Post by TT Post by lo yeeOn
John Kerry: "A lot of Americans don't believe that we should be
fighting and sending young Americans over to die in another
Nothing controversial in that statement.
Post by lo yeeOn
"young people don't want to die anymore"
Kerry didn't say that. Just some idiot stuff from Jimmy Dore, who is an
You're missing the message, man who uses a faked North Korean address.
What Jimmy Dore was saying is that it's not only true but natural for
American young men and women to _not_ want to die in another country.
Of course, who wants to? But that's exactly why China has prospered
every new year in the last several decades during which the US has
gone down and down!
(Otherwise, why do you think Trump won the election? Russian hacking?
Don't be naive, the meekness of Obama's retaliation on the excuse that
Russia hacked our election has totally discredited that narrative!)
Fighting those neocon wars, even with other people's lives, is deeply
And that's why the US has not only seen itself in economical decline,
but also in decline in medicine, science and engineering.
The things that make us rich these days are social media like Reid
Hoffman's LinkedIn and endless consolidations like Oracle's Safra
Catz. They always say, this stuff makes money off advertising. But
what are they advertising? More LinkedIn related stuff and more
While consolidation is a part of the free-market system, the dizzying
number of them in the hand of those who have tens of billions and have
the "credit" score to close the deal is a sign of unwellness of this
The shift from a manufacturing to a service economy avoids the reality
that we're not making tangible things of value. And the ruling class
pretends that there is not a problem by focusing on creating chaos out
there and fighting multiple shifting enemies.
Why should the Washington Post be worth billions? Advertising?
Bullshit! Once its faux news has gotten hold, its readership will
decline and besides, 99% of online advertising is unproductive deceit.
Why would anyone want to look at an Amazon ad advertising a 150 dollar
Prime-brand book, not to mention want to buy it?
The Washington Post was worth billions because Jeff Bezos thought that
his wealth could give him power to influence the politics.
But it is not a sign of health that the US should have a bunch of
these types of tycoons influencing politics while we are outsourcing
When every president in the United States in modern history is so
interested in warfare but so deficient in their science education, you
can understand why Jimmy Dore said John McCain and John Kerry should
go fight the wars they're advocating - instead of lamenting the fact
that young people no longer want to die anymore.
These people clearly do not have the sort of sound mind that comes
with a decent education. Why would they think that young people of
any age ever want to die?
So, you're correct in saying that there is nothing controversial about
people not wanting to die. But with your fake North Korea address,
you're defending the indefensible.
John McCain and Linsey Graham were in fact at the frontier of conflict
in Donbass yesterday ... as a "gesture" for something.
But what is that something? It's so muddled that you have to wonder
how Russia's hack of US election has anything to do with the cruel
life of a soldier at the war frontier in Ukraine. Jimmy Dore was
right. They should go there and fight themselves. And I say they
should at least spend a year at the war frontier in Donbass to get a
taste of the real war - not the bombing missions that McCain flew
(before he ineptly got captured) from the comfort of an American base
to bomb the civilian infrastruture in Vietnam as well as the green
forests of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. And Graham's own military
service record is even more ridiculous.
McCain has said that US must stand up to Putin and Linsey Graham
himself has said that he wanted Putin to pay. And so what did Obama
manage to do?
Citing a joint-statement from the heads of a bunch of US spy agencies
or something like that and a piece of Washington-Post fake news about
a Burlington Vermont utility company's electricity grid having been
hacked, which was done without even getting a company's response
first, Obama expelled 3 dozen Russian diplomats! So, even the neocons
like McCain and Graham are in hard times.
These deluded neocons can't make Putiin pay, why? It's because they
are pursuing a fake narrative - that they lost (because their reliable
representative Hillary has lost the election) because Putin hacked the
election. But the grid of the utility company in Vermont wasn't
hacked - WP was full of bull! And only a single laptop was infected -
with a malware which was traced to a hacking source in Ukraine!
So, I don't know why you didn't like the Jimmy Dore show when
everything about these neocon warmongers is so farcical and,
especially, when I actually thought the story was hilarious.
The main point of my post is this: If you type this string
"john kerry young people don't want to die"
into a google search, you'll see at least three million hits. And
many on the top page of results refers to Jimmy Dore. So, why do
people resonate with him? I think it's because of the view being
expressed by the Secretary of State.
Of course, many people already know how the US government meddles in
other countries' affairs and regularly uses brutal means to change
their governments - using such slogans as democracy, freedom,
education, women's rights ... you name it.
The context of the audio is of course significant because it was not
supposed to be broadcast. So, John Kerry was speaking kind of
"frankly", like the subject line says:
"If you're for educating women, you should be for bombing ISIS
because ISIS do not educate their women" ...
"the problem is young people don't want to die [anymore]".
Even if the word "anymore" never came out of John Kerry's mouth, it is
the only way anyone who has heard the audio can summarize what he
actually said in that 36 minute long conversation.
By the way, what Dore said is not so much a condemnation of Kerry
himself - because after all he was speaking quite frankly to the
rebels who dream of a goal for Syria that the US government in the
last 8 years have increasingly shown signs of resisting.
But this is what he repeatedly said: The US position was hand-tied
because the Congress did not authorize a boots-on-the-ground bill, we
don't have a UN resolution like Kosovo, and [after Libya], the Obama
administration decided not to mess with the "R2P" type of "legal
theory"... for Syria.
Yes, in the old days, we had UN resolutions for a variety of wars we
launched in other countries. And yes, we even got the UNSC to agree
that we could deploy NATO "to protect" the Libyans in a "mission
creep" process to oust Gaddafi. But no!, at least the Obama
administration decided that Libya was the last of this type of
nonsense he wanted to participate in.
(And yes, I have to give Obama credit for accepting the life line
Putin threw him when we were about to rain missiles into Damascus -
man, wouldn't it have been horrible!)
So, how do you encapsulate this change of attitude as well as the
The word most people, including Jimmy Dore and myself, would use is
That is in the old days, young Americans were available to die in
foreign wars - but not any more, at least under Obama vis-a-vis Syria.
And that's the story. Methinks, that thou hast protested too much.
In any case, Kerry was speaking as the head of the State Department, a
monstrous organization which wreaks havoc around the world year after
year, using outrageous excuses such as
"If you're for educating women, you should be for bombing ISIS
because ISIS do not educate their women" ...
And of course he was in some way forced to speak the uncomfortable
truth about the US government's propensity to prosecute violent regime
change against other countries as the head of the State Department.
In that capacity, he admitted early on that he was for overthrowing
Assad - except for the fact that his hands were tied by "the problem
is young people don't want to die [anymore]". (Without the "anymore",
we would miss all the things that Kerry said but are at the core of
his conversation with the rebels.)
0) Kerry's leaked audio
The audio was originally leaked to NY Times in late September. CNN,
which is the source ((http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/01/pol...)) for
the audio posted here, has since chosen to remove it.
Kerry was heard saying:
"And we've been fighting ... How many wars have we been fighting?
We've been fighting in Afghanistan, we've been fighting in Iraq, and
we've been fighting, you know, in the region for 14 years. A lot of
Americans don't believe that we should be fighting and sending in
Americans over to die in another country - that's the problem."
1) CIA Chief Brennan politicized intelligence for Obama
Obama ignores evidence Russia didn't hack DNC, Podesta
WikiLeaks' Assange maintains there's 'no proof whatsoever'
By Jerome R. Corsi Published: 2 days ago
President Obama's punishment of Russia for allegedly hacking the
emails of Democratic Party operatives to influence the 2016
U.S. presidential election ignores at least two important facts
For one, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose hacktivist
organization released the thousands of emails that shed damaging light
on Hillary Clinton and her allies, denied the Russians were the
In addition, the Obama administration has developed a reputation for
manipulating intelligence for political purposes.
The administration announced Thursday that through an executive order,
Obama sanctioned two of Russia's intelligence services, the GRU and
FSB, and declared 35 Russian intelligence operatives "persona non
grata" in the U.S. Also, the U.S. is shutting down Russian compounds
in Maryland and New York.
Earlier this month, in a speech to donors in New York City, Hillary
Clinton blamed her defeat on Russian President Vladimir Putin, a
claiming "personal beef" with her prompted him to meddle in the
U.S. presidential election.
"Vladimir Putin himself directed the covert cyber attacks against our
electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he has a
personal beef against me," Clinton said. "He is determined not only
to score a point against me but also undermine our democracy."
Clinton claimed that Russia had hacked both the Democratic National
Committee and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, and released the
emails to WikiLeaks in a plot to boost Trump.
Clinton called for Congress to set up a commission similar to the
commission set up after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and
the World Trade Center.
But Clinton did not specify Putin's "personal beef", nor did she offer
any proof Assange and WikiLeaks had obtained the hacked emails from
Podesta, meanwhile, on Dec. 18, told NBC "Meet the Press" the
presidential election had been "distorted" by the Russian
Asked if it was a "free and fair" election, Podesta railed against
Putin, insisting "the Russians clearly intervened in the election".
`No proof whatsoever'
Assange, however, in a July 25 interview with NBC News, said there was
"no proof whatsoever" that WikiLeaks obtained nearly 20,000 hacked
Democratic National Committee emails from Russian intelligence.
Assange said DNC servers have been riddled with security holes for
years and that many sets of documents from multiple sources are now in
In December, Assange made clear to Sean Hannity in a radio interview
that Russia did not provide WikiLeaks the Podesta emails or the DNC
Assange insisted the source of the email leaks "was not a state
"We're unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn't
a state party. Normally, we say nothing at all," Assange told Hannity.
"We have no conflict of interests. We have an excellent reputation, a
strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say
anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out. Sometimes
we do it, but we don't like to do it. We have another interest here
that is maximizing the impact of our publications," he said.
"So in order to protect a distraction attack against our publications,
we've had to come out and say, "No, it's not a state party. Stop
trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the
publication," said Assange.
While Assange refused to comment on Hannity's suggestion the emails
came from a disgruntled source within the DNC, possibly even within
Podesta's office, the WikiLeaks chief did not deny it.
In contrast, he had vociferously denied the source was Russia.
In a discussion with Hannity on his Fox News television show after
hearing the Assange radio interview, Eric Bolling, co-host of the Fox
News roundtable "The Five", noted Clinton, according to reports, first
blamed her top campaign officials and then pursued recounts.
"Then it became the Russians' fault, that the Russians affected the
election. It's none of the above," Bolling said. "They had a flawed
candidate - the worst candidate, not necessarily the worst human
being, but the worst candidate that ran for president in my lifetime.
The Russians didn't make her come up and say "Deplorables", and it
wasn't Donald Trump who made Obamacare premiums skyrocket - double in"
some cases the week of the election.
In the initial phases of advancing the story that the Russians were
responsible for the WikiLeaks emails, Democrats traced it back to
intelligence supposedly developed by the CIA.
But the Obama administration has a reputation for manipulating
intelligence for political purposes. In August, a congressional task
force confirmed allegations that senior U.S. Central Command leaders
manipulated intelligence assessments in 2014 and 2015 to make it
appear that Obama was winning the war against ISIS.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a member of the House intelligence community,
has charged CIA Director John Brennan was orchestrating a "hit job"
against President-elect Donald Trump by going around the intelligence
community and leaking information to the press suggesting Russia was
behind the hack of Podesta.
"And that's what infuriates me about this is that we have John
Brennan, supposedly John Brennan, leaking to the Washington Post, to a
biased newspaper like the New York Times, findings and conclusions
that he's not telling the intelligence community", King said during a
Dec. 18 appearance on ABC's "This Week".
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/obama-ignores-evidence-russia-didnt-hack-dnc-podesta/#K0G2roPelBQPrPHC.99
2) CIA invented the term "conspiracy theory"
American Pravda: How the CIA Invented "Conspiracy Theories"
Ron Unz September 5, 2016
With the sudden, bizarre rise of the "Fake News" accusations
throughout the entire Corporate Media megaphone and the equally
bizarre and totally unsubstantiated CIA allegations that the Russians
had stolen the election for Donald Trump, I've decided to republish
this somewhat related article of mine from a few months ago while I'm
preoccupied with software issues.
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film
Interstellar, and although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene
was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the
future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been
faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia
into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical
reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people
who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were
universally ridiculed crazy as "conspiracy theorists". This seems a
realistic portrayal of human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government
leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers -
from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty
urban corruption - could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy
theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly
loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or
fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of
Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad
"conspiracy theories", with the former being the ones promoted by
pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as
such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control
of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly
changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of
concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous "conspiracy
theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion
that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners,
easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark
buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most
preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the
comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the
absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American
public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on
the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and months
following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to
denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist
master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage
endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of
the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush
Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq,
the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed
with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's
arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003,
polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that
Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade
Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but
low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as
crazy a "conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that
Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority
having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple
of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book
published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of
Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former
president of the Florida Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation
was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread
introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse,
having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of
influencing public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about
the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald,
had been solely responsible for President Kennedy's assassination, and
growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been
involved. So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a
secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their
media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as
irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories". . . .
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public
opinion in order to transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a
powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how
the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple
of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an
important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the
respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical
For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars
and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard, whose
influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of
various elite conspiracies in shaping American policy for the benefit
of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from
the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry
into WWI. Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major
historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that
some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities
was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second
World War, and he was marginalized in the years that followed, even
prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of a
similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from
respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the
same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European political
philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss, gradually gained ascendancy
in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely
theoretical objections to the very possibility of important
conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly
difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what
might appear a conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors
pursuing their narrow aims. Even more importantly, he regarded
"conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a
major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly
totalitarian ideologies. His own background as an individual of Jewish
ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth
of his feelings on these philosophical matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative
thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis,
but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were
absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against
anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended
upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant
masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they
were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their
spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of
society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively
suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and
Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks,
and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of
Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is
hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the
founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual as politically
influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to be his
intellectual disciple. Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who
have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative
Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their
ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the
traditional American tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real
but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized as either
paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its
exclusion from respectable discourse.
. . .