investigated.

There are still whistleblowers who are still alive, but it’s unlikely that you’ve heard of them. Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer of Able Danger – the program that identified Mohammed Atta and other scapegoat hijackers two years prior to 9/11 – was ordered by federal authorities to keep quiet. After publishing his Able Danger memoirs in the book Operation Dark Hart, The defense department actually bought up and destroyed all 10,000 copies of the book’s first uncensored publication.

Likewise there’s Kurt Sonnenfeld who was a videographer for the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on 9/11 and was one of four FEMA photographers who were given exclusive access to ground zero. In addition to the photographs and video he took on behalf of FEMA, he reports to have taken additional video footage as well as numerous photographs, some of them since published, providing evidence that the U.S. government had prior knowledge of 9/11. Sonnenfeld was the only photographer with total access to Ground Zero who held onto his footage. The US government has spent the last 13 years attempting to frame him on groundless charges, forcing him to seek asylum in Argentina. He lived in Buenos Aires until January of 2015, when Argentina authorities finally gave in to pressure by the US government to extradite Sonnenfeld.

The list just goes on and on.


CUI BONO?

So who benefits from all of this? What’s the motive? Apart from war being the most profitable industry on Earth, the event heralded a level of imperial mobilization inconceivable in the pre-9/11 era. The US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were the culmination of longstanding plans, which only awaited a provocation such as 9/11 to enact. And Iraq and Afghanistan were just the beginning. Since the War on Terror began special operations forces have operated illegally in more than 135 countries.

America’s doctrine of invading other countries and placing permanent military bases on their soil is nothing new, but today’s absurd level of imperialism constitutes an unquenchable addiction to power. Even though the American Empire has military bases in 130 foreign countries, 9/11 has provided the Carte Blanch to dramatically accelerate our military presence in the world ever since.

We’re meant to think that the deployment of murder drones to kill innocent Pakistani children is necessary, “because 9/11.” We have to invade and re-invade Iraq, “because 9/11.” We need to spy on all American communications, normalize torture, and militarize our police forces, “because 9/11.”

So if the official story of 9/11 is proven to be a lie, then the authenticity of every aspect of the American Empire should be in question. And those in the military who believe, as I did, that our illegal wars are necessary in order to prevent further terror attacks, are in the most urgent need of this information.

As more Americans than ever before begin accepting the truth, we’re rapidly approaching a tipping point in this country. A majority of the American population has grown to accept 9/11 truth, which has in turn inspired more than 2,300 highly credentialed architects and engineers to sign a petition demanding an authentic re-investigation. And the architects and engineers aren’t the only organization out there demanding re-investigation; Pilots, Firefighters, Military Officers, Lawyers, Scholars, Religious Leaders, Medical Professionals, and Veterans have formed numerous and distinct organizations advocating for 9/11 Truth.

If justice is ever to be realized, more awakening within the public sphere is necessary. We’re still sending more of our sons and daughters off to fight illegal wars, and if they’re not returning in body bags or missing limbs, their minds are never quite the same. What remains of our civil liberties are continuously under attack by the corrupt overreach of the intelligence apparatus. We’re drilling for more fossil fuels than ever before to fuel a military that’s larger than ever before to perpetuate an Empire more domineering than ever before. And until we acknowledge that everything America is currently engaged in is built upon the precarious foundation of lies and deceit, we’re never going stop the harm we’re doing to the world and to ourselves.

As Colonel George Nelson of Military Officers for 9/11 Truth put it:

“In my first position paper, titled The Precautionary Principle, written shortly after the attacks on NYC and the Pentagon, I cautioned readers against a rush to judgment, although the immediate evidence suggested the crime had been an inside job. As the years went by, a virtual mountain of physical evidence was collected by hundreds of highly qualified investigators — evidence sufficient to convince any dedicated Grand Jury that the horrendous events of 9/11 were clearly an inside job. The Precautionary Principle no longer applies. It is time to positively conclude that a well-orchestrated and obviously pre-planned cover-up of the worst mass murder in our country’s history began immediately following the deaths of 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001 [and] the criminal cover-up continues. Fortunately for our country, our judicial system provides no statute of limitations for treason, first degree murder, and terrorism.”

The official story begins to break down by the very act of examining its claims, but don’t take what we present as gospel – do your own research. In the words of William Cooper, “Read everything, listen to everybody, [but] believe nothing, unless you can prove it with your own research.” Because while every fact, number, statistic, and name here has been independently verified multiple times by numerous investigators and academics including our very own Missoula-based research team, we’ve only begun to scratch the surface of the total evidence that is available, and ultimately it is up to the individual to understand this event for themselves.

For those of us who were seduced into war on the coattails of so-called “patriotism,” let us reclaim the the true meaning of the word to signify a love one’s country, instead of the blood lust it has commonly become associated with since September 11th. As Senator Russ Feingold said in his opposition to the Patriot Act, “Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” If our goal in responding to 9/11 was to preserve our beloved America, we have failed.  We’ve watched American civil liberties become so restrained that the very nature of the society we stood up to defend has changed as a result. Terrorism has successfully vanquished the American dream.

So now we find ourselves in grief, and quite predictably, denial has overwhelmed the fragile emotional composition of many Americans. Denial is, after all, the first stage in the grieving process. Now our goal as a nation should be to overcome our trauma, and whether it pleases us or not, we need the truth in order to heal.

The difficulty and controversy of this topic emphasize its importance. Questioning our default world view is often painful. Deleting programs installed into our minds by this society is seldom easy. And taking action can be the hardest thing of all.

Most of us fear ridicule. Most of us avoid controversy. But we all deserve the truth.

And no one deserves the truth more than those who have been demanding it the longest. So let these thoughts be observed as a memorial for those lost and a service on behalf of the families directly affected. The above paragraphs are dedicated to my Uncle Dane, and all of the others who are still dying from mesothelioma as a result of inhaling pulverized concrete and asbestos in New York City in September of 2001.

We need the truth in order to heal.  So ask questions and demand answers.

a571

This post was originally composed by Army veteran and Outer Limits editor Brandt Miller.
Catch the cloudcast at mixcloud.com/outerlimitsradioshow
Check out the more frequently updated tumblr page at outerlimitsradioshow.tumblr.com
Contact the research team at outerlimitsradioshow@fastmail.fm

Veterans Against War Porn

pawel-kuczynski-ak47

US VS THEM

Apart from analyzing the tendency of the war-film genre to glorify violence, justify racism, and fetishize murder, there are a number of factual errors and historical inconsistencies with Clint Eastwood’s newest film American Sniper, as well as the book it’s based upon. The film’s portrayal of Christian dominionism confuses the otherwise peaceful messages of Jesus. The juxtaposition of 9/11 with Iraq invites viewers to make foreign policy connections that do not exist. Implicit jingoism encourages movie-goers to express xenophobic hatred vicariously through the film’s barbaric protagonist.

And the book that Eastwood’s film was based on seems even worse, weaving a web of lies, from making claims about “punching-out” former Navy SEAL Jesse Ventura, to accounts of murdering looters in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, all the while referring to the people in his cross-hairs as “savages” and “animals”.

As a veteran myself, I have several grievances with the national debate currently underway regarding this piece of “art”. On one side it is hailed by “red blooded American patriots” as the incredible story of the deadliest sniper the American military ever produced, condemned by anti-war activists as offensive propaganda on the other. The tweet storms seem to indicate that spectators were coming away from American Sniper with a yearning for killing. Clint Eastwood denies this, ironically proclaiming the film as a champion of anti-war ideals. Just as the official narrative of the Iraq war involved “fighting for Iraqi liberation,” propagandists spin a facade of moral high ground language as a smoke screen for obvious misbehavior.

Case in point: if we’re there to liberate them, why revel in their indiscriminate murder?

Despite the predictable “patriots vs. hippies” narrative characterizing this debate, I would like to offer a third point of view, somewhere in the middle of the two extreme polarities. Such a national argument could serve as an opportunity to overcome personal biases, regardless of what side we believe is right, and acknowledge that life is complicated. This is our chance to understand that as long as we’re arguing with each other, we’ll never be able to tackle the root of problems concerning us all. And learning the truth is not about agreement. War is about profit and power for those who wage it. The trick is convincing people to fight and die in their wars. And that’s why propagandists pull in the big bucks.

In 2017, a Freedom of Information Act request by Tom Secker and Matthew Alford revealed the extent to which the Hollywood promotes war explicitly on behalf of the Pentagon, CIA and NSA. Documents obtained by Secker and Alford detailed the military’s control of and influence over more than 1,800 movies and television shows, “including the ability to manipulate scripts or even prevent films too critical of the Pentagon from being made. … If there are characters, action or dialogue that the DOD don’t approve of then the film-maker has to make changes to accommodate the military’s demands. If they refuse then the Pentagon packs up its toys and goes home. To obtain full cooperation the producers have to sign contracts–Production Assistance Agreements–which lock them into using a military-approved version of the script.”

essence_of_propaganda MONKEY SEE, MONKEY DO…

Even before I joined the military, I was intuitively skeptical of the impact that war films can have on our individual psyches, and thus the influence they have on the collective overmind if watched enough times. Many of my friends growing up were seduced by the violence of Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now despite the fact that the film’s intention seemed to be the illustration of war’s many unspeakable horrors (as well as a timely adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s classic Heart of Darkness). But even if a war film attempts to convey the message of “look how horrible wars can be,” immature viewers tend to get seduced by the adrenaline-inducing weapon systems of the 21st century. Phrases like, “happiness is a belt-fed weapon” further play into this culture of carnage; a phrase that I heard repeated many times in my career, and repeated myself after becoming a SAW gunner.

The only films I ever saw that made me think twice about joining up were The Deer Hunter starring Robert DeNero, and Born On The Forth Of July starring Tom Cruise. These two films depicted the true cost of sending our best and brightest into the hungry jaws of faraway battles. Before seeing these films, the possibility of losing a leg or permanent paralysis had never occurred to me. Because from John Wayne’s The Longest Day to Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down, America’s motion pictures had sold me on the world view that the battlefield yields glory, validated either in a “hero’s death” or award ceremonies and ticker tape parades that are always more fulfilling in your head than in real life.

Having said that, I’m always hesitant to lend my eyes to films depicting physical violence and bloodshed because of the messages they can send, whether they intend to or not. As with most forms of screen entertainment, many Hollywood films are meant to shape perception within the public to garner support for geopolitical decisions made on our behalf, which is why movie theaters are federally subsidized. For the same reason that recruiters are positioned in high schools to grab up our best and brightest before they’ve reached the age of reason, war films play as instrumental a role in military recruitment as first-person-shooter video games do. These forms of screen media masquerade as nothing more than entertainment, all the while subtly programming a state-sponsored narrative of justified imperialism into the malleable minds of those subject to the electronic hallucinations of the glowing rectangle. 

Seth Rogen took a lot of flack recently for drawing an apt comparison between Eastwood’s new film to the film-within-a-film, Nation’s Pride – the Nazi propaganda movie that appeared in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds. The purpose of effective propaganda is to numb the mind away from reasonable thinking, and anesthetize the emotions away from empathy. As Chris Hedges recently pointed out in TruthDig, “American Sniper caters to a deep sickness rippling through our society. It holds up the dangerous belief that we can recover our equilibrium and our lost glory by embracing an American fascism.” He goes on to say:

“The culture of war banishes the capacity for pity. It glorifies self-sacrifice and death. It sees pain, ritual humiliation and violence as part of an initiation into manhood… The culture of war idealizes only the warrior. It belittles those who do not exhibit the warrior’s “manly” virtues. It places a premium on obedience and loyalty. It punishes those who engage in independent thought and demands total conformity. It elevates cruelty and killing to a virtue. This culture, once it infects wider society, destroys all that makes the heights of human civilization and democracy possible. The capacity for empathy, the cultivation of wisdom and understanding, the tolerance and respect for difference and even love are ruthlessly crushed. The innate barbarity that war and violence breed is justified by a saccharine sentimentality about the nation, the flag and a perverted Christianity that blesses its armed crusaders… It fosters an unchecked narcissism. Facts and historical truths, when they do not fit into the mythic vision of the nation and the tribe, are discarded. Dissent becomes treason. All opponents are godless and subhuman.”

American-Sniper-Visage

Veterans For Peace recently responded to the film in a similar way, contending:

“Following spaghetti western acclaim, Clint Eastwood, now 84, moved on to Dirty Harry movies… Over the years, he has honed this very masculine style and become a popular film director exploring the American psyche mostly from the reactionary right — though his films are always a dialogue with issues on the left. American Sniper is no different with its limited contrapuntal theme of PTSD and homefront family adjustment.

“Harry Callahan was famous for whacking creeps who deserved to die with his long, phallic .44 magnum. It was great cinema. The formula was simple: Feature a good guy who hates bureaucrats, loves to cut corners and is a man comfortable with violence and put him at odds with bad guys who are absolute perverted creeps whose death at the hands of the good guy would be cheered by an audience shoving popcorn down its gullet. The films were realistic in the sense of being harsh, brutal and loud. But they were far from realistic in the sense of being complex, morally gray, contradictory and confusing — like life itself.”

So when it comes to Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper, I’m first and foremost appalled by the message we get early on that the message of Christ has anything to do with racist bigotry or a fixation of murder. How can any true Christian bemoan the crucifixion of Christ and then revel in the slaughter of other human beings?

Beyond achieving the feigned moral high ground of killing for Jesus, the film presupposes that sniper Chris Kyle was sent to Iraq because of what happened on 9/11. You don’t have to be that well informed to understand that the only connection that exists between 9/11 and Iraq is the Bush administration’s lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction which were never found in the deserts of Iraq. A deluge of patriotism that flooded our soldiers into Afghanistan created a tidal wave of militarism, the momentum of which has since bled over into operations conducted in over 75 countries. This fact remained hidden from the American people until Jeremy Scahill finally spilled the beans on JSOC with the book/documentary Dirty Wars.

When the twin towers fell, I was an ROTC cadet reporting in to my commanding officer for my morning duties. It wasn’t long after that I joined the US Army’s ranks in the 11B combat specialty despite having the ASVAB scores to go anywhere else. None of the other jobs had what I was looking for. In the summer of 2005 I graduated infantry OSUT and airborne school, both at Fort Benning, Georgia.

For people like me, it didn’t matter where the military sent us. We were absolutely convinced that our help was necessary to protect the nation, and that the military was working on behalf of the nation’s best interests. But no matter how enthusiastic I may have been at the beginning (and there was no solider more gung-ho for HOOAH than me), it slowly but inevitably became impossible to ignore the power grabs and profiteering happening above my pay grade. Once I finally became witness to the crimes of our government, that the media insisted were not happening, I couldn’t deny the truth any longer. Looking back I wonder how I was ever able made to believe any of the mainstream lies. Then again, common sense is only sense made common, and hindsight is always 20/20.

notpropagandaFETISHIZING MURDER

I don’t enjoy talking about my service, and no fellow veteran I know who has taken lives was ever proud of it. Which brings me to my next point about the book of the same name upon which the movie American Sniper is based. Chris Kyle, who is credited with 160 confirmed kills (God knows how many more unconfirmed) reads like a demented serial killer, reveling in the destruction and death that transpired at his fingertips during four tours of duty. This initially led me to question what role the book and subsequent film were meant to play in the society to shape public perception, and how much of it was altered to appeal to the pro-war narrative. Because no veteran I know personally has ever talked the way Kyle does about murder in his memoirs. The only people I’ve ever met who revel in the death and suffering of other humans in combat situations are people who have either never been in combat, or sadistic psychopaths.

As far as the first group are concerned you’ve probably bumped into one of these clowns at the bar, telling fantastic stories of the wars he so bravely fought in. Mine were usually socially inept boys with poor posture who liked to brag about how they were “a sniper in Iraq” or worked with the “special forces in Afghanistan” in between swigs of cheap beer. For whatever reason, stolen valor seems to have become quite popular in the age of Homeland Security.

The first prerequisite in determining the legitimacy of  an individual’s service in the military is his unwillingness to talk about combat. Nobody I know who saw ‘trigger time’ overseas enjoys talking about combat, and most will flatly refuse your requests to reminisce by changing the subject, or leaving the conversation altogether. Posers, on the other hand, who have been programmed by video games and war films to glorify human slaughter, will tell war stories that usually feel like borrowed composites from pop culture. They do this because the greater culture has brainwashed them into thinking that they can obtain respect, sex, and notoriety if they can convince people they too are an American war hero. The reality experienced by our authentic heroes, however, seldom includes any semblance of fame or fortune, but a whole lot of guilt and flashbacks.

If you bump into armchair commandos claiming military service, and you want to skillfully suggest polite skepticism of their yarns, a great test of character is to ask them what their MOS was during their military career. That’s Military Occupational Specialty, and if they weren’t in the military they usually won’t be able to answer this question. Sometimes the smart fakers have memorized some figures, but this question weeds them out nine times out of ten.

Please understand that I’m not accusing Chris Kyle of being a poser, per se. Though this book exhibits demonstrable lies, we can say based on evidence that he was indeed a veteran and served out his military contract honorably. But if he actually reveled in the act of killing during his service as the pages and scenes of American Sniper allege, and if he actually felt the way those hateful sentences convey, then I’m led to believe that he’s either a psychopath, or that the narrative of his life has been altered to boost sales and/or garner patriotic support for continued global imperialism.

Praising the act of killing into fetish territory is not the behavior of any genuine veteran I know, which leads me to believe that Chris Kyle is either not responsible for the death-glorification that appears in the book (which, by the way, is conspicuously absent from the film), or he was a psychopath. Neither case leaves me either admiring Kyle, or feeling the need to honor his memory.

I’ve also considered the possibility that many of the stories were fabrications, either ghost-written by other writers or embellished by the editor to push sales, because there are many claims throughout the text that are blatant lies: in the book we’re meant to believe that Chris Kyle punched former Navy Seal Jesse Ventura; that Kyle sniped thirty people in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina; that he murdered two men attempting to car-jack him. There is no evidence to support any of these claims, and Jesse Ventura even filed a law suit for defamation of character when Chris Kyle was still alive.

“PUNCHING OUT JESSE”

The media really twisted up Ventura’s defamation lawsuit, vilifying the former Minnesota Governor for victimizing the “poor widow” of Chris Kyle “for greedy monetary gain”. Ventura has since set the record straight about the chapter of American Sniper entitled, “Punching Out Jesse,” that the publication company was forced to change. Despite the fact that a jury came to the conclusion that overwhelming evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident in question never happened, instead of amending or omitting the entire chapter, HarperCollins offered money as payment to Ventura for damages. Ventura objected to the money, demanding they remove the blatant lies from the pages of the book. Though they’ve changed the name of that chapter in subsequent publications, they stonewalled Ventura on altering the content, instead writing him a check for $1.8 million, and now the media are free to berate him for taking money away from Kyle’s widow. Money that the Kyle Estate claimed was going entirely towards charity in the name of veterans organizations, which turned out to be another lie, as only about 2% of the proceeds were ever donated to said charities, according to the National Review.

This brings me to the strange circumstances surrounding Chris Kyle’s death; shot by a former Marine on a shooting range shortly after Ventura’s lawsuit began. Some analysts are drawing parallels between the Chris Kyle narrative and the Pat Tillman story. Men who’s image was worth billions in recruitment advertising to the military-industrial-complex.

A common misconception infecting the discourse of our society is that if you’re going to question the war you need to be prepared to respond to accusations of being anti-American or anti-military. As an ROTC cadet and a person who sacrificed his early life to join the military, is anyone prepared to call me anti-American? Since I was honorably discharged from my military service, is anyone prepared to call me anti-military?

22 veterans kill themselves every day. You think it’s because they’re proud of what they did? You think it’s because they’re happy with what their actions helped accomplish? You think its because they believed that their battles resulted in freedom for Americans?

And how does patriotic support of our troops equate to the anti-human stance we take on the scores of homeless veterans walking our streets every day, who we demonize for being poor? If anyone is qualified to say this, I as a veteran am: you cannot support our troops and be simultaneously against the war. That’s oxymoronic because if our troops are committing crimes against humanity, we are no different than any other totalitarian regime in history. If I’m involved in something shitty, you shouldn’t pledge my support, any more than I should be required to follow shitty orders if I think they’re unlawful. Just following orders is a coward’s excuse, and hiding behind a rifle requires far less courage than standing up to a corrupt government that continues to commit crimes in the name of freedom, God and country.

I’m not the only veteran taking a stance to set the record straight here. Former Marines Adam Kokesh and Ross Caputi who both served in Fallujah, call the Iraq war an imperialistic resource theft that exploits American soldiers who think they’re fighting for freedom.

Perhaps no one has ever said it better than two-time Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley D. Butler:

BUtLER“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. “I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

“I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

“During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

For this reason, I can’t help but cringe when people reflexively respond to the news of my military service by pumping my hand and thanking me for my service, which is part of the reason I rarely bring it up. Since we’re on the subject, I must ask you all to please refrain from thanking me for my service as a matter of reflex. Because I didn’t fight for anybody’s freedom. I fought to help guarantee the profits of assholes, just as General Butler articulated all those years before me.

11-C-martin-luther-king-guided-missiles-pro-peace-ani-war-history-political-tshirt

Image source: Allriot t-shirts

This post was originally composed by journalist and Army veteran Brandt Miller.
Catch the cloudcast at mixcloud.com/outerlimitsradioshow
Check out the more frequently updated tumblr page at outerlimitsradioshow.tumblr.com
Contact the research team at outerlimitsradioshow@fastmail.fm