#105 – FDR Avoided It, Truman Started It, Eisenhower Grew It, Kennedy Felt It

President Biden memorandum delivered on October 22, 2021, confirms the participants in the Kennedy assassination and the importance of their deniability: “Temporary continued postponement is necessary to protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure.”

President Biden, a spokesman for the Executive Branch, statement concerning thousands of government secrets on the Kennedy assassination sheds light on the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy and his murderers.

The following blog could be titled: Anatomy Of An American Coup (The Metastasis Of A Security State).

Roosevelt Avoided It

In 1943, the Soviets began turning the tide on the Germans. The U.S. recognized that the Soviet Union would emerge from World War ll as a significant world power. FDR had already accepted that the Soviets would have a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. 

At the February 1945 Yalta Conference, President Roosevelt (FDR), Churchill and Stalin met for their second and final time. FDR and Churchill agreed to several concessions proposed by Stalin. Stalin had a paranoia personality but trusted that Roosevelt would abide by the Yalta agreements. The Soviets would retain control over part of Germany, and the USSR would also have free reign to influence the governments of its Eastern European and Asian neighbors.

Truman Started It

FDR would die two months after the Yalta Conference. Under the command of hardliner Harry Truman, the political dynamics changed dramatically. The U.S. would renege on many of FDR’s promises and concessions. Coupled with America and British fears over the spread of communism, the US-Soviet relationship spiraled downhill. Truman and his administration viewed USSR as an unfriendly nation undergoing an arms buildup with an interventionist approach to international relations.  

By 1945, the power and ambition of multinational defense corporations had expanded outside of their domain. They began a self-interest pursuit to keep the funds coming. During WWII the defense spending had increased by over 13,000 percent. By the end of the war, these companies had made huge profits.

Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, at a 1945 White House meeting, advocated for not sharing information on the atomic bomb with the Soviet Union. Forrestal persuaded Truman to agree, thereby averting any trust-building with the Soviets. The Cold War arms race had begun.

Defense contractor executives such as Lockheed, Northrup, and Douglas were looking for schemes to maintain government subsidies for their industries. They created a panel with representatives of the defense industry to lobby Congress. 

The Military-Industrial Complex was very satisfied with the passing of the National Security Act of 1947. The military budget became a war budget with two permanent bureaucracies; the Department of Defense and the newly created Central Intelligence Agency. American wars would no longer be temporary, with peacetime pauses. This act unchained the perpetual war machine fueled by federal money.

Baby Steps – Greece

After the evacuation of German forces from Greece in 1944, two groups vied for power; the monarchists and the communists. Britain and the United States supported the monarchists. The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria supported the communists. A civil war soon developed. 

In late February 1947, Britain informed the United States it could no longer afford aid to Greece and Turkey. President Truman recognized a vacuum of influence. He feared that the Soviet Union could fill that vacuum. 

Feeling that this could be a geopolitical disaster, Truman decided to take over the British role. But doing so required persuading a Republican-controlled Congress looking to cut federal spending to foreign countries. 

In March 1947, President Harry S. Truman delivered a speech before Congress. Truman felt he had to scare the hell out of the American people. Truman outlined the threat facing the United States. He declared, “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” 

The Military-Industrial Complex Recruits Congress

Truman asked for $400 million in military and economic assistance for Greece and Turkey. In May, Congress voted to appropriate the funds Truman had requested. By embracing what became known as the Truman Doctrine, the United States broke with its traditional reluctance to become entangled in events outside the Western Hemisphere. Truman had declared the responsibility of global leadership.

The involvement of the United States in the Greek civil war marked a new era in their attitude towards world politics. The new approach became known as the Truman Doctrine. A doctrine that still guides U.S. diplomacy today. The United States actively offers assistance to preserve the political integrity of selective nations deemed to be in the best interest of the United States.

The Marshall Plan

In June of 1947, at Harvard College, Secretary of State George C. Marshall made one of the most consequential foreign policy speeches in American history. Marshall proposed a plan as bold as it was simple: the United States would help rebuild war-torn Europe if Europeans agreed to develop a plan for reconstruction. Joseph Stalin and his allies would reject the offer. This break led to geopolitical competition between the two post-WW2 superpowers for control of Europe.

The Long Telegram – Russian Containment

In an article in Foreign Affairs dated July 1, 1947, a State Department official named George Kennan argued that U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union had erroneously assumed that offering incentives would persuade the Kremlin to be more cooperative. On the contrary, Kennan wrote, powerful internal dynamics drove Soviet behavior, and “as a result, only the threat of force could limit or alter Soviet ambitions.” 

In The Sources of Soviet Conduct, Kennan refined and extended his argument, writing that the “main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.” The doctrine of containment would guide U.S. foreign policy for the next four decades. 

Fear – Soviet Explode Nuclear Bomb 

In September 1949, the Soviets exploded an atomic bomb. Congress approved the military appropriation for NATO that Truman had requested. The US-Soviet arms race had commenced. This escalating back and forth became the pattern for the Cold War arms race for the next 50 years, much to the delight of armaments contractors and the generals and admirals on both sides. However, pushback on military and defense spending was beginning to surface in Congress.

Opportunity Knocks – Korean War 

In early June of 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared Korea outside the defense perimeter of US national security. Later that same month, Kim Il-sung’s North Korean troops crossed over the 38th Parallel into South Korea. Acheson then led the charge to join the Korean conflict. Pentagon leaders warned against a land war in Asia, but President Truman followed Acheson. The United States, under cover of the United Nations, went to war, scuttling any hope for a post-World War II movement to demilitarize America. 

Instead, the US defense budget jumped from $13 billion in 1951 to $50 billion in 1953; the US nuclear arsenal grew from 300 bombs in 1950 to 1,300 bombs in 1953. Welcoming in the permanent war economy, Dean Acheson said, “Korea saved us.” Meaning that the Korean Action jump-started what Eisenhower in 1961 originally termed the Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex. Congress defense spending paved the way for a new government-funded warfare state. 

Korea afforded unprecedented opportunities for advancing the globalist program. Truman assigned the US Seventh Fleet to patrol the strait between Taiwan and the mainland. The US added four more divisions in Europe and allocated $4 billion for the rearmament of our European allies. 

Indochina – Before The U.S. Vietnam War 

Some months before the Korean War, Truman had initiated American involvement in Indochina, supporting the French and their puppet ruler Bao Dai against the nationalist and Communist revolutionary Ho Chi Minh. Korea furnished welcome cover for stepping up aid to the French, which soon amounted to a half-billion dollars a year. 

The United States provided the bulk of the material resources for the French-Vietnam colonial war. The State Department defended this commitment citing the production of much-needed rice, rubber, and tin imported from Indochina. More to the point, after Mao took control of China, there was the fear that the loss of Indochina, including Vietnam, would represent a defeat in the struggle against what was portrayed as a unified and coordinated Communist push to take over the world. 

Eisenhower – Grew It

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, under the guidance of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother CIA Director Allen Dulles, grew the Security State. The foreign and domestic policy would never be the same. The Truman Cold War containment policy became covert and overt actions. Eisenhower cut resources to the conventional military but increased spending on nuclear weapons. 

In 1953, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) helped stage a coup in Iran to replace nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh with the American allied Shah of Iran. In 1954, the CIA staged another coup in Guatemala. President Jacabo Arbenz Guzman, a land reformer was removed in favor of a more friendly dictator. 

CIA covert actions in foreign nations damaged the ability of the U.S. to exercise moral and ethical leadership throughout the world. While the Eisenhower administration succeeded in reducing communist influence in the 1950s, covert operations damaged the long-term national security interests of the United States. 

By 1960 Eisenhower warned, “God help this country when we have a man sitting at this desk who doesn’t know as much about the military as I do.” Then on January 17, 1961, Eisenhower gave his nationally televised farewell address from the Oval Office. “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry,” he said, “in contrast with the permanent armaments industry of vast proportions that had been created in the previous fifteen years.”

Eisenhower concluded his farewell address with, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That misplaced power has pushed, cajoled, and coerced the US into wars, coups, and assassinations abroad and at home.  

Kennedy – Felt It

In June 1963, Kennedy made his famous Peace Speech at American University. Kennedy would declare that he intended to end the Cold War. That day in June would be Kennedy’s final plead for peace. He was calling for the end of the Cold War because it was “the necessary rational end of rational men.” In 2021 we are still looking for those rational men or women. 

Kennedy proposed an offer: “We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people — but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.” His vision for American foreign policy did not sit well with the Pentagon and the CIA. They viewed Kennedy to be naive and dangerous to the extreme. 

Kennedy Treasonous Acts?

In their eyes, what Kennedy was doing and had previously done were grave threats to national security. The Pentagon and the CIA believed a communist takeover of the United States was imminent if Kennedy remained in power. They considered many actions of the Kennedy administration as treasonous. 

Like:

1. Refusing to provide air support to the CIA-trained Cuban exiles who invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. They blamed him for the capture or death of these men.

2. He fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, a man admired and revered by the U.S. national-security establishment.

3. He threatened to destroy the CIA by tearing it into a thousand pieces and scattering it to the winds.

4. He rejected Operation Northwoods, a Pentagon fraudulent plan to kill American citizens to provoke a Cuban invasion.

5. He settled the Cuban Missile Crisis with back door communications with Khrushchev, keeping the security state officials and Joint Chiefs of Staff in the dark. 

6. He gave up NATO/US missiles in Turkey, aimed at the Soviet Union, as a tradeoff for the Soviets removing their missiles from Cuba. 

7. He agreed the U.S. would never invade Cuba, basically agreeing to Cuban sovereignty.

8. He entered into the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union over the vehement objections of the CIA and Pentagon, which believed that nuclear testing was essential to national security.

9. He proposed a joint project to the Moon with the Soviets. Reaching out to the Soviet Union in a spirit of sharing rocket technology, offers of peace and friendship were unacceptable.

10. In National Security Action Memorandum 263, dated October 11, 1963, Kennedy articulated his decision to withdraw all U.S. military forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965 — with full withdrawal completed after the 1964 election. 

11. He supported the U.S. civil rights movement, which the national-security establishment believed to be a front for an international communist conspiracy generated from Moscow.

Kennedy was a junior Naval officer telling his military superiors how to behave, what they could do, and what they could not do in pursuit of National Security. His attitude did not last long in that world of powerful, arrogant Generals and Admirals. Today peace is still a threat to the budgets and power of the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the army of defense contractors.

The Kennedy peace movement ended in Dallas in November of 1963. What action would the National Security State take if those that believe in peace called for a friendly and harmonious relationship with Russia, China, North Korea, and Cuba? Would we all be assassinated? Nah, there are not enough Oswald patsies to go around. 

#104 – Ukraine – A Ghost of Zbigniew Brzezinski?

Gave An Inch – Took 600 Miles

In 1990, Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand one inch east of Germany. In thirty years, Russia has acquiesced 600 miles. Since the Baker promise NATO has wandered through Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and Poland.

Today NATO is knocking at the border of Ukraine, a neighboring country to Russia, once part of the Soviet satellite states with a 1,500-mile border. Vladimir Putin has demanded a new promise from NATO not to expand into Ukraine. He has made it clear that he regarded the presence of any NATO troops or weapons in Ukraine as intolerable.

Post-2014 Maidan Coup
In 2014, a majority voted for independence from Kyiv. Putin asked to annex two provinces in the Donbas region. (areas high in ethnic Russians) Putin declined the offer and did not recognize their independence. When Ukraine deployed troops to this region, Putin sent a limited number of Russian special operation troops into the Donbas region.

The 2014-2015 Minsk agreements called for Ukraine to reabsorb two separatist-controlled regions while affording them special status. Instead, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky essentially declared a hot war on the predominant Russian-speaking populations in the Donbas.

Putin has been frustrated with the Ukrainian reluctance to implement the results of the Minsk agreement. He has been vocal about the treatment and attacks from the increasing Ukrainian military troops. Ukrainian troops being largely financed and equipped with US-NATO support has provoked Putin to respond. His response has brought what the U.S. described as a large and unusual troop movement near the Russian/Ukraine border.

Tuff Guy Bluster
The Biden administration’s handling of the Ukraine policies has been unclear and inconsistent. In September, President Biden pledged his support for Ukrainian Euro-Atlantic aspirations and American support for complete integration in Europe. Biden has announced a $60 million security assistance package in addition to the $400 million in security assistance the U.S. has already provided Ukraine this year.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has insisted that Washington is committed to Ukrainian territorial integrity. He warned Moscow against continuing the buildup of Russian military forces near the border with its neighbor. He has threatened to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 states that the United States has an explicit obligation to assist another member if attacked; there is no obligation to non-members.

Even NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, has been bellicose in addressing the Putin concerns about potential NATO missiles in Ukraine aimed at Russia. He recently informed Russia that what happens on the Ukraine border is none of their business, “only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO.” He continued, “Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence trying to control their neighbors.”

Whoa, Nelly – Not so fast!
Biden recently took a 180-degree turn on his Ukraine position. He said, “the idea the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia invading Ukraine is not in the cards right now.” “We have a moral obligation and a legal obligation to our NATO allies under Article 5 [a collective defense provision]. It’s a sacred obligation. That obligation does not extend to Ukraine,” he added.

In early December, the Biden administration was busy rallying European allies with warnings about Russian tanks rolling across Ukraine. Then, Biden abruptly says the U.S. will not be sending troops to help Ukraine in its desperate hour of need. Was his Russian invasion warnings just hyped-up propaganda, as Moscow has been saying? Why?

Unbiased Journalism?
The American corporate news media has been peddling stories disguised as news reports to ratchet up tensions with Russia. The media frenzy omits the buildup of military forces in the region by the NATO-backed Kyiv regime. Ukraine has half of its total troop numbers now positioned near the contact line against pro-Russian separatists in southeastern Ukraine. Nor is there mention of the U.S. and NATO powers having embarked on rapid deployment of warships, nuclear-capable bombers, and reconnaissance planes in the Black Sea region.

Follow The Money
Is it coincidental that the U.S. Congress just passed a new annual military budget that includes $300 million in weaponry and other support to the Ukrainian armed forces? Since the Kyiv regime was installed in 2014 by a CIA-backed coup d’état, Washington has supplied it with $2.5 billion of military aid. Close to $3 billion total in less than eight years. New weaponry includes helicopters, warplanes, warships, artillery, and Javelin anti-tank missiles. Sending massive shipments of offensive weapons to a rabidly Russophobic regime is akin to dousing a fire with gasoline.

The Ghost Of Zbigniew Brzezinski

Russian Commander General Valery Gerasimov noted that funneling the United States and NATO war material to Ukraine is the driving force behind Kyiv’s repudiation of the 2015 Minsk peace accord. Washington has emboldened Ukrainian authorities to believe they can resolve the civil war against the Donbas region through force. If the Kyiv regime launches a new offensive against the ethnic Russian people of the Donbas, Russia will be under moral pressure to intervene. It seems that the United States is trying its best to lure Russia into a quagmire of a conflict.

In this production, the Kyiv regime is playing a supporting role. Washington is playing the lead role. They are seducing Ukraine into a proxy war against Russia. If the final scene has Russian troops invading Ukraine, the Western media will blame Russia for violating Ukrainian territorial integrity, and Putin becomes the new Hitler. Then economic sanctions are imposed on Russia and the Nord Stream 2 gas project. These sanctions would benefit U.S. gas exports.

The biggest prize for Washington would be luring Russia into combat with U.S.-backed Ukrainian military battalions and Neo-Nazi splinter groups like the Azov Battalion. A page is taken from the Zbigniew Brzezinski playbook that the Carter administration employed in Afghanistan in 1979. A plan that Washington considers its finest moment. Over 15,000 Soviet troops killed, 562,000 and 2,000,000 million Afghans dead, and millions of refugees. What a moment!

# 103 – Salvation Road

Salvation Road

In 1974 I was in my junior year of college listening to Ray Davies and the Kinks’ Preservation Act ll concept album. The album I thought to be a hyperbolic take on Marxism. Little did I know 45 years later I would rediscover it as a realistic epithet in today’s society. 

#102 – A Marxist Tale

Almost ninety years ago, in 1932, a 13-year-old Soviet boy named Pavlik Morozov denounced his father Trofim to local authorities for helping a persecuted group. Trofim, the chairman of the Gerasimovka Village Soviet, had been selling forged documents to the kulaks, a declared enemy of the Soviet State. The Gerasimovka villagers refused to join the kolkhoz, a state-controlled collective farm during the collectivization of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Trofim Morozov was convicted and sentenced to ten years in a labor camp. He eventually would be sentenced to death.

The story goes that Pavlik was doing his patriotic duty to denounce his father for violating government dictates. Pavlik, for his heroic action, was killed by his family members. His story was a subject of reading, songs, plays, a symphonic poem, a full-length opera, and six biographies. Pavlik became a hero whose statue and school in the village of Gerasimovka drew legions of youthful pilgrims. A Moscow street bears his name, and his name appeared numerous times in propaganda publications, Young Pioneers, aimed at children.

The Pavlik story had a significant impact on the moral norms of generations of children. They were encouraged to inform on their parents. Pavlik became a Communist folk hero, one of the first models of Soviet behavior held up to all Soviet schoolchildren for emulation. Pavlik was a martyr who put the state above old-fashioned family loyalties.

Pavlik was a pioneer of a practice that became the mainstay of Stalin terror programs, an informer, sending millions to forced labor camps or their death for real or imagined crimes against the state. It is difficult to draw the line between official surveillance and unsolicited information from citizens in society as controlled like the Soviet Union.

In Stalin’s Soviet Union, each research institute, factory, or government office had its resident watchdogs. The covid crisis has greased the gears of a similar Marxist agenda. Today our vaccine mandate heroes and the mask police are just doing their duty to keep us safe. Pavlik and Statin are smiling in their graves.

#101 – We Just Disagree

Compliance – It is hard not to!  

When asked, “Which of these people do you think you would be?” somewhere between 80 and 85% of people said they would be the lone, dissenting man with his arms crossed. Psychological studies show that not even 10% of us are likely to be that man.

In a 2016 Harvard Business Review study, people were asked, “What would you do if someone cut in front of you in line?” Most say they would promptly and politely ask the person to go to the back of the line. When researchers ran the experiment, only 1 in 25 did so. The rest were too afraid of what others would say or do.

Today, we face rewards for compliance; compliance with the government’s pandemic response measures (masking, distancing, lockdowns, and now the ever-increasing and nebulous vaccine rollout), we are granted the conditional privilege of reentrance into society; and the penalties for failing to comply. Being bullied, shamed, excluded, canceled, fined, and arrested has made it difficult for the courageous to dissent.

We hear that the vaccine is the only defense against COVID-19. Accusations that this is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” have gone unchallenged. We are vaccinating 5-year-olds when the vaccines give them at most a 1% absolute risk reduction. While the Director of the CDC, the Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government, Israel’s Director of Public Health, Bill Gates, and even Dr. Fauci have all stated that the COVID vaccines do not, cannot, prevent transmission.

We have lost our moral compass and, with it, the moral and civic virtues on which we have built our health care system, our legal system, and communities. However, the despicable leaders instruct us to hate, divide, shame, dismiss or cancel. This narrative should not be the price for admission into the new American club.

So many today are choosing a life in a cage, blind to the restrictions that surround them. Their vision is impaired because they have voluntarily allowed their confinement. Government stimulus checks and mortgage moratoriums act to sedate fear. They have the essentials that most zoos for animals have. The zookeepers have worked diligently to keep its fold fed, safe and comfortable. 

Is there any sense in trying to emancipate those that don’t realize they are caged? Talking about rights falls on deaf ears or is dismissed as irrelevant or even selfish. There is a frightening majority in this country that doesn’t believe that they have lost anything. They have decided that a life of comfort, security, and conformity is possible and worth the price of freedom. 

Some amount of fear is the stress of living free. Freedom sometimes comes by being cold, hungry, and constantly afraid of being someone else’s meal. The choice is clear, between being fed or being free? Emancipation begins with the caged accepting that they are not free. Courage is moving ahead through fear, despite fear.

I am not your enemy because I do not feel the need to comply. A choir in which everyone sings the one part is bland and pathetic. The beauty of their sound comes when people sing different but complementary notes. This blending creates unity in the harmony of an enlightened and diverse choir. A choir in which we respect each other’s sound is a liberated society.

We Just Disagree – Dave Mason

#100 – Dear Ms. Cohen, I Still Question Everything

Question Everything

If society is judged by how it treats its citizens, what is the verdict for treating those that look, think, and behave differently? Is compliance the essential trait for being normal and accepted? I remember when the bumper sticker “Question Everything!” was a pass into the teacher parking lot. Today those bumper stickers have been covered over with “Where In This Together!”

History shows quite clearly that the medical field makes disastrous mistakes. Many of those mistakes were allowed to continue longer than necessary. Missing from these disasters are telling oversights; earlier intervention, lack of research and data on impact, and infatuation with a novel procedure/drug. Voices of the informed citizens and professionals become silenced by the noise emanating from the medical/pharma/governmental industries.

Mistakes? I’ve Had a Few

Until the twentieth century, the American government forcibly sterilized tens of thousands of people to improve the human species. Eugenics intended to reduce human suffering to a vulnerable population. The idea of selective breeding to eliminate disease, disabilities, and undesirable characteristics from the human population were inhumane.

As late as 1987, homosexuality appeared in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association as a mental illness, whose diagnosis justified involuntary treatments ranging from confinement to drug and electroshock therapy.

In 1949, Egas Moniz won the Nobel Prize for inventing lobotomy. Lobotomy was to treat a range of illnesses, from schizophrenia to depression and compulsive disorders. By the mid-1950s, it rapidly fell out of favor due to poor results.

Dr. Henry Marsh, an eminent neurosurgeon, says the operation was simply bad science. “It reflected very bad medicine, bad science because it was clear the patients subjected to this procedure were never followed up properly.”

Marsh continued, ”If you saw the patient, after the operation, they would seem alright. They would walk and talk and say thank you, doctor,” the fact that the lives “were ruined as social human beings probably didn’t count.”

Testing Data?

Thalidomide, first marketed in 1957, was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Prescribed for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women, experts estimate that thalidomide led to the death of approximately 2,000 children and more than 10,000 infants with birth defects.

From 1990 to 2001, over 2 million doses of an anthrax vaccine were injected into the arms of United States military members. Recent research indicates that the anthrax vaccine booster contained squalene. Its usage causes collective chronic illnesses and disabilities known as Gulf War Syndrome.

Dr. Pam Asa said in her view the fact that veterans testing positive for squalene provided conclusive evidence that vaccinations were a “major cause” of the condition. Dr. Asa said, “I believe that those people who were given vaccinations in the US and the UK were given something they should not have been, probably in the anthrax vaccine.”

The drugging of children is common. In the United States, 20% of all children are on psychiatric drugs. Many medical professionals believe that the psychiatric drugging of children violates their rights and is a form of child abuse. Children whose only crime is failure to adhere to behavioral norms become introduced to psychiatric drugs.

What Will It Take?

Medical science is far from infallible but continues to be blinded by hubris. It took Hitler and Nazi techniques to persuade the medical profession and the American public against human engineering; 1,987 years after Christ to accept homosexuality; 10,000 birth defects to stop distributing thalidomide to pregnant women; Gulf War Syndrome to stop squalene usage.

Is there any hope for skeptics to change vaccine coercion? One basic principle of human rights is the freedom to decide what is allowed into my body. Dear Ms. Cohen, I still question everything. Thank you!

#99 Covid – Treatment vs Vaccine

Distorted Narrative

At the age of reason, usually around seven years old, children can determine the difference between the truth and a fabrication/distortion of the truth. So then, why do adults accept fabrication and distortion?

Are they bullied by the supporters of the official version that refuse to discuss conflicting opinions? Or is it fear of being labeled a conspiracy theorist, dog-whistle language for a fool, an evil person, a terrorist?

The government has not educated the public on the limitations of vaccines. Vaccines appear to offer some level of protection. But we continue to hear, wear the mask. Both vaccinated people and unvaccinated people spread covid. The pandemic of the unvaccinated narrative is false. It is a pandemic spread by both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

Anthony Fauci and his minions do not recognize that many unvaccinated and vaccinated Americans want therapeutic alternatives. The “trust me and take the vaccine” narrative has worn thin. Covid infections and variant infections of the vaccinated demonstrate a failure of the vaccine. Even the spin that vaccines prevent symptoms and death is not conclusive.

The only conclusion to be made is that the government is continuing to double or triple down on coerced vaccination policy. This policy has negatively influenced the research and development of other therapies to fight covid.

Covid and HIV

For the past 25+ years, Fauci has preferred respond to pandemics by vaccines from HIV through COVID-19. His singular focus on vaccines slowed the development of effective therapeutics in HIV. Are we repeating history?

COVID-19 vaccines, their availability, and the overhyped effectiveness have prevented further development of alternative treatments for covid. Fauci has set a course very familiar to those familiar with HIV in the 1990s. Friends and families of AID victims may remember that an over-investment of vaccines research slowed the development of much more effective therapeutics in HIV. Like leronlimab/PRO 140 and the advancement of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART).

Ignored Alternatives

The government spent $12 billion on vaccines in 2020 through Operation Warp Speed while therapeutics were underfunded. All it would have taken is a few billion dollars to fund and expedite the manufacturing of a wide range of therapeutics to save lives, reduce the symptoms of covid and the fear of getting sick. Washington spent $2.3 trillion in stimulus due to the widespread shutdowns as therapeutics took the back seat. What a deal!

Vaccine makers were provided money and given special treatment in the clinical trial approval process. Therapeutic choices were limited because they conflicted with the vaccine-for-all policy. Tollovir and leronlimab are existing drugs that suppress the cytokine storm throughout the lifecycle of the virus.

Antiviral Therapy

Currently, big pharma is turning to antiviral therapies because the vaccines are failing to put the nail in the COVID-19 coffin. Pfizer, Merck, Shionogi, and others are now racing to develop better and more convenient antivirals. Antiviral therapy uses protease inhibitors to help hospitalized patients lower inflammation quickly to avoid entering the cytokine storm phase of the disease. These drugs work well in the early stage of the disease. More widespread use could make an impact on flattening the curve. Remember that catchy phase?

In an October 1, 2021 press release, Merck announced an easy-to-take, oral antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Pharmaceutical giant Merck announced that in an international clinical trial, molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization and death by nearly half among higher-risk people diagnosed with a mild or moderate illness. The company said it would seek regulatory approval as soon as possible, meaning further delay for the United States having an anti-coronavirus pill. No Operation Warp Speed here.

Monoclonal Antibodies

The FDA authorized monoclonal antibody drugs from Regeneron and Eli Lilly in November 2020. Recently they have attracted more attention as the Delta variant of the virus that causes COVID-19 surges across the U.S. In other words, they have moved to the forefront due to the ineffectiveness of the vaccine.

Monoclonal antibodies boost the immune system after infection, speeding up your immune response to prevent COVID-19 from getting worse. Monoclonal antibodies target and neutralize the virus. When the antibodies bind to the spike protein, they block the virus from entering other body cells. They prevent severe symptoms that require hospitalization. When exposed to covid, monoclonal antibodies can fend off the virus to prevent them from becoming sick in the first place.

A monoclonal antibodies study of nearly 1000 people who lived or worked in U.S. nursing homes received either a single infusion of Eli Lilly’s antibody-containing four times the dose used for therapeutic purposes—or a placebo. In a press release, January 21, 2021, the company announced that the antibody reduced the risk of becoming ill with COVID-19 in the following eight weeks by 57%.

Among nursing home residents, who made up about one-third of the trial participants, the risk of COVID-19 illness dropped by 80%. Only four COVID-19–related deaths occurred in the study, and all were in nursing home residents in the placebo group.

Regeneron clinical trials of a different monoclonal antibody treatment using casirivimab and imdevimab reduced COVID-19-related hospitalization or deaths in high-risk patients by about 70%. And when given to an exposed person, someone living with an infected person, monoclonal antibodies reduced their risk of developing an infection with symptoms by 80%.

There are a few issues that surround monoclonal antibody treatment. Monoclonal antibodies treatment must begin within the first ten days of symptoms. Monoclonal antibodies are effective for about a month. Monoclonal antibodies were authorized as an IV and given at infusion centers making this therapy a bit cumbersome. However, a recent study indicates that an injection into the belly can also be effective.

Patients have to qualify for monoclonal antibodies. Many doctors are not very experienced with this treatment. Authorized uses for monoclonal antibodies may include: being the President of the U.S.; be classified as a high-risk person; test positive for COVID-19; have had symptoms for fewer than ten days; not be hospitalized, or not on oxygen because of COVID-19.

The deal-breaker appears to be that monoclonal antibodies might undermine the effectiveness of the sacred vaccines. Two vaccines authorized in the United States contain mRNA that directs the body cells to make the surface protein, spike, of SARS-CoV-2 acting as a trigger to the immune system to produce antibodies. Because the monoclonal antibodies target the coronavirus spike protein, there is concern that they could bind to the protein made by the mRNA vaccine, thus stopping the vaccine from functioning.

Conclusion

Has Fauci’s dedication to the vaccines suppressed treatment, destabilized the approval process of new therapy drugs, left therapeutics to fend for themselves, and contributed to a failed strategy? Have there been needless death? Has the national narrative enhanced fear? When did getting sick from covid become equated to death?

Gambling with human life is unacceptable. The combination of antiviral therapy and monoclonal antibody drugs may force us to look differently at treatment vs. vaccines. The loss of human life as a result of a failed strategy is criminal. Will anybody be held responsible?

Probably not. Only skeptics are held responsible.

#98 – Military Madness

State vs Government

Governments come and go with elections while the State grows stronger over time. With the growth of the State, a dehumanization effect occurs. The State views the citizens not as people they are responsible, but as obstacles. They have contempt for those citizens who stand in their way. 

The State maintains control through militaristic power and fear. It inspires awe and patriotism to which people pledge allegiance with hands placed over their hearts. Many people adore militarism and the U.S. empire. They believe that the U.S. government has to dominate and rule the world.

War is the Health of the State

In an unfinished manuscript, Randolph Bourne (1886-1918) wrote that War is the health of the State. He claims that in times of war, everything that the individual does is for the benefit of the State. He concludes, if war is the health of the State, then war is the death of individualism. 

Bourne observed, “people at war become in the most literal sense obedient, respectful, trustful children again, full of that naive faith in the all-wisdom and all-power of the adult who takes care of them.” War creates a “great herd-machine” functioned under “a most indescribable confusion of democratic pride and personal fear.” Individuals who constitute the herd “submit to the destruction of their livelihood if not their lives, in a way that would formerly have seemed to them so obnoxious as to be incredible.” 

America has been at war for over two decades. American troops have spread across the Arab world and the Middle East, leaving casualties heaped and enemies numerous. Not for me, not for you, and not for democracy but the State. 

Editor Carl Resek wrote, “In its proper place it [War is the health of the State] meant that mindless power thrived on war because war corrupted the nation’s moral fabric and especially corrupted its intellectuals.” 

Bourne wrote that in peace, ”the sense of the State almost fades out of the consciousness of men.” In times of peace, people are defined by self-interest and society, community, religion, or ethnic heritage rather than a political party; they interact casually with the government, giving little thought to the State. 

War destroys the ability of the individual to control their destiny. Bourne compares the individual to a “child on the back of a mad elephant” with no control. Only able to ride upon it until the elephant decided to halt. We have been on the backs of these elephants for much too long.

Tyranny Comes Home

Mark Twain wrote that ‘foreign intervention had real effects on the social fabric of America as the intervening country.’

According to authors Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall, war has a boomerang effect that erodes domestic liberties. Coyle and Hall claim that U.S. militarism abroad returns home to infect domestic politics and policy. With the expansion of government power, “the methods of social control, originally developed for use abroad, can be imported for domestic use.”  They call it the boomerang effect. 

A foreign policy of coercive intervention has created a monster in Washington. Reduced constraints and oversight or accountability have resulted in an expansion of government. Its broadened domestic scope, size, and power have negatively impacted liberties and freedoms that the government is supposed to protect. 

The perpetual wars have created a compliant citizenry. They have become more willing to accept these abuses in the name of security. A toxic mixture of fear and nationalism gains a stranglehold over many citizens, who are willing to pay any price to be kept safe from the hordes of fascists, communists, immigrants, terrorists, and viruses that will destroy their way of life. 

Coyne and Hall believe the U.S. government purposefully inflates fear to promote the growth of the national security state. Fear threatens the foundations of a free society. Fears push the citizens, in pursuit of security, into the arms of the State. The State obliges, offers security to unify the domestic public and the government. 

Even the separation of powers has broken down. The Judiciary defer to the State on national-security grounds. Legislators worry about seeming unpatriotic, especially when there are soldiers’ lives at stake. Anyone that questions the jingoism emanating from the White House or their colleagues in Congress is considered a traitor.

The reclamation of the United States of America begins with stopping this militarism madness. Stop foreign interventions that reinforce militarism. Stop promoting fear. Stop The Elephant!

#97 China – Not a New Cold War?

President Biden has declared the U.S. is “not seeking — I’ll say it again — we are not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.

Actions speak louder than words. Biden’s statement of not seeking a new Cold War and a world divided into rigid blocks is laughable. Historically Washington will use a position of strength to force its diplomacy upon other nations. China, on the other hand, tends to do what is best for China. Not what the U.S. wants.

Three Red Lines
China will not back down or buckle on issues contrary to its foreign policy. China has spelled out three red lines for the United States and has warned Washington not to cross them. The three red lines:
1) not challenging China’s political system;
2) not disrupting China’s development; and
3) not interfering in China’s sovereignty issues such as matters in Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan

Cold War 1950’s and 60’s
In 1949 Mao Zedong and the communists defeated the U.S. backed Chinese Nationalists (Kuomintang), led by Director-general Chiang Kai-shek to take control of China. The U.S. portrayed China under the dictates of Mao as the ultimate rogue state. In the 1950s and 1960s, China was far more radical than its Communist ally, the Soviet Union.

Chairman Mao Zedong’s policies led to the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Beijing also fought two undeclared wars against the U.S., in Korea and Vietnam; it promoted insurgency and revolution in the developing world.

During the 1950s, the President Dwight D. Eisenhower administration put extreme economic and military pressure on Beijing in hopes that Mao would make excessive demands for support from Moscow. Washington’s Cold War narrative was that the US-led international rules-based order must preserve against revisionist states like China and the Soviet Union.

A 1965 Washington memorandum best outlines Washington’s strategy on China. It points to four blocs required to contain China; the USSR (Russia) on the north and northwest, the Japan-Korea front; the India-Pakistan front; and the Southeast Asia front. The U.S. was diligently maintaining an economic and military advantage in these blocs.

Korea and Japan Bloc
Three fronts, identified in 1965, are still maintained by the U.S. The U.S. currently has tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed along the Japan-Korea front. Washington continues to cite the threat of North Korea as justification for the installation of THAAD missile defense systems. However, it is no secret that THAAD is to defend U.S. installations from Chinese retaliation, not a North Korean attack.

India-Pakistan Bloc
Regarding the India-Pakistan front, the U.S. has most recently included India in another attempted anti-China front, the Quad Alliance. The US has armed and backed separatist militants in the Baluchistan, southwest region of Pakistan. These militants have for years attacked Chinese-led infrastructure projects that form the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). An assassination attempt targeting China’s ambassador to Pakistan, in Baluchistan, was aimed at disrupting China’s Belt and Road Initiative against the Chinese.

Southeast Asian Bloc
US-backed anti-Chinese opposition groups’ attempts to seize power in the respective Southeast Asian States have promoted an arc of instability. Dubbed the “Milk Tea Alliance,” the common denominator besides their anti-China agenda is their U.S. government funding funneled through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and adjacent corporate-funded foundations, including Open Society.

Nixon Goes to China
Fifty years ago, in 1971, Henry Kissinger took a secret trip to Beijing. It began a U.S.-China effort to discuss issues that had divided them since the 1949 Communist take-over. The move changed the strategic geometry of the Cold War and proved to be a high point in Sino-American relations. Taiwan was the final stumbling block for the U.S.-Sino diplomatic relationship.

The Kissinger meeting was followed by a President Nixon visit the following year. This diplomatic change created the global conditions for China’s rise. Washington understood that re-establishing ties required moral compromises — such as abandoning Taiwan and toasting Mao.

China expected Washington to break formal ties with Taipei as a condition of Sino-American diplomatic normalization. Nixon was reluctant to give up on Taiwan, but he knew that the success of his 1972 trip depended on U.S. admission that it did not seek “two Chinas or a “one China, one Taiwan solution.”

Outmaneuvering Moscow and winning the Cold War was the greater benefit. The Soviet Union had to contend with two powerful rivals working to counter it. It had a two-front confrontation against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and China.

China pulled away from the Soviet Union driving a dagger into the heart of Moscow’s stagnate socialist model. The Soviet Union would have to contend with two powerful rivals, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and China.

After Mao’s death, the new partnership facilitated reforms. China moved toward capitalism and its relationship with the world changed. China received valuable intelligence, technology, and military goods from the U.S. from close American allies such as Japan. China received aid, trade, and investment.

Illiberal China

Many had believed that China would eventually become more democratic as it grew rich, like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. It never happened. A democratic wave swept across the communist world from 1989 to 1991. As the Berlin Wall fell, Germany reunified, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Iron Curtain tumbled, democratically elected governments replaced the communist regimes of Eastern Europe – China chose bullets.

The Tiananmen Square human rights crackdown in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union two years later ended the 1971 marriage of geopolitical convenience between the U.S. and China. The U.S. unipolar moment led them to double down on engagement with China.

Washington believed that the forces of globalization and liberalization would transform China into a more liberal and less brutal regime. China had no interest in being transformed. The inertia of that policy, plus the fact that the U.S. got hooked on trade with China, has pushed Washington in the direction of a new cold war.

Recent U.S. Actions
Washington will keep tariffs and sanctions in place and continue to add additional rounds until Beijing changes its tune on trade and human rights in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. The militarization of the Asia-Pacific will continue to unbalance the power structure in favor of Washington.

To counter China, the U.S. regularly conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations(FNOPs), sailing U.S. Navy warships through waters claimed by China. Then points to the 1982 Law of the Sea of Conventions which provides for certain rights and freedoms and other lawful uses, of the sea, to all nations. (the US is not a signatory)

Washington demands that Beijing backs down on Taiwan and the South China Sea and then ultimately resigns itself to the reality of a permanent American military presence in its backyard. These policies reiterate that normalized relationships will only happen on Washington terms.

The AUKUS and the Quad
The U.S. has inserted itself into otherwise ordinary and long-standing disputes in the South China Sea. To justify the growing naval presence in the region, they have been escalating minor regional disputes into a global conflict. To help advance U.S. foreign policy, encircle and contain China, they have recruited nations into belligerent alliances like the Quad and AUKUS.

AUKUS
Following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden administration appears to be reorienting its foreign policy with China. Confrontation with China will most definitely ensue. Leaders from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia launched a new strategic partnership, AUKUS, an alliance aimed at China.

Biden should explain how the AUKUS alliance between the U.S., U.K., and Australia fits his not seeking a new Cold War narrative. Defined as an enhanced trilateral security partnership to foster the integration of security and defense-related science, technology, industrial bases, and supply chains will deepen cooperation of security and defense capabilities.

Maybe Biden should be asked to explain how providing Australia with nuclear-powered submarines with offensive attacks and not defensive needs deepens information and technology sharing?

To suggest that AUKUS would protect China’s shipping lanes from China is paradoxical. AUKUS appears to be the primary threat to international commerce. Added physical force will only strangle free trade over the open seas.

World Reaction
Asked about AUKUS, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian called it an extremely irresponsible move. Zhao continued, “Seeking [a] closed and exclusive clique runs counter to the trend of the times and the aspirations of countries in the region,” and those sticking to this “outdated Cold War zero-sum mentality… will only end up shooting themselves in the foot.”

In a recent article, Malaysian politician Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said, “You have escalated the threat blasts Australia.” He reports, “this agreement indicates you openly regard China as a possible enemy and that if it comes to the crunch, you might even go to war. Just imagine what war would do to Southeast Asia.”

Hugh White, a former Australian defense official, told the New York Times, “the Australian decision to go this way is not just a decision to go for a nuclear-powered submarine. It’s a decision to deepen and consolidate our strategic alignment with the United States against China.” White added, “This just further deepens the sense that we do have a new Cold War in Asia,” he continued, “and that Australia is betting that in that new Cold War, the U.S. is going to emerge victoriously.”

The QUAD – (United States, Japan, India, and Australia)
Biden boasts that the Quad partnership is to counter China. Their biggest concern is its perceived challenge to maritime security posed by China in the Indo-Pacific region. Beijing has built military installations on reclaimed islands in the South China Sea, a global waterway and trade route. Quad members see that as a potential threat to free trade and travel.

In March, the Quad leaders issued a joint statement about the importance of the rule of law [and] freedom of navigation. Clearly about what all four countries consider as China’s illegitimate claims in the South China Sea.

The United States, Japan, India, and Australia presented a united front amid shared concerns about China. Last week, the leaders pledged to pursue a free and open Indo-Pacific region undaunted by coercion. They claim to stand for the rule of law, freedom of navigation and overflight, peaceful resolution of disputes, democratic values, and territorial integrity.

Nations in the region have disputes not only with China but among the other neighboring countries. There is a series of overlapping territorial claims over the South China Sea. Is it presumptuous, or is it predictable that the U.S. would single out China as the bully?

#96 – 90 Years Later, War is Still a Racket

In the 1930’s, Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient, made a nationwide tour giving his speech War is a Racket. In 1935 he published the book War is a Racket. Butler points out how industrialists, subsidized by public funding, can generate substantial profits, making money from mass human suffering.  

In a September 13, 2021 paper entitled, Profits of War: Corporate Beneficiaries of the Post-9/11 Pentagon Spending Surge, William D. Hartung examines Pentagon spending that has benefited weapon makers, logistics firms, private security contractors, and other corporate interests. His paper echos the same conclusion that Smedley Butler made almost 100 years ago. 

Hartung points out that the financial benefits from a war economy include much more than just the weapons industry. Although one-quarter to one-third of all Pentagon contracts in recent years have gone to just five weapons contractors: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman, there has been an abundance of booty to be had.

Heidi Peltier reported that roughly half of the Pentagon 2019 budget went to military contractors. These funds were both for war-related and ongoing peacetime activities. The FY2020 indicates, the spending for these contractors grew to $420 billion. It includes logistics and reconstruction firms like Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), Bechtel, and armed private security contractors like Blackwater and Dyncorp. 

The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated that waste, fraud, and abuse in the two war zones as of 2011 had totaled $31 billion to $60 billion. Taking advantage of the less rigorous oversight under wartime conditions is what is called war profiteering. The war industries are guilty of overcharging, shoddy construction, and outright theft by contractors. 

Overcharging violations in 2004, KBR refunded the U.S. $27.4 million for potential over-billings at dining facilities in Iraq and Kuwait. Shoddy work has had tragic human consequences, like the electrocution of at least eighteen military personnel in several bases in Iraq due to faulty electrical installations and lack of grounding. 

The list goes on; $43 million on a never used gas station, another $150 million on lavish living quarters for U.S. economic advisors, and $3 million for patrol boats for the Afghan police that were also never used.

A Congressional investigation found that a significant portion of $2 billion worth of transportation contracts to U.S. and Afghan firms ended with kickbacks to warlords, police officials, or payments to the Taliban. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that a source of funding for the Taliban was the protection money paid from U.S. transportation contracts.

The use of private contractors reduces transparency and accountability in war zones, accompanied by disastrous results. In 2011 contractors represented more than half of the U.S. presence in the contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, at times employing more than a quarter-million people.

A 2017 analysis by Brown University’s Costs of War project documented abysmal labor conditions and human rights abuses inflicted on foreign nationals working on U.S.-funded projects in Afghanistan. Including false imprisonment, theft of wages, and deaths and injuries in areas of conflict.

Activities of private contractors like Blackwater and its 2007 massacre of 17 people in Baghdad’s Nisour Square have occurred. Contractors like Titan and CACI International firms involved in the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. Their activities included interrogators and translators on the ground at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison where inmates were tortured.

Failures like DynCorp, a primary contractor to train and develop the Afghan police force between 2002 and 2017, are rewarded instead of terminated. By 2009, over half of DynCorp’s revenues were coming from the Iraq and Afghan wars. The same company paid $1.5 million to settle fraud allegations for a scheme in that DynCorp officials received kickbacks from subcontractors. The same company agreed to pay the U.S. $7 million to settle a lawsuit for submitting inflated charges.

Smedley Butler wrote: ”War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the 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 very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.”

The ultimate solution for stopping war profiteering is stopping war. Until then, slash the Department of Defense budget and change the U.S. foreign policy. Prioritizes real diplomacy, not gunboat diplomacy.