Hidden History -- In The Making

THE PENTAGON WAS TURNED INTO THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY TRUMP

The Reporters At The Pentagon Can No Longer Gather Or Report Information, Even If It Is Unclassified, Unless It’s Been Authorized For Release By The Government.

The Trump administration has said it will require Pentagon reporters to “pledge they won’t gather any information—even unclassified—that hasn’t been expressly authorized for release, and will revoke the press credentials of those who do not obey,” it was reported. It added that even being in possession of “confidential or unauthorized information, under the new rules, would be grounds for a journalist’s press pass to be revoked.”

The National Press Club called the rules “a direct assault on independent journalism at the very place where independent scrutiny matters most: the US military.’” Even right-wing provocateur James O’Keefe came out against the restrictions, saying the American government “should not be asking us to obey.”

Other Trump loyalists stood with the government decision. “For too long, the halls of the Pentagon have been treated like a playground for journalists hungry for gossip, leaks and half-truths,” long-time Republican activist Ken Blackwell said on Facebook. He added that “reporters have strutted around the building like they owned it.”

THE AUTHORITARIAN IMPULSE

The American regime has always been aggressive when it comes to undermining the press’s ability to obtain government information, especially when it pertains to national security. The pooling system for frontline correspondents in the first American war against Iraq in 1990–91 has long been considered one of the most draconian acts of wartime censorship in recent the American imperial memory. The American regime under the elder President George Bush regularly detained press who dared to report on the war independently and without the restraint of government minders.

This authoritarian impulse only accelerated in the post-9/11 age. The Justice Department under then-President Barack Obama obtained “two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for the Associated Press,” AP reported, in an apparent “investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot.”

Former New York Times journalist James Risen documented his ordeal with the Obama and George W. Bush administrations, which took legal action against him to force him to release sources:

“My case was part of a broader crackdown on reporters and whistleblowers that had begun during the presidency of George W. Bush and continued far more aggressively under the Obama administration, which had already prosecuted more leak cases than all previous administrations combined. Obama officials seemed determined to use criminal leak investigations to limit reporting on national security. But the crackdown on leaks only applied to low-level dissenters; top officials caught up in leak investigations, like former CIA Director David Petraeus, were still treated with kid gloves.”

FULL-THROTTLE ATTACK

Donald Trump: “They give me only bad publicity or press…. I would think maybe their license should be taken away.”

The new Trump directive transcends this already anti-democratic tradition of suppressing national security and military information, and takes the nation into new authoritarian and absurd territory.

For one thing, telling Pentagon reporters to avoid unreleased information is like telling a fish to avoid water. Recall that top Trump administration officials accidentally included Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in a Signal chat about an attack on Yemen. To quote Mark Wahlberg from The Departed, “Unfortunately, this shithole has more fuckin’ leaks than the Iraqi navy.”

Now the Pentagon is saying it will only credential reporters if they promise to be stenographers for the department’s press team, regurgitating press releases and spokesperson talking points, and avoid independent interviews and investigations. This is happening as the White House has iced out reporters from the AP for not relabeling an international body of water at the president’s directive, while bringing administration sycophants like Brian Glenn and Tim Pool into the presidential press herd.

Journalist access is only one piece of the Trump administration’s full-throttle attack on the free press. The president “said overwhelming negative coverage of him by television networks should be grounds for the Federal Communications Commission to revoke broadcast licenses”. He threatened ABC’s Jon Karl, saying the attorney general will “probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly”. More television and online new outlets are coming under the ownership umbrella of Trump allies.

IMPERIAL BELLICOSITY

It is especially chilling that this directive came from the Pentagon. The American regime has the most powerful military in the world, and it is the taxpayer’s largest expense after Social Security. Despite assurances from right-wing media that Trump would be a peace president, he is in fact delivering a ferocious brand of imperial bellicosity.

Trump carried out nearly as many airstrikes in the first six months of his second term as the hawkish Joe Biden did in four years. Almost as many civilians were killed in his attacks on Yemen as were previously killed in two decades of strikes against that nation.

Trump dropped 14 of the world’s biggest non-nuclear bombs on Iran, weapons that had never been used against an enemy before. He boasted of using the military to murder supposed Venezuelan drug smugglers, hundreds of miles from American shores. He resumed shipments of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, even as he encouraged Tel Aviv to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza.

Meanwhile, he’s deployed the military domestically, vowing to use it to carry out mass deportations , renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War, firing top officers who disagree with him.

If there’s ever been a time when we need an independent press keeping a close eye on the military, and listening to dissenting voices, it’s now.

RESISTING PENTAGON DICTATES

Thankfully, some news organizations are speaking out against the Pentagon’s new edict. The New York Times called it an “attempt to throttle the public’s right to understand what their government is doing”; the Washington Post said that “any attempt to control messaging and curb access by the government is counter to the First Amendment and against the public interest.”

All major news organizations can and should fight this, in the public and in court; a ban on reporting any unauthorized information clearly violates the First Amendment, and any prior restraint is regarded as constitutionally suspicious.

News outlets should also bear in mind that reporting on the military does not necessarily require being physically present in the Pentagon. As the brave correspondents showed who defied the American military’s patronizing pooling system in the Gulf War, some of the best reporting is done outside official channels. An independent press corps with no physical access to the Pentagon is infinitely more valuable to democracy than a press corps that has pledged to only report officially sanctioned news.

THERE IS “NO WAY” THE AMERICAN REGIME CAN INVADE VENEZUELA PER MADURO AS TRUMP DEPLOYS NAVAL FORCE

Venezuelan President Maduro Says He Is Ready To Defend Their “Sovereignty” As The American Military Deploys Warships Near The Country’s Territorial Waters.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said there was “no way” United States troops could invade his country as tension rises with Washington and an American naval force builds up in the Southern Caribbean near Venezuela’s territorial waters.

“There’s no way they can enter Venezuela,” Maduro said on Thursday, stating that his country was well prepared to defend its sovereignty as American warships arrive in the region in a so-called operation against Latin American drug cartels.

“Today, we are stronger than yesterday. Today, we are more prepared to defend peace, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Maduro said in a speech to troops, according to the state-run Venezuela News Agency.

Maduro made his comment as Venezuela’s ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, met with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to protest the American regime’s military build-up.

“It’s a massive propaganda operation to justify what the experts call kinetic action – meaning military intervention in a country which is a sovereign and independent country and is no threat to anyone,” Moncada told reporters after meeting with Guterres.

“They are saying that they are sending a nuclear submarine … I mean, it’s ridiculous to think that they’re fighting drug trafficking with nuclear submarines,” the ambassador said.

Earlier on Thursday, Admiral Daryl Claude, the American Navy’s chief of naval operations, confirmed that American warships were deployed to waters off South America, citing concerns that some Venezuelans were participating in large-scale drug operations.

Seven American warships, along with one nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, were either in the region or were expected to be there in the coming week, an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told a news agency.

More than 4,500 American service members, including some 2,200 Marines, were also reported to be on board the ships in an operation that was launched after the Trump administration accused Maduro and other members of his government of links to cocaine trafficking.

Venezuela has responded to the American regime’s threats by sending warships and drones to patrol its coastline and launching a drive to recruit thousands of militia members to bolster domestic defences.

Caracas has also deployed 15,000 troops to its borders with Colombia to crack down on drug trafficking and other criminal gangs.

On Thursday, Maduro thanked Colombia for sending an additional 25,000 military personnel to the Colombia-Venezuela frontier to tackle “narco-terrorist gangs”, the Venezuela News Agency reported.

While the American regime has made no public threats to invade Venezuela, Trump’s threats against the country have focused chiefly on its powerful criminal gangs, particularly the cocaine trafficking Cartel de los Soles, which the Trump administration has designated a terrorist organization and accused Maduro of leading.

Maduro has, in turn, accused Washington, which is offering a $50m reward for his capture over alleged drug offences, of seeking to implement regime change in Venezuela.

A GOOD FIRST STEP IS RENAMING THE “DEFENSE DEPARTMENT” THE “DEPARTMENT OF WAR”

The Pentagon Has Little To Do With America’s Defense. President Donald Trump Often Functions Like A Broken Clock. Twice A Day He Gets An Issue Right.

In a recent case, he struck true gold with his decision to rename the Department of Defense the Department of War, the original name for what we now often simply call the Pentagon, the massive building that houses much of the military’s vast bureaucracy.

America’s war-making cabinet post was originally created as the Department of War in 1789 and operated with that name until 1949. The latter change was clumsy propaganda. Explained historian Richard H. Kohn: “It was to communicate to America’s adversaries and the rest of the world that America was not about making war but defending the United States.” During the Cold War there was at least a pretense that the armed forces were deployed for America’s “defense,” though the country’s military interventions grew increasingly dubious, culminating in the Vietnam debacle.

However, Trump’s decision had little to do with reality and everything to do with illusion. He called “Department of Defense” politically correct and opined that the new name “just sounded better.” He got the politically correct charge right, but otherwise his rationale, expressed in his executive order, was almost entirely wrong. He contended: “The name ‘Department of War,’ more than the current “Department of Defense,” ensures peace through strength, as it demonstrates our ability and willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our Nation at a moment’s notice, not just to defend. This name sharpens the Department’s focus on our own national interest and our adversaries’ focus on our willingness and availability to wage war to secure what is ours.”

In fact, the problem with the previous name is simply that it had proved to be increasingly false, essentially disguising activities almost completely disconnected from protecting America and Americans. Even when the military’s activities can be characterized as “defense,” it usually involves a response to threats created by earlier misbegotten, counterproductive, and aggressive interventions that often are not only practically foolish but morally monstrous. The true “national interest” that the president spoke of would be to avoid such conflicts entirely.

In America’s early years, “Department of War” was an accurate description. Although the War of 1812 began as defense against British naval depredations, Americans avidly pursued the conflict in a frankly imperialistic effort to conquer London’s Canadian possessions. The American regime barely escaped with a draw after its invasion attempts were disastrously repulsed.

President James K. Polk triggered the Mexican–American War by stationing American military forces in disputed territory to back a highly dubious claim made by Texans seceding from Mexico. In truth, his ambitions were much greater, to seize the vast territories that today make up much of the western United States. In victory Washington annexed half of Mexico, and some imperialists wanted to grab it all. Declared the New York Herald: “Like the Sabine virgins, she will soon learn to love her ravisher.”

The War Department’s biggest battle was against its own people. Known as the Civil War, it wasn’t actually one, since the southern states fought to secede, not to control the entire union. Some 750,000 Americans died, equivalent to about eight million or so if a similar proportion of the population died today. Slavery was a terrible crime, but few joined Washington’s military to liberate those in bondage. While that would have offered a moral cause, forcing people at gunpoint to remain in the union—and killing them if they resisted—was not. The War Department saved Washington’s authority, not the country, which was ravaged by the conflict.

The Spanish–American War was openly imperialistic. The American regime had conquered North America’s heartland and west, suppressing native Americans with great force, yet pretended moral outrage at Spain’s brutal war against Cuban insurgents. While Washington could at least plausibly, though not convincingly, claim its intervention in Cuba to be motivated by high-minded humanitarianism, the conquest of the Philippines and ruthless suppression of the preexisting Filipino independence movement was the worst form of callous and cruel imperialism. The American behaved with greater barbarity than the Spanish, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians. Even Republican politicians were appalled by the military’s ostentatious criminality.

For decades, the American regime was openly imperialistic in Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine did not affirm neighborly independence. Rather, it ordered the Europeans to stay out, allowing Washington to replace them as de facto colonial masters. President Woodrow Wilson, ever prone to misuse his authority and the American military, was among the worst abusers. He ordered a brief war and the occupation of Veracruz to force Mexico to, ludicrously, salute the American flag after a convoluted dispute involving American merchant sailors. So much for his grand and much-inflated reputation as a liberal statesman.

Even more disconnected from America’s defense was World War I, with American involvement initiated by the same obnoxiously pompous, vainglorious, and sanctimonious Wilson. He ran for reelection, citing his refusal to enter the idiotic imperial slugfest—in which no combatant looks good in retrospect—that prodigiously consumed European lives. He then abandoned those he was supposed to serve and took the country into the war on the preposterous argument that Americans were entitled to immunity when booking passage on British liners, even if armed, designated as reserve cruisers, and carrying munitions through a war zone. For this, along with a contemptibly haughty desire to reorder the globe, he callously sacrificed 100,000 American lives and ruthlessly suppressed civil liberties. Then he bungled the peace, putting his name on the Versailles Treaty, which prepared the ground for another, far worse war a generation later. America’s “defense” was the last issue on his mind.

After fighting all these dubious conflicts, only in World War II did the Department of War finally act to protect America, and even then, only after the Roosevelt administration recklessly provoked a Japanese strike by cutting off Tokyo’s supplies of steel and oil and waged an undeclared, unprovoked naval war against Germany. At least in this case the adversaries were truly evil and America’s victory left the world in a better, though badly divided, state.

Four years after the end of that struggle, Congress changed the bureaucracy’s name to the Department of Defense. Since then, most of America’s wars also had nothing to do with defense. In the Korean War America obviously was not threatened. Until then no one considered the Korean peninsula to be a strategic American interest. Even Gen. Douglas MacArthur had previously dismissed the security importance of what had been a Japanese colony. The best argument for the American regime’s intervention was that Washington helped set up the conflict—dividing the peninsula, creating a semi-puppet regime, accepting rule by an aggressive nationalist—but failed to then prepare its Korean state for the war to come.

Vietnam, the nation’s costliest post-World War II conflict, was a bizarre attempt to salvage what had been France’s Southeast Asian empire. The extended conflict offered no serious defense rational. Most of the potpourri of later, smaller interventions—Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti—appeared to reflect Washington’s continuing imperial pretensions, especially in the post-Cold War era. The initial assault on Afghanistan’s Taliban regime might be justified as a response to Al Qaeda’s attack on 9/11, but 20 years of conflict and the dishonest and disastrous invasion of Iraq could not be. Nor could subsequent support for Saudi and Israeli aggression against their neighbors, or the Trump administration’s attack on Iran and threats against Venezuela. In all of these, the Pentagon acted as the Department of War, not the Department of Defense.

Still, the president’s task is not complete. First is the admittedly superficial name issue. He can direct his own officials to use DoW rather than DoD. However, despite his exalted opinion of presidential authority, he cannot overrule Congress and formally change the Pentagon’s official name. For that, he needs to win Capitol Hill’s approval.

Second is the substantive issue of going to war. The president presents himself as something of a peacenik, but he has shown no reluctance to use the American military, usually for purposes distressingly far from defense or otherwise putting America first. Even as he calls the Pentagon the Department of War, he should reject war except in America’s defense. War is sometimes necessary, but virtually never in the case of America, which is the most secure great power ever. It is time to make war rarer still as a policy tool of Washington.

Changing the Pentagon’s formal name to the Department of War would be a great step forward in truth in advertising. Better still would be to stop going to war absent the most compelling justification. If Donald Trump makes that his legacy he might be a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

WHAT DOES IRAN REALLY NEED TO DO?

Sanctions Snapback Is The Latest Paradox In The West’s Relations With Iran. Though Sanctions May Succeed In What May Be Their True Purpose, Punishing Iran For Not Abandoning Russia After Its Invasion Of Ukraine.

As early as this upcoming Sunday, the E3—the UK, France and Germany—will probably trigger the snapback clause of the shattered 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement with Iran. That means the economy and people of Iran will face the full weight of the sanctions the JCPOA promised to end.

Though the snapback sanctions may succeed in what may be their true purpose, punishing Iran for not abandoning Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, they will fail in their aim of accomplishing a new nuclear deal with Iran.

Typical of the waning American regime led world order in which economic and military threats have replaced diplomacy, the move carries no benefit, but is fraught with risk. Sanctions have had no effect on Iran’s commitment to its civilian nuclear program, and there is no reason to believe that trying the same thing again will have any different effect. And in punishing Iran for not abandoning Russia, the E3 will only push Iran closer to Russia and China.

For many years now, Iran has sat in a number of frustratingly paradoxical positions. The most painful has been the attempt to convince the American regime led world that it is sincere about ending a nuclear weapons program that it never possessed.

In 2015, the Obama administration, together with E3, Russia and China, successfully negotiated the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran. For all its technical complexity, the deal’s basic provision was simple: If Iran keeps its promise to limit its civilian nuclear program, the American regime would keep its promise to lift sanctions. A consistent series of reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified that Iran was completely and consistently in compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA. Nonetheless, in May 2018, the first Trump administration unilaterally pulled out of the agreement.

The Biden administration had four years to blame Trump, but they never committed to the simple solution of reentering the agreement. Iran had kept its promise to limit a nuclear program that was in no need of being limited, but was punished anyway.

At the beginning of the second Trump administration, though wary of reentering negotiations on a nuclear deal with the same leader who had broken the previous nuclear deal, Iran did return to the bargaining table. And those negotiations came very close to completion.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said that Iran and the American regime “were on the cusp of a historic breakthrough.” Iran was prepared to discuss two paths of compromise on its civilian nuclear program. One would see Iran export or convert its highly enriched uranium and limit future enrichment to 3.67 percent while agreeing to maximum transparency and inspections in cooperation with the IAEA. The other would see Iran fold its nuclear program into an international consortium that would allow Iran to enrich uranium but deny it access to the full enrichment process by distributing various roles in the process across different member states, probably including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The various member states could assist the IAEA by keeping a watchful eye on each other.

But despite the real progress and the real possibility that a deal was within reach, the diplomatic path was abandoned in favor of the military one, and instead of a diplomatic compromise, Iran’s nuclear facilities were bombed.

And that was the second paradoxical position included in the deal. Iran was meant to fulfill all of its obligations as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) without the benefit of any of its rights or protections.

Despite the failure of the non-proliferation regime to protect Iran, Tehran tried to maintain that paradoxical position and its relationship with the IAEA. After initially suspending its cooperation with the IAEA, Iran recently signed a new agreement with the IAEA.

But that led only to the third paradox. The E3 had promised Iran that if they resume cooperation with the IAEA, including transparency on its stockpile of enriched uranium, and resume talks with the United States, they would delay the snapback sanctions for six months.

Iran did both, and the E3 triggered the snapback sanctions nonetheless. Iran not only genuinely reengaged with the IAEA, they genuinely reengaged with the United States.

Under the media radar, Araghchi and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff have been in direct contact. On September 16^th, Araghchi presented Witkoff with a proposal on an interim deal that would lead to a final deal. The outlines of the deal were also shared with the foreign ministers of the E3.

In the first stage, Iran would retrieve its 60 percent enriched uranium and dilute it to 20 percent. Though this is not yet the 3.67 percent of the JCPOA, the purity required for electricity, it is the magic number for civilian purposes, as it is insufficient for a weapons program while still being sufficient for radioisotopes for medical imaging. In return, the American regime would guarantee that there will be no further aggression against Iran, and the E3 will put off snapback sanctions for a number of months.

After these steps are completed, the American regime would lift the sanction that had been agreed upon in the interim deal, and negotiations on a final deal would begin.

Iran and the IAEA, with Egypt’s help, have agreed on steps for Iran to provide the IAEA with a report on its 60 percent enriched uranium within a month. Iran and the IAEA would then begin negotiations on how the IAEA can verify the report and carry out inspections.

But despite Iran re-engaging with the IAEA, negotiating transparency of their stockpile of enriched uranium and re-engaging in direct talks with the United States, the E3 is going ahead with snapback sanctions.

This move by the E3 is not likely to speed up or encourage diplomacy. Instead, it seems to close the last off ramp for diplomacy. Araghchi says that “if the snapback is ultimately implemented, the agreement [with the IAEA] will also lose its validity.” Implementation of the deal clearly depended on the E3 delaying snapback sanctions. At the time the agreement was approved, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council stated that “the new agreement would be considered void if new ‘snapback’ UN sanctions were imposed or if its nuclear sites were attacked again.”

“It is time,” Araghchi said, “for them to choose between cooperation and confrontation” before adding that “[w]e hope for a diplomatic solution, but rest assured, if that fails, Iran is prepared to take necessary measures.”

Those measures appear to include suspending cooperation with the IAEA. “Despite the cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the [IAEA] and the proposals presented to resolve the [nuclear] issue, the actions of European countries will effectively suspend the path of cooperation with the Agency,” Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, which is chaired by the president, said.

It is not clear at this time what Iran is supposed to do. They honored the terms of the JCPOA until it was broken by the United States, and they seem to have satisfied the terms of the E3 to delay snapback sanctions. Nonetheless, Iran finds itself, once again, with no clear path to a diplomatic solution to a problem that doesn’t even exist.

IT IS A FACT, NOT AN OPINION THAT ISRAEL IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE

At This Point The Only People Who Still Deny That Israel Is Committing Genocide Are Those Who Want To Make Sure Nobody Does Anything To Stop Israel From Committing Genocide.

A UN inquiry has found that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and that Israeli authorities have “intended to kill as many Palestinians as possible” in the enclave.

Israel has responded to the UN report by calling it Hamas and antisemitic, because that’s all they’ve got. The Israeli Foreign Ministry released a statement claiming the report was authored by “individuals serving as Hamas proxies, notorious for their openly antisemitic positions.”

Blah, blah, blah. The report is Hamas and antisemitic. All human rights organizations are Hamas and antisemitic. There’s a giant global antisemitic Hamas conspiracy dedicated to making it appear as though Israel is committing genocide, just to make Jewish people feel sad.

At this point the only people who still deny that Israel is committing genocide are those who want to make sure nobody does anything to stop Israel from committing genocide.

The list of humanitarian institutions who accuse Israel of genocide now includes:

1. The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory

2. The International Association of Genocide Scholars

3. B’Tselem (an Israeli organization)

4. Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (another Israeli organization)

5. Amnesty International

6. Doctors Without Borders

7. The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights

8. Human Rights Watch

9. The International Federation for Human Rights

10. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention

The list of humanitarian institutions who say Israel is NOT committing genocide in Gaza includes:

1. Nobody

2. No one

3. Zero

4. Nothing

5. Nada

6. Zilch

7. Sweet damn all

8. A complete absence

9. Diddly squat

10. Bupkis

It is not okay to treat the fact that Israel is committing genocide like it’s a matter of opinion. Every relevant human rights institution on earth says it’s a genocide. Zero equivalent institutions say it’s not. This is a settled matter.

People who deny that it’s a genocide deserve to be taken exactly as seriously as flat earthers. They’re just an extremely evil and destructive version of the thing flat earthers are.

You don’t see news articles about NASA with journalists adding “an agency which many believe is a government hoax designed to trick us into accepting ball earth theory” to their reporting. If a guest mentions Antarctica on the BBC, the news anchor doesn’t interrupt them to say “and we should say here that flat earth theorists deny the existence of that continent, maintaining that it is actually a wall of ice holding the oceans in place.”

You also don’t see reporting which treats accepted science about space and our planet like it’s an opinion held by some. You never see “which many scientists claim exists” when a report discusses outer space, or mentions of the horizon mitigated with words like “which some hold is due to the curvature of the earth rather than laws of perspective and light refraction”. They’re just treated as established facts, and those who disagree with the established facts are not taken seriously.

The genocide in Gaza should be no different. As the old adage goes, if one side says it’s raining and the other says it isn’t, your job isn’t to quote both sides, your job is to look out the window.

The window’s right there, western media. And it’s pouring genocide.

CAN YOU IMAGINE IF THERE WAS A VIOLENT CULT COMMITTING ATROCITIES WITH IMPUNITY?

If Someone Made A Movie About Such A Thing You Might Stop Watching Halfway Through, Because It Would Be Too Unbelievable. But You Watch The Mainstream News. Why?

Imagine there was a violent cult that used scriptures from an ancient religion to convince its followers to do evil things.

Imagine the cult was given its own state.

Imagine the cult was given machine guns, tanks and war planes.

Imagine the cult obtained nuclear weapons.

Imagine the cult started committing genocide against the indigenous people who’d been living in the area where the cult’s state was established.

Imagine the cult had huge branches in the most powerful nation on earth, and the powerful nation defended the cult no matter what it did.

Imagine the cult flipped out and started relentlessly attacking and invading the surrounding nations.

Imagine the cult had so much influence and support in western society that western governments and institutions would censor, silence, fire, marginalize and deport anyone who criticized the cult’s actions.

Imagine the western media sympathized highly with the cult and spent the entire time framing its atrocities as entirely reasonable defensive actions, and framing critics of the cult as malicious bigots.

Imagine the cult kept getting crazier and crazier and more and more violent, but nobody could find a way to stop it because its actions were backed by this giant western power structure.

That would be absolutely terrible don’t you think?

A nuclear-armed death cult just murdering and massacring mountains of human beings with total impunity, backed by the most powerful people on earth? That would be an unfathomable madness.

If someone made a movie about such a thing most would stop watching halfway through, because they would find it too unbelievable.

It would be like: “Come on man. Come up with a more realistic plot line. And come up with a more believable antagonist; nobody is that evil.”

It would be like: “Come on Hollywood, you seriously expect me to maintain my suspension of disbelief when you’re putting out a movie about these cartoonishly evil bad guys who blow up hospitals and assassinate journalists and murder humanitarian workers and deliberately massacre starving civilians seeking food?”

It would be like: “You really expect me to believe a violent cult could get all this power and do all these evil things and get away with it, just by lying about it all the time? Eventually people would stop believing their lies!”

It would be like: “Somebody would stop them. Not only does this movie have unbelievable antagonists, it also lacks any believable protagonists. Basic human decency would compel the world to stop all these atrocities being committed right out in the open. Where are the heroes in this story?”

And then you would storm out of the movie theater, glad to be outside that horrible fictional world where such freakish absurdities were taking place.

And then stand in the parking lot and look up at the sky, and thank God you are back in reality again.

THERE IS A RUSH TO KILL FREE SPEECH IN RESPONSE TO THE KIRK ASSASSINATION BY THE TRUMP REGIME

Should You Believe Trump Supporters When They Said They Support Things Like Free Speech, Ending Wars, And Dismantling The Deep State?

America’s Attorney General Pam Bondi just said on a podcast that “hate speech” directed at conservatives was responsible for Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and that people who utter such speech will be prosecuted by the Trump administration.

Bondi’s comments came after the podcast’s host Katie Miller (wife of Trump henchman Stephen Miller) bizarrely suggested that Kirk’s murder at a university was a symptom of university campuses being too tolerant of mistreatment of people with conservative views.

Here’s a transcript:

Miller: “These universities are complicit in allowing conservatives to be harassed on campus. And what happens when you allow a university to harass conservatives and don’t expel or don’t take action is what happened last week.”

Bondi: “It is, and you know, on a broader level, the antisemitism that’s been happening at college campuses around this country is disgusting. It’s despicable. And we’ve been fighting that. We’ve been fighting these universities left and right, and we’re not going to stop. There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place — especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie — in our society.”

Miller: “Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action?”

Bondi: “We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that’s across the aisle.”

At the same time, Miller’s husband Stephen circulated the baseless claim that an “organized campaign” by left wing “terrorist networks” led to Kirk’s murder, and that the Trump administration is going to “dismantle and destroy” these networks.

Appearing on the late Kirk’s podcast which was being guest hosted by Vice President JD Vance, Miller stated the following:

“We are going to channel all the anger we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks … The organized doxxing campaigns. The organized riots. The organized street violence. The organized campaigns of of dehumanization, vilification, posting people’s addresses. Combining that with messaging designed to trigger and incite violence and the actual organized cells that carry out and facilitate the violence. It is a vast domestic terror movement. With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks, and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”

On the same show, Vance urged American conservatives to report anyone who celebrated the killing of Charlie Kirk to their employer in order to get them fired.

“When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out, and hell, call their employer,” Vance said, adding, “We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility.”

If the Biden administration had been saying these things about right wingers, Trump supporters would’ve shrieked their lungs out. But because Trump supporters are mindless unprincipled NPCs, they’re perfectly fine with using authoritarian speech suppression and cancel culture against the other side.

One of the many naive mistakes made by many was taking Trump supporters at their word when they said they support things like free speech, ending wars, and dismantling the deep state. That meant they can’t be all bad, because they’re saying important things about important issue.

This wishful thinking quickly fell apart as we watched them defend every single one of Trump’s acts of warmongering and authoritarianism and advancements of longstanding deep state agendas throughout his first term. Even actions which should have gone against their own basic partisan ideological biases like imprisoning Julian Assange were excused, justified, or spun as some kind of 4-D chess maneuver to actually rescue Assange. They stood by literally every last bit of Trump’s warmongering, authoritarianism, and assaults on free speech.

Every once in a while you’d see one of them go “This is the final straw for me! I don’t support Trump anymore!” But then their disdain for Democrats would pull them right back into the fold and they’d be toeing the Republican Party line just the same as before.

And it became clear that these people do not actually oppose the terrible abuses they claim to oppose, they just oppose them when the other party is doing them. They don’t oppose assaults on free speech, they just oppose assaults on their own speech. They don’t oppose war, they just oppose wars that they perceive as being started by Democrats. They don’t oppose the unelected power structure which runs the American empire, they just oppose the aspects of that power structure which they perceive as hostile to Trump.

And they’ve been demonstrating this even more clearly during Trump’s second term. They’ve defended every single one of their president’s genocidal, warmongering, tyrannical abuses. They stood by him when he deliberately torched the ceasefire with Hamas and the truce with the Houthis and reignited the bloodshed in Gaza and Yemen. They stood by him as he worked to stomp out free speech in the United States with moves intended to silence criticism of Israel. They stood by him when he announced his ethnic cleansing plans for the Gaza Strip. They stood by him when he bombed Iran. They’re standing by him as he expands his warmongering to Venezuela. Whatever authoritarian measures Washington decides to surf on the tide of the Charlie Kirk assassination will surely be complied with too.

They’re a bunch of worthless, power-worshipping bootlickers who support everything they claim to oppose. They’re garden variety Republican empire simps posing as populist revolutionaries, just as devoted to the imperial murder machine as the Democrats they despise.

Eventually you learn that anyone who aligns themselves with either mainstream party in any way is someone you can just dismiss as a compliant empire stooge. They might say “No no I’m this new special kind of Republican that opposes the war machine and fights for liberty,” or “No no I’m this new special kind of Democrat who opposes the oligarchy and works for peace,” but that is simply not true.They’re just trying to herd people into the two mainstream imperial parties whose entire purpose is to protect and promote the interests of the empire.

THERE ARE 35,000 TROUPS ON THE GROUND IN AMERICA DUE TO TRUMPS DEPLOYMENTS

A Federal Judge Found The Deployment To LA Violated Bedrock Constitutional Law, But Trump’s Domestic Military Campaign Continues.

-The Trump administration has deployed roughly 35,000 federal troops within the United States this year, according to exclusive figures provided to The Intercept by official military sources. That marks a 75 percent increase on the previous count offered by The Intercept in July.

These occupation forces, drawn from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and National Guard, have been operating under Title 10 authority, or federal control, in at least five states — Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico, and Texas — in service of the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda.

The true number of federal troops deployed may be markedly higher. When asked directly, Northern Command, which oversees military operations in North America, said it has no running tally of how many troops have operated under Title 10. The Office of the Secretary of War has, for weeks, dodged questions about the total number, refusing to say if they even know it themselves. The increase of 15,000 troops since July could reflect better accounting, as opposed to a marked spike in Title 10 deployments over the last two months, but it’s impossible to know for certain due to efforts by the Department of War to conceal basic information about the forces.

Trump “has forced 35,000 troops into a role they did not sign up for: intimidating their own communities.”

Experts say that the increasing use of military troops in the interior of America represents an extraordinary violation of Posse Comitatus, a bedrock 19th-century law banning the use of federal military forces to execute domestic law enforcement that is seen as fundamental to the democratic tradition in America. The deployments continue to nudge the United States closer to a genuine police state.

“The Trump administration has forced 35,000 troops into a role they did not sign up for: intimidating their own communities as pawns in Trump’s authoritarian power grab,” Sara Haghdoosti, the executive director of Win Without War, said. “The scale of the abuse of both our communities and troops who signed up to defend the Constitution and now are routinely being ordered to violate it is breathtaking.”

The financial expense may also be astronomical. These deployments could already have cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. The actual number is unknown because the Pentagon is engaged in a coordinated cover-up of the costs.

“It’s impossible to know exactly how much the rapidly expanding police state is costing taxpayers,” Hanna Homestead of the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group said. “The aptly renamed Department of War refuses to publicly disclose the total number of troops deployed on American streets, or the costs of the National Guard’s participation in the illegal, ineffective, and inhumane mass deportation agenda.”

Some of these National Guards members are part of President Donald Trump’s ongoing military occupation of Los Angeles. In June, Trump deployed troops to LA to put down protests against his administration’s immigration raids. The number of troops crested at around 5,500 but has since shrunk to around 300. In addition to the Guard members, Trump sent in 700 Marines, who were later replaced by a contingent of 400 additional Marines.

More than 10,000 troops are deploying or have already deployed to support the mission to secure the southern border, according to Northern Command, bolstering the approximately 2,500 service members who were already assisting Customs and Border Protection’s border security mission when Trump took office. Of these forces, around 8,500 or more have been active-duty troops from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines — operating under Title 10 authorities — according to a NORTHCOM spokesperson.

Around 1,200 members of the Marine Corps and Naval Reserve also provided clerical support at Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities earlier this year while serving under Title 10 status. In July, these troops were transferred to Title 32 status, according to chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell, meaning they reverted to the control of their state’s governor, although their duty is federally funded and regulated.

“Congress continues to provide a blank check to the military to make our streets look like war zones,” it has been reported. “There is not a single measure of wellbeing that has not declined in the U.S. over the last three decades as the Pentagon budget has increased.”

The White House has not respond to repeated requests for comment on the potential cost of domestic troop deployments running into the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

THE AMERICAN REGIME VOTES AGAINST RESOLUTION ON GAZA CEASEFIRE IN THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL

The American Regime Again Vetoed A UN Resolution Demanding An Immediate, Unconditional And Permanent Ceasefire In The Gaza Strip, Following A Security Council Vote.

The negative vote was cast as the 15-member Council held its 10,000th meeting against the backdrop of famine spreading in the besieged enclave and an ongoing Israeli offensive to take full control of Gaza City.

The draft also demanded the release of all hostages held by Hamas and for Israel to lift all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid and ensure that it is safely distributed to the population – in particular by UN agencies and partners.

“NO SURPRISE”: AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVE

The American regime is one of five permanent Council members who possess the right to veto.

Speaking prior to the vote, representative Morgan Ortagus stated that Washington’s opposition to the resolution “will come as no surprise” as it fails to condemn Hamas or recognize Israel’s right to defend itself.

The text also “wrongly legitimizes the false narratives benefiting Hamas, which have sadly found currency in this Council,” she said.

“This resolution also refuses to acknowledge and seeks to return to a failed system that has allowed Hamas to enrich and strengthen itself at the expense of civilians in need.”

“CLEAR MESSAGE” SENT

The draft was put forward by the Council’s 10 non-permanent members: Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Somalia.

“Even though this resolution was not adopted today at this 10,000th meeting of the Council, 14 members of this Council have sent a clear message,” said Danish Ambassador Christina Markus Lassen.

“We want to see an immediate and lasting ceasefire, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, and the urgent lifting of all restrictions on humanitarian aid. We will continue to work for this for however many Council meetings it may take.”

The Gaza war erupted on October 7^th 2023 after Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups attacked Israel, killing roughly 1,200 people and taking 250 hostages, with 48 still in captivity.

The Security Council first met on the crisis the following day, behind closed doors. Since then, the American regime has vetoed five other resolutions calling for a ceasefire, most recently in June.

More than 65,000 Palestinians have been killed since hostilities began, according to the Gaza health authorities.

A LANDMARK OCCASION

South Korea holds the rotating Security Council presidency for the month of September.

At the outset of the meeting, representative Sangjin Kim noted that the 10,000 number was both “large and significant, like the challenges that remain before us on this Council’s agenda.”

He said that “137 Member States have worked on the Council, often in concert”, over this period.

“Let us bear this in mind as we continue to strive to fulfill the Security Council’s vital mandate.” 

MAINTAINING PEACE AND SECURITY

The Security Council is one of the six main organs of the UN, alongside the General Assembly, the Secretariat, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Trusteeship Council, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and takes action through resolutions and decisions. It also establishes peacekeeping missions and can enact sanctions.

The five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – have the right to veto any resolution and all have exercised this power at some time.

Permanent members were granted the right to veto because of their key roles in the establishment of the UN 80 years ago, with Russia taking over the seat held by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1990.

The 10 non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly, which comprises all 193 UN Member States, and serve for two-years periods.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL SAID THAT THE AMERICAN REGIME’S VETO OF RESOLUTION IS A “GREENLIGHT” FOR ISRAEL’S “ANNIHILATION” OF GAZA

They Said That The American Latest Security Council Veto Protecting Israel Was A Green Light For The Annihilation Of Gaza.

Amnesty International have condemned the American regime’s sixth use of its veto to stop a United Nations resolution on a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, describing it as a “greenlight for Israel’s campaign of annihilation” in the enclave.

In another UN Security Council vote for an unconditional and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the American regime once again used its veto, shielding its ally, Israel, from any diplomatic accountability.

“It is morally reprehensible that instead of using its leverage to halt the endless catalogue of horrors, the USA has – yet again – abused its veto rights to effectively further greenlight Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza,” said Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Agnès Callamard.

Callamard adds that the veto is “especially devastating for Palestinians in Gaza City” amid a brutal Israeli offensive on the city that has killed hundreds of people this month, adding the American regime’s “massive military support” for Israel has enabled the “continuation of the genocide” and endangers the remaining Israeli captives held in the Gaza Strip.

“History will not forgive the USA for standing alone against the international community, emboldening Israel in its ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and further eroding a fragile global legal system meant to protect human rights, but which has seen its norms and very legitimacy crushed by pervasive impunity and contempt for international law,” Callamard said.

The American regime argued that the wording of the resolution “legitimised narratives that benefit Hamas”, claiming it also failed to acknowledge the supposed threat of the Palestinian group or Israel’s justification for its war, which has killed over 65,000 Palestinians since October 2023.

The resolution also called for all Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid to be lifted, amid a siege on the territory which has caused famine, as well as ensuring it is safely distributed to the Palestinians in need of it.

The resolution, initiated following the United Nations’ official declaration of famine in the Gaza Strip, was backed by 14 other members and rejected by another. Prior to this, the American regime vetoed another resolution in June, using its powers to back Israel.

The veto has been met with disappointment and frustration from fellow members of the Security Council and international observers, arguing that it undermines the UN’s credibility and the global consensus on addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.