Frank discusses his early musical influences
Frank discusses his early musical influences
Q: “Who is going to defend the country without the Army?”
Zappa: “From what? The biggest threat to America is its own federal government… Will the Army protect anybody from the FBI? The IRS? The CIA? The Republican Party? The Democratic Party?… The biggest dangers we face today don’t even need to sneak past our billion-dollar defense systems… they issue the contracts for them.”
According to a book by George Williston called This Tribe of Mine: A Story of Anglo Saxon Viking Culture in America, the United States wages eternal war because of its cultural roots in the Germanic tribes that invaded, conquered, ethnically cleansed, or — if you prefer — liberated England before moving on to the slaughter of the Native Americans and then the Filipinos and Vietnamese and on down to the Iraqis. War advocate, former senator, and current presidential hopeful Jim Webb himself blames Scots-Irish American culture.
But most of medieval and ancient Europe engaged in war. How did Europe end up less violent than a place made violent by Europe? Williston points out that England spends dramatically less per capita on war than the United States does, yet he blames U.S. warmaking on English roots. And, of course, Scotland and Ireland are even further from U.S. militarism despite being closer to England and presumably to Scots-Irishness.
“We view the world through Viking eyes,” writes Williston, “viewing those cultures that do not hoard wealth in the same fashion or make fine iron weapons as child-like and ripe for exploitation.” Williston describes the passage of this culture down to us through the pilgrims, who came to Massachusetts and began killing — and, quite frequently, beheading — those less violent, acquisitive, or competitive than they.
Germans and French demonstrated greater respect for native peoples, Williston claims. But is that true? Including in Africa? Including in Auschwitz? Williston goes on to describe the United States taking over Spanish colonialism in the Philippines and French colonialism in Vietnam, without worrying too much about how Spain and France got there.
I’m convinced that a culture that favors war is necessary but not sufficient to make a population as warlike as the United States is now. All sorts of circumstances and opportunities are also necessary. And the culture is constantly evolving. Perhaps Williston would agree with me. His book doesn’t make a clear argument and could really have been reduced to an essay if he’d left out the religion, the biology metaphors, the experiments proving telepathy or prayer, the long quotes of others, etc. Regardless, I think it’s important to be clear that we can’t blame our culture in the way that some choose to blame our genes. We have to blame the U.S. government, identify ourselves with humanity rather than a tribe, and work to abolish warmaking.
In this regard, it can only help that people like Williston and Webb are asking what’s wrong with U.S. culture. It can be shocking to an Israeli to learn that their day of independence is referred to by Palestinians as The Catastrophe (Nakba), and to learn why. Similarly, many U.S. school children might be startled to know that some native Americans referred to George Washington as The Destroyer of Villages (Caunotaucarius). It can be difficult to appreciate how peaceful native Americans were, how many tribes did not wage war, and how many waged war in a manner more properly thought of as “war games” considering the minimal level of killing. As Williston points out, there was nothing in the Americas to compare with the Hundred Years War or the Thirty Years War or any of the endless string of wars in Europe — which of course are themselves significantly removed in level of killing from wars of more recent years.
Williston describes various cooperative and peaceful cultures: the Hopi, the Kogi, the Amish, the Ladakh. Indeed, we should be looking for inspiration wherever we can find it. But we shouldn’t imagine that changing our cultural practices in our homes will stop the Pentagon being the Pentagon. Telepathy and prayer are as likely to work out as levitating the Pentagon in protest. What we need is a culture dedicated to the vigorous nonviolent pursuit of the abolition of war.
Original link @ http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/10/war-culture.html
Posted in foreign policy, government, history, media, military, tagged American history, American soldiers, anniversary commemoration, pentagon, The Pentagon, Vietnam war, Vietnam War History on October 20, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
‘In case you weren’t aware, the Pentagon is set to roll out a 50th anniversary commemoration of the Vietnam War. Personally, it’s hard to get excited about commemorating an event that led to the death of over 58,000 American soldiers and more than a million Vietnamese, particularly since much of it was the direct result of well documented lies and deception, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
What’s worse, the Pentagon intends to rewrite history by whitewashing this period of civil unrest and government shame from American history. The propaganda is so blatant that it has resulted in many of the era’s most well known protestors and activists to come together in order to stop it.’
The UK security services used ‘child sexual abuse’ as a way of controlling the IRA.
Reportedly, MI5 provided boys from the Kincora childrens care home to the militants, so that they could be controlled.
In addition, Cahill’s grand-niece, Mairia, revealed that the IRA covered up the alleged abuse she suffered as a 16-year-old at the hands of another IRA figure.
Gerry Adams’ brother Liam was jailed for sexually abusing his own daughter.
Liam is currently serving a 16-year prison sentence for raping and abusing Aine Dahlstrom when she was aged between four and nine in the late 70s and early 80s.
Labour MP Simon Danczuk, who exposed the truth about MP Cyril Smith, said: “The exploitation of children by the secret services and members of the establishment comes as no surprise.
“We are discovering a history of poor children being treated like disposable goods by people in high places and no one batted an eyelid.”
Meeting of PIE 1971?
Jimmy Savile boasted that he had friends in the IRA who could beat up anyone who got in his way.
Northern Ireland by niknkimnollie
The Sunday People revealed how Jimmy Savile once told one of their journalists that he could fix anyone with just one phone call – to the IRA terrorists.
Savile said: “All I have to do is call my friends in the IRA. They’ll have someone waking up in hospital the next morning eating their breakfast through a f***ing straw.
“I know the IRA, men from the IRA, and you don’t need to ask these guys twice.
“I’m serious. Don’t f***ing think I’m not serious. I can get them done – just with a phone call. That’s all it takes, young man.”
When Savile talked of IRA terrorists, he presumably meant those working for MI5 or MI6.
Savile was a regular visitor to Belfast, the location of the KINCORA children’s home, reportedly used by the UK security services as a boy brothel.
16 Oct 2014 A soon-to-be released Senate report on the CIA doesn’t assess the responsibility of former President [sic] George W. Bush or his top aides for any of the abuses of the agency’s detention and interrogation program, avoiding a full public accounting of one of the darkest chapters of the war on of terror. “This report is not about the White House. It’s not about the president. It’s not about criminal liability. It’s about the CIA’s actions or inactions,” said a person familiar with the document, who asked not to be further identified because the executive summary – the only part to that will be made public – still is in the final stages of declassification. The Senate Intelligence Committee report also didn’t examine the responsibility of top Bush regime lawyers in crafting the [il]legal framework that permitted the CIA to use simulated drowning called waterboarding and other interrogation methods widely described as [and are] torture, McClatchy has learned.
16 Oct 2014 US war plans against North Korea recently included the option of a nuclear strike, former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed in his memoirs, triggering major controversy. Panetta described a 2010 briefing in Seoul by General Walter L. ‘Skip’ Sharp, the commander of US forces in South Korea, where it was made clear that the nuclear option was on the table if North Korean forces crossed into the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between the North and the South. “If North Korea moved across the border, our war plans called for the senior American general on the peninsula to take command of all US and South Korea forces and defend South Korea– including by the use of nuclear weapons, if necessary,” Panetta wrote in ‘Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace’.
Posted in 9-11, economics, foreign policy, government, history, law, media, military, politics, tagged American history, covert government, hidden government group, Iran Contra, JFK assassination, Watergate on October 15, 2014 | 1 Comment »
For some time now, I have been analyzing American history in the light of what I have called structural deep events: events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert processes, have political consequences that enlarge covert government, and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in the mainstream media and internal government records.
The more I study these deep events, the more I see suggestive similarities between them, increasing the possibility that they are not unrelated external intrusions on American history, but parts of an endemic process, sharing to some degree or other a common source.
For example, one factor linking Dallas, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11, has been the involvement in all four deep events of personnel involved in America’s highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1950s as Continuity of Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially inside the Pentagon as “the Doomsday Project.” A few of these actors may have been located at the top, as overseers of the secret COG system. Others – including some I shall talk about today – were located further down in its secret communications network.
The U.S. dollar is dying ►0:55
– ZIRP and QE to infinity is inevitable ►5:04
– Fed “taper” is a lie ►9:21
– Systemic failure ahead ►14:37
– Logical conclusion: rejection of U.S. dollar ►18:24
– How would a “Gold Trade Standard” impact the global banking system? ►22:11
– Why did gold and silver prices fall in the last couple weeks? ►39:39
Compulsory reading for anyone who is wants to understand all the angles and experience some additional depth in understanding regarding the West’s rush to destablise, and ultimately destroy the nation-state of Syria over the last two years.
Or, if you are unable to think beyond the one dimensional narrative which is currently being reinforced on an hourly basis it seems through your government and corporate-owned media mouthpieces – then look away now and go back to sleep. American political leaders are currently relying on a high level of disinterest and ignorance about Syria, in order to achieve their geopolitical and economic goals.
If you are able to see beyond the mainstream propaganda of the latest “humanitarian crisis” (a crisis created and advanced by Western and Gulf States Saudi and Qatari support of the armed rebels and various mercenary and terrorist groups imported into Syria over the last two years) – then you’ll certainly get something out of this comprehensive essay. Author Bruno’s language is bit laddish at times with his own charm, but keep an open mind…
The Pentagon’s ‘Operation Dark Winter': June 2001 Bioterror Exercise Foreshadowed 9/11 and Anthrax Attacks from killtown: On June 22-23, 2001, just under 3 months before 9/11, the U.S. military held a senior-level war game at Andrews Air Force Base called Dark Winter. The scenario of this bio-terrorism drill was designed to simulate a smallpox attack in three states in which one of these states would be Pennsylvania.
The Nobel Peace Prize is required by Alfred Nobel’s will, which created it, to go to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” The Nobel Committee insists on awarding the prize to either a leading maker of war or a person who has done some good work in an area other than peace.
The 2014 prize has been awarded to Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzay, which is not a person but two people, and they have not worked for fraternity between nations or the abolition or reduction of standing armies but for the rights of children. If the peace prize is to be a prize for random good works, then there is no reason not to give it to leading advocates for the rights of children. This is a big step up from giving it to leading makers of war. But then what of the prize for peace and the mission of ending war that Nobel included in his will in fulfillment of a promise to Bertha von Suttner?
Malala Yousafzay became a celebrity in Western media because she was a victim of designated enemies of Western empire. Had she been a victim of the governments of Saudi Arabia or Israel or any other kingdom or dictatorship being used by Western governments, we would not have heard so much about her suffering and her noble work. Were she primarily an advocate for the children being traumatized by drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan, she’d be virtually unknown to U.S. television audiences.
But Malala recounted her meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama a year ago and said, “I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education, it will make a big impact.” So, she actually advocated pursuing education rather than war, and yet the Nobel Committee had not a word to say about that in announcing its selection, focusing on eliminating child labor rather than on eliminating war. The possibility exists then that either of this year’s recipients might give an antiwar acceptance speech. There has, after all, only been one pro-war acceptance speech, and that was from President Obama. But many speeches have been unrelated to abolishing war.
Fredrik S. Heffermehl, who has led efforts to compel the Nobel Committee to give the peace prize for peace, said on Friday, “Malala Yousafzay is a courageous, bright and impressive person. Education for girls is important and child labor a horrible problem. Worthy causes, but the committee once again makes a false pretense of loyalty to Nobel and confuses and conceals the plan for world peace that Nobel intended to support.
“If they had wished to be loyal to Nobel they would have stressed that Malala often has spoken out against weapons and military with a fine understanding of how ordinary people suffer from militarism. Young people see this more clearly than the grown ups.”
The leading contenders for this year’s prize, as speculated in the media, included the Pope who has in fact spoken against all war, abandoning the “just war” idea; and some advocate or other for Japan’s Article Nine which forbids war and ought to be a model for other nations but is being threatened in Japan instead. These recipients would at least have bordered on Nobel’s ideal, as perhaps might be said for last year’s recipient, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Also on the list was a Russian newspaper supportive of Western aggression, the President of Uruguay for legalizing marijuana, Edward Snowden for leaking evidence of U.S. spying, Denis Mukwege for helping victims of sexual violence, and Chelsea Manning for exposing U.S. war crimes. Manning would have made a certain amount of sense, and her work has probably gone some way toward discouraging war. The same might be said, to a lesser degree, of Snowden. But none of these fit the description in Nobel’s will. If the peace prize were actually awarded to a leading peace activist, at this point the world would be rather scandalized and scratch its collective head in wonderment at what the significance could be in that person’s work.
Look at this list of recent recipients of a prize meant for peace:
The European Union
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkol Karman
Barack H. Obama
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank
There you have the two leading makers of war in the world: Obama and the E.U. You have advocates for green energy and small loans and women’s rights and human rights. Martti Ahtisaari’s prize announcement actually quoted from Nobel’s will, but he himself supported NATO and Western militarism.
While good work in other areas can in fact contribute to peace, it is unlikely to do so in the absence of recognition of the goal of peace and of work directly aimed at abolishing war.
The National Priorities Project, a U.S. organization that actually works against militarism, was nominated this year, as no doubt were others relevant to the purpose for which the peace prize was created.
Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces has pointed to influence of Zionists in the White House and US institutions, stating that the flow of information to American political leaders is being controlled by pro-Israel elements.
“Due to the influence and dominance of Zionists over the US power structure, the information channels of US officials are under the sway of what has been created by Zionists,” Major General Hassan Firouzabadi said on Wednesday.
The top commander further noted that genuine news that could help US authorities realize the facts are either being censored or distorted in the United States.
Firouzabadi added that as long as US officials do not want to free themselves from the yoke of Zionists and purge US intelligence services from their presence, the rights of people will continue to be trampled.
“The American people, prior to any other demand, must be pushing for the Zionists to be purged from the White House, the Congress and US intelligence services. Otherwise, their problems like racism, violation of the rights of the oppressed, discrimination in the United States of America and the spending of taxpayers’ money for the benefit of Zionists will not be solved,” he stated.
A newly-published US national security document shows that the National Security Agency (NSA) in 2007 singled out Israel as a top spying threat to the United States.
The NSA document, obtained by US surveillance whistleblower, Edward Snowden, also emphasized on the threat from Israel’s “development of weapons of mass destruction” and “delivery methods (particularly ballistic and nuclear-capable cruise missiles).”
In one section of the document, Tel Aviv was ranked as a top perpetrator of “espionage/intelligence collection operations and manipulation/influence operations…against US government, military, science & technology and Intelligence Community” organs.
Posted in economics, government, history, law, politics, tagged Ellen Kaplan, Get Kissinger, Henry A. Kissinger, Henry Kissinger, LaRouche, Nancy Kissinger, Newark International Airport on October 2, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
On February 7, 1982, two LaRouchians met the Devil, not in a graveyard at midnight, but in the well-lit terminal at Newark International Airport. They abandoned their literature table and rushed to exorcise him with a barrage of hostile questions. “Jesus Christ,” muttered Dr. Henry Kissinger, their longtime hate figure. He and his wife, Nancy, kept walking toward the boarding area, en route to Boston, where he was scheduled to undergo triple-bypass heart surgery.
“Dr. Kissinger,” shouted twenty-eight-year-old Ellen Kaplan, “is it true that you sleep with young boys at the Carlyle Hotel?” It was a standard LaRouchian accusation. Nancy Kissinger would have ignored it on other occasions, but she was distraught by the prospect of her husband’s operation. According to her attorney, her hand reached out and came in contact, very lightly, with Kaplan’s throat. Others assert that her actions were less restrained. Whatever the truth, Kaplan retreated, and the Kissingers continued on their way.
A trivial event, one might say. Yet its consequences included a warrant for Mrs. Kissinger’s arrest, a heavily publicized assault trial, and a LaRouchian harassment campaign against Dr. Kissinger on four continents. This campaign, waged from mid-1982 through late 1984, is unique in the annals of radical protest against public figures. It involved a torrent of propaganda attacks in at least six languages, carefully planned disruptions of Kissinger’s public appearances, the planting of defamatory rumors in the international press, scores of malicious pranks, and the expenditure of millions of dollars on network television ads denouncing him.
Some observers have viewed LaRouche’s anti-Kissinger campaign merely as an example of irrationalism and cultism—the expenditure of enormous resources on an effort better suited to an insane asylum. Yet there were coolheaded pragmatic reasons for it. LaRouche had gained a measure of credibility with the Reagan administration over the previous year. He had to disguise his anti-Semitism better.
LaRouche’s solution was to select a Symbolic Jew. Kissinger, with his thick Central European accent, “Semitic” features, rationalistic worldview, and reputation for secretive highest-level intrigue, was the perfect choice. The fact that he was Jewish was almost universally known—indeed, he was probably the most famous Jew in the world. What’s more, he was a controversial one, disliked by many conservatives and by almost all leftists. Even many moderates had questions about his record as secretary of state. A campaign against him, no matter how nasty, could gain an unspoken sympathy across the political spectrum. Building on this dislike of Kissinger, the LaRouchians could turn it into a dislike of his alleged archetypal qualities.
The LaRouchians had attacked Kissinger on an overtly anti-Semitic basis throughout the late 1970s. When New Solidarity called for the “immediate elimination” of the “Jewish Lobby” from American public life, it said the first stage should be “the naming of names, such as Henry A. Kissinger.” A subsequent editorial railed against infiltration of Washington by agents of the “Zionist-British organism.” Heading the list was the “Israeli-British” agent Kissinger. When Kissinger’s The White House Years was published in 1980, a review by LaRouche in EIR used Mein Kampf-style images of infection and contamination. America’s moral “rot,” he said, was due to “such alien ‘Typhoid Marys’ of immorality” as Kissinger. LaRouche then dashed offThe Pestilence of Usury, a pamphlet sold at airport literature tables. Among the villains was Kissinger, said to be the servant of oligarchs “far worse than Hitler . . . nasty, evil.”