Beware the Anti- Anti-War Left

And the endless intrigues they willingly allow themselves to be a part of, now including Russiagate, Putin-whatever, the War on Syria, the US/NATO Takeover of Ukraine, and others.

Jean Bricmont wrote this at Counterpunch in 2012.

Malooga at Moon of Alabama (MofA is soon to be added to my sidebar, along with Counterpunch) wrote eloquently about this in 2013.

And now, in 2018, the same "Our Enemy has WMD's!" hysteria is back, big time.

Caitlin Johnstone calls out our hypocrisy in Syria.

I would only pose a slightly qualified defense for Noam Chomsky's blanket condemnation of Assad, on the weight of his other works, his earlier inquisitions, and that his opening lines are meant as a qualifying brush on what follows,  following a particular (folksy) style of argumentation, and being taken out of context.  He's right to ultimately focus on the US as the ultimate source of most violence (not Israel, as sone do) for reasons that will beome clear through my argument below.  Mostly the folskiness is fine, in this case, it bothers many of us.  But, I don't think it's really that big a deal.  I'm not throwing out my Chomsky books or ending support of Democracy Now! or The Intercept, despite disagreement with some of the views they have presented.  They do always say, you must judge for yourself, and on each point separately.

In the most recent discussion party I hosted, not at my pleasure the topic of Russiagate came up, and I'm afraid I can still lose my cool over that.  After a few comments, I was asked if I had given up leftism and become alt right or something.

No, the ethics of it all is quite simple, even if Neitzche condemned "slave morality", putting others equal if not first is the the essence of ethics.

In this case, we should take the log out of our own eye before condemning the speck in all others, and indeed the quantities are like this.

While we spend a trillion a year on international disinformation, sanctions, bombs and DU, Assad has not ventured beyond his internationally recognized borders; it was Britain then US who started financing terrorism against his family decades ago before their often lied about (and fabricated, etc, including by the now debunked White Helmets) responses to it began.  Russia has only reclaimed a key tiny piece (Crimea) that was broken away, effectively, by two coups: first, the western orchestrated "Collapse" of the Soviet Union, which in this case broke away the region which was once the heart of Russia, and second the backing of a racist violent coup which constituted the current regime in Ukraine.  Even if Russia were not justified in doing as they did, as I think they were (and highly lied about in the west), they were still microscopic compared to our years of heavy bombardment and action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen--for what???

We've deliberately altered the trajectory of countries in dozens if not hundreds of cases (such as Chile, Guatemala and Iran) and sometimes bragged about it.  Often in very tragic ways.  Chomsky HAS written about this recently, mostly echoing his friend Edward Hermann who wrote the clearest and best denunciation of Russiagate last year.   Robert Parry was doing a most excellent job too, and now Caitlin Johnstone.  A friend of mine who takes Russiagate more seriously than I do calls it "Blowback."  I've already stated that anytime Russiagate comes up it MUST BE put into context, else one is taking on the role of imperial stooge.  But from what we know, it doesn't look like very much blowback at all, if any even.

What should a US Citizen say about Assad?  Firstly I don't have a reliable source for information about him, so I don't really know anything, and would certainly never be able to put it in the fullest possible context anyway--no one person can ever do that.  Though I have read that as recently as 2012 he was a very popular President in at least the area of the country that voted (most of its population), so he must not have been as evil as alleged around here, and likely still isn't.  Second it's a far away country that has not done anything wrongly to Americans, so we shouldn't have ever been involved in any kind of militarism, or even financing terrorists against his regime. Thirdly we've wronged it (as well as the Assads) for decades--so morally and ethically we owe them a lot.  Fourth our best way of paying that debt, or at least starting, is to stop increasing it.  We should just pull out of Syria, and all foreign countries for that matter.  Forget ISIS and all that crap (which we had a leading role in creating).  Leave others to solve their own problems rather then endlessly making them impossibly worse.  And that includes turning our gaze around and applying our standards to ourselves first.

We really do not have any business putting troups and waging war all over the world.  It doesn't make us any safer.  We need to focus on making a better country here.  We need to reverse the wrong path to a continuation of militarism after WWII.  We need to put ourselves to making a better country, not a greater one.

Everything else is apologia for empire, and is not compatible with leftism, or any committment to moral and ethical justice.

Only when we have no ongoing wars or aggressive designs of any kind on other countries (including threatening weapons of mass destruction) can we begin to rightfully assess the actual human rights situations under the designs of foreign leaders where our military forces or proxies or threats are directed, and peacefully work for better human rights and human satisfactions of all kinds everywhere, starting at home.

Syria vs The US

So far, all claims that Syria has used chemical weapons have been debunked, including the latest chlorine gas claims.  Rebel-held cities are a perfectly motivated and equipped to smear Assad with false claims, and all US and NATO operators take and possibly encourage such claims.  Supposedly independent actors, especially the White Helmets and even legendary Amnesty International are willing to lie in the service of western hegemony.

Assad has never had any need for chemical weapons.  He has the advantage in military equipment and firepower and can simply blow things up.  And has.  And, in absolute terms, of course this is monsterous.

THAT of course is his inhumanity, but the reason this is not emphasized in US Media is precisely because...the west does it too and moreso!  We are the biggest monsters of all!

Assad is blowing up rebel held cities because in his view, they are part of his country which in the process of being stolen by US and Saudi and other-middleastern funded rebels.  His country has become part of a proxy war between the US and Russia, the US being the instigator just because US don't want Russia to have any client states, just the US.

This is arguably, on his part, just war.  Now, it does seem that his use of heavy bombardment is unnecessary and therefore unjust.  But we don't know the details.  It could be, and after all this war has been pulled along by heavy US and Saudi "investments" for decades and still.

Meanwhile, the US has been fighting warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq for no apparent reason other than to crush independent actors and prove we can make their countries a living hell.  This is a very high power of monsterousness; it's a war crime which cannot be justified, and seems to have no other purpose than terrorize the rest of the world by showing our capacity for endless brutality.  In Syria, our mission for decades has been destroying the decades old republic that exists, and replacing it with a client state of ours.  Another monsterous war criminal act with no possible legal justifyability.  Of course, it's sold in the west as saving the women and children, and democracy and all that.  Yeah, we're saving them by giving heavy weapons and chemical precursors to jihiadis.

Actors who supposedly inspired these wars, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden, are long since dead.  The Taliban had done nothing to us and offered to turn over Osama bin Laden if we would provide evidence of his involvement.  Actually, it is known now, exactly when and where 9/11 was plotted, in Germany, and without Osama bin Laden.  He could only be proven to be a spiritual leader of Al Qaeda, and allegedly a very retiring one in poor health.

Saddam had not only never threatened us (he wanted to be our friend...again) he had nothing to  do with terrorist attacks on the US in fact precisely the opposite, he was working strenuously to suppress Al Qaeda and their like in Iraq and doing a better job than we have ever since.  In fact, since we created the precursor to Al Qaeda (the Mujahadeen, to fight Russia), and have been funding Al Qaeda in Syria through numerous supposedly unconnected organizations, along with the Saudis and others, it looks more like we toppled Saddam precisely because he was blocking Al Qaeda--certainly our guys before and after.

At best, all our wars make no sense in any way except wasting a lot of money and blowing things up.  At worst, they are the highest imaginable monsterousness.

Meanwhile, this little guy Assad is only trying to defend his country from being carved up by foreign funded armies.  Carved up where the population is thin but the oil wells are dense.

And so it goes.  We might be lucky if somehow Russia were able to peacefully subdue the US Deep State, since by far we are the greater evil, and have been since WWII.  Though I wouldn't count on that being the luckier path.

It seems to me like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.  First Bill seems the greater evil, by destroying all his competitors and then most of his cooperators.  We knew, in the end, if Apple got big, it would be an equal evil, and so it is.  Though the Apple system has been far superior since OS X, and we owe that switch to Jobs selection, determination, and persuasion (along with the legions of Unix and BSD and Gnu/Linux programmers).

I'm greatly put off by Putin emphasizing and glamorizing his military capabilities.  Yeah maybe he's not as nice a guy as our previous President (however, I'd guess he killed far fewer people).  But in general he seems more a more responsible person than our current President.  In other ways, and partly through decades our influence, Russia has become more anti-socialistic than we are, ,and less LGTBE tolerant, and those are deep faults.  But it is ours not to keep making worse, along with ourselves.

It would be ours, first, to do no more harm.  And not participate in the foreign monster of the month demonization club of the deep state.  Instead, find every way, to keep the focus here, on the monsterous deeds done in our name by the machinery we have some small ability to move over time.

This is true to the point where concern for the greater good compels to act like defense attorney for for the all the alleged foreign monsters presumed by fellows to be the greatest evil, when in absolute sense, they don't deserve any defense, their guilt being so much less than ours, we should always present our prosecutions of ill behavior in the order of the greater guilt first.

Speaking in Tounges

How is it possible, for nice people to be so dastardly?

I'm talking about the Deep State people who run psyops against the American people.  Like Russigate, for example, a narrative in which all bad things come from Russia and from collusion with Russia by a few bad Americans, basically ignoring what America is doing in the rest of the world, even good Americans like Barack Obama who continued all the wars he inheirited and created a few more, and sent more bombing missions than any previous President, only to be immediately exceeded by his successor.

It turns out the kidnapping of Patricia Hearst was a previous Psyop, designed to justify the invention of police state things like SWAT which were mostly directed against leftists.

Do planners in the Pentagon laugh evil laughs as they are planning false flag operations like the Gulf of Tonkin?

No.  What generally happens is that people are pulled so hard into the groupthink that they can't conceive of the evil of which they are a part.  When they speak, they speak in the groupthink twisted words and ideas that above all justify what they are doing as a greater pursuit of liberty and justice, even when the clear goals are what would by another other standard especially the more objective ones be seen as the opposite.

Hierarchies can enforce doublespeak like this.  To rise at all one must demonstrate greater and greater submersion into the doublespeak.  So it is no wonder the people at the top are All In, even if that means All In for their own cashing out.

This is in fact the essence of how hierarchies work.  Not just obedience, but thought submersion.

Opiod Epidemic? Not for poor people! They suffer with pain and poison!

I'm not what to think about all the headlines about opiod epidemic, especially among poor people in middle America.

Like many stories the media gets hot about, this doesn't ring true, in my experience, and for what I have understood for a long time.

Doctors have generally abhorred from prescribing true opium deriviatives, because of legal strictures, for a long time.

Codeine is the most consumer friendly, and perhaps the best cough medicine ever (not to be used too long, of course).  But it's very hard to get, even from my fine doctor I only got hydrocodone for pain, an ambiguously effective medication in my experience. The first most serious pain I had...it was almost completely ineffective.  However in a recent lesser pain incident, it did seem to work, so I was glad to have it as compared with nothing (in both cases).

A low cost public health clinic I know has a large sign saying has a large sign saying "Do not ask for Opiod Drugs."  To replace opiods, new non-opiod and ineffective "pain killers" are prescribed which often have serious urinary implications.   Poison!

Meanwhile, codeine can be had from the fanciest clinic in town.  And with month lasting respiratory illnesses around, it can temporarily be life saving.  Doctors should be sure that codeine is only used while temporarily needed, except when the alternative is worse.

In my opinion, Doctors who infrequently prescribe small amounts of opiods to anyone should not be hassled, and they have been hassled, for as long as I can remember.

So what's really going on here?

I figure it's a conspiracy to tighten the screws on opium derivatives and opiods still further, forcing people to buy fancy new poisons.

I suppose it's possible that in some other world I'm unfamiliar with, doctors prescribe opiods like candy with no oversight.  It doesn't ring true in my experience, but possibly it does happen somewhere.

And that can be hyped out of proportion by the patent holders of fancy new poisons.

But this should not lead to another general crackdown on drugs.

Generally all drugs should be available by doctors to prescribe at their discretion, with reasonable but not vindictive or bureaucratic oversight.  And especially natural drugs, like opium derivatives, cocaine, and marijuana.  Instead of effective natural drugs that people have used forever, we have fancy overpriced and ineffective poisons.

The world is seeming more and more dysfunctional like the movie Brazil, and this is yet another way, both the way our medical system works and what we learn about it through the news.

My solution to heroin addiction?  Make it legal, clean, free to all, so there's no black market. Free treatment with no stigma to anyone who wants to withdraw.  Heroin addiction can be satisfied for decades without ill effect if the drug is free and clean.  The scourge of heroin addiction is when people struggle so hard to keep getting it they give up on everything else, including food.  And when the purity is so variable every dose is russian roulette.  And when people are so depressed, they care for nothing else.

No form of drug use should by itself be illegal, or sale, only unregulated sales of regulated drugs.

More thoughts on Russiagate

I wish all my fellow liberals and (some) leftists would let go of this terrible scam promoted by the neocons who have been pushing for war with Russia (including especially Hillary, and also Obama and all the well known opinionators).  IMO we should disengage with conflict with Russia, eliminating sanctions, restore normal friendly relations, withdraw from conflict in Syria and Yugoslavia.  We have greatly exceeded the dasterdly deeds we mostly falsely claim against Russia and its allies with our own activities anyway...we initiated onflict in Yugslavia--financing a violent coup to overthrow the Russia-friendly elected government--and Syria--funding Islamists including Al Qaeda to overthrow another Russia-friendly government.  Everything since is just reaction to our evils.  Our hands are soiled more than the Russian's.  We should just let go of all this and all empire.  It does nobody any good except for the Military Industrial Complex, is already horrible destructive to everything including our true security, reputation, and future, and could destroy the planet.

The most important indictment so far relates to the initial creation of the phony document which initially promoted the Russiagate story.  One of the most important revelations is how the FBI was apparently misused for political investigation into the Trump campaign based on a similar phony story.

The Russian "troll farm" would have been a laughable attempt to change the election, if that's what it was.  Only a few dollars of Facebook ads with "socially divisive" messages were shown before the election.  I think more likely it was a commercial experiment or a kind of polling operation to asses American attitudes.  Meanwhile we've been running 81 other countries by influence of many kinds, including coups and invasions, at the expense of trillions of dollars for decades.  Especially including Russia, where we propped up Yeltsin and hammered them with the "shock therapy" we strongarmed them into.*  Putin has been the most independent Russian in a long time, hence our relentless attacks on him through the media and otherwise, leading to Russiagate...the ultimate story so far.  Within his borders he's been mostly no worse than most US Presidents, and he's been especially restrained (good) compared to us outside his borders.  Meanwhile he may well be historic Russian hero, in standing up for Russian independence.  He's certainly been more popular in his country than our Presidents have been in ours.  It's hard to get this story over to most of my friends who have lived their lives in a controlled media vortex constantly hammering the message that we must save the world from Russian evil, especially Putin.

(*In many ways, the collapse of the Soviet Union had been a western aim for decades, and I believe a mostly untold story is also how we gave the final pushes too.  So, in reality, it was another US backed coup.  The stories are out there, but I've never seen anyone else use the word coup.  Gorbachev himself has often been thought to be too US friendly...hence deeply unpopular.  During his leadership, he might well have saved the world, even if ultimately at the expense of his historic regime and empire.  So I honor him, but also despise his Russian neoliberal domestic policies--pushed by the US.)

Robert Parry's death was a terrible loss.  He exposed the whole Russiagate flim flam in every impeccable story.  You couldn't question either his integrity or his accuracy, he'd been proven correct time after time in the past.  IMO he was the greatest journalist of all time.

His best relief now appears to be Caitlin Johnstone.  She tells the Russiagate stories best, though not yet with the authoritativeness of Parry.

Now The Intercept has fallen into the Russiagate trap.  They've adopted Risen, who may be a kind of hero for standing for protecting his (likely deep state) sources in an important story relating to the false claims against Iraq before we illegally initiated a war on them.  That was good.  But as someone who could even be allowed to write for the militaristic Grey Lady, he's basically swallowed much of the insider neocon groupthink.  Russia must be more evil than us.

Greenwald tries to write more critical, nuanced, balanced in his dancing with the Russiagate story.  He quite probably knows a wide section of the antiwar left is already on to the scam.

But he's not close to being balanced, actually.  Russiagate is really the story of the Neocon conspiracy to create US war with Russia.  That story goes back to the Russian Revolution of 1917, if not before.

If ever reporting a Russian misdeed...it should be put into the full context of US war crimes...and in every case pales in significance.

Real Anti Semitism

Real Violent Anti Semitism does exist, and may be a motive for the Douglas High School Shooting. says Natalie Lifson on Medium.

Indeed, it is terrible, and worse than useless in every way.

Does it justify the dispossession of another people from their land and sovereignty?  No, of course not.

It deserves exposure and denunciation, and in cases like this...the maximum sentence.

It also shows the general need for...greater love.  For everyone and always.

I was greatly put off recently reading someone opine that when Jesus said "Love your enemies," he didn't mean ALL enemies.

Of course I'm no historical or theological expert on Jesus, nor a Christian, but I do respect my version of "christian" ethics in which Enemies means All Your Enemies including your Worst Enemies.

I think it's worse than dangerous to start excluding from your love.  Soon it's restricted to the house next door, then not even that.

Love does not mean always mean a particular set of things, in some cases love may require killing people or things like people or pre-people like fetuses.  Unwanted fetuses Should Be terminated.  People seeking death due to terminal illness should be terminated.  Excess animals need to be terminated.  However, I believe life without parole is better than capital punishment for crimes, even war crimes and terrorist ones.

Love means prisoners should not be treated as slaves, and deprived of books and the like.

Real anti-semitism may or may not use "conspiracy theories."  I don't think that casts doubt, necessarily, and conspiracy theorism.  I don't believe that conspiracy theorism, unless it explicitly makes sui generis anti-semitic racial claims, qualifies as anti-semitism.  Real violent anti-semitism might occasionally use logic too, though it seems to me more lacking in it.

I denounce all such violent acts, have never injured any person, nor even wrestled anyone for decades.  It horrified me when a best friend was accustomed to weekly fights with his older brother, accepting that as normal.

I can see, in principle, in true times of war and when revolution is inevitable immediately, violence may be called for.  But I do not own a gun and would not own a gun.  I'd rather have my own life taken than be responsible for the unjust death of another person...or my same person (a majority of shootings is suicides).

This, however, is not a time of war, except by imperial designs.  We could end this war mainly by unilateral military withdrawal from the rest of the world.  And that's what we should do, now.

It shows the moral bankruptcy of one and all political identities that others are distanced, rather than brought in.

That, accompanied by a shift to radical socialism, would end real violent anti-semitism more than anything else.

Sometimes the best outcome comes through seeking to love, rather than confront.

In fact, it is my belief, that seeking to love always has the best outcome.

Which is also, as I understand it, what the Torah of Judaism always commands.  Actually, Jesus saying was not at all unique.  Many major religions made the same commandment.

It's the Zionists who want to have the Jewish ethnic identity, for socially corrupt reasons, without the commandments of Judaism itself--which tend to discourage such corruption and encourage partnership rather than domination.  I think the anti-Zionist Orthodox are sticking with the real Judaism, and I applaud them.

And I should know, because I'm the expert in Everything!

text or video and/or audio

For self-directed information gathering, nothing beats text.  That's why I spend so many hours reading website articles, comment sections, and blogs.  And searching, and I confess reading Quora and * Exchange.

I can barely bear on my own time to watch TV, movies, anything.  It's all too slow, from the standpoint of what I want to know.

Though it is true a picture may be worth 1000 words.  That's when you desire, or need, to have 1000 words directed at you, like a firehose, taking over your mind.  That's what video does by it's nature.  You must submit to it, and it kinda takes over.  Rude is the guest who talks while every else it watching the picture.

With modern production styles, vido can indeed be extreme information overload.  But it's not all the information you are seeking.  It's being blown at you with high pressure.  You have many choices, but they are all useless choices, 1000 channels of shit, none really goes exactly where you want, or even very close.

Channels and programs survive by locking you in, shutting everything else out.  So they pull every trick to keep you locked in.

To bear listening to such, for me, almost requires human company.  I can watch TV, movies, documentaries, clips with someone else, by myself it's a drag.  I can only have video screens running as "background video", without the sound track that...most of all it turns out...locks you in.

And then you have the traditional promo.  That promises a lot and then gives you endless background story before concluding...you need to buy the product to know more.

I can barely stand to hear the beginning of an advertisement, I don't like long announcements either, for the longest time I tried in vain to find a satellite music provider that would play with no announcements at all.

Now you can program songs in any order you choose, from an endless collection, what could be better?  Well it could be better not to have to make any choices, what you like or would like to discover would just play, but that never presents itself without some form of "announcement."  I've come to accept this.  Now I can get channels of music on Dish network, but the premise is that you are viewing the program names on TV.  Those names just have to be getting to you, in multiple ways if possible.  Somehow it all seems less important to me now, I can tune out a low level of plain talking.

The easy background sound I most often prefer is plain old FM radio, and I can change presets with my remote control.  Old fashioned but still the best background for me, mostly thanks to noncommercial radio stations in the low end of the band.  Easily kept from taking over your mind, and if not, the channel can be changed.  When I can't find anything on radio, I can let Pandora decide what to play.

If not the murder, what was Oswald doing???

What was Oswald doing?  Did he also intend to shoot the President?  Did he actually shoot from the window and why?

I've long felt the reason was to create an incident, which somehow could be blamed on Cubans.  Not to kill the president.  He was operating under rouge CIA supervision.  Not actual tasked agents, but people who had been long used and had lots of agreeable and agreeing friends. The CIA calls Clay Shaw a "private businessman," but admits he had continuing CIA contacts.  People like him wanted to force the president to invade Cuba.  He had friends all the way up to the still powerful now dismissed and angrier than ever Alan Dulles.  CIA and CIA rogues do this kind of false flag operation a lot.  However, for Oswald himself, this time it was a set up.  He was starting to get afraid of what might happen.  There may have been a second to do the job using Oswald's gun, just in case he started to figure it all out beforehand.

While he was planning to create "an incident" another group of real trained, efficient, and completely trustworthy assassins, not crank deep state properties like Oswald, basically supplied by the mob, specifically Meyer Lansky, took the opportunity to make it more than just an incident.  They had lots of known supporters in key places, and Lansky himself wanted it as much or more than any.

As Oswald or the second shooter was going to be a "pro-cuba crank" if caught, he only had a cheap gun he bought himself.  Obviously it would not be something traceable to the Deep State.  But possibly all that Oswald did was drop off the gun.  It's quite probably Oswald had a story which would exhonerate himself.  He obviously didn't do it.  Once he could see it was a set up after Kennedy got killed, he knew his life would be worth less than nothing to the mob.  They wouldn't trust him not to squeal and blow the whole Presidential Assassination operation.  That's why he fled the scene promptly to get away from association with the assassination, and actually hoping to get seriously arrested to get local Police protection from the mob--but as an amateur he went too far.

To the mob, leaving this open fire hydrant was too risky, after a day of questioning Oswald was jovial and claimed they hadn't even talked about the Kennedy assassination.  On cue, Jack Ruby, a long time local chief and functionary of top mobster Meyer Lansky, rubs him out, before Oswald needs serious defense and before Oswald can get any story about the Kennedy Assassination out.

The basic form of the story is pretty easy to imagine, it seems almost essential, and yet I'd never heard it said as simply as this.

One of these mob shooters was the lucky guy, who shot just after the Oswald "incident", from the straight, clear, and perfect shot from the grassy knoll.  Lucky or not, as it were.  There were probably shots from other shooters too, one government funded university study (later discredited by FBI) said as many as 6 shooters.  The best specific person story I've heard has numerous books and videos by a Dutch investigator.  The confessor spent much of his time in prison after that...but for other crimes...only confessing in his last few years, on video you can buy.  One slight issue with this story, is that it is not at all unique, many prisoners have "confessed" to killing Kennedy, except there is only one confession video I know of.  But also, more than one of these confessions could be correct, as far as the individual shooter knew.