"But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period (since 1945) have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States’ actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America’s favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as ‘low intensity conflict’. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer." - Harold Pinter, Nobel Prize Speech, 2005,Link

 

Recently we could read in a Washington Post headline: 'Trump to tell Russia U.S. is pulling out of nuclear forces treaty'. The article had this Orwellian double speak explanation: “President Reagan concluded this treaty to reduce the risk of war in Europe,” Mr. Engel said. “We owe it to our allies and to the American people to do everything we can to bring Russia back into compliance and preserve peace." Link

 

I can't believe this nuclear prospect myself. So, what to think? My logic tells me that the US will begin using 'practical nuclear arms'. But, alternatively, this move together wih the general military mobilizing is also a way to get a more firm control of the Western states, the 'danger level' will be used to crush dissent, critical information and suppress people by fear. 

 

In fact, we get both consequences. The still more acute risk of a nuclear war in Europe is in itself a terrible weapon of terror against the European and the Russian people. Political parties and citizens need to protest and stop this insane move by the US.

 

The US already has a great tradition of using terrible arms. From Agent Orange in Vietnam to using depleted uranium in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria etc., which have had cancer rates skyrocketing in these nations. The radiation's "half time" is 4.5 billion years. Chances are, given the Western media's suppressing all info that might hurt the corporate powers and the military, that you have not even heard about this.

 

Now let's think a bit about 'real' nuclear bombs. People who have followed me on Facebook, on my old account, will remember that I predicted that ('Ex-CIA') Ellsberg's new book was meant to "normalize", that the US would begin to use the 'practical nuclear' arms that Obama signed a trillion dollar contract to develop: https://www.nytimes.com/…/a-trillion-dollar-nuclear-weapon-…

Again, I have to ask, is it for real, to 'normalize' nuclear bombs. Or is it to scare people. The difficulty here is, that Ellsberg is considered a hero, and 'normalizing' nuclear arms is so insane, that people cannot think it as real, that it might 'materialize'. But please look at the nations which the US/Europe have destroyed. From WW2 bombing of Dresden and nuclear bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki to Clinton's Yugoslavia, the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria - there are no limits to the Western oligarchs' cynicism.

Obama didn't apologize in Hiroshima a couple of years ago for US nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which historians say were completely unnessecary, as Japan was about to surrender). Instead Obama made one of the clinical chilling statements, which the US politicians and bureaucrats for Pentagon are so good at: "Obama will not apologize for Hiroshima attack, he tells Japanese TV. President says he will highlight blossoming of a close relationship between US and Japan, but ‘every leader makes difficult decisions, particularly during war’." https://www.theguardian.com/…/obama-japan-hiroshima-intervi…

Let me remind you that the US secretary of state Madeleine Albright said that she thought that 'it was worth it', that the US had ordered sanctions on Iraq, which cost more than of 500,000 dead Iraqi children under the age of 5 years in the 1990'ties. To the best of my knowledge these sanctions had no effect - besides the killing of people in Iraq. And it was worth it. This is a form of unmatched cynicism. But it is typical of the US politicians and diplomats. Remember Harold Pinter's recollection of his meeting with the US Ambassador in London with a delegation from Nicaragua?

In Hiroshima, Obama gave another of his excellent double-plus-good-speeches, saying that we should have a world free of nuclear weapons (yes, after signing a trillion dollars contract to make them), and that nuclear use can be a necessity. 'Obama in Hiroshima calls for 'world without nuclear weapons'.' 2016, CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/…/…/obama-hiroshima-japan/index.html

 

The most important CIA researcher Doug Valentine has explained, why we should neither trust Ellsberg nor (his brother in intellectual arms) Noam Chomsky. They were together in the 70'ties and they are together today, telling people what to think - and not think (Chomsky is strong controller of the Bush/Cheney official 9/11 conspiracy). Ellsberg covered up for CIA's horrendous 'Phoenix Program' of using terrorist proxies and paid quislings in Vietnam in the seventies, with his world famous and world reported 'Pentagon Papers'. Later Chomsky similarly covers up the 'Phoenix Program' (ISIS) in Syria. As Doug Valentine explains:

"Left paterfamilias Noam Chomsky, who generally shows an appreciation for the subtleties of covert action, claimed that America is not supplying its Al Qaeda mercenary army with arms – even though Eric Schmidt at The New York Times reported over a year ago that CIA officers in Turkey were “helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arm.” https://www.counterpunch.org/…/the-cia-the-press-and-black…/

 

Now, as a Danish sociologist trying to figure out the reality of the Western wars, I have shared countless articles on Facebook about the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc. being behind, arming and training ISIS and Al Qaeda. So, why would Chomsky cover this up? In fact, Chomsky has been consistent in covering up CIA's role exactly like Ellsberg did. This is clear, if you compare his work and public explanations with the most important CIA researcher Doug Valentine, where Doug has an explanation about the power of CIA as being much, much more powerful than Chomsky will ever let you think. I have done what I can to promote Doug's research, as I do here. But I bet that you will look in vain for Chomsky's promotion of Doug's research. Why?

 

Here Doug Explains something about the likewise famous Daniel Ellsberg:

"The first thing the reader needs to know is that Ellsberg was not always a pacifist “dove” intent on ending the Vietnam War. At first he was an aggressive “hawk.” His militant approach to the Cold War ? he was all for nuking the Soviet Union ? was shaped during a tour of duty as a Marine lieutenant, and precisely because of his hard-line attitude, and his ability to articulate it, he was offered a job as a Defense Department analyst." https://www.counterpunch.org/…/will-the-real-daniel-ellsbe…/

Here we have a promotion piece on Ellsberg and Chomsky from the seventies till today - yes, it is 'historical' all right:

"The fact that Noam and Dan share a history related to the Pentagon Papers will certainly add a historical significance to the event.”

Ellsberg first sent the Pentagon Papers to Chomsky, who, along with Howard Zinn, prepared a fifth volume of the Papers consisting of critical essays by many scholars. Chomsky also defended Ellsberg’s role in releasing the Pentagon Papers (video here.)" https://sbs.arizona.edu/…/daniel-ellsberg-and-noam-chomsky-…

Now, as should be clear from the Washington Post article here, Trump to tell Russia U.S. is pulling out of nuclear forces treaty, we should have no illusions about Trump being a different president than Obama, Bush and Bill Clinton. The American presidents are not in control. The Council of Foreign Relations and the CIA tell the American president what will happen next. If you go to YouTube you might find videos with Hillary Clinton saying that it is nice to visit the CFR to have explained what to think. Doug Valentine says that the US president and congress are not even allowed to see the original CIA memes, if I remember Doug's exact words. While the famous advisor to John F. Kennedy, John K. Galbraith explained this about the CFR:

 

"Those of us who had worked for the Kennedy election were tolerated in the government for that reason and had a say, but foreign policy was still with the Council on Foreign Relations people.”

 

Yes, John F. Kennedy tried to get rid of the CIA. And this caused his death. Noam Chomsky and so many other 'academics' have worked hard to put dirt on Kennedy's real politics and legacy. I have collected some interesting information on the subject here, where it is probably enough that you watch Dr. Wecht's lecture on the top to know, that the murder of JFK was covered up from day one. https://homosociologicus.com/the-murder-of-jfk

 

It seems that Trump have ideological differences with the Democrats, but he is a member of the American oligarchs, and even if he wanted, he is hardly allowed to do much against the power relations of the US establishment. But it is important for me to say that I have not paid enough attention to Trump to be able to figure this out. I suggest that you look to analysts like Glen Ford at BAR and Diana Johnstone etc.

 

What keeps people in the greatest ignorance, is, what the Scandinavian peace researcher Jan Oberg calls the 'Military Industrial Media Academic Complex'. https://janoberg.me/…/military-industrial-media-academic-c…/ Here is a quote from Prof. Alfred McCoy's latest book, which is on my page on the Western propaganda apparatus:

"In 2010 (..) Washington Post reported that the national security state had swelled into a “fourth branch” of the federal government ― with 854,000 vetted officials, 263 security organizations, and over 3,000 intelligence units, issuing 50,000 special reports every year." https://truthout.org/…/exploring-the-shadows-of-the-us-sec…/ -- Professor Alfred McCoy, 2017 Here is the link to my page: https://homosociologicus.com/corporate-media-taboos

People have no idea about the size and power of the matrix, which is behind the Western state and media information. All Western politicians use this 'information'. And especially the academic world trust people like Chomsky and Ellsberg to be the most important critical thinkers on such subjects. But please let me know why Chomsky and Ellsberg (nor Seymour Hersh) never promotes Doug Valentine's crucial research on the CIA?

Doug Valentine comes to the same research conclusions and promotes prof Alfred McCoy's research (both have fathers with military careers, which inspired them to their critical research on the truth about the US military).

You migth ask, 'what's the difference' between us knowing that we can't trust people like Chomsky and Ellsberg, if it all points to war anyway?' I will say that the difference is, that you know that the whole Western public sphere (inclusive the academics) are playing you.

 

Everybody knows that the corporate media betray the Western peoples. The Americans are much more aware than the Europeans. But what is most regularly left out of the explanation about the US wars, is that all the people allowed to speak in the Western public spheres are lying for the US. The corporate media would immediately be held to account, if academics and politicians did not share the same lies, but actually told some truth and had some integrity. There are exceptions to this terrible rule, like when the French government said No to joining the destruction of Iraq. But generally the Western states share the US lies, which legitimizes both the US nation destructions and the other Western nations joining them.

 

So, the Western peoples to a great extent have no idea how much they are being lied by the academics and politicians, which they listen to and have listened to since 1945. Here is Harold Pinter explaining the problem:

 

"Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.

As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it."

 

This means, that if we shall be able to challenge this tradition, it can only be done by radically challenging the establishment versions. This is the only way, we can hope to know a bit about reality - and be able to fight it. I made my site in the hope that people would use it to educate themselves so as to be able to stand up against their politicians's lies.

 

Once more, Chomsky and others never tell you, what Harold Pinter told you in his excellent Nobel Prize Speech, namely that all Western governments have had a strong tradition for always sharing and covering up lies for the US' wars (since 1945).

 

The problem with all these lies may not affect Western people much, when it comes to wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria etc. But now they are lying about Russia and China, and that can mean a war in Europe and on a world scale. Besides, the history of US wars shows us clearly that all information is usually false. Just look at my home page. I have collected information on most of the wars to be able to show exactly this.

People will remember and can go back and find Chomsky's support for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party in general - I think it has been consistent for decades. Here is some information from March 2018 on the CIA and Pentagon people in the Democratic Party:

"In a three-part series published last week, the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.

If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.

Since its establishment in 1947—under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman—the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice."

Here is the WSWS with an update in September 2018:

"With the end the primary season, the Democratic Party leadership and their allies in the national security apparatus have completed the first stage of what might be termed a “friendly takeover” of the Democrats by candidates recruited from among military, CIA and civilian national security cadres. (...)

"Of the 44 districts we identified in March—since grown to 46—military-intelligence candidates have won 30 nominations, a success rate of about 66 percent or two-thirds. That testifies to their extensive support from the Democratic Party leadership, from longtime financial backers of the Democrats, and from the top levels of the national security establishment.

There are 115 districts rated as competitive by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) or by groups specializing in the district-by-district analysis of congressional races. The 30 military-intelligence candidates account for more than one quarter of the Democratic candidates in these districts, making them the largest single group, ahead of state and local politicians (26), lawyers (20), millionaires (15), other professionals (8), former Obama aides (3) and miscellaneous (13)." https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/21/ciad-s21.html

This probably point to more wars to come. It is certainly a dangerous development for the peoples of the world. Not least in Europe and Russia.

 

As always, it is not the peoples who want war. Wars are created for money, as already Plato knew. But the problem is that Western peoples generally have no idea, that the Western governments have lied to them about the US wars since 1945. And unless they begin to realize this, there will be little resistance, if (before) the US and EU begin waging a real war with Russia and/or China.

 

Please notice that the Danish government is working on a law proposal, which will make any NATO critical information problematic if not criminal. Peace researchers etc. will have to censor themselves to avoid the risk of jail. The law proposal says that you can get a 12 years imprisonment for sharing information, which 'You ought to have known, came from a foreign intel source.' Now, this is rather impossible to know in many cases. So, if Danes want to be sure not to risk jails, we have to censor ourselves to Western sources or similar. I think. This also applies to me. I will have to censor the content on my home page on all the former wars etc.

Please, help us preserve the knowledge and information that I have collected by making people copy my pages, before I reduce the content. Here is one of my most critical pages. On the US/CIA/Western 'Phoenix Program': https://homosociologicus.com/western-nations-back-terrorists

As a 'by the way' the Danish politicians recently decided that Danish national TV are not to have 'longer' explanations on their web site. Like the one above. But this is of course just a 'postmodern' inspiration.

This was a post on my Facebook the other day.

 

Yours

Lars Jorgensen