Monday, August 28, 2017

Could Steve Bannon Be Providing Propaganda To Enable Climate Change Research Project?

I don't know if you noticed but the entire political establishment has been going insane for years which led to the election handing the presidency to Donald Trump, who they want us to believe is out of his mind.

They're right of course, he is out of his mind; but not necessarily for the reason they want us to believe. One far-fetched hypothesis which I'll get to is that he's only pretending to be out of his mind as part of a bizarre conspiracy theory. However participating this insane theory would be as insane as if he were really as insane as he pretends to be.

Or something like that.

If you're not up to date on some of the most far-fetched conspiracy theories out there and find this hard to believe good, you should; and you shouldn't jump on board a bizarre theory without checking the facts carefully. However, as I have reported in several articles there is overwhelming evidence of major unsolved mysteries, including how they moved megaliths over seven hundred tons thousands of years ago when experiments to replicate these efforts cheated with megaliths between ten and forty tons and only had limited success without trying anything bigger. Therefore you shouldn't rush to rule them out either.

I’ve gone into this in previous articles including 107 Wonders of the Ancient World Is Stanton Friedman working for the CIA to refute reverse engineering claims? and most recently UFO Hypothesis Far More Credible Than Catholic Claim of A "Miracle Of The Sun" where I explained that the incident at Fatima was either one of the biggest UFO sightings in history or another unexplained mystery. Some of these articles consider the possibility that alien technology was retrieved at Roswell, as claimed by Philip Corso, and reversed engineered. Additional possibilities include claims of contact with aliens and that there is intentional sharing of technology with them and perhaps some kind of deal struck. These theories have their problems; however they do address some of the unsolved mysteries that have taken place going back thousands of years.

One of the biggest problems with some of these theories is how far-fetched the technology to travel from one star system to another; however there has been an enormous advance in technology over the past several decades that includes developing technologies that were previously considered impossible. After thousands of years with very slow development of technology, all of a sudden it has been leaping forward at epidemic levels.

As for the possibility Steve Bannon providing Propaganda To Enable Climate Change Research Project, for starters, if you believe that climate Change is a result of human activity, which most traditional scientists do, then this is by definition a form of Geoengineering, although it may be unintentional. It doesn't mean that these scientists can control weather, although there are plenty of conspiracy theories that claim that there are efforts to do this. However if there is a possibility that weather can be controlled by human activity, and if there have been some form of advanced intelligence influencing our society since the megaliths were moved thousands of years ago, it is possible that this unknown advanced intelligence might have known about this possibility and realized that in order to research it they might have to allow it to happen.

Most people don't know it but before Steve Bannon began providing propaganda for Climate Change deniers he was involved in running Biosphere 2 which was funded by Ed Bass, a billionaire who wanted to support research that would help understand how to create a closed environment on a planet like Mars, if they ever sent people there, and study Climate Change as well. Ed Bass and many researchers involved in Biosphere 2 were admittedly trying to study the greenhouse effect and learn how to reverse Global Warming or Climate Change, with Steve Bannon's help, and later on he began working for projects supported by a different billionaire, Robert Mercier, and oil executives that have a short term interest in denying Climate Change.

This is insane since it isn't even in the best interests of the oil companies to destroy the environment.

Are they suicidal, and willing to take the human race with them? There is plenty evidence to support this hypothesis, although some people might just explain it as ideological fanaticism; however with the science so obviously opposed to this and even Rex Tillerson, former CEO of ExxonMobil, taking a more rational view than the fanatical Trump administration it might be worth considering different possibilities.

Some problems should have been obvious even before they began this project, including the choice of Arizona to build it, which turned out to be partially responsible for their problems. If they were studying an isolated environment for a colony on Mars a cooler location farther north at a higher atmosphere, like either Canada or the Montana area, would almost certainly have been a better choice. One of the problems they had was that it costed $3 million just to cool Biosphere 2, which they should have anticipated in the Arizona location, which would have been much warmer than Montana. I'm guessing that the reason they chose Arizona might have been that they were more interested in studying Climate Change, which for all I know might have been more effective in Arizona.

The following article indicates that Steve Bannon wasn't always a fanatical Climate Change denier, and some of the people he was working with hoped that he would provide a positive influence on the Trump administration on the subject of Climate Change, although he clearly has done the opposite since then:

Trump's Chief Strategist Steve Bannon Ran a Massive Climate Experiment 12/07/2016

BEFORE STEVE BANNON was Donald Trump’s campaign advisor, a right-wing media mogul, or a conservative Hollywood documentarian, he helped a group of climate scientists steer a controversial experiment in the Arizona desert back from financial chaos. Twenty-five years ago, a New Agey-experiment called Biosphere 2 set out to recreate life on another planet with eight people locked in a giant glass habitat. But it ended bitterly with allegations of financial fraud, scientific goof-ups, and a power struggle outside the dome.

Now some of the scientists who worked on Biosphere 2 hope that Bannon—who has been dogged by allegations of ties to the white nationalist alt-right movement—might steer Trump back from the edge of climate denial, and perhaps forge a better deal between the US and other nations intent on reducing heat-trapping greenhouses gases. That might seem far-fetched for someone whose website, Breitbart News, calls climate change a hoax and those who study it corrupt. But these scientists point to Bannon’s time as a successful turn-around manager of Biosphere 2 in the mid-1990s as proof that he understands climate science—and may not be as much of a climate denial zealot as the folks who write for his website.

Biosphere 2 was designed to replicate life on Earth. Inside a massive enclosed glass structure, environmental scientists built separate chambers or biomes stocked with plants from desert, forest, grassland, and ocean habitats. They wanted to create a self-sustaining ecosystem—90 feet high, with 3.14 acres under glass—that required no inputs from the outside. If the researchers could figure out how to keep the giant hothouse sustainable, perhaps they could one day grow food on the Moon, Mars, or a long-distance space journey.

Funded by billionaire Ed Bass, Biosphere 2 (Biosphere 1 being planet Earth) got off to an auspicious beginning in 1991. Eight so-called biospherians—four men and four women dressed in matching blue jumpsuits—embarked on a two-year "mission" inside the dome, along with 4,000 plant and animal species. The crew maintained daily contact with scientists and managers through a direct video link, but otherwise slept, ate, and worked together just as they would on a separate planet. The scientific mission was to see if the team could grow their own food, keep the flora and fauna alive, and maintain a balanced air supply. .....

“There was mistrust and probably some poor management of the finances by the people who were in there before,” says Tony Burgess, one of the few scientists who worked for both Bannon and the former leadership. The biosphere's culture, at the beginning, was that of idealistic space hippies building a better world. But Bannon shifted the focus, as a clear-eyed financier of climate research. “Steve came in and tried to change it around," says Burgess. "It was costing $3 million a year just to cool the place, and the idea was to see how could it pay for itself. That began a long struggle to see how a closed system could justify itself in mainstream terms.”

Bannon never expressed personal opinions about climate change, but he did sell the idea of Biosphere 2 as a climate laboratory to the press and potential investors, including in a 1995 interview with C-SPAN. “What a lot of the scientists who are studying global change and the effects of greenhouse gases, many of them feel the Earth’s atmosphere in 100 years is what Biosphere 2’s atmosphere is today,” Bannon said in the interview. “This allows them to study the impact of enhanced CO2 on humans, plants, and animals.”

With the Biosphere 2 bleeding money, Bannon decided to shut down the crew habitat. He persuaded a timber company to remove one of the biomes and replant it with poplar trees in one habitat to measure how quickly commercially harvested trees would grow in a carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere. “They shot right up,” says Burgess. At times, Burgess said, carbon dioxide levels reached up to 4,000 parts per million inside the biosphere, ten times current levels on Earth.

Bernd Zabel, who managed construction of the dome in the late 1980s and spent six months inside the dome, compared Bannon to a “hot-shot” fireman who parachutes into a forest fire. “Everyone understood his mission,” says Zabel, now a retired engineer living in the Tucson area. “He was sent in by the owner to see what can be done with Biosphere 2. Steve was the one with idea to get more scientists involved.” With more than 100 employees, Biosphere 2 wasn’t just a backyard fantasyland. It added a conference center, café, and links to academia. ....

Bruno Marino, an isotopic chemist who helped track atmospheric compounds inside Biosphere 2, spent a lot of time working with Bannon in 1994 and 1995. He remembers him keeping a private office at the Arizona compound stocked with dozens books about climate science, including The Biosphere, a 1926 book by Russian mineralogist Vladimir Vernadsky that first sketched out the scientific theory that living things, including humans, can change the planet, just as much as geological or physical forces.

“At the time I didn’t think much of it,” says Bruno, who now runs a small environmental consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., and last saw Bannon about 10 years ago. “It may mean he was interested in climate issue more broadly. I don’t know. I hope maybe he will have some role to play in Trump’s climate policy moving forward.” Complete article

Additional information, including the fact that his brother still works with Biosphere 2 is provided in the following article:

Steve Bannon’s Weird Journey From Biosphere Champion to Climate Denying Crank 03/08/2017

As climate scientists go, Wally Broecker is famous. The 85-year-old geochemist and Columbia University professor not only coined the term “global warming,” but was one of the first researchers to accurately predict how much the Earth’s temperature would change because of fossil fuel burning. He discovered the Ocean Conveyor Belt, which moves water around the globe, and figured out that those currents help regulate the global climate. “He has singlehandedly pushed more under­standing than probably anybody in our field,” one colleague said in a 2012 profile.

“He was an intense guy,” Broecker told the New Republic in a phone interview. “I actually kinda liked him.” ....

“He knew what we were doing, and knew we were worried about the consequences of global warming,” said Broecker, who managed and directed Biosphere 2’s scientific operations from Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. But Bannon never publicly questioned the science during his time at Biosphere 2, and Broecker never thought twice about it—that is until years later, when he read in the paper that Bannon would be Trump’s right-hand man.

Reading up on Bannon’s politics, Broecker began to worry that Bannon might not understand the scientific consensus on climate change. So he contacted Bannon’s brother, Chris, who still works at Biosphere 2, and asked him to pass along a paper Broecker had written about how to solve the climate crisis. “Chris said he’d pass it along, and I’m sure he did,” Broecker said. “But I never heard back.” Trump’s cabinet is full of contenders as America’s most dangerous climate villain. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, after all, has alarmingly close ties to the fossil fuel industry, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson used to run Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company in the world. But so far, both Pruitt and Tillerson have pushed back against some of Trump’s more anti-environment policies. Bannon has not; in fact, he appears to be the one pushing them forward. .....

If Bannon is a climate conspiracy theorist, he wasn’t always—at least not openly. “It certainly wasn’t clear that he was against climate research or climate mitigation,” said Bruno Marino, an isotopic chemist who was the scientific director at Biosphere 2 from 1994 to 1996. In fact, Marino said, Bannon “seemed intellectually intrigued by the broader issues we were studying,” which included the effects of global warming and increased carbon in the atmosphere. ......

“The biggest factor when I think about Steve is, how could he not have brought with him today something of what he learned then? That doesn’t compute for me,” Marino said. “He must know. He must have some deeper thoughts about climate change than he’s letting on. I don’t think he’s fully opened up about what he’s learned during that period.” Complete article

Apparently there have been conspiracy theories about Biosphere 2 for decades, for one reason or another, from both those that believe in Climate Change and those that deny it. The Climate Change deniers claim that it's a conspiracy to prevent us from burning fossil fuels and drive up the cost of gas; however they routinely ignore that even if this was true there's still an enormous amount of pollution related to burning of fossil fuels and, like Climate Change, the majority of the pollution is destroying the poorest people in the world, and in many cases some of the worst pollution and greatest impact from Climate Change like Hurricane Harvey, which is hitting Texas now are impacting some of the most religious people as well. As I pointed out in Dobson’s Indoctrination Machine indoctrination tactics recommended by James Dobson are routinely used to teach children from a young age and believe what their leaders say without question at an early age; and many of these religious leaders are in total denial about the damage being done by pollution or Climate Change, even though they claim to be "pro-Life." James Dobson and a surprising number of other religious leaders also endorsed Donald Trump even though his alleged faith in religion is incredibly shallow and easy for anyone with a minimal amount of critical thinking skills to see through.

If this is all being done solely for greed, and the people controlling the oil companies are that fanatical they must be having a good laugh at how they can manipulate all these religious people so that they could increase their profits in the short term while destroying the environment in the long term.

Can they really be that insane? If not something even more absurd or hard to believe might be going on.

As far fetched as this sounds to most rational people, it should be clear that, for one reason or another, the political establishment is behaving an an absurd and irrational manner, and it is having a devastating impact on the environment which will only get worse unless some major changes are made. This doesn't mean that we should believe every conspiracy theory like the most common ones about chemtrails which are supposedly part of a geoengineering effort by our government. Most skeptics provide what seems like a rational explanation debunking this, and they're probably right. However the same experts claim that carbon-dioxide and other chemicals are a major contributing factor for Climate Change and they also reported that CFCs were responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer, which clearly implies that many of the chemicals we're using with advanced technology on a large scale has a negative impact on the environment. This means that even if these chemtrails aren't having nearly as big an impact as the conspiracy theorists claim that along with large amounts of other chemicals being used for other reasons they might have some impact. Furthermore the absurd sounding conspiracy theories about exaggerated irrational theories enable the political and media establishment to create stereotypes about less exaggerated theories that might be closer to the truth; and in some cases there might even be a more far-fetched conspiracy closer to the truth.

I have no doubt that this seems like an insane conspiracy theory to most people; but, one way or another, some of the most fanatical conspiracy theorists are now close advisers to the White House; and this administration couldn't have been elected if not for the obsession coverage that the mainstream media has provided them, while refusing to cover the most credible environmental scientists and, at times, portraying environmentalists as "Eco-terrorists." The same media establishment is obsessed with a variety of their own irrational conspiracy theories including the one they're obsessing about with the Russia involvement in rigging the election, which is trivial compared to their own propaganda.

With all these conspiracy theorists controlling just about everything and ignoring some of the most effective solutions to environmental destruction like wind, solar or geothermal, which most people hardly heard of, it should be clear that something is wrong even if the most far-fetched ones turn out to be false. Even the highest profile people that claim they're trying to protect the environment and educate the public often have financial ties to the oil companies that are destroying it like Al Gore who got the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on that earned a fortune from Occidental Petroleum and sold Current TV to corporations with close ties to the oil industry. When Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton are in power they routinely defend the interests of Wall Street and the oil companies, even if they campaign against them; in Barack Obama's case he didn't stand up to the Keystone pipeline until there were massive protests against it, and he want's credit it for it like other hypocritical politicians.

There's no doubt that the people that are making the decisions about policy impacting the environment are the ones making all the profits; while the destruction caused by these decisions is almost all being done to the poorest people and some of these rich reporters, like Chris Matthews, occasionally even slip and tell the public about how he's "so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things. No, politically, I should say — not in terms of hurting people. The storm brought in possibilities for good politics,” after Hurricane Sandy killed over a hundred people. Hurricane Katrina was even worse killing over a thousand, possibly close to two thousand; and there are even worse storms killing larger numbers in poorer parts of the world, where storms or earthquakes often kill tens of thousands of people.

Whether it's environmental damage or many other disasters there is research to show how to prevent many of them and minimize the damage for many others; however for one reason or another they're not reporting the best research to the majority of the public. There should be no doubt that we need more disclosure of whatever secrets the government are keeping and more reporting on the best research to educate the public about the most effective solutions to problems, yet it isn't happening; and their excuses aren't even credible anymore!

A close look at Steve Bannon's record indicates that he seems to be working for one eccentric billionaire or another selling his beliefs to the highest bidder, and that these eccentric billionaires are constantly making bizarre decisions that have major impact on all of us. This isn't limited to Steve Bannon; there are plenty of additional examples that could easily be researched that might support this hypothesis, although they could be interpreted to support other claims as well so careful consideration should be given before coming to a final conclusion. Checking the financial income of Alex Jones, another conspiracy theorists denying Climate Change and enabling pollution, could also be worthwhile. Apparently he's selling all kinds of dietary supplements, which as a explained in past articles are being used for undisclosed research in many cases.

And theories about geoengineering apparently haven't always been treated as fringe, and are now increasingly being considered by mainstream researchers, for better or worse, as indicated in the following article:

What Is Geoengineering and Why Is It Considered a Climate Change Solution? 04/06/2010

When a report on climate change hit the U.S. president's desk, the suggestion was not to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, scientific advisors counseled intervention via technology in the climate system itself—a practice now known as geoengineering. And the president was not Barack Obama, George W. Bush or even Bill Clinton—it was Lyndon Johnson in 1965.

"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through…a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels," President Johnson told Congress in February of that year. To address the problem, his science advisors suggested spreading reflective particles over 13 million square kilometers of ocean in order to reflect an extra 1 percent of sunlight away from Earth.

Today, with climate change accelerating and little being done to curb the greenhouse gas emissions, some scientists have resurrected the idea of "deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment," as the U.K.'s Royal Society puts it. After all, it's an idea nearly as old as the understanding of the physical principles behind global warming itself. Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius thought that global warming would be a boon to humanity and therefore fossil fuel burning should be encouraged, after calculating by hand the likely temperature impact of continued coal-burning and rising carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the late 19th century—roughly matching the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their computer models more than a century later.

That's why 175 scientists and other interested folks (including companies looking to profit from geoengineering) gathered in the Asilomar conference center near the end of March to try to repeat the success of molecular biologists who gathered there in 1975 to reassure a skeptical public about genetic engineering. Ultimately, the gathered would-be geoengineers released a statement calling for, among other things, "further research in all relevant disciplines to better understand and communicate whether additional strategies to moderate future climate change are, or are not, viable, appropriate and ethical." Complete article

Lyndon Johnson's speech was made before the vast majority of the public understood Climate Change and it hardly received any attention at all from the media until a couple of decades later. It indicates that there was some consideration of geoengineering long before the public was paying attention. And, if as some researchers including Philip Corso, were partly correct about contact with aliens it could have been the early stages of planning on a hypothetical research project. This is one of many stories that may have been told that are related to this hypothesis, but were almost ignored for decades.

If you think this is fringe or irrational you might be right; however it is increasingly being treated as a viable option by many people in the scientific community and they often have conflicts of interests and an enormous amount of political power, and may be ignoring simpler more rational solutions that are proven to work far more efficiently.

As I explained in the opening there are many major unsolved mysteries going back thousands of years that still haven't been resolved. It may be difficult to provide hard evidence to prove that this is linked to current events; however there still has to be an explanation for them, and it is also difficult to rule it out. There are also an enormous amount of new unsolved mysteries constantly happening, like why Steve Bannon would have behaved as if he were staying on at the White House in an interview given just a few days before he resignation if he supposedly knew that he would be leaving. He's also apparently a supporter of Zionism and anti-Semites at the same time; and he may have ties to Sheldon Adelson, who he may be introducing at a Zionist dinner, as well.

The closer you look at the news the more irrational and contradictory it seems; and they don't even appear to be trying to make it seem sensible anymore. Instead they keep throwing one irrationals story after another, hoping no one will be able to keep track of it all; and it's hard to imagine how many if any people can.

As I first reported in "Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy" there are far more similarities between the characteristics of "The Whore of Babylon" and Hillary Clinton, and a growing amount of similarities between Donald Trump and the "Beast." Instead of falling apart these similarities grew especially with the outrageous behavior at the Al Smith dinner and him winning the election when it initially appeared as if they were rigging it for Hillary Clinton. A possible version of this theory involved the possibility that there really might be some ancient aliens that influenced the construction of monuments built megaliths thousands of years ago and influenced our early religions. I still try to be a rational skeptic; however the official version of truth is becoming increasingly as insane if not more insane than many conspiracy theories, so at times being a rational skeptic may mean being skeptical of the official version of the truth.

If there is something to this bizarre conspiracy then at least there is some potential for benefit if the technology allegedly shared with corporations from aliens, as discussed in some previous articles, is partially true, assuming it is disclosed and used for the benefit of all not just those that are controlling the way it is being distributed. As mentioned in several of my previous articles this might involve some communication with the aliens and a possible deal of some sort. However if they did agree to provide cooperation in return for the technology there is no guarantee that the aliens provided they might have agreed to participate in a Climate Change research project intentionally. This doesn't mean that they were completely honest with those they shared this technology with though. If these alleged aliens exist and made a deal with the ruling class after the Roswell incident; it may be the latest in many alleged deals or Biblical "Covenants," and a close look at history indicates that if any of these Biblical covenants really are true they came at a much bigger cost than people were led to believe, and that any unknown advanced intelligence perceived as "God" allowed many civilizations to collapse and there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't do it again.

If it is a research project into Climate Change there's no telling how much damage they may want to conduct or if they might go to far. Also the assumption that they wouldn't take it to too big of an extreme is irrational since if this alleged unknown advanced intelligence does exist it allowed the Crusades, inquisitions, holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and much worse. If it suits their purposes they've already indicated that they would be willing to allow more atrocities and use deception to accomplish their goals.

With or without a far-fetched conspiracy theory the people that control the country have repeatedly demonstrated with their actions that they seem to consider the vast majority of the public expendable, except when they serve the purposes of the wealthy, or when they stand up for their rights and don't allow the wealthy to take advantage of them. If there is an unknown advanced intelligence, and he was as benevolent as religious people say, he could have and would have spoken out against this in a manner that everyone would understand. By declining to do the this hypothetical God has demonstrated that, if he exists, he also has an ulterior motive.

Even if none of this is true then it's still far more rational to protect the environment to the best of our ability with the cleanest energy possible, and to reform the democratic process so that everyone gets the news and education they need to participate in the process!

Even though a large portion of the sources discussing Geoengineering or even weaponizing of weather seem like unreliable conspiracy theorists there are apparently a surprising number of people that think there is some degree of control of the weather that man can do, in addition to carbon dioxide contributing to climate change Russia the United States and china have all done research into "cloud seeding" which supposedly increases rain at least a little. If scientists working with the most powerful governments believe this is at least partially possible and they're researching it then it could have an impact on Climate Change and should be exposed. This is especially true when they refuse to implement the safest ways to protect the environment that isn't based on fringe science!

The following articles show that at least some degree of research is going on to study climate or weather control from sources that aren't fringe:

Wikipedia: Weather warfare

Wikipedia: Cloud seeding

Wikipedia: Operation Popeye

Does cloud seeding work? China takes credit for the storms now bringing a reprieve from severe drought, but is that claim valid? 02/19/2009

China creates 55 billion tons of artificial rain a year—and it plans to quintuple that 10/22/2013

Russia spends millions on 'cloud seeding' technology to ensure it doesn't rain on May Day public holiday 05/02/2016

I went into this more in the following previous articles which cite additional unsolved mysteries that might be explained if this turns out to be close to the truth:

107 Wonders of the Ancient World

Is “Prism” news? or is it ECHELON?

A Brief History of the Mormon Church

Why so few arrests for Crop Circles makers? Is there microwave evidence?

UFO Hypothesis with rational use of Occam's Razor

"God's Not Dead" But Is He Nice?

Multinationals Are Using Public For Research On Massive Scale

Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy but could it be related to a far-fetched Apocalypse Prophecy or a weak copy of it?

Wanted unsuspecting research subjects

Is Stanton Friedman working for the CIA to refute reverse engineering claims?

Deadly Monopolies and Medical Slavery?

Deadly Monopolies With Alien Technology?

UFO Hypothesis Far More Credible Than Catholic Claim of A "Miracle Of The Sun"

The following are some related articles and additional sources:

Steve Bannon, Unrepentant 08/16/2017 “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” “Ethno-nationalism—it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.” “These guys are a collection of clowns,”

Bannon: 'The Trump Presidency That We Fought For, and Won, Is Over.' 08/18/2017 “On August 7th , I talked to [Chief of Staff John] Kelly and to the President, and I told them that my resignation would be effective the following Monday, on the 14th,”

Report: Steve Bannon Meets with Billionaire Mercer Family as He Prepares for #War 08/18/2017

‘Populist Hero’ Stephen K. Bannon Returns Home to Breitbart 08/18/2017

Steve Bannon’s Weird Journey From Biosphere Champion to Climate Denying Crank 03/08/2017

Life Under the Bubble 12/20/2010

The Reclusive Hedge-Fund Tycoon Behind the Trump Presidency How Robert Mercer exploited America’s populist insurgency. By Jane Mayer 03/27/2017

Inside The Wealthy Family That Has Been Funding Steve Bannon's Plan For Years 03/22/2017

How Climate Change Saved Steve Bannon’s Job 06/02/2017

Al Gore’s petrodollars once again make him a chip off the old block 01/08/2013

Alex Jones’s Media Empire Is a Machine Built to Sell Snake-Oil Diet Supplements 05/04/2017

Climate Change Is Here. It’s Time to Talk About Geoengineering 07/20/2017

Geoengineering Is Not a Solution to Climate Change Using technofixes to tinker with global climate systems is an excuse to avoid unpopular but necessary measures to reduce carbon emissions 03/10/2015

Geoengineering SRM: Dark Clouds and Shady Solutions 06/26/2014

Steve Bannon to Speak at Zionist Organization of America Gala 08/2/2017

Monday, August 21, 2017

Media Uses Charlottesville Tragedy to Create Cult Atmosphere

Using tragedies to unite the public behind a great and glorious causes has been standard operating procedure for thousands of years; and it is much more common when the leading political establishment is unified in the control of a relatively small group of people, including monarchies or Oligarchies, which is what we have now. Not surprisingly, this has been taken to an extreme after the Charlottesville riots and crash killing an innocent protester.

The vast majority of the media has become obsessed with demanding that Donald Trump and many other politicians or pundits condemn white supremacy without necessarily doing anything to understand what causes it or how to prevent it!

I'm not going to condemn anyone because the entire political establishment media tells me to line up and condemn them without thinking.

I don't support white supremacism anymore than anyone else; however I become extremely skeptical when the entire media establishment seems to be repeating the same demand over and over implying that everyone should agree with this point without discussion. However, in all fairness, if it was accompanied by discussion of the root causes of hatred and the demand or request to condemn white supremacism was only targeting those that have expressed some degree of support for it, it might be far more reasonable.

One of the biggest problems with this demand is that lots of people that are lining up to condemn white supremacism are also opposed to social efforts to reduce inequality or to educate the public about how abandoned inner cities, early child abuse, and wars based on lies contribute to racial tensions and escalating violence. None of the Republicans and few if any of the Democrats that lined up to condemn the Neo-Nazis, KKK, or other white supremacists are overly concerned about how epidemic levels of pollution are dumped in poor neighborhoods, abandoned inner cities that provide little or no educational or economic opportunities, outsourcing that is designed to divide and rule among the working class, or wars based on lies that sacrifice veterans lured in by deceptive propaganda and civilians abroad that are killed in the crossfire, especially minorities, that contributes to racial tensions, including these riots.

There is an enormous amount of research showing how some of the leading causes of escalating violence starts with early child abuse, leading to escalating violence later in life, including bullying, hazing, domestic violence, murder and support for wars even when they're obviously based on lies and appeals to emotion. There's additional evidence indicating that additional contributing causes of violence include abandoned inner cities where the poor have little or no access to economic or educational opportunities, economic inequality, gambling, insurance fraud and many other things that impact the profits of major corporations.

However, there is little or no reporting on any of the biggest contributing causes to violence and racism in the traditional media since it is controlled almost entirely by multimillionaires and billionaires that profit from many of these contributing causes. I've pointed out how some alternative media outlets or library books that get much less attention show many of these things in numerous past articles, some listed below.

For one reason or another, many of the richest people that have been corrupting the political establishment are now lining up to oppose Donald Trump, claiming the high ground, or at least trying to; however there is little or no reason to believe they'll do much if anything to address the social problems that created this situation. Regardless of how we wound up in this situation, Donald Trump has enabled the vast majority of the political, media, and corporate establishments to claim the high ground in opposition to his absurd and irrational rhetoric that is inciting white supremacist rallies and violence.

They're also repeating the same tactic they used to convince us all that we should worry about the alleged hacking of the E-Mails of the DNC and John Podesta by Russia trying to tell the vast majority of the public that we should believe it without question, especially if we oppose Trump. However these E-Mails exposed what some of us that watched closely already knew, that the entire Democratic establishment and the corporate donors was overwhelmingly behind Hillary Clinton long before the voters had a chance to think things over, let alone vote.

Even if the Russians are involved in the hacking of the E-Mails or some other conflict of interest with the Trump administration, which is more likely, they couldn't have done as much to help Donald Trump get elected as the political and media establishment did by giving him an overwhelming amount of coverage and rigging the Democratic Primaries for the only candidate he could come close to beating in the General election.

Now the people that are responsible for his election, even though they come up with a lot of rhetoric about how they oppose him, are claiming to be the good guys, or "resistance," standing up to him; however their rhetoric is almost entirely anti-Trump and if the Democratic Party really did want to address the social problems creating racism they could have done so the last time they held control of the government. The reason they lost that control is because they refused to keep many of their promises then, and there is little or no reason to believe that they'll do so if we fall for the same scam again. Even the Republican Party is trying to take the high ground standing up to Donald Trump, by publicly condemning racism, although they don't do nearly as good of a job pretending to be sincere; however this isn't necessary, since their constituency is looking for any excuse to back up their own racism, or they're more concerned about fiscal policy that caters to the wealthy.

There's been a significant amount of speculation about how Gary Cohn, Steven Mnuchin, Jared Kushner, and David Shulkin will respond to Trump's latest tirade, since their all Jewish members of his cabinet; however they've shown that their fiscal ideology is far more important than their opposition to Antisemitism, which shouldn't be surprising. David Shulkin is the only one that spoke out at all; and his criticism was careful not to name Trump directly. There is some justification of this by claiming that they don't want to abandon any opportunity to have an influence on Trump and moderate him; however it seems far more likely that they're more concerned about fiscal policy that heavily favors the wealthy, which they could have counted on with either Trump or Clinton.

Some of the CEOs of his so-called manufacturing council that was allegedly formed to help bring manufacturing back to the United States took this opportunity to resign in protest, leading to the collapse of this group making them look like the good guys, as long as people don't think things through. Before they resigned they did little or nothing to actually bring these jobs back at all, Walmart has even started looking for more foreign labor again, quietly, of course, while their propaganda indicated they were, buying American. This is standard operating procedure for Walmart, and I'm sure it is for the other members of the council as well.

None of these major corporations seem to have much if any interest in educating the public about racism or how to reduce it, let alone reduce any other types of crime.

However many of them routinely rely on appeals to emotion that enable them to manipulate the public for their own interests, whether it is for profit or some other ideological reasons that may or may not be fully disclosed. Some of these appeals to emotions involve worshiping of celebrities, sports, or as the Bible describes it "Graven Idols," which has been a major part of religious indoctrination even though there are commandments against worshiping "Graven Idols."

The worship of these Idols is clearly a major part of the reason rallying white supremacists to this cause and angering civil rights activists. Ironically, I don't remember any memorial statues for the North from the Civil War, and few after a relatively quick search on the internet for these far more of them from the South turned up even when searching for Northern memorials. The South is, of course, the Bible Belt, where there are far more religious people that put an enormous amount of importance in the Ten Commandments telling them not to worship Graven Idols, or as it says in King James Bible Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

This is of course a major argument often brought up by atheists, and ignored by most religious people, who also use their religion to justify slavery and the use of corporal punishment against children, which as indicated in articles listed below is some of the major causes of escalating violence and indoctrination.

The religious commandment not to worship "Graven Idols," is a good idea, although religions fail to explain why, and don't seem to oppose it for the best reasons. Religions don't seem to oppose all worshiping of "Graven Idols," as the commandment claims, just those of other religions, regardless of what the literal commandment says. Religions routinely use worship of Idols or their leaders as a method to control the public. It is more a part of an indoctrination method than it is a commandment about moral values.

It is also relatively simple to understand that if societies spend an enormous amount of time building these monuments and ignoring basic functions of society, like education a reasonable sense of justice that doesn't use one segment of society to do all the work while another that gets all the benefits that this will inevitably lead to major social problems, including the riots in Charlottesville.

These problems should also be apparent when looking at many ancient monuments and the civilizations that built them before collapsing. The Egyptians, Romans, Assyrians, Persians, Mayans, Incas, Angkor, and many other ancient civilizations put an enormous amount of effort into building enormous monuments, many of them that celebrated War, without taking care of the basic functions that a society needs to survive and they all collapsed and most of the records for these civilizations have been destroyed, however there is enough evidence to indicate that they collapsed partly because of the monuments that we consider so spectacular, as well as epidemic levels of corruption and War.

We are repeating many of the same mistakes they did and the media refuses to report on the best research that could reverse this process before our own decline and fall escalates, possibly beyond the point of no return.

This isn't limited to "Graven Idols," designed to encourage the masses to worship their leaders, the Gods the leaders claim to represent or War; it also includes celebrity, and sports worship that is used for distraction and entertainment purposes, with little or no perspective about what is gained or lost by entertainment and sports cultures. This is also being used to stir up emotions and control the public without debating or implementing the best interests of the public. Sports inspire almost as much emotional appeal as religion or war, without much if any discussion about the benefits to health or good sportsmanship that used to be taught decades ago. Teachers used to teach kids that "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." This was intended to teach them good manners sportsmanship, and that the purpose was to improve health, and get along with others in a well functioning community.

Now this attitude is ridiculed, and it has been replaced with an attitude of "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." And sports fans look the other way at cheating, rape and if they pay much attention to violence it is often more for entertainment purposes than it is to look at it as something that should be prevented.

The leading political and media establishment are more concerned with using religion, sports and war as methods of controlling the public, through appeals to emotions, than they are with educating them about educating them about the impact of them and how to improve the quality of life for all.

The South is also where they routinely have the highest murder rates; and there is little or no doubt, after looking at some of the best research, that this is partly because of their religion; and because religion teaches them to use corporal punishment to control their children and teach obedience from an early age and use it to indoctrinate children to believe what they're told from their parents, instead of developing critical thinking skills. I've reported on this previously in articles listed below; the best evidence of this requires a close look at a lot of research.

However, brief supporting evidence is demonstrated by the fact that there are only nineteen states left that still allow corporal punishment in schools; these same states almost certainly rely on it more at home as well, and six to nine of them are routinely among the top ten states when it comes to murder rates, several more come close, and only one, Idaho, is typically in the bottom ten states, the only other one that comes close to the bottom ten is Wyoming. Neither Wyoming or Idaho use corporal punishment nearly as much as the Southern States and they don't have any major abandoned inner cities which is one of the other leading causes of high rates of murder and other violence. This is also true when it comes to the killing of police officers, which has also come up this week. Seventeen out of the thirty police officers killed by gunfire, so far this year were killed in states that still use corporal punishment in schools; and thirty-two out of sixty-three of the police killed in the line of duty last year. Even though these states only include about forty percent of the population they have more than fifty percent of the police killed by violence.

There's plenty more research showing that early child abuse and use of corporal Punishment leads to escalating violence later in life but it is almost completely absent from the traditional media and politicians practically never discuss it.

The same authoritarian training that leads to escalating violence is also used to train veterans and police to protect the public in many cases, although there are many more moderate methods available which are used in more progressive police departments. So it shouldn't be too surprising that white supremacists still have a lot of members in the military and police departments according to Report: FBI Finds White Supremacists Infiltrated Law Enforcement Agencies. 02/02/2017 there was also a report about a Shively police officer mocks Charlottesville crash that killed woman protesting Nazis 08/14/2017; who "was yanked off the streets" as a result of this post. These are a couple of the more reliable reports about some problems with white supremacists in the police and there are more about them in the military; there are also more that report about These Police Officers And Military Servicemen Had a Horrifying Response to Heather Heyer’s Death 08/16/2017; however this one might not be quite as reliable. The original source reports a response where someone says "I called Lower Chatahoochee Regional E911 and spoke to someone who said he was Chad Bowen. He says he posted no such thing. Are we sure?" in response to a related tweet about a fireman with a similar statement.

These are just a handful of the conspiracy theories that came up after this attack, which should be fact checked before putting to much weight into them; however some of them seem to be at least partially true. And there have been plenty of reports about police officers making similar statements that have come from more credible sources. Some of them claim that the police intentionally allowed it; while others that seem more credible claim that, although they didn't intentionally allow this violence they could have and should have responded quicker. This is supported by some admission from the police.

Whether it was inadequate response as some of the police admit, or the more far-fetched claims that it was intentionally allowed there is plenty of evidence to indicate that teh best research isn't getting the most coverage and that this means passing up more opportunities to educate the public and prevent future atrocities from happening.

The best traditional media report that I was able to find didn't come from the mainstream media that has an enormous audiance but a much lower profile article about Charlottesville Car Attack Suspect Accused Of Domestic Violence Multiple Times. 08/14/2017 This is a common trend that is often reported very quickly in the media before being quickly forgotten; however if they looked closer they would find that before these mass shooters had problems with domestic violence with their own families many of them, or possibly all, were victims of early child abuse first like Dylann Roof who was badly abused by his father before he went on his shooting spree.

While some police officers are in total denial about the problems with white supremacism and police brutality the government relying on many of the minorities that are still not getting fair treatment for their military activities that are often based on lies about weapons of mass destruction. This creates a dangerous situation when some of them come home and realize that the government and the police aren't protecting the abandoned inner cities that some of them live in or that the government is targeting minorities far more in their "War on Drugs," which is also based on lies. Last year two marines killed eight police officers in Baton Rouge and Dallas in response to police shootings of black people; this weekend another marine killed two more possibly in response to the attack at Charlottesville.

As I've said before oppression or early child abuse is not justification for committing mass murder or killing arbitrary police officers; however it is a partial explanation for why many of these killers committed their atrocities; and it we can learn from it to make future atrocities far less likely. Simply saying that there is no excuse when poor people or minorities strike out at the police or go on shooting sprees won't prevent them from happening especially when the victims of oppressive police tactics or a rigged economic system that doesn't hold those controlling it accountable won't prevent these atrocities.

If there's no excuse for poor people or minorities there should be even less excuse for those in a position of power, yet they're almost never held accountable; and if they continue to pursue policies that ignore root causes of violence then our country will go into and escalating decline until it either collapses or we start learning from the best research that the traditional media and political establishment is now ignoring!

The following are additional sources for this article:

Suspected Florida Cop Killer Claimed To Be Member Of Black Extremist Group 08/19/2017

Second Kissimmee, Fla. police officer dies from gunshot wounds; suspect is charged with first-degree murder 08/19/2017

Suspect in Kissimmee police shootings is former Marine, records show 08/20/2017

Chaos in Charlottesville: No One Gave Peace a Chance, Including the Police 08/15/2017

Confirmed: Police Told to Stand Down in Charlottesville—Did Nothing as War Broke Out 08/13/2017

The violence in Charlottesville was orchestrated and engineered by the Mayor of Charlottesville Michael Signer and Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe 08/16/2017

I'm trying to imagine how different my world view and self-image would be if I grew up seeing statues of slave revolt leaders. 08/15/2017

The Fetishization of Violence: Reflections on Charlottesville, WWII and Activism 08/18/2017

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Wars Based On Lies Has Long History Of Political Support!

The threat of war in North Korea are part of a long tradition of basing foreign policy decisions on lies including a recent interview of Joe Lieberman where he said "This goes back to the ‘90s when President Clinton, in really good faith, negotiated an agreement with Kim Jong Un’s father, which gave the North Koreans billions of dollars in return for a promise to stop their nuclear program, to put the brakes on it and then stop it altogether, They essentially took the money and ran." (Lieberman on Trump's North Korea rhetoric: 'Diplomatic language' hasn't worked 08/09/2017) This conveniently omits the fact that it was actually George Bush that pulled out of that deal when he got into office, and neither Alisyn Camerota or Joe Concha or anyone else that I know of from the traditional media bother looking into the history of these negotiations to point this out to the public. Nor did they point out that apparently according the Wikipedia the law firm he joined after leaving the Senate works for Donald Trump creating a conflict of interests.

I went into the history of the conflict with North Korea in several previous articles, including Even Bernie Sanders Ignores History of North Korea Conflict, explaining that even if the current events they're reporting on are mostly true, which I doubt, although it often takes time for all the lies to come out, the events that led up to it could easily have been avoided if previous administration had tried to negotiate a better deal, "in really good faith," as Lieberman says, the situation almost certainly could have been partially, if not entirely, resolved.

However, Lieberman's lies are relatively trivial compared to the long list of lies that have routinely led the United states and many other countries into war, and these lies are routinely only reported by the traditional media briefly before quickly forgetting them and moving on to the lies about the next war. They rarely if ever give them much attention when it might prevent wars based on lies although alternative media outlets, often portrayed as "fringe" or "conspiracy theorists," often report the lies before the wars.

This isn't a conspiracy theory at all; the admissions to many of these lies have come from traditional media outlets, politicians, historians, and government agencies; however they're only reported briefly and the majority of the public has a limited memory so it is easy to stir up their emotions and lead them into one war after another based on lies even though the public record shows that they have no credibility.

The media and government has an amazing knack for admitting to many of these lies on a relatively low level, then quickly forgetting about them; and when peace activists keep track of these lies they accuse them of being conspiracy theorists, while in some cases when war hawks emotionally deny these claims pundits simply decline to check the facts.

This includes many events that are referred to as "False Flag" events that are routinely ridiculed by the mainstream media as conspiracy theories, even though some of them have proven to be at least partially true and lies or plans for potential conflicts to lead the public into war or to distract people from other events have been happening in most if not all major wars including both Iraq Wars, the Iran/Iraq war where the United States supported both sides, the Vietnam war and many coups including in Chile, Iran, Guatemala and many other countries and even a couple plans to unify both the North and the South to prevent or end the Civil war, back when Lincoln was president, although he didn't respond to either of these plans and almost certainly would have been outraged by them both.

The most obvious is clearly the Weapons of Mass Destruction that weren't there and clearly the Bush administration must have known it, unless they're intentionally deceiving themselves into believing their own lies. By now it has been so widely reported that it shouldn't be necessary to provide additional sources for this; however there are still weak attempt to try to patch the claim that it was a mistake, or that the information they had available before the war indicated that the weapons were there, back together so if there is any doubt I included sources for this below. There are also additional sources for most if not all claims on this article as well.

The first Iraq war was also partially if not entirely based on lies as well, including many lies that covered up or down played previous support if Saddam Hussein, prior to the invasion. One of the most famous of these lies was the falsified testimony by Nayirah which was arranged by a public relations firm that worked for the Kuwaiti government that neglected to tell Congress that she was the daughter of a Kuwaiti ambassador.

However this wasn't the biggest or most important lie that led to the first Iraq War, which after reviewing history, clearly could have been avoided. In the eighties when the Iraq and Iran War wasn't going the way the United States wanted it to they restored relations with Saddam Hussein and began selling him weapons, including chemical weapons after they already had evidence to prove that he was using them against Iran in violation of the Geneva Protocol. While serving as Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company, a worldwide pharmaceutical company, Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq as an envoy for Ronald Reagan to arrange this. U.S. activities that enabled this war go back even further when you consider the coup that enabled the Shah to overthrow a democratically elected leader, instead of renegotiating a more reasonable deal with international oil companies including BP.

At one point or another the U.S. supplied both sides of this war, which isn't the first or last time they did this. They also supplied the Mujaheddin which later created the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Even while Saddam Hussein was massing troops on the border of Kuwait the Bush administration sent mixed messages that indicated that he didn't have a strong objection, if any, to the invasion when Saddam Hussein summoned April Glaspie to discuss the border dispute. a close look at this meeting, the transcript and an attempt by two British reporters to ask her about it clearly indicates that at best they provided weak objections to possible military actions along with some statements that could be interpreted as encouraging including the claim that the Bush administration "Has no opinion" on the border dispute.

The lies that led to the two Iraq wars are serious enough but the lies that led to the Vietnam war were even worse; and there is little or no effort to teach the public about the majority of them either through public education to children or to the rest of the population through the media that still tries to portray this war as defense of Democracy, when it did the opposite like many other conflicts abroad. One of the most widely publicized lie about this war is the Gulf of Tonkin incident, although this has routinely been misrepresented so a large number of people probably don't know that it was mostly if not entirely fabricated.

However the biggest lie or misrepresentation about the Vietnam war was simply refusing to report to the vast majority of the public about the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. This was never a secret; however the vast majority of the American public is totally unaware of it since it isn't taught in schools and the mainstream media practically never mentions it. The Vietnamese have always been aware of it, and it overwhelmingly indicates that Ho Chi Minh always had far more popular support than any of the puppet regimes installed by the United States government.

If the American Public were aware of this there would be little or no doubt that this war was never to defend democracy at all, but to suppress it!

The vast majority of the American public is almost certainly not aware of the fact that Ho Chi Minh was one of our allies during World War II and that he asked Harry Truman for help preserving independence from France after the war. they certainly didn't help us so that they could evict one set of tyrants and invite the previous set of tyrants back in to colonize their people. the vast majority of the public is almost certainly not aware of the following concerns they expressed in their Declaration:

Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam 09/02/1945

All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: “All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.”

Those are undeniable truths.

Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow-citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.

In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.

They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center and the South of Vietnam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.

They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood.

They have fettered public opinion; they have practiced obscurantism against our people.

To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.

In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people, and devastated our land.

They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of bank-notes and the export trade. Complete article

Just for the sake of argument let's assume that these claims are all lies. If that were true wouldn't the United states want to debunk it so that they could justify their invasion? Of course, yet they didn't; instead they pretended this declaration didn't exist at all and refused to report it to the American public.

One of the most audacious plans for a false flag event was Operation Northwoods which involved a plan for the CIA to conduct terrorist activities and falsely blame it on Cuba as a justification to invade. The Kennedy administration rejected this plan but it shows some of the outrageous things that our distinguished and honorable generals thought were worthy of consideration. This was signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, who was the longest serving four star General in history, serving fourteen years with that rank even though he proposed this halfway through this period. this General who was involved in one of the most outrageous plans in history was later appointed to the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States (aka the Rockefeller Commission) to investigate whether the Central Intelligence Agency had committed acts that violated US laws.

How many people are aware that someone planing such an illegal act was appointed to investigate other illegal acts by the CIA? I wasn't until I looked it up.

Operation Northwoods may have been one of the most outrageous proposals to be declassified; however it wasn't the first, which apparently dates back at least to the Civil War when two similar proposals were made by members of the Lincoln Administration, although Lincoln didn't act on either.

When Lincoln was a Congressman he raised doubts about the legitimacy of the Mexican American War fought by James Polk as described by Doris Kearns Goodwin, who is hardly a conspiracy theorist. The following excerpts show how political support for wars based on lies were far stronger than efforts to tell the truth, although it hasn't always been like this and doesn't have to be int he future.

Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006

From the start, many leading Whigs questioned both the constitutionality and the justice of the war. "It is a fact," Lincoln would later say, "that the United States Army, in marching to the Rio Grande, marched into a peaceful Mexican settlement, and frightened the inhabitants away from their homes and their growing crops.” By the time Lincoln took his congressional oath the combat had come to an end. The peace treaty had only to be signed, on terms spectacularly advantageous for the victorious United States. At this point, Lincoln conceded, it would have been easier to remain silent about the questionable origins of the war. The Democrats, however, would “not let the Whigs be silent.” When Congress reconvened, they immediately introduced resolutions blaming the war on Mexican aggression, thereby demanding that Congress endorse “the original justice of the war on the part of the President.”

On December 13, less than two week after his arrival in Washington, Lincoln wrote his law partner, William Herndon: “As you are all so anxious for me to distinguish myself, I have concluded to do so, before long.” Nine days later, he introduced a resolution calling on President Polk to inform the House “whether the particular spot the blood of our citizens was so shed” belonged to Mexico or the United States. He challenged the president to present evidence that “Mexico herself became the aggressor by invading our soil in hostile array.”

The president, not surprisingly, did not respond to the unknown freshman congressman whose hasty reach for distinction earned him the nickname “spotty Lincoln.” A few weeks later, Lincoln voted with his Whig brethren on a resolution introduced by Massachusetts congressman George Ashmun, which stated that the war had been “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” initiated by the president.

The following week, on January 12, 1848, Lincoln defended his spot resolutions and his vote on the Ashmun resolution in a major speech. He claimed that he would happily reverse his vote if the president could prove that first blood was shed on American soil; but since he “cannot, or will not do this,” he suspected that the entire matter was, “from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.” Having provoked both countries into war, Lincoln charged, the president had hoped “to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory—that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood—that serpent’s eye that charms to destroy.” He went on to liken the president’s war message to “the half insane mumbling of a fever-dream.” Perhaps recalling the turtles tormented with hot coals by his boyhood friends. Lincoln employed the bizarre simile of the president’s confused mind “running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease.”

This maiden effort was not the tone of the reasoned debate that later characterized Lincoln’s public statements. Nor did it obey his oft- expressed belief that a leader should endeavor to transform, yet heed, public opinion. Compelling as Lincoln’s criticisms might have been, they fell flat at a time when the majority of Americans were delighted with the outcome of the war. The Democratic Illinois State Register charged that Lincoln had disgraced his district with his “treasonable assault on President Polk,” claimed that “henceforth” he would be known as “Benedict Arnold,” and predicted that he would enjoy only a single term. Lincoln sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war, he never voted against supplies for the soldiers. Toa accept Polk’s position without question, was to “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure.” (complete letter in Abraham Lincoln's Warning About Presidents and War 07/13/2012 or for original handwritten letter to William Herndon at Harvard.Edu)

Even the loyal Herndon feared that Lincoln’s antiwar stance would destroy his political future. “I saw that Lincoln would ruin himself,” Herndon later explained, “I wrote to him on the subject again and again.” Herndon was right to worry, for as it turned out, Lincoln’s quest for distinction had managed only to infuriate the Democrats, worry fainthearted Whigs, and lose support in Illinois, where the war was extremely popular. A prominent Chicago politician, Justin Butterfield, asked if he was against the Mexican War, replied: “no, I opposed one War [the War of 1812]. That was enough for me. I am now perpetually in favor of war, pestilence and famine.” In the years ahead Lincoln would write frequent letters defending his position. If he had hoped for reelection to Congress, however, despite the unofficial agreement with his colleagues that he would serve only one term, his prospects evaporated in the fever of war. Indeed, when Stephen Logan, the Whig nominee to replace him was defeated, his loss was blamed on Lincoln.

As Seward understood better than Lincoln, Manifest Destiny was in the air. “Our population,” Seward predicted, “is destined to roll it resistless waves to the icy barriers of the north, and to encounter Oriental civilization on the shores of the Pacific.” Though he wasn’t in favor of the war, Seward’s political astuteness told him it was a mistake to argue against it. He warned that he did not expect to see the Whig party successful in overthrowing an Administration carrying on a war in which the Whig party and its statesmen are found apologizing for our national adversaries.” (Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006 p.120-5)

Goodwin actually only reports on a small portion of Lincoln's major speech which raises even more doubts about the legitimacy of the War and to fully understand it would be better if far more people read the whole thing. This would have been worth serious consideration when Jan Brewer was trying to minimize what she considered unpatriotic education to Hispanic people in 2010. Many educated Hispanics are probably far more familiar this speech and other historical texts, that expose many of the lies that accompanied the "Manifest Destiny" that enabled the United States to expand it's territory. As Goodwin explained there was little or no response from the Polk administration to Lincoln's demand for evidence; and to the best of my knowledge few modern historians or politicians even try to address this issue.

This alone, doesn't guarantee that the Mexican War was based entirely on lies; however, it strongly implies that it was, since, if it wasn't then there would be far more patriotic people doing the research to prove their case. Even Lincoln may have down played the implications of the way this territory and others were absorbed int the United States when he said, "It is comparatively uninhabited," presumably meaning that few Caucasians from Europe were on this land. This would not include the Native Americans that lived on this land. This was standard operating procedure, disregarding the people that lived on the land they invaded, often while either fighting another foriegn power for the right to conquer it, or by purchasing the right to conquer from another European nation, like the Louisiana Purchase, the Florida Purchase or "Onís-Adams Treaty," where John Quincy Adams agreed, on behalf of President Monroe to reimburse Spain for $5 million of damages caused by American Rebels in Florida, even though it wasn't called a purchase, and the Alaska purchase known as Seward's folly. None of these deal involved negotiating with native Americans; and when they did make deals with Native American's they routinely broke them.

Even though Lincoln and many of the other Whigs, many of whom became founders of the Republican Party, didn't support the Mexican War based on lies at least two of them came up with plans to incite wars based on exaggerations or lies to prevent the Civil War or reunite the North and South after four years of fighting as indicated in the following excerpts of Goodwin's book:

Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006

Seward continued under the heading of “For Foreign Nations,” suggesting that Lincoln deflect attention from the domestic crisis by demanding that Spain and France explain their meddling in the Western Hemisphere and that Great Britain, Canada, and Russia account for their threats to intervene in the American crisis. If the explanations of any country proved unsatisfactory, war should be declared. In fact, some such explanations were eventually demanded, convincing European leaders to be more careful in their response to the American situation. It was Seward’s wilder proposal of declaring war, if necessary, that would arouse the harsh rebuke of biographers and historians. …..

….. The idea of engineering a foreign war to reunify the country did not even rate a response. (Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006 p.342-3)

Blair presented his proposal, which would essentially postpone the war between the North and the South while the armies allied against the French, who had invaded Mexico and installed a puppet regime in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. Davis agreed that nothing would better heal the raw emotions on both sides “than to see the arms of our countrymen from the North and the South united in a war upon a Foreign Power.” The specifics of this improbable and unauthorized plan, reminiscent of Seward’s proposal four years earlier, were not discussed, though Davis agreed to send Peace Commissioners to Washington “with a view to secure peace to the two Countries.” .. (Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" 2006 p.690-1)

It shouldn't take much to figure out that even if this far-fetched plan to unite the North and South to either prevent or end the Civil War had worked it would have done nothing to solve the disagreements about slavery, and at best would have delayed the conflict until after another unnecessary war had taken place creating even more atrocities.

It is hard, for most people that don't think this way, to imagine why they would take such absurd plans seriously; and I suspect that the people that come up with these absurd plans, don't understand their own plans or the consequences that would come from them, and that they're totally contradicting the principles of a Democratic Society they claim to defend. However these lies have been reported from sources that even the mainstream media considers reliable although they don't like to remind the public of them very often, and there are many more including coups against Iran, Guatemala, Chile and many other countries, while pretending to defend democracy. The more you check the most reliable sources instead of relying on the propaganda provided by the traditional media the clearer it is that the United States has never been a major supporter of democracy abroad, and even at home when the working class or minorities don't stand up for their rights those with the most political power are constantly trying to chip away at them. When some improvements are made like the Voting Rights Act, establishment of the Environmental Protection agency, or many of the reforms created by FDR or other presidents, if the grassroots becomes complacent those with the most political power are constantly trying to overturn these improvements.

I try to be a rational skeptic about this even when the United States gets caught with one lie after another, and this is just as well; since thanks to all the times they do get caught it may seem more credible when false claims are made about them conducting more interventions. The media and political establishment routinely ridicule these claims as conspiracy theories, and in many cases they're right. I have focused on the lies that have come from the most reliable sources that I know of and time when the government has admitted to their illegal interventions although they often try to spin them; but there are many more claims about ridiculous false flag efforts that are almost certainly false which often get much more attention from the mainstream media. It doesn't take a genius to realize that by repeating the least credible conspiracy theories, like the ones that Donald Trump, or the extreme right wing that he caters to, comes up with they create stereotypes and make all claims seem like absurd conspiracy theories including the ones that he government has admitted to. Below are some links to additional alleged false flag operations, which come from some more reliable sources, although that doesn't guarantee that all of them are accurate. One of the ones from the Third World Traveler claims that 9/11 was an inside job to get rid of asbestos. the Third World Traveler is usually more reliable but this one is extremely hard to believe, since there is little or no chance that they could keep something so petty secret, or would go to such extremes to accomplish this goal.

Washington's Blog has been reporting on False Flag operations for a long time and is far more reliable than the most extreme right wing conspiracy theorists as well. They claim to have found at least 53 False Flag attacks where the people that committed them admitted to it and cite sources to back it up, although, considering the subject matter the more you check these sources the more reliable it will be for you, since you'll be relying on your own judgement to confirm it.

However this doesn't mean the majority of the public has always supported military intervention and global domination at all. There was an enormous amount of opposition to the first World War and when there was accurate information available to the public there has also been opposition to many other wars although the media often declines to report on the vast majority of protests. These protests were much bigger, or at least they seemed bigger during the Vietnam War; however part of the reason for this might be that the draft was still being implemented and many more people had relatives in the war. Another part of the reason for this might be by the time the Iraq Wars happened the media had escalated their consolidation and with a far less diverse media they were much less likely to report on many of these protests.

But why are there so many people that blindly support all these wars even though they're based on lies? In many cases when people try to tell the truth about them, instead of being outraged at their government for lying to them they often blame the messenger, like when Lincoln and the Whigs tried to question the war with Mexico. How does the government and media manage to convince the majority of the public to forget all these past incidents where they fought one war after another based on lies?

An enormous amount of the problem is that the media has consolidated into a small number of oligarchies and they simply don't cover all the lies very well at all. Nor do they provide coverage to grassroots candidates that address many of the most important issues addressing the vast majority of the public, including wars based on lies. Instead they cover candidates that often pretend to address many of these issues and back them up with political operatives that study propaganda to keep people distracted. And many schools discourage discussion of many of these wars based on lies.

They actually did an enormous amount of research into this going back decades, although they often misrepresented their purpose, claiming they wanted to understand blind obedience, like the Nazis that followed orders without question, so they could prevent it, when they may have actually been trying to understand how to more effectively indoctrinate cadets to convince them to obey orders without question.

I went into this previously in numerous past articles including Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment; Corruption or Bias in the American Psychological Association; and Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize that explain how the military, often with the support of the Office of Naval Research helped fund psychological manipulation tactics in Obedience to Authority and the so-called Stanford Prison Experiment, which were supported or funded by the Office of Naval Research. These experiments claimed that they were designed to prevent people from blindly obeying authorities to prevent another Holocaust; however the military isn't in the business of teaching their recruits to question orders from commanders; as Jack Nicholson famously falsely and loudly claimed "We follow orders or people die!" However whether it was the fictional movie where a cadet was killed as a result of following orders or it is the real world where thousands if not millions of people die not because people disobey orders, but because they follow them.

Another major reason why people blindly obey orders without question is that they're taught to do so even before the military starts indoctrinating them in boot camp, often for religious reasons as I explained in James Dobson’s Indoctrination Machine. James Dobson teaches parents to control their children from an early age by relying on corporal punishment to teach obedience and to believe what they're told to believe as well. This leads to escalating violence starting with bullying in schools or often against their younger siblings and escalating to hazing in the military, and more domestic violence later in life including higher murder rates in the states that use it the most and more support for authoritarian wars based on lies. People that are taught never to question their parents often grow up to trust their political leaders as well even when they get caught at incredibly bad lies.

The enormous amount of support for Donald Trump in the South is a clear example of this. He doesn't even do a good job making up good lies yet his followers have been taught to follow the most belligerent leaders or demagogues without question.

Donald Trump is taking his act to an incredibly bizarre extreme, for one reason or another but he's not the one primarily responsible for the insane escalation of tension in North Korea or many other places, even though his responses to it are more fanatical than the rest of the political establishment. This conflict was going on long before he got elected and the political establishment that is now trying to portray themselves as the rational alternative are the same people that made the decisions leading up to this conflict and many others. They also gave him the obsession amount of coverage that he needed to get elected while rigging the Democratic nomination for Hillary by virtually declaring her to be the inevitable nominee years ago before the public even voted, even though it was clear that she had incredibly low approval ratings outside of the political establishment.

As I said, I try to be a rational skeptic about this but the official version of the truth is incredibly absurd, so even if some of the most far-fetched conspiracy theories are also absurd I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that some of them might be close to the truth, although I have no doubt that many of them will fall apart on close scrutiny. However, if they fall apart then we have a long list of lies that clearly indicate that eh government is still lying to the public on a regular basis.

The should be no doubt that regardless of what the truth is that we need a much more diverse media; and that we need to allow all candidates for office to get a fair chance to be heard so that the public has access to accurate information to sort through and an opportunity to vote for candidates that actually support their views. this should also include instant run off elections, sometimes referred to as Ranked Choice, or Range voting, which is similar and enables people to vote for their favorite without worrying about the wasted vote argument. If we allow the same small number of people that control the media to limit our candidates by simply refusing to cover honest candidates we're all wasting our votes when we rubber stamp candidates that don't support our views instead of at least trying to vote for candidates that do.

When we accept the lesser of two evils it shouldn't be surprising when they disregard promises to us and get worse every two or four years!

The following are some of the sources for many of the claims on this page including a list of additional false flag operations starting with the lies that got us into the second War in Iraq:

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction 09/06/2007 by Sidney Blumenthal

The Source of the Trouble: Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. June 7, 2004

Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mushroom clouds, duct tape, Judy Miller, Curveball. Recalling how Americans were sold a bogus case for invasion. Jonathan Stein and Tim Dickinson Sept./Oct. 2006

The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion 03/19/2015

WikiLeaks, April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein by Stephen M. Walt 01/09/2011

U.S. Messages on July 1990 Meeting of Hussein and American Ambassador 07/13/1991

CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; U.S. Gave Iraq Little Reason Not to Mount Kuwait Assault 09/23/1990

April Glaspie - Saddam Hussein Conversation July 25, 1990 Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy The New York Times International Sunday, September 23, 1990

Whatever Happened to April Glaspie? confrontation with two British journalists

Wikipedia: The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah.

Deception on Capitol Hill 01/12/1992 The girl, whose testimony helped build support for the Persian Gulf war, was identified only as "Nayirah," supposedly to protect family members still in Kuwait. Another piece of information was also withheld: that she is not just some Kuwaiti but the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S.

Wikipedia: United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' 12/31/2002

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran 08/26/2013

Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

The second attack on the Maddox has long been disputed, with Johnson saying to then press secretary, Bill Moyers, a year after the attacks, "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address Monday, March 4, 1861

US Military and Clandestine Operations in Foreign Countries - 1798-Present Global Policy Forum December 2005

Overthrowing other people’s governments: The Master List By William Blum – Published February 2013

11 Signs Of A False Flag 11/07/2013

10 false flags operations that shaped our world 03/07/2007

42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks 02/09/2015

53 Admitted False Flag Attacks 02/24/2015