War Propaganda Always Wins

Remember the Maine. And the Lusitania. And Pearl Harbor. And Kuwaiti babies being thrown from incubators. Stop the dreaded Huns. And the evil Krauts. And the dirty sneaky rotten Japs. And the wide-eyed Arabs. Stop those dominoes. Stop Al-Qaeda. Stop Isis. Stop Isil. Stop Islamo-Fascism. If you see something, say something.

Donald Trump’s absurd decision to bomb Syria once again, for the old canard of “using chemical weapons” on their own people, reminds us once again that the War Party always wins. This ridiculously transparent false flag had even less “evidence” behind it than the “weapons of mass destruction” fairy tale.

It doesn’t matter that Trump rightly criticized our involvement in Syria, and elsewhere, numerous times over the years and during his presidential campaign. Promises are made to be broken, especially the promises of politicians. And the fact that Trump talked about getting out of Syria literally a few days before this fortuitous “chemical attack” only demonstrates how obvious these false flags are, and how philosophically malleable Trump is.

In my upcoming book, Crimes and Cover Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963, I will provide a timeline of how the American military sprayed its own cities with diseases and chemicals, and conducted hideous experiments on its people, for much of the twentieth century. The vaunted Allies used gas as far back as World War I. But that was different- we are always the “good guys.” When we do it, it’s justified. For our government to be outraged over “chemical attacks,” even if they were real, is about as hypocritical as it gets.

I will be detailing a lot of the atrocities committed by our “good guys” in America’s perpetual warfare, in this new book. Readers will discover that the establishment “liberals” of every era wholeheartedly supported the wars of their times. Just as few Americans realize that Pat Buchanan, for example, is probably the most high profile anti-war advocate in the public arena now, they would never guess that someone like Henry Ford was the loudest voice for peace in his time.

Meanwhile, the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens of the world don’t push for peace. They, like the Clintons, Gores, Obamas and Bidens, fully support this mindless “war on terror.” When they are the alternatives to the neocons like John McCainiac, Lindsay Graham, Nikki Haley and Paul Ryan, then you recognize that there are no political “choices” available to thinking Americans. As Huey Long called it long ago, before he was assassinated himself, we can pick Tweedledee or Tweedledum.

Donald Trump’s many enemies on the left are fully behind him on bombing Syria. If anything, they want him to go further, to meddle even more, kill more people and sacrifice American lives needlessly. This is reminiscent of how the neocons attacked Barack Obama as some kind of weak “Muslim” because bombing and/or occupying all those Muslim countries was somehow not enough. It’s unclear just what the establishment left and right want here, but it certainly isn’t peace. It’s never peace.

Meanwhile, back on the home front, the stock market rises and falls like a roller coaster, mirroring in many ways the unpredictable personality of our tweeter-in- chief. Our infrastructure continues to be left untouched, much as it has been since the Eisenhower administration. Somehow, if it we are to finally try to upgrade our crumbling roads, bridges and power grids to something approximating First World standards, we must get some special funding to do so. Raise the gas tax or something.

But while our crucial infrastructure cannot be rebuilt without new or increased taxes, this latest bombing of another sovereign nation was accomplished with no questions asked. Why do we always have money for bombing, occupations, and nation building, but at the same time we “must” curtail “entitlements?” By “entitlements,” of course, I’m referring to Social Security and the like, which every worker pays into over the course of a lifetime. They are absolutely “entitled” to their money back, but the name suggests that they are getting some kind of “free lunch.”

Perhaps the money is always there for war, because the budgets of our many intelligence agencies remain top secret. Why don’t the citizens financing this bureaucratic nightmare have a right to know how much is being spent, or what it’s being spent on? Are any of our “representatives” clamoring for public disclosure on this front? The answer is obvious. But you can bet that these “representatives” will be happy to promulgate the latest batch of war propaganda with straight faces.

I remember back when the first Gulf War was about to launch, amidst those histrionics from the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, posing as an innocent young victim. My family and friends were outraged, demanding that we “do something” about Saddam Hussein. “That man is insane!” they would exclaim. Much like Assad now, Hussein “used gas” on his own people. The fact that this gas had been provided to them by the United States, who had long supported Hussein, didn’t matter. None of these people could have found Kuwait on a map the week before, yet now they were ready to send their first born to die in an effort to save those babies.

Bogeymen change, but our leaders always keep them, lingering in the shadows, and ready to be trotted out on stage when the need arises. Hitler will probably never be topped, but the newest models are invariably compared to him. H.L. Mencken described it perfectly a long time ago, when he wrote, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

At this point, the latest and greatest “hobgoblin” changes, from North Korea’s Kim Jong-un to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, seemingly every week. However, there is always some bogeyman there, to keep Americans distracted. After all, if there weren’t all these mad men lurking everywhere, who “hate our freedom,” Americans might very well finally awake from their slumber, and look all around them. They might notice the Third World infrastructure, the loss of their civil liberties and personal freedom. They might notice the absolute corruption everywhere.

“There is no such thing as a good war, or a bad peace,” Benjamin Franklin advised us. America has been at war for virtually its entire existence. We are always drawn into wars against our will, according to our leaders, because of these ever present bogeymen, and the fact they keep doing dastardly things which force our hand.

H.L. Mencken’s attributed comment that “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public” was a paraphrase of what he actually said, but it’s an accurate paraphrase, and a cynically astute assessment of American collective naivete.

If P.T. Barnum was around today, he’d be salivating. Most Americans are “rubes” to at least some extent. They’re so easily fooled, the propagandists often don’t even change the mantra that was used so effectively in the past. While you seemingly can’t get American voters to throw the bums out of office, as witnessed by the regular 96% re-election rate of our congressional “representatives,” they are always lusting for war, and ready to “sacrifice” for the government that has done nothing for them, except take their money.

In today’s world, a sucker is born not every minute, but every second.



About donaldjeffries

Author of the critically acclaimed best sellers "Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover Ups in American Politics,""Survival of the Richest: How the Corruption of the Marketplace and the Disparity of Wealth Created the Greatest Conspiracy of All," and the newly released "Crimes and Cover Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963." Author of the 2007 sci-fi/fantasy novel "The Unreals," which has been described as a cross between The Wizard of Oz and The Twilight Zone, and compared to A Confederacy of Dunces and classic Russian literature. A second edition of "The Unreals" was published in February 2015 by Pocol Press. Long time JFK assassination researcher. Seeker of truth, proponent of justice and fairness. Enemy of corruption. Sender of as many "tiny ripples of hope" as possible.

Posted on April 17, 2018, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Donald,

    Aren’t you ashamed for repeating Alex Jones’ BS about the Sandy Hook shootings being faked? You should apologize to your readers.

    Sandy Hook Parents Hit Alex Jones With Defamation Lawsuits
    Suits against the Infowars host keep piling up.

    By Sebastian Murdock
    Alex Jones may soon learn that maligning the parents of dead children comes with serious consequences.
    Alex Jones may soon learn that maligning the parents of dead children comes with serious consequences.
    Alex Jones has spent years claiming the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School ― where a shooter killed 20 small children and six adults ― was faked. He has claimed the parents of these dead children are liars and “crisis actors.”

    Now, those parents are coming after him.

    In a pair of lawsuits filed late Monday, the parents of two children who died in the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, say Jones’ repeated lies and conspiratorial ravings have led to death threats. The suits join at least two other recent cases accusing the Infowars host of defamation.

    I lost my son. I buried my son. I held my son with a bullet hole through his head.
    Neil Heslin, father of a 6-year-old boy killed during the Sandy Hook shooting.
    Neil Heslin, the father of a 6-year-old boy killed in the shooting, and Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, who lost their own little boy, filed the suits in Austin, Texas, where Jones’ conspiracy-minded media outlet is based. Each suit is seeking more than $1 million in damages from Jones, Infowars and a related company, Free Speech Systems LLC. Infowars reporter Owen Shroyer is also named in one of the suits.

    “Even after these folks had to experience this trauma, for the next five years they were tormented by Alex Jones with vicious lies about them,” Mark Bankston, the lawyer handling the cases for the parents, told HuffPost. “And these lies were meant to convince his audience that the Sandy Hook parents are frauds and have perpetrated a sinister lie on the American people.”

    Bankston, of the Houston law firm Farrar & Ball, is also involved in another defamation suit against Jones, representing a man whom Infowars incorrectly identified as the Parkland, Florida, school shooter.

    Infowars, Jones and Shroyer did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Heslin’s suit focuses on what it calls a “heartless and vile” claim of Shroyer’s: that the father lied in an interview with NBC News’ Megyn Kelly about holding his dead son’s body.

    “I lost my son. I buried my son. I held my son with a bullet hole through his head,” Heslin told Kelly in the June 2017 segment profiling Jones.

    Neil Heslin testifies during a Senate hearing on assault weapons in February 2013.
    Neil Heslin testifies during a Senate hearing on assault weapons in February 2013.
    Days after the segment aired, Shroyer told Infowars viewers that Heslin could not have held his son because victims were identified through photographs, not in person.

    “That’s not something you would just misspeak on,” Shroyer said during the June 26, 2017, broadcast, which Jones himself plugged a month later.

    But that claim is “manifestly false,” Heslin’s suit says: The children’s bodies were eventually turned over to their parents for their funerals.

    In the other suit filed Tuesday, Pozner and De La Rosa ― whose son was the youngest victim in the shooting ― are also targeting Jones for calling them liars.

    Subscribe to the Politics email.
    How will Trump’s administration impact you?

    During an April 2017 broadcast on Infowars, Jones discussed an interview De La Rosa gave to CNN’s Anderson Cooper shortly after the tragedy, and claimed the entire thing was faked.

    “So here are these holier than thou people, when we question CNN, who is supposedly at the site of Sandy Hook, and they got in one shot leaves blowing, and the flowers that are around it, and you see the leaves blowing, and they go [gestures]. They glitch,” Jones said, according to a transcript quoted in the lawsuit. “They’re recycling a green-screen behind them.”

    Anyone … who spends 15 minutes talking to one of these parents will understand immediately how vile this lie was.
    Mark Bankston, lawyer for the Sandy Hook parents suing Jones.
    This was a lie Jones has been repeating for years.

    “Folks, we’ve got video of Anderson Cooper with clear blue-screen out there,” Jones said in 2014. “He’s not there in the town square. We got people clearly coming up and laughing and then doing the fake crying. We’ve clearly got people where it’s actors playing different parts for different people, the building bulldozed, covering up everything.”

    It’s been five years since the shooting, the lawsuit says, and “Mr. Jones continues to push this sick lie about Mrs. De La Rosa and her interview.”

    Infowars’ practice of disseminating outright lies has led to serious consequences for the families of the Sandy Hook victims, the lawsuit says. In June 2017, Florida woman Lucy Richards, then 57, was sentenced to five months in prison for sending threats to Pozner.

    “You gonna die,” Richards told Pozner in one recorded voicemail message. “Death is coming to you real soon.”

    As part of her sentence, Richards will no longer be allowed to access Infowars, according to the lawsuit.

    As of Tuesday morning, Infowars still had blatantly false stories posted on its website claiming the mass shooting was a hoax. “FBI SAYS NO ONE KILLED AT SANDY HOOK,” screams one headline.

    A memorial for the Sandy Hook victims, shown days after the December 2012 shooting.
    A memorial for the Sandy Hook victims, shown days after the December 2012 shooting.
    Bankston told HuffPost he has never before seen cases involving the kind of “mental anguish” these parents are experiencing.

    “I think as a father, it’s a very surreal experience,” Bankston said. “Anyone, parents or not, who spends 15 minutes talking to one of these parents will understand immediately how vile this lie was, and how genuine their pain is.”

    The defamation lawsuits could have devastating consequences for Jones and Infowars, especially because these are not the only ones against him. In March, the man who recorded the deadly car attack at last year’s white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, sued Jones for calling him a “deep state shill” and a “CIA asset” who helped organize the attack ― he’s not, and he didn’t.

    And then there’s the lawsuit Bankston filed earlier this month. He’s suing on behalf of the 24-year-old man whom Infowars falsely identified as the gunman who killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February.

    For the Sandy Hook parents, they just want the lies to stop. Even when Jones made an assurance he’d stop talking about it, that too was a lie. During a November 2016 broadcast, Jones said that if “children were lost at Sandy Hook, my heart goes out to each and every one of those parents.”

    But he didn’t stop there: “The only problem is, I’ve watched a lot of soap operas, and I’ve seen actors before. And I know when I’m watching a movie and when I’m watching something real.”

    The broadcast was titled “Alex Jones Final Statement on Sandy Hook.”

    Less than a year later, in April 2017, Jones aired another segment. It was titled “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed.”

    • Not sure what this has to do with the subject of this post, but for the record, Alex Jones has always been very timid on the issue of Sandy Hook. Those of us who question Sandy Hook, or any other widely publicized event, do so because the official narratives are full of holes, and often unbelievable. I wrote an article about Sandy Hook a few years back, which you can access on this blog, that details my perspective more thoroughly than I can here.

      • Is your position that no one died at Sandy Hook?

      • I don’t know what happened at Sandy Hook, but as I wrote in a much earlier article on this blog, it isn’t wrong to ask questions. Very little about Sandy Hook, or the Boston Bombing, the Parkland shooting, or any other widely reported event within the past few years has made sense as reported by the msm. The official narrative of Sandy Hook is about as believable as the official narrative of the JFK assassination, 9/11, etc. It’s not disrespectful to “the children” to ask why no emt personnel went inside the school to treat victims, or why the live helicopter footage from that day appears for all the world to show nothing special going on. I refer you to my earlier article on this blog for more reasons why so many of us are skeptical of the official story.

  2. The Real Reason Evangelical “Christians” Don’t Care About Trump’s Sordid Sexual Behavior

    Many theories have been floated in an effort to explain why so-called Evangelical “Christians” have turned a blind eye to Trump’s obvious (and likely continuous) sexual behavior, whether it comes in the form of harassment and abuse, paying porn stars for sex, or just good old-fashioned adultery, all of which would seem to rub against everything spelled out in the Good Book about, well, banging your neighbor’s wife… or something like that.

    But the mistake people make in trying to explain this phenomenon is by approaching it in “moralistic” terms. The supposition being that as supposedly devout Christians these folks would naturally share a universal antipathy towards adultery that overcomes their burning desire to force women to bear children they neither wanted nor expected. That’s wholly misreading the roots of Evangelicalism.

    The history of white Evangelical Christianity in this country can be summarized much like George Orwell summarized the totalitarian state in his seminal novel, “1984”:

    If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

    But it’s a little more like this:

    If you want a picture of Evangelical Christianity, imagine a boot stamping on a woman’s face — forever.

    In an opinion piece written for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Rodney Hessinger, a history professor at John Carroll University, and Kristen Tobey, an assistant professor of religion and social sciences, explain that it is not revulsion towards adultery, but preservation of patriarchy, that underlies Evangelical “thought,” such that it is, and that’s why Trump will be given a pass by many evangelicals (predominately of the White and Southern variety) no matter what he does, up to and including sticking his penis into a corpse.

    Many commentators have puzzled about the seeming hypocrisy of those who would see adultery and womanizing as grave sins. And yet for those who know the history of evangelicalism in America, this should be no surprise at all.

    In fact, there are good reasons why we should expect this result. The history and sexual politics of evangelicalism in America fit well with Donald Trump and his message.

    As it turns out the whole idea of Evangelical Christianity is rooted in a conception of Biblically-inspired male dominance and superiority that was used as a selling point for the religion’s spread in the South, albeit cleverly packaged as “family values”:

    The authoritarian dynamic was central to Southern antebellum families. To win Southern hearts, evangelicals buttressed patriarchy, empowering fathers and looking the other way when they took prerogatives which crossed moral lines. Catering to Southern values, evangelicalism became one of the predominant forms of religious expression in America.

    Trump’s ratings with Evangelicals have actually soared since the Stormy Daniels story came out—from 61 to 78 % approval. The reason for this is simple. One of the pillars of Evangelical Christianity is the perception that Evangelicals are “outcasts” standing bravely against the evil forces of the world. This is a feature of the cult, not a bug, because it spawns a group persecution complex that solidifies their community. As the authors point out, “religious outsiders have much to gain from boundary maintenance, often courting outcast status or even persecution to rally the faithful. “

    So Trump’s sexual antics and his sociopathic insouciance when confronted with them mesh perfectly with the Evangelical mindset. His behavior conjures up sentiments not of revulsion, but of common cause. He’s an “outcast” that provides the Evangelical community a foil against which it can assert its discrete identity. Any criticism of Trump just reinforces this mindset. And most importantly, his abusive attitudes towards women reinforce the patriarchy and exploitation of women that have girded much of the entire Evangelical scheme from the get-go:

    The Second Great Awakening, the high water mark for evangelicalism in America, saw countless scenes of sexual shame. Whether it was Joseph Smith embracing polygamy, the even more scandalous complex marriage system of John Humphrey Noyes, or the countless sexual indiscretions of “reverend rakes” in Methodist, Baptist, Congregational, and Presbyterian churches, charismatic preachers were known for stealing the affections of female parishioners.

    Kinda makes you think the whole thing is really rooted in guys getting laid, doesn’t it?

    This is fertile ground for a con artist like Trump. The authors point out that his whole campaign could have been lifted from an Evangelical template:

    This sense of being besieged is also echoed in the president’s rallying call, “Make America Great Again.” This slogan, harrowing up fears of the rise of racial and sexual minorities in America, also conforms to the classic evangelical sermon form, the “Jeremiad.” Since the time of the Puritans, evangelicals have used the Jeremiad to voice lamentations of social decline, thereby chastening and strengthening their ranks.

    So we shouldn’t be looking anytime soon for those Evangelicals who make up his base of support to recoil in horror at Trump’s sex scandals, or for that matter anything else he does up to and including money laundering or conspiracy with the Russians.

    In their minds he’s one of theirs, and always will be.

  3. Reblogged this on California freelance paralegal and commented:
    I remember watching a video on YouTube where Huey Long describes the two parties and states that “The only difference that I found between the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership was that one of them was skimming from the ankle up and the other was skimming from the ear down.”

    • Thanks. I devoted a chapter to Huey Long in “Survival of the Richest.” I’ve done a few recent interviews exclusively about Long. One was on Coast to Coast- don’t think it’s up on You Tube any more (they take them down pretty quickly), and the other was with Midnight Writer News Show, if you’re interested.

Leave a Reply to donaldjeffries Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: