I am using today’s column to print my recorded interview
with a USS LIBERTY survivor. This man is a friend of mine. His name is Ron Kukal.
CB: Amazing. So you perceive that this
infatuation that most Christians have with the State of Israel is misplaced?
- “Trump Wields Signing Statements, Carves Up Defense Bill” ( The American Conservative)
- “U.S.-backed Saudi Airstrike On Family With Nine Children Shows “Clear Violations” Of The Laws Of War” (The Intercept)
- James Clapper testimony
- 1973 Chilean coup d’état
- “Inside Yemen’s secret prisons” ( news.com.au)
- “The Houthis Are Not Hezbollah” (foreignpolicy.com)
- “Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia” ( The American Conservative)
welcome
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Under the rubric of Zionism, the dispossession of Palestinians and annexation of their land has for decades been hidden in plain sight, along with Israeli apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Though tourism flows in steadily to "The Holy Land," masking these egregious past and present events from scrutiny, has been and is nothing short of Orwellian. The Zionist state of Israel is a totalitarian state, whose ideologues' sentiments match those advocating world government. As Rev. Chuck Baldwin exclaims, "For all intents and purposes, the Globalist agenda (the New World Order, call it what you will) and the Zionist agenda, are one and the same." The Trump Jones Deception 2, demonstrates this fact, and the way in which both Donald Trump and Alex Jones are a part of it. https://israel.lookintoit.org Uncompressed Version Here:
(Excerpt) U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler (1881—1940) — a Congressional Medal of Honor winner who could never be accused of being a pacifist and the author of : War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force — the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. Butler also recognized the mental effect of military service: Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
The Corbett Report First published at 13:16 UTC on January 22nd, 2020 SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=34783 Have you heard of Major General Smedley Butler? If not, you might want to ask yourself why that is. As one of the most highly decorated Marines in the history of the US Marine Corps and as a passionate and eloquent speaker about the racket that is war, Smedley Butler deserves to be a household name. Find out more in today's edition of Questions For Corbett.
LibertyFellowshipMT This message was preached by Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Sunday, May 26, 2019, during the service at Liberty Fellowship. To purchase a copy of this message or to support the fellowship, please visit LibertyFellowshipMT.com.
A Righteous, Honorable
Death: Not All Men Share It LibertyFellowshipMT | May 31, 2021 This message was preached by Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Sunday, May 30, 2021, during the service at
Liberty Fellowship.
"And when you look at the key
people in The Order "...Out of conflict you've got profit, you've got political power, and you can direct history.
And if you look at the writings for example of the Trilateral Commission, they talk openly in the Trilateral
Commission -- Antony C. Sutton --
"...What is really going on today is all based on deception. There is a small group of people who are of course financing our so called enemies to rally the people behind government, and that is intent on plunging the world into World War III. And the whole idea is to get the Muslims, and the Jews, and the Christians to destroy one another. And of course that's covered in my February 2007 newsletter where we simply quote the writings of Alice Bailey who was a mystic who actually channeled some twenty-five books from a demonic spirit named Djwal Khul. And in several of her books she talks about the necessity of precipitating this great final battle of mankind where the Jews, and the Christians, and the Muslims destroy one another. And after that will come The New World Order."
Summary
The War of Terror is A CIA-Sponsored PsyOp corbettreport While people on both sides of the phoney left/right divide squabble over terrorist boogeymen and
Trump's CIA chief gives Saudi Arabia an award for "counter"terrorism, everyone has lost sight of the bigger
picture: The blithering morons who are the face of international terror are aided, funded, controlled and handled
by the intelligence agencies. It is all part of the con to get you scared of your own shadow so the
terror-industrial complex can laugh all the way to the bank. Today James
War on Terror: Greatest Covert Op http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/083110b.html
Secret Wars of the CIA John Stockwell A lecture by John Stockwell given in December, 1989 on the inner workings of the national
security council and the CIA's covert actions in Angola, Central America and Vietnam.
I R A Q
UNDERSTAND THE BIG PICTURE HERE: General Summary/Crash Course
BEYOND TREASON
Documentary Synopsis: Department of Defense documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act expose the horrific underworld of the disposable army mentality and the government funded experimentation upon US citizens conducted without their knowledge or consent. The history of U.S. government use of Depleted Uranium munitions in Iraq and its effects on the Iraqi people and our troops. UNMASKING SECRET MILITARY
PROJECTS:
Why We Fight is a 2005 documentary film about the military–industrial complex directed by Eugene Jarecki. The title refers to the World War II-era eponymous propaganda movies commissioned by the U.S. Government to justify their decision to enter the war against the Axis Powers. Why We Fight was first screened at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival on January 17, 2005, exactly forty-four years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address. Although it won the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary, it received a limited public cinema release on January 22, 2006, and then was released on DVD on June 27, 2006, by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. The documentary also won one of the 2006 Grimme Awards in the competition “Information & Culture”; the prize is one of Germany’s most prestigious for television productions and a Peabody Award in 2006. Synopsis: Why We Fight describes the rise and maintenance of the United States military–industrial complex and its 50-year involvement with the wars led by the United States to date, especially its 2003 invasion of Iraq. The documentary asserts that in every decade since World War II, the American public was misled so that the government (incumbent Administration) could take them to war and fuel the military-industrial economy maintaining American political dominance in the world. Interviewed about this matter are politician John McCain, political scientist and former CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson, politician Richard Perle, neoconservative commentator William Kristol, writer Gore Vidal, and public policy expert Joseph Cirincione. Why We Fight documents the consequences of said foreign policy with the stories of a Vietnam War veteran whose son was killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks, and who then asked the military to write the name of his dead son on any bomb to be dropped in Iraq; a 23-year-old New Yorker who enlists in the United States Army because he was poor and in debt, his decision impelled by his mother’s death; and a military explosives scientist (Anh Duong) who arrived in the U.S. as a refugee child from Vietnam in 1975.
Libertarian policy scholars and bloggers talked about various aspects of their push for less government. They discussed fiscal policy, conscientious objection to compulsory military service, and the financing of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. SPEAKERS: Paul-Martin Foss Brian McGlinchey is a Founder for the 28Pages.org with one video in the C-SPAN Video Library; the first appearance was a 2016 Forum. On the C-SPAN Networks: On the C-SPAN Networks:
A recent poll asked Americans if they felt America actually was an empire. Forty percent said "No." Lawrence
Vance alleges the U.S. is the largest empire in the history of the world, dwarfing the British, Ottoman, and
Roman empires in size and scope. Prof. Jerry Kroth looks at the delusion and denial rampant within the American
population on this issue, examining our 55 military interventions since World War II, our long and close
relationship with dictators, juntas, and monarchs in building our empire, our military presence in over 130
countries of the world (70% of the planet) and what life might look like if we actually dismantled it. This
lecture is based on Dr. Kroth's book Implosion: delusion, denial, and the prospect of collapse. - Jerry Kroth,
Oct 16, 2012
The Corbett Report Official LBRY Channel
What was World War One about? How did it start? Who won? And what did they win? Now, 100 years after those final shots rang out, these questions still puzzle historians and laymen alike. But as we shall see, this confusion is not a happenstance of history but the wool that has been pulled over our eyes to stop us from seeing what WWI really was. This is the story of WWI that you didn’t read in the history books. This is The WWI Conspiracy.
An Open Letter to the Troops: You’re Not Defending Our
Freedoms Dear Troops:
Nothing could be further from the truth. Those people are just repeating tired old mantras. The reality is that you are not defending our freedoms with your actions overseas. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Your actions overseas are placing our freedoms here at home in ever-greater jeopardy. Consider your occupation of Iraq, a country that, as you know, never attacked the United States, making it the defender in the war and the United States the aggressor. Think about that: Every single person that the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Yet, the countless victims of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have friends and relatives, many of whom have become filled with anger and rage and who now would stop at nothing to retaliate with terrorist attacks against Americans. Pray tell: How does that constitute defending our freedoms? It was no different prior to 9/11. At the end of the Persian Gulf War, the troops intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water and sewage facilities after a Pentagon study showed that this would help spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people. It worked. For 11 years after that, the troops enforced the cruel and brutal sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. (See “America’s Peacetime Crimes against Iraq” by Anthony Gregory.) You’ll recall U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.” By “it” she meant the attempted ouster of Saddam Hussein from power. You will recall that he was a dictator who was the U.S. government’s ally and partner during the 1980s, when the United States was furnishing him with those infamous WMDs that U.S. officials later used to excite the American people into supporting your invasion of Iraq. The truth is that 9/11 furnished U.S. officials with the excuse to do what their sanctions (and the deaths of all those Iraqi children) had failed to accomplish: ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a U.S-approved regime. That’s what your post-9/11 invasion of Iraq was all about — to achieve the regime change that the pre-9/11 deadly sanctions that killed all those children had failed to achieve. No, not mushroom clouds, not freedom, not democracy, and certainly not defending our freedoms here at home. Just plain old regime change. In the process, all that you — the troops — have done with your invasion and occupation of Iraq is produce even more enmity toward the United States by people in the Middle East, especially those Iraqis who have lost loved ones or friends in the process or simply watched their country be destroyed. In principle, it’s no different with Afghanistan. I’d estimate that 99 percent of the people the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in that country had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Why did you invade Afghanistan or, more precisely, why did President Bush order you to do so? No, not because the Taliban participated in the 9/11 attacks and, no, not because the Taliban were even aware that the attacks were going to take place President Bush ordered the troops to invade Afghanistan — and, of course, kill Afghan citizens in the process — because the Afghan government – the Taliban — refused to comply with his unconditional extradition demand. You will recall that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to an independent tribunal to stand trial upon the receipt of evidence from the United States indicating his complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Bush responded to the Taliban’s offer by issuing his order to the troops to invade Afghanistan, kill Afghans, and occupy the country. In the process, U.S. officials installed one of the most crooked, corrupt, and dictatorial rulers it could find to govern the country, one who is so incompetent he cannot even hide the manifest fraud by which he has supposedly been elected to office. In the process of installing and defending the Karzai regime, the troops have killed brides, grooms, children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, and countrymen, most of whom never attacked the United States on 9/11 or at any other time. They simply became “collateral damage” or “bad guys” for having the audacity to oppose the invasion and occupation of their country by a foreign regime. (It should be noted for the record that U.S. officials considered these types of “bad guys,” as well as Osama bin Laden and other fundamentalist Muslims, to be “good guys” when they were trying to oust Soviet troops from Afghanistan.) Was there another way to bring bin Laden to justice? Yes, the criminal-justice route, which was the route used after the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. That’s right. Same target, different date. In fact, the accused terrorists — Ramzi Yousef in 1993 and Osama bin Laden in 2001 — were ultimately located in the same country, Pakistan. In Yousef’s case, he was arrested some three years after the attack, brought back to the United States, prosecuted, and convicted in federal district court. He’s now serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary. No invasions, no bombings, no occupations, no killing of countless innocent people, no torture, no war on terrorism, and no anger and rage that such actions inevitably would have produced among the victims, their families, and friends. In bin Laden’s case, we instead got a military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, where the troops have killed, maimed, tortured, and hurt countless people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. How in the world have your invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq defended our freedoms here at home? Indeed, how have the assassinations and bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and who knows where else defended our freedoms? All these things have accomplished is keeping foreigners angry at us, thereby subjecting us to the constant and ever-growing threat of terrorist retaliation here at home. As I have pointed out before, the U.S. military — that is, you, the troops — have become the biggest terrorist-producing machine in history. Every time you kill some Iraqi or Afghan citizen, even when accidental, ten more offer to take his place out of anger and rage. That’s the same thing that was happening prior to 9/11. In fact, there were some, including those of us here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, who were warning prior to 9/11 that unless the U.S. Empire stopped what it was doing to people in the Middle East (including the deadly sanctions on Iraq, the support of Middle East dictators, the stationing of U.S. troops near Islamic holy lands, and the unconditional money and armaments to the Israeli regime), Americans would be increasingly subject to terrorist attacks. On 9/11, we were proven right, unfortunately. (See Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson.) How does the constant threat of terrorist retaliation arising from your actions in Iraq and Afghanistan make us freer here at home, especially when you — the troops — are responsible for engendering the anger and rage that culminates in such threats, owing to what you are doing to people over there? Consider also what the U.S. government does to our freedoms here at home as a direct consequence of the terrorist threat that you, the troops, are producing over there. It uses that threat of terrorism to infringe upon our freedoms here at home! You know what I mean — the fondling at the airports, the 10-year-old Patriot Act, the illegal spying on Americans, the indefinite detention, the torture, the kangaroo tribunals, Gitmo, and the entire war on terrorism — all necessary, they tell us, to keep us safe from the terrorists — that is, the people you all are producing with your actions over there. In other words, if you all weren’t producing an endless stream of terrorists with your invasions, occupations, torture, assassinations, bombings, and Gitmo, the U.S. government — the entity you are working for — would no longer have that excuse for taking away our freedoms. This past Sunday, the Washington Post carried an article about American wives who were recently greeting their husbands on their return from Afghanistan. Newlywed Anne Krolicki, 24, commented to her husband on the death of one of her friends’ husband: “It’s a pointless war,” she said. That lady has her head on straight. She’s has a grip on reality, doesn’t deal in tired old mantras, and speaks the truth. Every U.S. soldier who dies in Iraq and Afghanistan dies for nothing, which was the same thing that some 58,000 men of my generation died for in Vietnam. Please don’t write me to tell me that you all are good people or that you’re “patriots” for simply following whatever orders you are given. All that is irrelevant. What matters is what you are doing over there. And what you are doing is not defending our freedoms, you are jeopardizing them.
I was at the Washington Nationals baseball game yesterday. Whenever I attend a Nats game, there is an air of militarism surrounding the game, but attending on Memorial Day helps to remind us what a truly militarized society America has become. After all, what in the world does baseball, a quite peaceful and enjoyable pastime, have to do with America’s countless foreign wars, which have killed, tortured, and maimed millions of people? One of the most fascinating aspects to U.S. militarism is the bromide that has infected the minds of so many Americans: that U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives or limbs in foreign wars to “defend our freedom” here at home. Not surprisingly, it was repeated at the Nationals game yesterday. People who came to watch a baseball game were asked to remember the sacrifices, including deaths, that American servicemen have made in the “defense of our freedom.” Why do I find that fascinating? Two reasons: first, The bromide is palpably false, and, second, it is a testament to the power of state to indoctrinate the citizenry. This is a bromide that is inculcated into every child, from the time he reaches six years of age and heads into the public (i.e., government) school system. By the time the kid reaches his teen years, the indoctrination is taking hold. By the time he becomes an adult, the indoctrination is complete. In fact, the indoctrination is so perfect that actually it doesn’t matter what the troops are doing overseas. Whatever they are doing is automatically considered to be “defending our freedom.” Consider a hypothetical. Suppose there is some country thousands of miles away that is minding its own business. There are no attacks on the United States or even threats to attack the United States. The only problem is that the regime is not sufficiently submissive to the U.S. government. The U.S. government decides to invade the country and install a pro-U.S. regime. The troops are sent into battle. Some are killed. Countless more people are killed on the other side. There is no doubt that millions of Americans will automatically conclude that those U.S. troops killed and died “defending our freedom,” notwithstanding the fact that our freedom was never at risk. Remember: that hypothetical country never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Yet, many Americans will nonetheless honor their brave and courageous soldiers who died or lost arms or legs while “defending our freedom.” It is how the indoctrinated mind works. How can I be so certain that that’s the way many Americans would react to that hypothetical situation? Because that’s what happened with Iraq, a country whose government never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Thus, not one single U.S. soldier died in Iraq “defending our freedom” because our freedom was never threatened by Iraq. The same holds true for the 58,000 plus American soldiers who died in the Vietnam War. North Vietnam was engaged in a civil war against South Vietnam. At no time did North Vietnam attack or invade the United States. It had no interest in doing so and, anyway, it lacked the military capability to do so. The U.S. government invaded Vietnam and embroiled itself in its civil war. At no time were the freedoms of the American people threatened by the North Vietnamese. The American troops who were sent to the deaths in Vietnam did not die in the defense of our freedom here at home. The same is true for the tens of thousands of American men who were sent to their deaths in the Korean War. North Korea never attacked or invaded the United States or even threatened to do so. American freedom here at home was never threatened. Thus, those U.S. soldiers in Korea did not die defending our freedom. What about the soldiers who died in the U.S. invasion of Panama or Grenada? Again, Panama and Granada never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Those troops did not die in the defense of our freedom. World War I? At no time did Germany or Austria-Hungary attack the United States or even threaten to do so. The Great War was a war between empires, one that never endangered the freedom of the American people. The U.S. government simply chose to intervene in that conflict in the hopes of “making the world safe for democracy” and to “end all wars.” Those U.S. soldiers who died in World War I did not die defending our freedom. What about the so-called “good war”—World War II. While Japan attacked U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, the attack was a direct consequence of President Roosevelt’s repeated attempts to induce Japan to attack the United States to fulfill his wish to get the United States into the war. FDR had imposed an oil embargo on Japan, frozen Japanese bank accounts in the United States, and imposed humiliating terms in pre-war negotiations with Japan, all with the aim of getting Japan to “fire the first shot” so that the United States could get into the war. Japan never had the aim or the military means of invading and occupying the United States and depriving the American people of their freedom. What about Nazi Germany? It desired to avoid war with the United States, which is why FDR used Japan as a “back door” to war. The only reason Germany declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor was to fulfill its treaty obligations to Japan. Before England declared war on Germany, it was clear that Hitler was moving east toward the Soviet Union, not west toward the United States. Moreover, since Germany lacked the military means to cross the English Channel and invade England, how in the world would it cross the Atlantic Ocean and invade the United States? Moreover, consider the aftermath of World War II: East Germany and Eastern Europe and China all under communist control. Isn’t that what American soldiers actually died for—so that the communists, rather than the Nazis or Japanese, could control those parts of the world? Even if one finds that a worthy thing to die for, it’s a far cry from dying in the defense of our freedom here at home. Oh, I almost forgot Afghanistan. No, al-Qaeda was never going to invade and occupy the United States and take away our freedom. Neither was the Taliban. The 9/11 attacks were retaliation for actions taken by the U.S. government in the Middle East prior to 9/11. The Taliban government never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. The truth, as discomforting as it is, is that the many U.S soldiers who have been sacrificed in America’s countless foreign wars did not die defending our freedom. That’s nothing more than a false bromide used to justify America’s never-ending foreign wars. When enough people break through the indoctrination, as libertarians have, the bromide will no longer have the power it does over people’s minds. At that point, maybe Americans will be free to enjoy baseball games and other sporting events without all the militarism attached to them.
Yesterday, I received an email from an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Alaska, Margaret Stock, which pointed out that she is a retired Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and a former professor at West Point. In her email, Stock stated that she had served alongside and mentored soldiers “who have given their lives for our country.” It would be difficult for me to find anything more nonsensical than that. Does she really mean what she says? Or is it just political pabulum? Show me U.S. one soldier — just one — in the past 65 years who has died for his country or, as others assert, in the defense of our freedoms here at home. You can’t do it. Most of those soldiers died because officials within the national-security branch of the federal government ordered to go to some foreign country thousands of miles away, where they were placed in a position of kill or be killed. In fact, many of them were first conscripted (i.e., seized) and then ordered to deploy. Some soldiers volunteered to go and fight in order to improve their chances for promotion. During the Vietnam War I knew of an Air Force colonel who volunteered to go to Vietnam because he was convinced that that was the only way he could make general. I also knew of several officers who were trying to get to Vietnam in the waning stages of the war to pad their combat resumes. One thing is for certain: Contrary to what Stock asserts, the deployment of U.S. troops in wars for the past 65 years have had nothing to do with defending America or the freedom of the American people for one simple reason: America and American freedom were never under attack. Suppose that U.S. troops had not gotten involved in the Korean War in the early 1950s. Ask yourself: How many Americans would have voluntarily traveled to Korea and helped the South Koreans defeat the North Korean communists? Answer: Zero! None! Not one single American would have done that, even if President Truman and his national-security establishment had pointed out the dangers that international communism posed to America. Suppose the U.S. national-security establishment had never invaded Vietnam and simply decided to stay out of that country’s civil war. Suppose President Johnson, the Pentagon, and the CIA told Americans that a victory by North Vietnam would pose a grave threat to U.S. national security because the dominoes would begin falling to the communists, with the big domino (the United States) ultimately falling to the Reds. How many Americans would have traveled to South Vietnam and joined up with South Vietnamese forces to help them prevent a communist victory? Answer: Zero! None! Not one single American would have gone to fight the commies in Vietnam. Suppose George H.W. Bush had refused to involve his army in his war against Iraq in 1991, but had exhorted Americans to travel to the Middle East and join up with forces that were attempting to reverse Iraq’s (i.e., Saddam Hussein’s) invasion of Kuwait. Suppose that Bush had told Americans that while the U.S. government had partnered with Saddam during the 1980s in his war on Iran, Saddam had since become a “new Hitler” who threatened the world. How many Americans would have traveled to the Middle East to join up with forces attempting to liberate Kuwait from Saddam? Answer: None! Zip! Suppose George W. Bush had declined to invade Afghanistan and Iraq after the 9/11 attacks but instead simply put out an arrest warrant and bounty for Osama bin Laden. How many Americans would have traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq to oust the Taliban and Saddam Hussein from power? Answer: None. The only ones who would have gone over there would have been the ones looking for bin Laden in the hopes of collecting a large bounty. If the U.S. government evacuated the Middle East and Afghanistan today, how many Americans would travel to Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria or the rest of the Middle East to fight ISIS and prevent it from taking over those countries? Answer: Not one single one, including the infamous neocons who continue to tell us that “national security” is at stake. In fact, if all U.S. troops were ordered to withdraw from that part of the world today, not one single U.S. soldier, including officers and enlisted men, would seek to resign from the U.S. military and travel to Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent ISIS and the Taliban from winning and taking control in that part of the world. So, does all that mean that the American people are cowards? That they are only courageous when it comes to sending the troops to do the fighting for them? That they’re not willing to put their lives on the line in the defense of their country? That they’re not willing to defend their own freedom and the freedom and security of their family members and countrymen? No, it doesn’t mean any of those things. It simply means that the American people are not stupid. The reason they wouldn’t have traveled to South Korea or South Vietnam and helped them to defeat the communists is simply because giving their lives in a civil war thousands of miles away wasn’t worth it to them. If someone had told them that a communist victory in Korea or Vietnam could mean that the Reds would ultimately take over the federal government and run the IRS, they would have summarily rejected that notion as ridiculous. The same holds true for the Middle East and Afghanistan today. Deep down, every American knows that it’s not going to make one whit of difference, insofar as the United States is concerned, if ISIS wins or if the Taliban wins. If they really believed that America’s existence and freedom were at stake, you’d see Americans traveling over there and volunteering to help the Iraqi and Afghan armies. Oh, for sure, most (but certainly not all) Americans would have sympathized with the South Koreans and the South Vietnamese but they never would have gone over there to commit their lives fighting a communist unification of both countries. Now, imagine that the United States were suddenly invaded by the troops of some foreign nation-state. How many Americans would come to the defense of their country, their families, and their freedom? Answer: 98 percent. Everything changes, however, when it comes to the U.S. national-security establishment, the totalitarian apparatus that came into existence with the Cold War. When the national-security establishment says that it’s imperative that U.S. military forces defeat North Korea or North Vietnam or Saddam Hussein or the Taliban or Iran or whoever, everyone hops to, clicks his heels, salutes, and automatically accepts it as gospel. People have converted the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA into their god — their idol — and heaven help anyone who dares to criticize what their warrior angels — the troops — do with respect to all those foreign interventions. Suddenly, everyone’s mindset changes. “The troops in Korea are dying for our freedom!” “The troops are dying in Vietnam for their country.” “The troops are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq for their country and our freedom.” It’s all a crock. They’re dying because the national-security state deemed it necessary to involve the United States in overseas conflicts whose participants never invaded the United States or threatened our nation or our freedom in any way. It’s been a racket since the day the national-security establishment was grafted onto our original governmental system. It’s the national-security state that has gotten America into all these unnecessary wars and conflicts. And they’re not stopping. They’re now provoking two other major nuclear powers, Russia and China. If anyone thinks that nuclear war isn’t possible, he is naïve to the extreme. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that suicides among soldiers who have experienced repeated deployments to the Middle East and Afghanistan are suffering record suicide rates. We all know about the family violence, the alcoholism, the drug addiction, and the depression that U.S. troops who have fought in that part of the world are experiencing. And of course there are the dead — the soldiers who, we are told, made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and our freedom. It’s all one great big lie, one that people feel is necessary to keep intact at all costs, just like everyone was expected to admire the emperor’s new clothes. The naked truth is that U.S. soldiers who died in all those overseas military adventures died for nothing — that is, they died for something that no American would have been willing to die for if the U.S. national-security establishment had not gotten America embroiled in those (illegal and unconstitutional) wars. As our ancestors understood so well, there will always be monsters in the world in the form of such things as tyrannical dictatorships, civil wars, and famines. (See John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address to Congress entitled “In Search of Monsters to Destroy.”) America, Adams said, would not send soldiers abroad to slay any of those dragons but instead would serve as a sanctuary for people fleeing those monsters. He also pointed out that if America ever abandoned this non-interventionist philosophy, it would inevitably change America in drastic ways, for the worse. Who can argue that he was wrong? The Cold War national-security state apparatus overturned that non-interventionist philosophy, committing America to a perpetual crusade to slay monsters overseas. That’s what every U.S. soldier has died for and sacrificed for during the past 65 years — not for freedom, not for our country but instead for such things as regime-change operations, coups, partnerships with dictators, and other vital interests of the national-security establishment, all with the aim of keeping that old Cold War dinosaur, the national security state, in perpetual existence. The sooner Americans, including the troops, acknowledge this truth, as discomforting as it might be, the better off America and the troops will be, because then we can restore a constitutional republic to our land and make America, once again, a peaceful, harmonious, prosperous, and free country. See my newest ebook: The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State. Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.
SIR! NO SIR! In the 1960’s an anti-war movement emerged that altered the course of history. This movement didn’t take place on college campuses, but in barracks and on aircraft carriers. It flourished in army stockades, navy brigs and in the dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite military colleges like West Point. And it spread throughout the battlefields of Vietnam. It was a movement no one expected, least of all those in it. Hundreds went to prison and thousands into exile. And by 1971 it had, in the words of one colonel, infested the entire armed services. Yet today few people know about the GI movement against the war in Vietnam. http://www.sirnosir.com/the_film/synopsis.html
LINKS: Pawns On The Chessboard | War Empire and the Military
"Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger -
“If soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would
remain in the army.”
Books Used In The Summary: Tragedy and Hope, The Anglo-American Establishment, War Is A Racket, 1984, Brave New World, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, Lord Milner’s Second War, Globalization and the Crucible of Global Banking, Prolonging The Agony, Propaganda, Technocracy Rising, The Sorrows of Empire, Manifest Destiny, Trilaterals Over Washington, Hidden History - The Secret Origins of The First World War, Wall Street and FDR, Between Two Ages, Transhumanism, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Trilaterals Over America, The Prince, Western Technology - Soviet Economic Development, America’s Secret Establishment, National Suicide - Military Aid To The Soviet Union, The United Nations’ Global Straitjacket, When Central Banks Rule The World, Technocracy - The Hard Road to World Order, Wall Street And The Rise of Hitler, Tragedy and Hope 101. LINK: General Summary/Crash Course
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
