Today would have been the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 94nd birthday. Dr. King was anti-violence and believed in non-violent, peaceful protest.
Unfortunately, today’s Democrats and liberals are now the same kind of Cold Warriors and war-mongers that the Republicans and conservatives were in Martin Luther King, Jr’s day. Sad.
Were the left of today in charge during the 1960s, they would have jailed Dr. King for his anti-Vietnam War protests and marches. Today King would be protesting U.S. involvement in Ukraine and U.S. government enriching the arms industry with tax dollars and its sending weapons over to Ukraine and getting into a war with Russia and risking nuclear destruction.
During the 1960s, the FBI harassed and spied on King, and kept a dossier on him, for political reasons and not because they legitimately suspected him of criminality. I wonder what King would have said today regarding the Democrats’ and Obama regime’s spying on the Trump campaign and administration and attempting to frame Trump with a dirty dossier.
This Martin Luther King, Jr. speech on why he opposed the Vietnam War was given in April, 1967 at Riverside Church in New York. Antiwar.com has the full transcript.
It used to be that liberals/progressives were anti-war. Now, they are pro-war. They are the new war-mongers of our time.
In CONgress, the “Progressive” Carcass including the “Squad” released a letter allegedly calling for peace talks and diplomacy, and then they withdrew the letter. They actually weren’t seriously calling for diplomacy in the first place.
No, they don’t want peace. They are anti-peace, and pro-violence. We know the liberals/progressives are pro-violence when in 2020 they supported the antifa/BLM rioting, looting, arson, burning down businesses and libraries causing a billion dollars in damage and killing about 30 or 40 people throughout the USA.
The liberals/progressives were never pro-peace or anti-war. During the 2000s they protested Bush-Cheney’s wars but only until Obama was sworn in as president. Then, it was crickets. They didn’t protest Obama’s escalating the drone strikes and killing mainly innocents, or Obama’s increasing troop levels in Afghanistan rather than withdrawing as promised.
Previously, during the 1960s and ’70s they protested the Vietnam War, but really only because there was a draft.
For the first post-Vietnam war the U.S. government started, the liberals/progressives did not protest George H.W. Bush’s starting the whole new war in 1991 against the Middle East (well, against Iraq specifically but really the entire Middle East if we’re honest about it). Liberals/Progressives supported that war, and the sanctions and no-fly zones that were continued by “liberal” President Bill Clinton throughout the 1990s causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and which led to 9/11 which wouldn’t have happened otherwise.
Zelensky started the Russia-Ukraine conflict with his playing footsie with NATO and threatening to put nukes right on Russia’s doorstep. But why are so many people so brainwashed with such reflexive Russia-hate in all this, and unconditionally loving the corrupt Ukraine regime that consists of a large neo-Nazi faction?
Was it 5 years of Russia-Russia-Russia “Trump-Russia collusions” that never happened and was all made up with no evidence to support such allegations that were also promulgated by the regime U.S. media?
The liberals/progressives along with today’s neocons are hating on Russia just as the Reagan-era conservatives were doing in the 1980s. And the liberals/progressives are now acting like the conservatives were acting after 9/11, obediently believing every word uttered by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and supporting the neocon Bush regime’s every action and wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, it turns out that the Bush pals of Saudi Arabia were probably involved in the planning and carrying out of 9/11. Where were the calls for bombing the Saudis to smithereens as Bush did to Iraq?
Bush and Cheney, by the way, should be charged with war crimes, not just for their starting wars of aggression based on lies, but also based on their torture regime, as discussed by Judge Andrew Napolitano. Conservatives would never stand for that because, like the liberal/progressives, they have had their own brainwashing toward defending war crimes as long as the crimes are committed by Republicans and right-leaning nationalists.
But the regime in Washington, mainly controlled by Democrats, liberals/progressives and otherwise leftist swamp creatures, wants war, they want the Russia-Ukraine war to continue and escalate and they seem to want to get U.S. troops involved, It is inevitable, as long as they themselves don’t have to go there and fight, or their kids or grandchildren.
So the neocons and the so-called liberal/progressives Democrats want war with Russia. A war that carries with it the enormous risk of involving nuclear weapons. If that happens then it will not stop. It will be TEOTWAWKI. They are crazy people, today’s liberals/progressives.
Pepe Escobar has this enlightening analysis of the sabotage of the Nord stream pipe lines, and to find motive he brings up some important historical facts, including the zeal of the neocons and the ‘Straussians.” Is this the beginning of an intra-NATO war now? Is it possible that the warmongering Swamp in Washington will do anything to preserve its empire and hegemony overseas, including starting new wars against Germany (and Japan)?
Jacob Hornberger at the Future of Freedom Foundation has yet another terrific post, this one on Russia’s draft and America’s draft registration. America was really intended to be a genuinely free society, and forced military service is not a part of a free society.
Sunday is the 21st year of 9/11, and we’re having the usual memorials now. Many people now weren’t even born at that time. I’m sure the young people have been getting the usual government propaganda in the schools on 9/11, but not the truth. Just like the older people have been getting from TV/media/government/Hollywood, etc.
I posted an overview of the whole 9/11 thing in 2019, and reposted that in 2020 and 2021, so now I will repost it again for those who are craving for the truth and maybe have a feeling that the official government/media/academia/Hollywood narrative of 9/11 may not be totally truthful, especially after 5 years of Russia-collusion lies and 2+ years of Covid lies, hypocrisies and counterproductive and harmful mandates imposed by fascists.
Today is the 18th anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center, the Pentacon, and in Pennsylvania. Where was I on that day? Well, I was here in this same apartment sitting at my table doing some writing and my father (now deceased) called at around 10 am saying that their trip that they were going to go on that day was canceled and he told me why. Hmm.
The government’s propaganda began immediately on that day and after. 99% of the news media were the White House press spokesmen. There was no discussion of the attackers stated motives, or the history of U.S. government and military’s invasions, bombings and occupations of the Middle East in the 10 years prior to that time. Anyone who did mention those things was labeled “Anti-America,” or “blaming America” for the attacks. Sean Hannity has been especially bad in that regard ever since that time. He is the worst of the worst as far as apparatchiks for the national security state are concerned. I just thought I’d mention that.
However, given that Hannity and all the other radio ditto-heads are accepting of the idea that actual U.S. government FBI, CIA etc. abused their powers including FISA spying in the Russiagate fiasco, maybe now some of these obedient worshipers of the national security state can at least consider the possibility that the official 9/11 narrative isn’t what the government has been telling us for 18 years. (But, I am not holding my breath.)
So, I’m sure that a lot of people reading this post will just skim it and not really take it seriously or click on any of the links for further information. This is because they are satisfied with what the government and its spokespeople of the mainstream media have been telling us since September 11, 2001. All these things they haven’t heard about must be merely whack-job “conspiracy theory” and all that. But there are still some people who are open to the truth.
In the years prior to the attacks, Congressman Ron Paul had several times warned that the U.S. government’s interventionist policies and war that it started against Iraq and elsewhere and Iraqi sanctions would cause blowback and retaliation within our shores. (And the response? Crickets.)
It’s amazing just how brainwashed so many people can be by daily propaganda, watching the TV news, listening to chickenhawk warmonger conservative talk radio, and so forth. “Al Qaeda.” “Osama bin Laden,” and “Islamic” were words that people heard over and over and over, but they rarely heard about Saudi Arabia and blowback.
I don’t know what else to write so I will post links to some new and old articles on the subject, and maybe some videos.
Over the years I have reported the findings of scientists, engineers, and architects that indicate that the official story is false.I had an open mind for two reasons.One is that having been an engineering student, I could tell the difference from a building falling down from asymmetrical structural damage and a building blowing up.The other is that having been involved in policy issues in Washington for a quarter century I knew that such a humiliating defeat suffered by the world’s only superpower at the hands of a few Muslim terrorists would have brought instant demands from the White House, Congress, and media for investigation into how every aspect of the American national security state failed simultaneously on one morning.Instead the White House resisted the 9/11 families demands for an investigation for one year and never delivered a forensic investigation.Instead, the country was given a 9/11 Commission Report that was merely the government’s official story of what happened.No heads rolled.No one was fired or even reprimanded.To hold no one accountable for such a massive failure and humiliating defeat is not a believable response if the official 9/11 story is true.
Of course, how could Osama bin Laden have been killed and thrown out to sea by SEAL Team 6 in 2011 if bin Laden had already died in 2001 or 2002? Paul Craig Roberts again with some questions.
Here is an interview in which Lindauer tells about her experiences:
James Corbett with an hour-long discussion on who was really behind the 9/11 attacks:
And here is a video documentary from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth explaining the evidence that explosions brought down the World Trade Center, and not the fire caused by planes crashing into the buildings:
I admit it. I’m a “truther.” That’s because the truth is important. And as the late Justin Raimondo wrote, the opposite of a “truther” is a “liar.”
Queen Elizabeth II died at the age of 96. She carried herself with dignity and class. But really I have never really been a fan of the British royal family. Now, Queen will be replaced by Prince Charles, who will now be referred to as “King Charles III.”
I think I will refer to Charles as “King Tampon,” given his disgraceful embarrassment during the time in the early 1990s that he told Camilla that he wanted to be her tampon or some such thing. Another disgrace was Charles’s openly cheating on Diana during those years. It is possible that the royal family were behind Diana’s “accident” and death and for ritualistic wacko reasons.
Another reason to dismiss Charles as an unworthy is his climate change kookery. He’s a climate kook and a depopulation wacko. Charles is totally unworthy of being “King” and really ought to step aside and let Prince William be the next King.
In the meantime, regarding Queen Elizabeth, I think that Carol Burnett’s parody of the Queen was spot on, on The Carol Burnett Show during the 1970s. Carol had the Queen’s voice and gestures to a T. She was hysterical. I found several of those skits on YouTube, here and here.
Mikhail Gorbachev was the last General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party and Premier (or actually “President”) of the Soviet Union before it collapsed and crashed. He died at the age of 91.
Someone who has written quite a bit about Gorbachev is Yuri Maltsev, an economics professor closely associated with the Mises Institute and previously an economist with the Gorbachev Soviet regime. Maltsev defected to the U.S. as the Soviet Union was collapsing and crashing.
Gorbachev is being praised as having been a “reformer,” even by some libertarians, but Maltsev has told us a more realistic story. I have linked to this before, this article by Maltsev on the real Gorbachev. It is actually the introduction to the book, Requiem for Marx, edited by Maltsev.
Gorbachev too tried to save communism through other means. That was the original point behind glasnost and perestroika (and probably why these petty measures were so heralded in the West). Even the KGB understood the need for reform. As the chief ideologue of the KGB, Philip Bobkov, has said, “The KGB understood very well, back in 1985, that the USSR would not be able to make further progress without perestroika.”
By the people in the Soviet Union Gorbachev was rightly considered to be just another Communist Party hack. His “reforms” were never fundamental, but only expedient measures to preserve the centrality of the Soviet Communist Party and to salvage what was left of the socialist system. Gorbachev was only willing to “reform” when the world was falling apart around him.
He was in a good position to know better. He was from a peasant family in South Russia, where he witnessed first hand the malnutrition, hunger, and even starvation that socialism caused. His grandfather was killed in Stalin’s purges, so he knew the brutality of Communist politics. Yet he chose to make politics his life’s work. For Gorbachev, the exercise of power has always been more important than good sense or morality.
It was a Western fantasy that the man named to be general secretary of the Communist Party would not be a devoted Communist. As in joining a street gang, you must demonstrate that you are absolutely loyal to the club (and all its associated crimes) and that your conscience can be overridden. During Gorbachev’s long political climb, he passed more than one hundred such political and security clearances.
The main difference between Gorbachev and his predecessors was that he was smarter and smoother. He was also the first one with a university education: a masters in law and a masters in agriculture. Given Soviet education, that is probably why the first thing he did was ruin the agricultural distribution system.
While he was in agricultural school in Stavropol, Russia, he was chief of the local Communist Party. His colleagues report that he ordered his professors to come from the university to Gorbachev’s office to tutor and test him.
Gorbachev became secretary of agriculture under the Yuri Andropov regime, and endeared himself to the Party Secretary by promoting a cult of Andropov. He promoted films about him and mandated that streets be named after him. Andropov returned the favor by promoting Gorbachev in the Party bureaucracy. Of course, Andropov is one of the most hardened of all Soviet leaders. As ambassador to Hungary, he ordered the invasion of that great country in 1956, and while head of the KGB in 1968, he persecuted dissidents by the tens of thousands (including Solzhenitsyn), presiding over the darkest period in KGB history.
Later, Gorbachev became secretary of ideology during the Chernenko regime, and as early as 1984, he was making overtures to Margaret Thatcher. What Thatcher did not know, or refused to believe, was that Gorbachev’s goal was to save Soviet communism (meaning the power of the Party) and given the dire circumstances he faced, that meant “reform.” Yet a reformist communist is only marginally better than an orthodox one. His goals and methods should have been condemned, just as one would condemn a successor to Hitler who claimed to be a “reformist Nazi.”
Gorbachev never learned economics in school. In all my dealings with him, I never saw even a slight flash of economic insight, or even any desire to learn more about economics. He preferred to think like a communist: everything can be done by issuing orders, no matter how perverse, contrary to human nature, and brutal they may be.
Beginning with the day he assumed power, he positioned himself as an opponent of freedom and the market. He singlehandedly destroyed what little market activity existed in the Soviet Union, wrecked the already-miserable lives of the public, presided over appalling violence against innocent people in the Baltic states, and openly supported old-guard communists. Yet the Western media decided not to be skeptical about his aims.
…
Then Gorbachev began a campaign against “dishonest income.” Like Stalin and Khrushchev before him, he declared all sources of income other than official salary to be an evil to be stamped out. For example, if a person rented a room out in his house, he received “dishonest income” and all parties would be severely punished. The problem was not a single person in the Soviet Union was untainted by unofficial economic activity. The official economy did not produce enough of anything desirable, so if a person was untainted, he was probably already dead.
Party bureaucrats bulldozed thousands of gardens in the backyards of peasant’s homes, often filled with fresh fruits and vegetables. “Illicit” farmers’ markets were closed. The bureaucrats cracked down on such activity as currency exchanges and unofficial transportation. Chaos reigned in the housing market, where the penalty for renting out an apartment for profit would be to have your whole home confiscated.*
[*Wait a minute. How is this different from America’s various “blue” states and local communities in USSA right now?]
For a study on the right way to de-socialize or decentralize a “union” of states that shouldn’t exist in the first place, read Murray Rothbard on that.
Scott Lazarowitz's Blog 