The U.S. government and mainstream media are so lost in their own propaganda that U.S. foreign policy lurches around the globe like a dangerous half-blind giant. False narratives are so powerful that even Sen. Bernie Sanders bends to the delusions, a danger to both U.S. national interests and the planet, writes Rick Sterling.
By Rick Sterling
If the U.S. is to ever change its foreign policy, which is currently based on dominance and aggression, to a foreign policy based on diplomacy and respect for international law, there needs to be a foundation of realistic assessments. Foreign policy decisions need to be based on reality not fantasy and propaganda.
Unfortunately, dysfunction, deception and propaganda extend across the spectrum from congressional Republicans to Hillary Clinton to the White House to Sen. Bernie Sanders. The following are recent examples:
–Benghazi Hearings in Congress ignore important issues to focus on superficial. Congress recently held hearings on what happened in Benghazi, Libya, leading up to the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel on Sept. 11, 2012. The hearings focused on what former Secretary of State Clinton knew, when she knew it and whether she should have ordered more security. Before that, millions of dollars were spent exploring the fact that she maintained her email at a home server.
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
Yet, the root cause of Stevens’ death and consequences of the US/NATO overthrow of the Gaddafi government have been ignored. The hearings were silent on the deaths of tens of thousands of Libyans, the eruption and expansion of terrorism within Libya and beyond, and the massive numbers of refugees fleeing across the Mediterranean Sea into Europe. Instead of evaluating the consequences of “regime change” in Libya, Congressional members focused on cheap political advantage. Mainstream media said nothing about the shallowness of the hearings; they were happy to report on political maneuvering and whether or not Clinton would lose her temper or be able to get “above the fray.”
Points which would have been informative to explore include: Were the claims of imminent “massacre” in Benghazi exaggerated and largely false? These claims paved the way to the UN Security Council resolution and NATO imposed No Fly Zone. Was it a fake emergency? Who authorized the transition from “protecting civilians” to a campaign of attack and Libyan government overthrow? UN Security Council members China and Russia both say there were deceived and that the U.S. and NATO violated the UN Security Council resolution.
Politicians and much of the media have portrayed Gaddafi as “crazy” for many years. For readers interested in a reality check, see the short video of Gaddafi’s speech to the Arab League in 2008 as he points out the contradictions of acknowledging Israel on the 1967 boundary, as he warns the Arab League leaders of plots and coups, and as he says “we might be next” (for assassination). For a concise contrast of Libya before and after the NATO-backed invasion see this article aptly titled “From Africa’s wealthiest democracy under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven after US Intervention.”
–Clinton advocates No Fly Zone for Syria despite U.S. military opposition and Turkey turning against it. U.S. military leadership has generally opposed the “no fly zone” idea because a “no fly zone” begins with military attacks on anti-aircraft positions and is an act of war. They have underscored that imposing such a zone in Syria would be vastly more difficult than in Libya where there were no sophisticated anti-aircraft installations. Even then it took seven months of intense bombing to overthrow the Tripoli government. The risks in Syria would be huge with a significant chance of international war. The idea is reckless and irresponsible for the following reasons:
The areas are controlled by armed opposition groups, predominately Jabhat al Nusra (Al Qaeda). Very few civilians remain in the areas proposed for “no fly zone” in Syria. Most have fled to areas under Syrian government control, especially around Latakia and Tartous. Others have gone to Turkey. The proposal is basically to make U.S. and NATO the air force for Al Qaeda. Amazing.
If a “no fly zone” were imposed, it would more likely become an “intense conflict zone” rather than a “safe zone” as promoted by interventionists. It would bring U.S. and NATO directly into the conflict which is what the proponents want. There already exists a “safe zone.” It’s called the Turkish border.
Of crucial importance, the second Turkish Parliamentary elections are Nov. 1. Polls indicate the ruling “Justice and Development Party” (AKP) will probably lose majority control of the parliament. It’s possible they will lose power altogether. Either way, this will put a stop to the schemes for an all powerful Turkish President (Erdogan) and continuation of the war on Syria. All three non-AKP parties in Turkey oppose the current policies supporting war and terrorism in Syria. Thus, Clinton’s “no fly zone” proposal is opportunistic and out of step with reality in Syria and Turkey.
—White House continues anti-Assad lies as they are further exposed in Turkey. The White House must know very well that Assad government forces did NOT carry out the chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. White House officials must be acutely aware of this because they could not get the U.S. intelligence community to agree with a statement that President Bashar al-Assad was behind the atrocity in the days following the attack. Instead of the usual “U.S. Intelligence assesses with high confidence ” they had to substitute the “U.S. Government assesses ” Although rarely remarked or noted in the mainstream media, this was a significant deviation.
Despite this, and the investigations by some of the most acclaimed U.S. investigative journalists (Seymour Hersh, Robert Parry, Gareth Porter, Russell Baker) all pointing to the Assad government NOT being responsible, just a couple weeks ago the White House spokesman asserted the Assad government “used chemical weapons against his own people.”
Last week in Turkey, two deputies of the social democratic party CHP held a press conference to expose the evidence of Turkish involvement in shipping sarin to Syria and the refusal of the Erdogan government to pursue the investigation or charge the culprits. This evidence, including wiretaps, supports the conclusions of Hersh and others that the chemical weapons used in the Aug. 21, 2013 attack were supplied by Turkey to armed “rebels.” This further exposes the fact-free propaganda that “Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.” Politicians and mainstream media outlets such as PBS Frontline just keep repeating it.
–Bernie Sanders joins the absurd propaganda campaign against Venezuela and its deceased leader Hugo Chavez. As recently reported at Venezuelanalysis, Sen. Sanders referred to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a “dead communist dictator.” It’s nonsense, just like the White House claim that Venezuela is a “threat to U.S. national interests.” It’s sad that Sanders is following that path.
Chavez was a socialist, not a communist; he was member and leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. Between 1998 and 2013, Chavez and the PSUV competed in elections 17 times. They won every time except once. Elections in Venezuela are vastly more free and fair than elections in the US. They have high turnout; they have very active and hard campaigning; there is a paper trail to verify the accuracy of the electronic voting, over 50 percent of the electronic votes are matched to the paper votes to confirm the accuracy of the vote counting.
National Lawyers Guild and Task Force on the Americas (and others) have sent many delegations to Venezuela. They have observed conditions including the voting process. The National Lawyers Guild’s statement on the 2013 election concluded the Venezuelan elections were “well organized, fair and transparent.”
“The U.S. would do well to incorporate some of the security checks and practices that are routine in Venezuela to improve both the level of participation and the credibility of our elections,” said NLG attorney Robin Alexander.
So why in the world is Bernie Sanders promoting false propaganda that Chavez was a “communist dictator”? Task Force on the Americas, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, has written a letter to the Sanders campaign asking him to review and correct his inaccurate statement.
There is profound need for dramatic changes in U.S. foreign policy. Given that over 55 percent of the discretionary budget of the U.S. goes to the military, it’s likely that positive changes in domestic policy will depend on changes in foreign policy. The starting point has to be realistic assessments of conditions in other countries, sincere examinations of the consequences of past actions and a genuine commitment to abide by international law. As we can see from the above examples, there is a long way to go.
Rick Sterling is an independent researcher/writer. He is on the board of Task Force on the Americas. He can be reached at [email protected]
Erdogan won in a landslide and Chavez was a Communist may he burn in hell. Rick Sterling has his head up Fidel Castro’s arse so forgive him… he doesn’t really know what’s going on.
“Erdogan won in a landslide and Chavez was a Communist may he burn in hell. Rick Sterling has his head up Fidel Castro’s arse so forgive him… he doesn’t really know what’s going on.”
Thank you for contributing nothing of value to this discussion other than ad hominem and obscene vulgarity. You are the one who doesn’t know what’s going on:
Erdogan won by a slight margin if we hazard to assume the election was not rigged, and Chavez was a socialist and not a communist. Rick Sterling has a fine brain in his head and you have a large road apple for a brain in yours. Fidel Castro was installed and kept in place by the selfsame zionists who run and ruin your own life, but like I wrote above, you are the one who doesn’t know what’s going on.
awareness is growing of the treachery and duplicity of Bernie Sanders, whose current statements and past track record cannot stand up to sustained scrutiny. Bernie is now coming under concentric attack from a series of black and antiwar websites which are intent on exposing the reality behind the facile rhetoric he has been using to dupe the ever gullible mush heads.
In this process, some of Bernie’s doubletalk on the questions of war and peace is being parsed, revealing a clear intent to deceive voters. Justin Raimondo of AntiWar pointed out that the opportunist Bernie had been attempting to straddle both sides of the issue on the Syrian no-fly zone. As Raimondo noted:
‘Bernie Sanders issued a statement that tried to bridge the gap between the peacenik left and the cruise-missile left:
“I support President Obama’s effort to combat the Islamic State in Syria while at the same time supporting those in trying to overthrow the brutal dictatorship of Bashar Assad. I oppose, at this point, a unilateral American no-fly zone in Syria, which could get us more deeply involved in that horrible civil war and lead to a never-ending U.S. entanglement in that region.â€
At what point would Sanders support a no-fly zone – and what about one imposed by a multilateral coalition of Western nations? He doesn’t say, but he’s clearly not taking the standard leftist noninterventionist line in this debate for the simple reason that what passes for the “left†today is split on the issue of what to do about Syria, if anything.’ [i]
This scrutiny also includes a critical re-examination of Bernie’s political and legislative history, helped along by an invaluable article published by Vermont peace activist Will Miller in the wake of Bernie’s now infamous spring 1999 decision to support the humanitarian bombing of Serbia in the midst of a political hysteria stoked by Christiane Amanpour of CNN. Bernie’s vote in favor of humanitarian bombing was extremely unpopular among Vermont voters, leading to a heated discussion with activists in which Sanders attempted to explain his warmonger vote. Miller’s insights are worth quoting at some length. The image of Sanders, which emerges here is that of an unscrupulous political opportunist, acting as a border guard or gatekeeper for the Democratic Party
After Bernie Sanders’ Rescue of Wall Street Darling Hillary Clinton in Democratic Debate, Awareness Growing Rapidly of Treachery of Man Pro-Peace Vermonters Call “Bernie The Bomberâ€
By Webster G. Tarpley
http://tarpley.net/treachery-of-man-pro-peace-vermonters-call-%E2%80%9Cbernie-the-bomber%E2%80%9D/
Groupthink is the issue here. It is an attractive notion that allows the naive to begin to think about these things, so it is an appropriate concept in the media.
But we give politicians too much credit that more than a few delude themselves, when most get into office purely as opportunist tools of the oligarchy, who in turn control money because we have no controls on its use, and because our economy allows only the ignorant, selfish, hypocritical bully-boys to control large businesses. There are difficulties in maintaining an independent perspective while in office in Washington, especially for cowardly, selfish, hypocritical bully-boys, but little evidence that politicians have any desire to do so.
Look at the judiciary, the most systematically corrupt group of gangsters who ever wrapped themselves in the flag. They are all appointed carefully by the crooked politicians. All would be swinging from trees if the founders were with us, and not by their tails. Little need for groupthink in any federal branch.
But this is a very good article nonetheless.
“Look at the judiciary, the most systematically corrupt group of gangsters who ever wrapped themselves in the flag. ”
Oh yeah, can you say ‘MERS’? Every judge in USA is implicitly complicit in that vast fraud.
They are a swirling cloud of vampire bats.
I don’t want to speak for Stuart Davies, whose comment is indeed astute, but I have had the thought before that people like Chris Hedges (and unfortunately sometimes Bob Parry and authors on this site) have made the deep state’s job easier by bashing Bernie Sanders from the left and thus robbing him of a constituency that might support him if they weren’t buying into the false narrative.
One of the biggest inaccuracies I read over and over is that Bernie was one of 100 senators who, according to Hedges, “stood up like AIPAC wind up dolls and approved Israel’s 51-day slaughter last summer of Palestinians in Gaza.” What he’s referring to is S. Res. 498, which essentially gave Israel a free pass to invade Gaza. Resolutions don’t get voted on, so no one “stood up.” What they did was sign their name on the measure. And in fact, Bernie Sanders DID NOT JOIN 79 of his colleagues who signed the resolution. If he was an “AIPAC wind up doll” and rabid Zionist, he most certainly would have. Hedges bases his assumption on the passage of the resolution by “unanimous consent.” Either he doesn’t understand Senate procedural rules, or he is deliberately twisting the truth to fit his worldview. Moreover, Sanders on his Senate website blames both sides and takes Israel to task for the disproportionate number of Palestinians killed. For advocates of the Palestinian cause, it’s not enough, but it’s far more than the vast majority of Congress. Again, if he was firmly in Israel’s camp, there would have been no criticism at all.
Because of Hedges’s stature among the progressive left, his assessment has been repeated over and over to the point that it is accepted as gospel, without any independent confirmation. Kind of like the rumor that was going around about Sanders holding dual Israeli citizenship.
As for Hugo Chavez, I think Bernie’s point was that those attempting to smear him were comparing him to a Hugo Chavez precisely because of what this article asserts. The clue is in the origin of the smear, which had to do with a deal Sanders made with Venezuela to send heating oil to Vermont in 2006. For that, he was roundly blasted as consorting with the evil Chavez and subverting American foreign policy. Do you honestly think he would have done that if he shared the prevailing view of Chavez? Of course, we won’t know for sure until we hear it from Sanders himself, but everyone is so quick to demand an “apology” from Sanders, which is totally diverting attention from the fact that team Hillary is red-baiting Bernie. Doesn’t that seem to be more of an issue? It’s all the uglier because Hillary said she wouldn’t run a negative campaign, but is working directly with a PAC that is doing the dirty work for her.
Of all the examples of propaganda in this article, Sanders misspeaking about a former leader of Venezuela seems to be the mildest, particularly given that he actually did business with the man. And yet the photo and tagline are about “bad Bernie.”
Incidentally, during the debate, Sanders specifically said that he would NOT impose a no-fly zone over Syria. No mention of that here.
So yes, I believe David Stuart is absolutely right.
… Stuart Davies (sorry).
Sanders is experienced and seasoned. Hillary and Obama are naught but phony sock puppets. After eight years I am still quite certain that Obama is not legally qualified to be President and that he was installed by the zionists as a joke. Fortunately, to some extent Obama turned the joke back on them.
This is what’s so disconcerting and frightening about the propaganda; to utter one sentence that’s offensive to the Zionist power configuration or even Washington’s national security [sic] group think is to find oneself virtually ostracized or quickly backpeddling while issuing profuse apologies.
Sanders is a great candidate on domestic economics, no doubt. When it comes to Israel and U.S. global imperialism he fails miserably. It’s this type of paradigm that keeps intelligent liberals in the dark on these issues, ergo they’re as deluded as the next guy.
The person who’s actually well informed and speaks or writes the truth is perceived to be coming from Neptune.
Drew, here is how I picture it all went down; Hillary and Bill met with the DNC committee to elect a president. After, everyone present listened to Hillary’s demands, and Bill calling in his many years gained markers, it all became suddenly simple. We’ll just get the socialist guy to run against her, was the committee’s unanimous comment. Knowing America will never put someone like Sanders in the White House, Hillary will run for the U.S. Presidency unopposed.
Sounds plausible Mr. Tedesky. Hillary is staunch Cold Warrior type.
Thanks Drew, somewhere within my comment with a little humor, along with a little of the truth, I maybe on to something, I am sure. Now, I don’t know what kind of deal, was made with Elizabeth Warren, or if any deal was made at all, but Senator Warren is without a doubt ‘on lockdown’. That doesn’t mean the consumer advocate is necessarily not allow too speak, it just means, ‘no presidency for you, lady, next’. Come to think of it, when in the last couple of years, have you listened to a nice looking Blackman Democrate give a rousing great speech? If, you have, then tell me who, because I missed that one. Then, there is poor old Unlce Joe. It would stand to reason, that Joe Biden, is just flat out tuckered out, and just wants to retire to his home. I can’t say, I blame him. Again, it’s finally Hillary’s turn damn it, so go about your business, and leave her alone. “I mean, What difference does it make?”
The real world equivalent of Sophia Leigh will not do as President under any circumstances.
Here is one good read about the Clintons: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/the-man-who-bought-the-clintons-the-political-business-of-terry-mcauliffe/
Kiza, thank you. Your linked article, is more proof to how the mechanism of government works, by pulling on the levers of money in order to produce policy. Policy, making has nothing to do with the good of the commons. The only special interest group not represented in this club of influential oligarchs, is the average citizens. Between, long campaign times, and tons of TV/Media commercials, how can all this bribery occur with out millions, even billions of dollars funding it, without the wealthy class donations? I’m sure among the wealthy, some wish a different way of conducting elections were to be, but who among them want to be the first, to go it a lone. Plus, there is always someone even richer, and what are they going to do. We could try bringing back some good old fashioned regulations, but in today’s U.S. that would be considered you being communist. As long as our election process runs on money, the money interest will prevail, they just will. The next generation will need to swing the pendulum back the other way, much like their grandparents (maybe even great GP) did. Sorry, got carried away….but thanks again for the reference reading.
Liberals, shouldn’t bash liberals candidates, but what if a liberal candidate isn’t all that liberal where it may count to a certain segment of the liberal electorate? Robert Parry, is still one of the progressive journalists who always softens his critique of Obama. Well, at least people on this comment board think so, and sometimes I agree. I even still somewhere inside me, have secretly retained some ‘hope & change’. I know Bernie is a nice guy candidate, but did he have to leave Hillary off the hook at the CNN debates, so easily over those ‘damn e-mails’ ? Come on now, ask a freshman politicial science major, and they will tell you how stupid that was. Trust me, it is going to be Hillary, and that is all there is to it. I’m feeling ‘the BURN’!
Robert Perry is one of the best independent journalists that I read and you are one of the best commentators on this site.
Regarding Hillary, I was impressed by a write up on zerohedge about the debate between Bernie and Hillary, in which all polls said that Bernie won between 70% and 90% of the viewers of the debate. Yet, almost all MSM reported a Hillary win (with 10-30% of the audience). It appears that voters are getting Hillary showed down their throats. Bernie is there for an appearance of Democracy.
About, that Bernie winning the debate survey….yes, I believe he did win. Bernie won with progressive voters inside my circle, of family and friends. To these loved ones, and acquaintances this showed them just how nice of a person Bernie Sanders really is. In a real world that would mean I stand corrected. That would mean my previous statement was utterly wrong….just not right. The only problem is, these presidential elections aren’t being held in the real world, it’s 2015, this is America, and besides all that, its Hillary’s turn…okay! Almost like when Al Gore won the presidency back in 2000. It’s the same conundrum John Edwards experienced, when he refused to go on stage with Kerry, to give a concession speech, back in 2004. Besides, like Madam Clinton would say, ‘Now, What Difference does it Make’! Oh, and thanks for the compliment.
“We could try bringing back some good old fashioned regulations, but in today’s U.S. that would be considered you being communist. ”
You’d be called a paleoconservative, not a communist.
In politics, money does talk very loudly, I agree 100% on that.
Trump will beat Hillary unless a vast cheatathon occurs, which is a very distinct possibility and most likely a certainty. If you don’t like Trump then you will get Tweedledee or Tweedledum. Hillary is Tweedledee. Rotsaruck!
Calling whatever that D.C. Made for TV thing was, the Benghazi Hearings, was more to the point, if the hearings had been instead titled, ‘the Official Launch of the 2016 Hillary Clinton Campaign for the White House’. To the Hillary supporters, the hearing was nothing but a Witch Hunt. To the GOP teabag crazies, Hillary avoided their nut job politicians questions, at every turn. Everybody wins! Eleven hours, of nothing.
What I cannot get over, with all the fuss over Benghazi, why is no one grilling David Petraeus. After all, it was Petraeus’s CIA compound, where four Americans met their fatal fate. Don’t the good congressional people want to do right by these four brave American heroes, and their families? On any September eleventh day, in any year, wouldn’t it be wise to order an American ambassador to stay inside, especially any ambassadors stationed in one of a few of the Middle Eastern countries, who might have an axe to grind with the U.S.? Okay, I understand, its me, isn’t it? This whole Benghazi episode has the feel of a Brzezinski inspired, Petraeus implemented plan, gone wrong. At that particular time in the 2012 presidential election cycle, a gone wrong plan, would have also reflected badly on a president running for a second term. Webster Tarpley actually points a finger to a covert Mitt in the mix. Although, I’m not completely sold on the Romney involvement, I will buy into a CIA double cross, which brought the revengeful crazies out in force that day. Brzezinski, and Petraeus, love using the bad guy, to fight the other bad guy, and this is where one conniving nobleman could find themselves in a really tight squeeze. I will leave you all with this thought; would a cheating general let out a news leak, about his scandalous sexual affair, in order that said general would escape prosecution for a war crime? Remember, this is 2015, and one should never say never, again.
I can’t take credit for the comment – somebody on another site said it: “There’s nothing wrong with a witch hunt if you’re after a real witch.” But they went after her for driving off the livestock and ruining the wheat crop when they should have looked into those spells she cast that caused the plague and drove the townspeople to practice cannibalism.
Yeah, she sure scares the hell out of everyone on this site too.
“I will leave you all with this thought; would a cheating general let out a news leak, about his scandalous sexual affair, in order that said general would escape prosecution for a war crime? Remember, this is 2015, and one should never say never, again.”
The answer is no, and as a limited hangout it would certainly be a ridiculous failure. And furthermore, the Benghazi incident was not a war crime to begin with. And while the destruction of Libya may have been a war crime, quite a few people aside from Petraeus would be on the docket for it. Hence if Petraeus were to go down over Libya, then they all would. That is why Petraeus fears not over Libya. As for his womanizing, he obviously thinks with his dick instead of his brain. That is 100% why he is no longer running the policy antique we call the CIA.
Petraeus is just a simple minded empty headed boob who was played by everybody. You should see that clearly. What were his notable contributions over the course of his career? Nothing.
Hillary Clinton passed thousands of classified documents to other governments by uploading them to a hackable communication satellite via her illegal use of a private email server and the data was therefore made very easy for certain other governments to extract. That is exactly why she had the private email server, and she was paid off for it via donations to the Clinton Foundation from abroad. Just follow the donation money back where it came from if you want to know which other governments she works for.
Clinton should go to prison for that forever, but the usual suspects want her to be President as she would be very easy to control and/or compromise.
They will not succeed. Too many are awake now. If they force her in, she will be forced out.
“False narratives are so powerful that even Sen. Bernie Sanders bends to the delusions”… ain’t it the truth. I would add that false narratives are so powerful that virtually every single pillar of the western progressive/left intelligentsia bends to the delusions – from Noam Chomskey, to Chris Hedges, to Robert parry, etc., as well as many other would be members of this club such as Rick Sterling.
I see an incredibly persistent blind spot among all of the individuals listed above, along with many others, that renders their analysis on so many subjects very nearly useless, and in fact leads me to the conclusion that they can only be regarded as propaganda assets of the transnational deep state – wittingly or unwittingly. The fact that these individuals stand out as critics of the status quo makes them all the more valuable assets to the power structure they criticize when – in their failure to examine key elements of the false narratives that permeate society via the corporate media – they incorporate those key components of these false narratives into their failed “analysis”.
Granted, in many of these cases it may very well be that these individuals are inhibited from delving into certain topics or even examining certain categories of evidence due to the powerful social taboos which delineate the “acceptable” parameters of discourse, debate, and criticism of the established order of power in western society. There is a profound psychological barrier that has been deliberately nurtured and reinforced by the elites that control our governments and the media.
I came upon a quote in a book titled “Justice Matters” by Mona Weissmark a few years ago which is probably the most succinct, eloquent, and accurate explication of this phenomenon that I have encountered. The book focused on an entirely different subject, and the author might very well object to the realm to which I apply her insight, but nonetheless I see her words as being entirely accurate here as well:
“There are social pressures imposed on us to accept assertions about conditions of reality that lay claim to our beliefs rather than our intellect. This in turn compels us to ignore new facts, deny them, or treat them as oddities. Otherwise, we may risk the threat of isolation, punishment, the loss of identity. The psychic cost of changing one’s view of reality is considerable…”
This describes the psychological barrier anyone faces when it comes to going beyond the pale by simply examining evidence which we instinctively understand will call into question the truth of a narrative commonly believed by the overwhelming majority of those around us. Obviously, this only applies to uninitiated innocents, including any of the unwitting servants of the deep state mentioned above. Anyone who wittingly serves their designs is no doubt subject to entirely different psychological tortures.
Excellent comment, Mr. Davies. Very astute. I completely understand the point you make. But maybe you’d be willing to expand upon your statement and describe exactly what you’re getting at when you refer to the “blind spot” that impedes even those, such as the authors of this site, that have been critical of U.S. foreign policy, militarism, propaganda efforts, international monetary policy, and other deep state maneuvering. What are they missing that makes them invariably “unwitting servants of the deep state,” besides the “psychic cost of changing one’s view of reality?” Because many of the folks you include have been working diligently to change all of our views of reality through their journalism.
The 800 s.f. blind spot in the room these people all have is the refusal or fear to openly lay the blame for all of this war crime and corruption on zionism and its thoroughly pernicious influence on US foreign policy. All of these illegal wars were for Israel. Every single one.
Imagine just for a moment a United States in which a politician leads opinions and explains to people the real issues, instead of following the polls of the public!!! Ain’t a super simple control mechanism: the one who creates the (false) narratives and controls their delivery channels – the MSM, that one controls the politicians and the whole system. This is just in case they do not follow the verbal instructions of the donors. That is the Western Democracy in a nutshell, but other democracies such as Venezuela do not follow this same model. This is why they are a threat to the US.
There is no point blaming Bernie Sanders for being just another little servant of the system. He would be savaged even he tried to lead, not that he has it in himself anyway.
Donald Trump is a disaster, but appears to be the least of all available disasters.
What a wonderful article this is by a previously non-prominent writer Rick Sterling. I do not know his organization, the Task Force on the Americas, but I like their anti-government-change attitude.
Only 6 guys need to be arrested under RICO statutes to cripple and shut down the entire criminal MSM and get news reportage back where it belongs: reality.
Trump is gonna do it.
While Stuart Davies is correct in his assertion that we are all limited by blinders and (while he does not say the following: this is limiting is applied at the very earliest level as our language, culture, and family teaches us what to pay attention to and what to ignore, long before politics even becomes a concern to the developing child); he totally fails to tell the reader in what ways and on what issues this constantly prevalent tendency to partial and therefore false information affects Rick Sterling’s analysis or makes him “a propaganda asset” of the “transnational deep state.” In fact Davies technique of assertion and name-calling with out factual substantiation is exactly what propaganda is.
He is a Zionist,which unfortunately means keeping truth at arms length.
Why are our leaders all infected with stupidity and ignorance of the actual world?Must be they read the Zionews.