It’s a mixed bag, today. I think I’m going to just try to do a digest collection of some assorted news.
The flurry of noise is hard to sort out, these days, and one deeply unfortunate result of that is that it seems most people just don’t, or just get lost in the noise of what’s pumped at them as “news”. That’s an old subject, but here we are.
It regularly occurs to me as I write a lot of the things in this space that some people, maybe an awful lot of people, are likely to skim a lot of items that arise and blow them off with eye rolling dismissals about a political blog with a bunch of wacky conspiracy theory stuff. I’ve never had any intention of writing “a political blog”, and I actually really have stuck with that, but there’s just a basic running problem with this. Trying to do anything in the vein of general observation and commentary inevitably, unavoidably, ends up being swamped by an endless parade of lunacy from political characters polluting public consciousness about practically everything, one way or another.
Even the lingo of “conspiracy theory” is a seriously problematic and stupid meme that really needs to go away. Anything that addresses some bit of reality that clashes with some running misunderstandings, flat out delusions, and/or some official narrative, gets the label “conspiracy theory” slapped on it, with people apparently not understanding that the term itself was something created and pumped out as a propaganda meme to manipulate people.
Oh, you’re one of those conspiracy theory nuts! Next, I suppose, you’ll tell us all about how Bigfoot faked the Apollo lunar landings for the New World Order of the alien lizard people in their secret subterranean lair beneath Area 51!
It definitely doesn’t help the general state of public information when you occasionally encounter bits of noise like an online graphic/photo sort of digital wall poster meme I came across. It was based on a photograph of the aftermath of what had been the World Trade Center, some days after the catastrophe, complete with heavy equipment on the gigantic pile of debris working through the massive long cleanup process. In the foreground of the shot were some of the stump remnants of mangled vertical structural beams, and someone had added red circles around the tops of these with lines connecting to text notations describing this as clear evidence of thermite being used to cut through the building structure and bring it down. Never mind the obvious, which is that what the photograph showed was clear evidence of the work of guys working with cutting torches to cut off remnants of huge twisted structural beams to get them down to relatively short vertical stumps to help clear the area and get to what was around and underneath them.
That was a classic case of how things can be tangled up in obfuscation or plain foolishness and getting at the truth of things becoming more difficult as a result. It’s the sort of thing that goes along with another running meme among some people that says “burning jet fuel can’t generate enough heat to melt steel beams”, as they argue that the twin towers of the WTC were “obviously” brought down by a covert deliberate demolition, and somehow managing to avoid finding a basic fact. That is, that the properties of metals are fairly complex, particularly in terms of their properties at various temperatures, and for steel structural pieces to fail under heavy load does not require steel to be melted. This is something that is widely known, and you don’t have to be a metallurgist or civil or mechanical engineer to know this. This is old news to anybody who ever does any serious work with metals, or even right down to random knuckleheads who are not engineers, or in a skilled trade, but just random “handyman” hackers who at least understand the way you can heat something up enough to soften it up to bend and shape a piece.
This sort of stuff surrounds the saga of the events of that day, which has created this whole bizarre subculture of people thrashing around with all kinds of “facts and theories” about the specific incidents, that include all kinds of ridiculous confusion and whole fabricated batches of nonsense. All that has given us a whole package of people being called “9-11 Truthers”, and part of the consequences of all this is a strange phenomenon where even using the word “truth” about anything triggers almost automatic reflex programmed notions in people’s heads about nutball delusional paranoid conspiracy theorists and their wacky idiocy. All this causes serious problems and all kinds of obfuscation in terms of any serious people addressing an awful lot of the general back story to the actual specific incidents of that day (meaning, the actual plane crashes into the buildings involved) and anything about the surrounding back story that is awfully fishy.
But 9-11 was an inside job, man, because chemtrails!
The kind of tangled nonsense I’m talking about just makes it extraordinarily hard for there to be any serious real general public understanding, of all kinds of events and circumstances, not just the story of the shocking catastrophes in September 2001.
Some things simply are not some “secret hidden truth”, and can be, and are, obscured, or even dismissed, thanks to the swarms of confusion. There was the now defunct Project for the New American Century, which, in their former website, still thankfully preserved in archived form, included a batch of formal position papers and essays, that included a statement that the United States of America, suffering from what was viewed as an unfortunate period of relative world peace and stability, was in danger of not continuously pouring the wealth of the nation into more and more “defense”, possibly undermining complete world domination, and that this was likely to continue unless there came to pass an event of a type they described as, I promise I’m not making this up, “a new Pearl Harbor“.
Then, along came the morning of September 11, 2001.
It’s not some “hidden secret” that starting immediately afterward, and continuing for a decade and a half since then, we’ve had this sort of festival of the neocons.
The Project for the New American Century ceased to be, at least formally, as I’ve pointed out. There’s now a new club (hey, ever heard of these guys? I’ll bet not!), Center for a New American Security!
I’m not kidding. Yes, there is a website.
That might not be very well known, in fact, I will go out on a real limb here and guess that relatively few people know about it.
This all comes up in the context of just one of the neocon festival stages of what’s happening in Syria and Washington “foreign policy”.
I was amazed to read an essay article titled Seeking a Debate on ‘Regime Change’ Wars, that was pretty disturbing in a peculiar way, although the general idea was entirely correct and proper. The thing that just floors me is that, evidently, the War Party lunacy ruling Washington is so completely ubiquitous, pervasive, so entirely entrenched as normal, that somebody would actually only speak about this kind of running saga as something that should have “debate”.
Really? This needs a debate?
“Should our government overthrow governments in other nations of the world because those governments won’t follow their directions and orders?”
This is seriously supposed to be a topic for debate? How can it even be that we find a story that talks about “seeking a debate” about this? How can there even be anything about this other than “no!”? Just stop it.
No, it’s not alright, and how have we reached a state of things that somehow, people don’t even think that there might possibly be something wrong with the idea?
Right, absolutely, Bad Guys there, sure, sure, regime change, here we go!
There was a really good piece I watched online a while back, and I’m kicking myself now because I can’t find a link, and have blanked out on the name of the speaker, but it was really interesting, in a couple of ways.
The main theme was the speaker talking at length about this warped concept of Empire that has gripped the place in Washington, and seeped through and fouled the citizenry in general, and the way that “regime change” and going around the world attacking all over has become considered normal.
A part of this that stopped me short was when he started saying something about how going to launch a war against someplace in the world should only happen if it was determined that there was a really good reason for it and would do something good.
What happened to the principle that the only “good” reason to go off and have a war is if you are attacked and defending the country, or, at the very minimum rationale, going to the aid of another country that is being attacked?
Now, it’s “regime change in Syria!” and “Assad must go!”. I pointed a few days ago to a great article, Why the Arabs don’t want us in Syria , that provided a good explanation of what that’s really all about.
In the meantime, another article was really jaw dropping stuff, U.S. State Department “Welcomes” News That Saudi Arabia Will Head U.N. Human Rights Panel, and I wonder how many people wouldn’t even think anything of it. It was astonishing. I mean, the US government welcoming news that Saudi Arabia will head a UN human rights panel is something like congratulating a child molester on opening a children’s daycare operation. It’s beyond a bit questionable, it’s beyond wrong, it’s into the territory of “how is this even possible?”.
For several years now, again, the chant from Washington has been “Assad must go!”, “regime change in Syria”, just another item in the ongoing project to knock out any government on Earth not following their orders.
It’s probably a full time job to even try to sort out all the parties involved in the chaotic ugliness in Syria, and the running narratives coming from Washington and pumped out by the propaganda machine serving as news don’t help, and don’t even make any sense.
We keep hearing about “supporting moderate opposition groups”, Washington supporting armed factions trying to overthrow the Syrian government, even though it should be obvious that if the situation where Syria was “friend and ally of the US” the very same factions would be simply “terrorists”.
It’s apparently much more complicated, as there are apparently a number of assorted armed factions trying to overthrow the Syrian government and take control of the country, while also battling each other, that would all normally be labelled as “terrorist groups” by Washington, even while Washington supports some of the terrorists as The Good Guys, because they’re trying to overthrow the government, while supposedly fighting other “terrorists”, the dreaded bogeyman ISIS, or ISIL, and whatever else they’re called, in this Orwellian “War on Terror”, while many reports say that not only was ISIS a direct result of Washington’s games, but they’re actually even covertly supported by Washington. Confused yet? So we have Washington statements strutting about “fighting the War on Terror” against terrorists in Syria who are fighting to overthrow Assad and take over Syria, while also squawking about supporting a whitewashed “moderate opposition rebels” who are fighting to overthrow Assad.
Syria and Russia are longtime allies, and the Syrian government, under attack, asked the Russians to send military help to fight off the forces trying to take over Syria. Among all the noise from Washington about “fighting the War on Terror”, the Washington neocon crowd got really indignant about the Russians having the unmitigated gall to go into Syria and begin decimating the terrorist forces that the US, somehow, rather conveniently, given the situation already described, could not quite seem to neutralize.
Read this report from CBS news carefully.
Notice that it gives quite a lot of attention to things like the US Secretary of Defense “Ash” Carter being described as being somewhat annoyed by those rude Russians reportedly bombing our Good Guy terrorists and not following the US instructions.
No attention is given to the plainly obvious.
The Syrian government, the government of a sovereign nation (and what any of us here think of it is irrelevant), under attack, asks Russia to send in the Russian military to help them defend themselves. The Russian military is in Syria operating at the request of the Syrian government.
Any US military forces in Syria are there present in another country against the wishes of that country’s government, sent there by the government of another country that is explicitly hostile to the Syrian government and overtly proclaiming its wishes, no, demands for the Syrian government to be overthrown, and replaced with a government more “cooperative” with Washington, or, to put it plainly, put Syria under Washington’s control, pure and simple; a vassal state of the Empire.
Have a look at the woman who might be in charge of war if we end up with President Hillary Clinton.