I’m Back With an Outline for My Book Project

I have neglected this blog for a long time and have decided to revive it and, God willing, add to it consistently–I certainly have a lot to say.

As I write this I have little to say about current affairs. The mainstream news media is awash with false narratives built on the Narrative a kind of overall Big Lie that is as obvious and clearly manipulated by the State, or I should say, various elements within the State (which is really what many call the “Deep State”), who have similar goals. To be brutally simple, that goal is to control the public so they will go along with anything the powerful desire. So far, since Roosevelt died this project has gone quite well. The majority of citizens within the USA have given up what agency they achieved after the Progressive Era and the New Deal willingly by believing the absurd lies they are fed every day by the propaganda outlets and the entertainment media. After, at the end of the day, what is the difference between Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert? One is “news” the other is “entertainment” yet both mouth identical propaganda and both are exceedingly obnoxious and crude in their presentation to anyone that has some respect for the truth which, fortunately for the power-elite, is no more than ten percent of the population.

Most of my commentary in the past couple of years has been on Facebook. A few weeks ago I decided to limit that because debate is impossible at least among the “friends” I’ve accumulated over the years most of which, I believe, have excluded me from their feeds. But, since I keep picking up friends, I have decided to keep posting there a little bit–limiting myself to minimal commentary and a couple of posts a day.

I am now in the process of writing my book which I see as a series of bits and fragments that I hope to weave together into an interesting pattern but I won’t see it as I write it. I know the matters I want to touch on but what has held me up is in what order to I present my ideas. Here is the basic outline of what I wish to say.

  1. This historical moment is confusing because we have no mythological framework that makes sense thus life seems to be a bunch of memes swimming in a paradoxical medium. Can they come together?
  2. Not only has society changed radically, but so has science in recent decades. We are now, in physics, at the edge of spirituality as Heisenberg envisioned. All matter appears to be either a form of consciousness or a manifestation of “shapes” in a multiverse that contains at least eight or more dimensions and, as such, is impossible to grasp using mathematics (at best we can understand 4-d math at this time) or language. Physics, at least at the quantum or elementary level is deeply paradoxical as any n-dimensional reality would be when n > 3. With that in mind we look at the world of the “paranormal” that contemporary science dismisses as a delusion or series of hallucinations. We will show direct evidence that the world as envisioned by “scientism” is impossible and delusional and why it remains in place as part of an overall Narrative whose purpose is control as much as the Church’s view of the universe was mainly about political control.
  3. How do we recreate a healthy and nurturing mythological framework within which we can prosper rather than stay confused and stressed? First, it is a mistake to use reason or science to be the primary tool to build this framework; instead, we need to rediscover the power of intuition and what is called “the heart” to base this on. More specifically, the heart or coming from the heart is the existentially most pleasing and secure place in our consciousness. It is from the heart that our consciousness truly expands. Why? Because it is the “place” where we connect with others, we connect with our most authentic Self (our essence or soul) and where we connect with the entire universe. We only have to look at the great mystics throughout recorded history to grasp that. Touching our essence touches on all Essence or God him/her/itself.
  4. The picture of the world we have today based on the cultural values is where our main problems originate–it now seems unable to not only not digest modern physics but also the findings of cognitive, social, psychological, neurological, anthropological sciences and we are lost in matters of philosophy, ethics, and religion. It is as if we cling to the 18th and 19th centuries and pretend the 20th never happened. Our outer lives, our technology, our political life, our social lives including the way we eat, the way we raise children, have sexual relations and even sexual identities are radially different today than in those past centuries yet our minds still envision the world in a kind of narrow version of what we think (often erroneously) people thought back then.
  5. Society ought to aid us in meeting our real needs which include not only nutritious food, clean air and water, a place to live and a decent everyday life with some security but also provide “space” within the culture for spiritual expansion. Since spirituality seems to be the “final frontier” and the only way to understand the paradoxical nature of the world we live in as well as providing the greatest pleasure and satisfaction in live society ought to be oriented towards being friendly to spirituality and encourage religious practice to emphasize compassion rather than fear, expansion of consciousness rather than its narrowing and so on. We clearly have the technical means to create a compassionate society, eliminate poverty and most depression, anxiety and toxic stress (there is such a thing as healthy stress).
  6. The reality is that society as it is currently constructed cannot offer us any kind of compassionate society because people, particularly in the USA, have been subject to a mind-control regime for over a century. The Narrative or mythological framework that is accepted by the mainstream culture is more radically at odds with actual reality as that same culture has accepted in science, in philosophy and in any possible definition of “the truth” you might have. What our Narrative essentially says is that despite what science is telling us, the Moon is actually made of green chees and if you don’t believe it you are a Russian troll. In addition, our culture tells us in so many ways, the universe is divided into good guys and bad guys–we (those that accept the contemporary Narrative) are the good guys and anyone who does not follow without question the dictats of our leaders is therefore, by definition, “bad.” While this seems incredibly stupid–this is the actual believe in the culture when you reduce the assumptions the current mainstream Narrative is based on.
  7. How to spread a circle of truth, how to be always connected and how to deal with internal and external forces that keep you away from the truth. Here I will examine the basic attributes of the perennial philosophy and a new world of “reality” which includes anomalous events and where we can fit “everything” within a sane cultural framework that includes the concept of the multiverse, spirits, ETs, miracles, the strange nature of time, and many more things.

I will be posting segments of this book, not necessarily in the order listed but in the order that makes sense for me to write about. The “real” order will emerge such that all these separate subjects will interpenetrate–an ambitious project but my heart tells me is possible.


Orlando Shooting

I think our reaction to tragedies is too simplistic and tends to be knee-jerk. It’s not that simple folks you can’t blame gun laws, Muslims, gay-haters and so on. We Americans who studiously avoid thinking through things or thinking deeply are often reduced to slogans and culture-war flag-waving. I don’t like it.
First all those people killed is unsettling. When I was younger I hung out at a gay night-club–the drugs were good the dancing even better (yes, I’m straight) and that could have been me if I was a young person. I’ve always been deeply sympathetic to those with ambiguous sexuality because like them I’ve always felt like an outsider and wasn’t satisfied with the definitions of male and female I was faced with for both good and bad reasons.
Secondly, I sympathize with conservatives who find themselves bewildered in an unrecognizable world where things that were once certainties may not be certainties–this inspires fear, suspicion and bewilderment. This is true of all traditional religions. And yes, Muslims seem to have a rougher time of it because they come from even more traditional backgrounds than our native-born Christian fundamentalists. Part of the reason is that for the past centuries Muslim culture has been under assault not only from Western culture but Western imperialism including murderous military aggression not to “liberate” the Middle East and Central Asia but for conquest and profits.
Finally, the emphasis on gun-violence reflects this countries fascination and love of violence that stems from the “conquest” of the Native Americans who were (and still are in parts of the West) considered sub-human and dangerous. This violence is expressed in entertainments, games, sports and even porn. We like the idea of one person dominating another and “winning” at the expense of others. Is it a surprise that our levels of violence are so high considering we are a relatively stable culture? Is it surprising that violent acts like this occur in a nation where 20-25% of students in school (all ages) report being bullied and one in ten drop out of school because of bullying? The shooter grew up in this country so we cannot blame a “them” as much as we want to. And I’m not sure blaming guns is helpful–because guns are an integral part of culture in parts of the country like the South (including assault rifles) we need to, yes, see that some people may have to be denied gun ownership but I don’t think that’s going to go far in solving our problems either. One of the reasons why people are so adamant on avoiding gun-control is because, frankly, they don’t trust the government which appears to many of us to be arbitrary, cruel, and violent itself–I don’t see any reason to trust the government at any level at this point in our history to protect our interests, our lives and our freedoms and there’s plenty of evidence for that. Most obvious are the series of cops shooting, strangling, beating people for the sheer fun of doing so–there’s no other way to explain it. How can we reasonably trust that?
What is the solution? For me it’s very clear. We have to start with two ideas: 1) we need to really, really listen to each other instead of automatically react and condemn each other; and 2) we need to start cultivating love and compassion instead of competition and rivalry. Each of us has something to offer but if we don’t listen to our opponents then we have nothing to offer. BTW, I’m not excluding myself in the critique.

Outsider Candidates

Trump expresses working class attitudes towards the dramatically changed social and economic conditions fostered by globalization in a language they can understand and relate to.  He captures the feelings of people who have endured falling wages, higher prices, two-earner households, high taxes and reduced services, cultural disruption of traditions and mores and obvious corruption in all areas of public life. He wants to make America great again under a new dispensation. My impression is that his supporters are too angry to be interested in polite dialogue and the niceties of democratic institutions that are too corrupt to be taken seriously. These supporters want to get down to it. Democracy has failed even elections cannot be trusted, the media cannot be trusted to report accurately what is going on. The type of people that support Trump don’t have the energy to research for themselves what is going on and don’t trust leaders of any kind to be anything else than predators and they are, more or less, correct.

In times like this these people, mainly on the edges of the fading middle-class, want someone to stand up for them and they know that, and here they are being more reasonable than the left, only an oligarch can stand up to the forces of tyranny and oppression, cowardice and incompetence, and the deep corruption of the system. They want a “strong man”, a caudillo to take charge and clean out the stables. They want someone to ruthlessly brush aside the threats from outside and inside the country. These people do not understand how illegal immigration (remember it is illegal) can flourish under governments of both parties who are equally ineffective at enforcing the law and they are right. Eventually, if they haven’t figured it out already, illegal immigration is favored by the oligarchs who know that this sort of immigration puts a strong downward pressure on wages and allows working conditions to deteriorate.

I can in no way fault people for supporting Trump. If they are rude to minorities it is because they are upset with the course of society and see everyone who are not members of their own tribe as a potential threat as is normal for anyone who feels stressed out, fearful and threatened at threats they don’t understand and armed with vague rumors and false conclusion that come to them of the 24/7 lie machine which is the U.S. mainstream media.

My analysis is very different. My critique is from the left but I find the “left” in the U.S. is largely dead and has been replaced by functionaries in various bureaucracies, comfortable hypocrites who listen to NPR or even “radicals” who read Nation Magazine who have vague notions of the toxic nature of American political culture but, since they are part of a fairly privileged group of educated professionals are also actually fairly conservative but won’t admit it for fear of cognitive dissonance.  The real left is made up of us who are opposed to the status-quo and, rather than wanting to “go back” to some mythical past, want to take the challenges of today and more towards solutions that create a more desirable way of living for most people. Contrary to the right we are for a “flatter” social structure with less importance placed on money, status, privilege, and more importance placed on making sure those with ability have the opportunity to excel for the betterment of the whole society not just individual gain (a delicate balance). We are, in a sense, collectivists who see that human happiness comes from connection rather than isolation, who see real value in community as well as the individual freedom to pursue interests, meaning and spirituality that is not destructive to the whole or the natural environment we are part of and, finally, we want to create a life where we can enjoy life rather than being forced to work at jobs we don’t like with the threat of homelessness if we don’t. We don’t like coercion and we don’t like war and we don’t like oligarchs. I suggest to you that the left, as represented by the Democratic Party is not in any way left by my definition and even Bernie Sanders is not really left because his critique ends at band-aids that don’t touch on the need for radical change.

This brings me to our other alternative candidate:  Senator Bernie Sanders. My cousin claims Sanders has accomplished nothing in the Senate—but of course he could not actually do anything because the moderate left caucus in the Senate consists of a couple of Senators and maybe a couple more who are somewhat sympathetic. Sanders has used the Senate to make his dramatic orations which have opened up a channel for his ideas to get into the media which completely opposes his agenda in everywhere since the mainstream media are propaganda organs for the corporate oligarchs who will not allow serious dissent. As a candidate he has displayed some courage in seriously critiquing the oligarchy knowing that their media outlets would largely ignore him as a result. For many of us on the left we are disturbed by his refusal to take on the Military Industrial Complex and the National Security State and the USG’s policies in the Middle East. He does not oppose U.S. policies and, in fact, voted for the Iraq War. Sanders accepts the mainstream narrative on terrorism and, I’m betting, U.S. policy towards Israel. Sanders is as left as any candidate can be in today’s political climate. He is miles away from Clinton who, like Obama, is a center-right candidate.

If the left, even the fake left I described above want to have any influence and want to slow down and perhaps stop our drift towards what is certain to be a dystopia, we need to support Sanders even though we know that Sanders will be able to not do much more than inch us away from some unpleasant alternatives. This election will be more decisive and important by far than any of our previous elections because it will set us on a path to our future. 2008 was a fraud–the hope-changey thing was delusional thinking particularly by progressives. Here we can go either into the populist right and fairly authoritarian society or go back and resurrect the Roosevelt vision of America. The status quo of Bush and Clinton just won’t fly any more.


We Have Met the Enemy and the Enemy is Us – Conclusion.

“History is bunk!” Henry Ford used to say. I’m not sure what he meant exactly but generally speaking he is right. History, as commonly portrayed is bunk because it is usually propaganda of some kind told from an ideological perspective. American is, according to most American’s view of history, the exception. In America we play fair, fight fair and seek freedom and happiness for all human beings. We believe that everyone should live like we do because, obviously, the way we live is far superior to anyone else. This is an assumption that underlies all U.S. involvement in wars and foreign adventures. Simply because we decide to act it means we act, always, in good faith. This is almost the default state of all Americans even on the so-called “left.” Liberals will say that Iraq, for example, was a “mistake” and that we ought not have gone in but we meant to bring democracy and human rights to Iraq we just flubbed it because there was a Republican Administration at the time. These people need no evidence they just assume that we mean well. They assume that American soldiers go into action to bring freedom not revenge, not needless violence, not looting, not just because they enjoy shooting at people and killing them or even just like to see things blow up.

American Exceptionalism is an insane idea but it is very useful to the “Deep State” that permanent government made up of the permanent bureaucracy and their allies and sponsors in the corporate and contractor world. To anyone who can reason above middle-school level it is obvious that this Deep State exists. People often call it “Washington” of “the Government” when they are not specifically referring to the Administration or Congress. They know, instinctively, that this entity operates continually with its own agenda regardless of who specifically happens to be in the White House or which party rules Congress. Yet, I was specifically kicked off as a regular contributor to a web publication and discussion forum precisely because I would not stop mentioning the “Deep State” because, since I was quite popular on the site, I was dragging discussions in the muck and certain powerful people didn’t like it. I was not really surprised because even very “progressive” media outlets simply do not wish to go anywhere near the subject while internet media on the right is much more ready to do so.

Let’s get down to specifics here. Let’s start with where the rubber meets the road–money! The big money is in the National Security Budget so if, for example, tensions in the world start easing then companies who are used to a regular (very, very , very high) income suddenly will have to start having to use their skills in other areas. This is what happened after the Cold War ended–there was some confusion about finding “enemies” to pursue. Terrorism had not had a chance to build up at the time, the Russians were supine being looted by the usual suspects and the Chinese were inwardly facing. Saddam Hussein, who had been very close to the CIA and the U.S. was, in my view, lured or tricked into invading Kuwait and the rest is history (and mainly bunk). In actual fact, the Deep State, had wanted to be involved militarily in the Middle East for some time (outside of Israel) in order to militarily control Mid East oil which, in turn, allowed the U.S. to maintain World Domination (the goal of the Deep State). The Military Industrial Complex had to have a reason for being and guaranteeing cheap oil gave the U.S. leverage over Europe and Asia–neither party could possibly oppose the will of the U.S. and that “will” is the will of the Deep State that had, as we’ve discussed, has its origin in WWI and came into full fruition just after WWII with the National Security Act of 1947 that established the CIA and other “tools” for the President to use in order to give him power above and beyond what the Constitution and the Founders intended, it was, in many ways and act that gave an opened ended right for the Executive Branch to act without informing the Legislative or Judicial Branches of government. To put it another way, theoretically those Branches could supervise the CIA and other mechanisms in the NSC act but in practice there were loopholes in the law that you could drive a camel through.

Let’s be clear here–when the U.S. government made secrecy an institution then secrecy would be kept. The assumption when the NSA came into being was that Americans, being exceptional, would use secrecy to keep enemies guessing and use it only to protect the USA not for their won purposes or to pursue their own interests. After the high of winning WWII it was hard to believe that a country with a diverse population that had come together to achieve such mighty acts could be corrupted by power. Every institution in the U.S. came together to achieve a common purpose with only a minimum of corruption, i.e., certainly there was corruption but it did not seriously interfere with the ability to wage war in two operational theaters. It was hard for leaders of that time to imagine that the new secret organizations would pursue policies that would run counter to the common interest.

But, in fact, this is precisely what happened as could have easily been predicted by any serious historian not caught up in the bliss of victory and of sitting on top of the world. We Americans had, more than any other army in the world, refrained from raping and looting on the scale many other armies had done, for example the Soviets who had looted and raped its way through Germany in an orgy of revenge for even worse acts carried out by the Germans. The U.S. military was not only the best behaved bunch (with some exceptions) but the most benign. American military occupation was fair, mainly honest and genuinely interested in getting those areas up and moving out of the poverty and misery that existed in many parts of the world. On the surface, the new Rome, that dominated the world in 1947 seemed to be a godsend.

Of course, as we’ve discussed, parts of the government were acting quickly to dominate European politics first in Greece and then in Italy to keep leftists out of power through covert action. Each of those two places has its own story and, in fact, actions taken in the late forties still effect both countries. The U.S. acted quickly to establish its mark on Iran in 1953 to not only overthrow an honest and democratic system in Iran but to partly run the country until the fall of the shah in the late seventies. I was told, at one time, by CIA people that Iran was the “CIA playground” and they could do, while in that country, anything they wanted to because they were above the law or were the law. This is pretty heady stuff. Imagine a person being assigned to that country and able to do entirely as they pleased–to go after a pretty girl, to steal valuable art whatever they wanted to do. Because the CIA was able to carve out an “above top-secret world answerable to no one, they were able to create their own world, their own networks. Allen Dulles who was DCI from 1953 to 1961 created the modern CIA and expanded its scope from collecting foreign intelligence and covert operations to include manipulation of not only foreign governments but our own government and its institution. No part of American life was free from CIA influence. Through Operation Mockingbird it planted propaganda in the U.S. press as well as hired or blackmailed a large number of American (and foreign) journalists and editors to toe the CIA line.

When JFK started asserting his right as President to fully determine National Security policy he found out that his office did not have direct control over the CIA–at least not all parts of the operation. He was misled during the Bay of Pigs invasion and afterwards fired Allen Dulles because of his duplicity. Dulles, of course, while officially out of office probably still ran the CIA. When it was clear, after the Cuban Missile Crisis that President Kennedy was completely fed up with America’s National Security establishment (they all wanted him to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union (the Joint Chiefs believed that they could kill 150 million Soviets at the cost of “only” 40 million deaths in the United States), began to try to use his own increasingly close relationship with the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to try and end the Cold War since both these leaders were fighting their own security establishments in trying to minimize tensions between the two countries. This was, in the eyes of the Cold Warriors whose identity and living depended on the continuance of a Cold War. If you think about it, a Cold War has the benefit of war in that citizens of both countries could be persuaded that there was an existential threat that only a strong security establishment could protect them from (protection racket) for more on this do your own search but here is a place to start.

Since 1947 the CIA acting independently had set up a number of relationships with organized crime, it ran a prostitution ring (the building in Roslyn Virginia was pointed out to me by my father one day as we were driving), was involved in the drug trade (mainly with Nationalists Chinese operatives) even before Vietnam and was in the business of assassinations, overthrowing governments or threatening national leaders who knew very well the CIA was able to change governments of smaller states and even attempted to get rid of the French President Charles De Gaulle according to a front page story in the Chicago Tribune in 1975.

But the most monumental crimes the CIA committed were yet to come. For a number of reasons it was generally recognized in the institutions involved in the Cold War and National Security that Kennedy was a loose cannon that had to be stopped. Kennedy had made it known and had written a directive to stop the movement towards war in Vietnam; read this article for more information on this specifically. Kennedy had shown himself to be unfriendly to the Establishment in almost every sphere and many believed he had to be stopped at all costs (for more on the atmosphere of that time and motives for getting rid of JFK the best book on this is JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass).

I believe he was killed by a plot involving the CIA and its network of associates in organized crime and the military for starters but having “permission” from other major institutions. The evidence against the official story is beyond overwhelming–there is simply no chance that the events as described can be correct (see an exhaustive examination of JFK facts by the works of Jim Di Eugenio and the series 50 Reasons for 50 Years on the web). But the most compelling and easy to understand fact comes from the assassination of President Kennedy’s brother Senator Robert F. Kennedy to was killed at the very moment that it was nearly certain he was going to be the next POTUS on an anti-war platform. Since we all understand that murders in police procedural dramas always start with an autopsy and the fact that the autopsy of President Kennedy was completely ambiguous and the chain of evidence lost (we don’t even know if JFK’s body is really his so badly did events proceed) that we have to go to RFK’s autopsy. In the Coroner’s Report Thomas Noguchi found that Senator Kennedy fatal shot was to the back of the head fired at point-blank range from below. That means that the official story that Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK is simply wrong–and yet, it stood up. And there’s the heart of the matter for me. Because that would mean that the police, the judge, the prosecutor, the defense attorney and everyone else involved had to be, in a sense, part of the conspiracy–how  would that work?

We see that in neighborhoods dominated by street gangs or organized crime that when a crime is committed no on ever sees anything or has anything to say. Why is that? Because if they are seen to talk to the cops their lives will be over–gangsters rule by force and by fear and rewards. In the case of 9/11, for example, all the major actors in decision making positions were promoted rather than disciplined because they stuck to the official story. What I’m trying to say, more to the point, is that we are ruled today as we have been for many decades by a criminal gang that rules as most societies have been ruled, i.e., brute force. To anyone familiar with the life of “the street” they know that you have freedom except in areas declared off limits. As long as you don’t question authority you have a lot of scope for living. This is true with our country. As long as you follow the rules appropriate for your station in life you can play video games, talk about the Kennedy assassinations express skepticism and even hatred for the government and you will not be harassed. But if you’re a journalist getting into the wrong area the forget it–they’ll take action depending on your position. If you’re Chris Hedges your Pulitzer Prize does not exclude you from being thrown out of your long-held position at the New York Times, America’s foremost propaganda organ. If you’re another Pulitzer Prize winner named Seymour Hersh and you publish a piece that questions the media/government story on the Syrian poison gas crisis in the U.S. If Hersh writes a story that does not cross the lines the official propaganda has drawn (you cannot question Washington’s reasons for going to war–they are always right) then he can write to his heart’s content. Men like Hedges who continue to doubt official policy cannot publish in any mainstream outlet.

So there we have it–we live under not just an oligarchy as many people are now beginning to say but are ruled by a criminal gang. In some ways, like gangsters on the street that I knew, they can be benign and helpful. They are not monsters they are just people who play the game of power. They cannot afford to be gentle when their interests are stepped on and will smite their enemies if they are. If you seriously threaten powerful gangsters on the Street they will kill you and perhaps, rarely, your family as well as a warning to others. Because Americans are infected with the opium dream of American Exceptionalism most Americans, even if they see direct evidence of what I just described, cannot see it. We are democracy, they insist and we believe in human rights and human decency and in the philosophy of Jesus Christ. But the ruling elites certainly do not share those beliefs any more than a boxer believes in turning the other cheek.

So what is left? How can we reform society? We really cannot do much of anything. Not because the criminal gangs (I believe we are now in a period were factions are at war with each other) are horrible monsters but because culturally we are not in a place to even imagine what reform might look like because most Americans, as I said, are not able to grasp or want to grasp the simplest aspects of realpolitik. The controversies and scandals are all aimless posturings and symbolic events that mask what is really going on where the rubber meats the road–where money is exchanged for services rendered and where threats and bribes happen. We pretend none of this is happening while knowing full well that it is. That’s the tragedy of the United States–we know but we don’t allow ourselves to freely admit it. We know that Daddy may be fucking sister but we pretend not to notice.

We Have Met the Enemy and the Enemy is Us, Part 2

Roosevelt saved capitalism and turned the United States in a partial social democracy and stabilized and blunted the worst of the predatory tendencies of the American elites. At mid-century the United States was in the midst of creating a new Pax Americana to finally revive the Roman Empire the secret thread that not only has run through the collective secret wish of the American elites but has been the direct goal of Western Civilization since Charlemagne’s attempt to revive Rome in the eighth century. Now the USA found itself not only with the most dynamic military in the world able to project power around the world and owning the ultimate weapon the Atomic bomb, but also USA-ians owned the most dynamic and creative culture the world had ever known. The U.S. was the center of everything from computers, to entertainment. It is American stories that fascinated the world and found mass audience because American culture was aimed at the masses not the elites as was the case with European art and music. It was culture that enabled America to run the world. Sadly, the fly in the ointment was that the public institutions that undergirded U.S. military and political power were immature. Before WWII the U.S. armed forces were something like 17th in the world with outdated equipment and uneven leadership. WWII created a powerful force that fought surprisingly well in part because of its ability to create large quantities of armaments very fast as well as superior technology that was the result of radical innovations in U.S. industry over the previous half-century. Also, aiding this was a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants mentality and lack of rigidity in the military system since it was all new. The new heads of departments, new bureaucrats were inventing as they went along. Flexibility is always easy when and institution is just emerging and fresh. But the military’s success eventually became a source of a deep malaise that has not, to this day, left the military. While the Russians had more to do with Hitler’s defeat than any action of the Americans I think the war in Europe would have resulted in a stalemate had the Americans not come into the war in Europe.

Both military and civilian strategic planners slapped each other on the back for “winning” the war and figured that whatever they constructed was invulnerable and inerrant because this was, as Henry Luce declared, “the American Century.” The whole world seemed to want U.S. hegemony in the world and to get the American people on board was essential to pursue and American-based Empire (which would properly be an international Empire for the international ruling class). Americans were, after coming out of the Depression and the rationing of WWII, ready to pursue private interests and weren’t actually much interested in the rest of the world. American elites understood that the U.S. could be the Imperial power guaranteeing world order based on rule of law. Most of the early planners of the Cold War and security policy genuinely believed in this mission the U.S. had set itself. In an atomic age we could not have a system of petty European powers constantly battling each other as they have been on and off for  centuries. The United States could end all that by establishing international institutions as structures to move the world towards an international federalism that would, eventually, turn into a World Government under the protection and enforcement of the U.S. the only country they felt could enforce a fair deal for all countries.

The problem was, as I alluded, that America’s success created a tendency towards rigidity because early success often goes to people’s heads and people begin to think that merely showing up and being American is enough to solve any problem. This sense of hubris has never left and is now so bred in the bone that no amount of failure seems to change it. In this way American pragmatism, creativity and openness to new methods slowly diminished. The Eastern Establishment that had largely run American foreign policy re-asserted control the institutions established under Roosevelt and ran those institutions as private fiefdoms as Allen Dulles ran the CIA not for serving the President and not serving the good of the people but serving the elites. This class of Wall Street operators began to establish an international network that crossed all kinds of boundaries including working with organized crime.

The differences that the Cold War depended on between the United States and the Soviet Union largely dissipated after the death of Stalin but both the U.S. and Soviet militarists were united in wanting to keep tensions there in order to be able to maintain power, position and wealth. At the end of his Presidency Eisenhower warned of a “military industrial complex” that could dominate policy for its own sake—really he simply asserting what has already happened under his watch.

When John Kennedy managed to win the Presidency by fair means and fowl he inherited a foreign policy that was almost out of the hands of the Presidency. Independent forces within the military and the CIA were operating their own programs that were secret even to a President. Kennedy was rocked by two occurrences—the attempt to invade Cuba by a CIA trained force for Cuban exiles (we have to remember these exiles were mainly members of the corrupt oligarchs and gangsters that dominated Cuba before Castro). The CIA and military wanted to create facts on the ground that would force Kennedy to order bombing runs but the invasion was so badly run that even had he wanted to any attempt to attack Cuba would have been absurd. Still, Kennedy by acting with restraint being tired of the CIA skullduggery fired Allen Dulles shortly after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. In fact, even though Dulles was fired he still ran his own operation through his allies in the CIA. The second incidents was the Cuban Missile Crisis which showed that the real goal of the American military establishment was not just to rake in money for the arms manufacturers but to fight and win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. All of Kennedy’s military advisers wanted Kennedy to launch a nuclear strike that would kill 150 million people in the USSR and he was advised that “only” 40 million people would be killed in the U.S. No thought of what this might do to the health of the population of course. This shows you the kind of mentality of senior officers in the U.S. military was. They came up with various crackpot schemes like Operation Northwoods in which it was suggested that the CIA engage in terrorist acts against U.S. citizens in order to give a pretext to attack Cuba. Kennedy rejected these plans out of hand. Kennedy saw that he was surrounded by what most of us by madmen and he saw that it was essential to end the Cold War if there was any chance for mankind to survive and in doing so signed his death warrant. Kennedy, a sort of Wildman, with an insatiable appetite for women and life in the fast-lane, had managed to upset almost everyone in power. At one time or another Kennedy stood against a number of power centers from the Steel industry to organized crime. At the same time his increasing popularity was now seen as another major danger since it gave him more personal power to say “no” to the crazies.

There are many books on the prequel to the Kennedy Assassination and Kennedy’s genius for pissing everyone off but the one that really cinched it was his desire to reach a personal agreement with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and a reformer in his own right as well as Fidel Castro. Once the NSS got a hold of this Kennedy was a dead man. T he best of these books is Jim Douglass’ superb book JFK and the Unspeakable in which we can read the touching correspondence between Khrushchev and Kennedy which, for me, is one of the most emotionally moving bits of writing I’ve read due to the high-stakes we were talking about. We have to remember that these two people were at the center of the greatest crisis human civilization has ever faced and both lost their jobs over the fact these two leaders were for peace, a peace that would end the gravy train of both Military Industrial Complexes.

There may be no incidents in history studied more than the JFK assassination. I was surprised at the number of books both general and detailed describing every aspect of the assassination nearly all say that the official story is ludicrous and impossible. The best general overview of the evidence is by Jim DiEugenio who wrote Destiny Betrayed a book I highly recommend. But the upshot is that Kennedy was killed possibly by two and perhaps three gunmen none of which were named Lee Harvey Oswald. Anyone who carefully sifts through the evidence cannot come to any other conclusion particularly after the government released additional evidence in the 90s. I believe that no understanding of contemporary politics is possible without understanding the coup of 1963.

There was an additional coup in 1968 when it appeared that the left, with the combination of Robert Kennedy and the radicalism of Martin Luther King would completely undermine the national security state and its Orwellian permanent war-footing. Robert Kennedy would be President and when that became obvious he had to be killed. With this murder the evidence is even more dramatic. For some reason the operatives were unable to buy of or threaten Thomas Noguchi quite famous in his own right and Noguchi noted that Senator Kennedy was shot at point blank range in the back of the head aiming upwards which, had the autopsy been referred to in the trial, would have made it impossible for Sirhan Sirhan to kill the Senator a close look at the technical details is available here. Also sound analysis of the assassination showed clearly that there were two guns and that was reported by CNN and other media outlets a few years ago. In 1963 the President was killed then in 1968 the man J. Edgar Hoover thought was the most dangerous many in American who had moved on from the Civil Rights movement to take up an anti-Vietnam War position and then take up class-struggle by initiating a “Poor People’s March on Washington” and he was killed and then the brother of that President allied to Martin Luther King and taking left-wing positions would have won the Presidency was killed. This was a stunning series of events that changed American history and American government forever. Finally in 1975 and overly independent President who attempted to seize more power for the Presidency and many believe, including my old acquaintance Roger Stone who knew him well, was about to uncover or try to uncover the truth of the Kennedy assassination was forced to resign the Presidency two Presidents, one likely to be President and one of the greatest American leader of the 20th century Martin Luther King all were eliminated because all threatened the hidden government that some of us call “the Deep State.”

The Watergate incident was based on a series of misdirections by the media. A close look at Watergate shows that a paranoid Nixon was paranoid for the right reasons the establishment was indeed out to get Nixon who was betrayed by people around him. One of the journalists who created the fable of Watergate was a former Naval Intelligence officer named Bob Woodward.  A close look without the constant headlines and misdirection shows that 1) there was no rational reason for the break-in to the DNC office other than place a bug in the office of a minor functionary and, 2) that these professional CIA agents actually left tape on the door to the Watergate suite horizontally and thus would be seen by the first security guard to come along. From there the story unravels into a complete concoction. Nixon was the man the left loved to hate yet he was the last liberal President of the United States that actually had power (Carter was technically the last liberal but he had no power and was opposed by “everyone” in Washington—this reported to me by someone who was in Congress at the time). I believe by 1978 the Deep State had eliminated all rivals and was firmly in charge. I use that date because that was the year the Democratic Party officially became, along with the Republican Party, the party of money. That is also the date that all the negative trends we see have come to fruition today started. The dramatic rise in income inequality, wage stagnation, the rise of the financial sector and so on.

Next week we will look at the Deep State and why it is forbidden as a subject of inquiry almost everywhere in American society.

We Have Met the Enemy and the Enemy Is Us, Part 1

The default settings for large nation states that lack unity is to have enemies. The U.S., since WWII has depended on “enemies” to keep the state control over our lives. Bit by bit the Washington bureaucracy has moved into a position of power. The trend started a century ago in the teens and moved steadily thereafter. The New Deal was a necessity that answered a major crisis in capitalism where the State took on the role of protector of the weak to the extraordinary oppression of the powerful. Labor unions thrived, in large part, because of the cruelty and evil nature of American capitalists. The oligarchs learned their lessons as follows: 1) if they wanted to keep power they needed better PR so they could win the hearts and minds of the working class; 2) they needed to cultivate the national government–dominating local entities would not be sufficient any more; 3) they should actually adopt milder forms of oppression since after the Immigration Act of 1924 the flood of immigrants that lowered wages and enabled bosses to, with minimal interference, maintain very poor working conditions; and 3) they had to make sure the oligarch class had a way of enforcing some kind of unity.

During the Thirties the oligarch class was able to hold its own–in 1933 they attempted a coup d’etat but General Smedley Butler (a book on the matter is here) called them out and it went nowhere. Thus the oligarchs (led by the Big Banks on Wall Street) decided to take their time and try to influence the Federal government now grown much stronger under the New Deal. WWII did help the cause of the oligarchs quite a lot. Many, like the Bush family (who helped bring Hitler to power), were deeply involved with the Nazi government even after the War had started but eventually all these forces were able to unify in support of the War effort–making sure they took as much money and power as they could.

One of the main vehicles to help oligarchs regain some of the power they lost was through the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) which oversaw U.S. intelligence and covert action during WWII. I will quote former CIA Executive Director (number 3 man)  Buzzy Krongard:

If you go back to the CIA’s origins during World War II in the Office of Strategic Services, he explained, “the whole OSS was really nothing but Wall Street bankers and lawyers.” (WaPost, March 2001)

OSS activities were very interesting particularly at the end of the war particularly the highly controversial Operation Paperclip (lots of views on this if you do a search but for a more thorough view go here) and related operations that freed many high-level Nazis and turn their intelligence agents into American intelligence assets. The OSS was disbanded and replaced by a couple of other agencies as various Departments in the government tried to dominate this crucial part of the government unit Truman settled the disputes by Signing the National Security Act of 1947 which is still in force and made the CIA and National Security Council agencies directly under the control of the White House and more removed from Congressional oversight. The Act enabled the intel players and, therefore, Wall Street a side door to power that kept Congress at bay and gradually made the Agency into an independent power player since it was able to leverage enough power so that it was able to have some independence even from the White House.

The CIA immediately got into action with a very spotty record in terms of gathering intelligence but it’s operational people got their sea legs and were able to very intelligently manipulate the Italian elections in 1948 and establish very strong links to the Italian ruling class that exist to this day though considerably diluted probably because of the CIA’s role in the Abu Omar case and other matters. And the CIA went on into action overthrowing various governments around the world which according to Foreign Policy magazine numbers seven but that’s just the officially accepted number–the actual number is much higher particularly if you count attempted overthrows and the list ignores the most brutal CIA action of all time which was the overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia in which the CIA manipulated the overthrow and provided death lists for their Indonesian assets murder around a million people.

How did this ever come to pass? Was it really worth killing a million people in Indonesia between 1965 and 1967? Or the two and a half million killed during the Vietnam War (ranges from 1.45 to 3.6 million) and still Americans have no clue about that number or care–the only number that ever comes out is 55k American soldiers died. Studies of Iraq War deaths range from 100k to 1.2 million. The best source I have comes from National Geographic which estimated (since the American government flat out refused to keep body counts of any kind except U.S. soldiers for obvious reasons) about 500,000 deaths from 2003 to 2011. We have to remember here that deliberately false information was used by the CIA to rev up public concern about the Hussein government to grease the wheels of the invasion which has created further chaos and death in the region. Americans are a violent people but I don’t believe that the deliberate killing of so many people for rather ludicrous reasons (Sukarno was no threat and neither was Ho Chi Min as history has shown).

I will go back to the early CIA and the involvement of Wall Street operatives like the Dulles brothers and their domination of U.S. foreign policy after Roosevelt died. The Cold War with the USSR which, unknown to the American public, took on the brunt of the German armies and defeated them. There would  have been no VE day without the fact the Russians smashed the best units of the German Army. Had it not been for Stalin Hitler would  have invaded Britain and been able to sue for peace with the U.S. soon thereafter. The Russians were the victors of WWII with some helpful assistance from the U.S. This fact has been forbidden in the U.S. media. So here I am to ask you to look into it.

Despite the alliance with the USSR the oligarchs, who until Hitler foolishly started invaded Poland and France (probably as a result of his addiction to Meth), liked the Nazis, hated the state-capitalist (not communist) USSR and did not like the fact that Stalin had the best army in Europe by far and, were it not for the fact the U.S. had the A-bomb the Russians could have steamrolled through Europe.

The Cold War was unnecessary–Stalin was not interested in conquering Europe because he was more concerned with reining in his victorious armies who were returning to the USSR with visions of a more prosperous West (despite massive destruction Russian soldiers could see the Germans and even Poles lived better than the did at home) and an officer corps that might get it into its head to jockey for power in the Kremlin. His country, besides was bleeding from loosing millions of civilians and soldiers. I also believe that Stalin believed, in the long run, he would lose any confrontation with the U.S. because while Russian armies were supreme the U.S. could flat-outproduce the USSR. But the Cold War was necessary to the American government who had now come to dominate the National Security State (NSS). First, as was seen after WWII, Americans wanted “the boys to come home” and the pressure was too great to resist–the USA was still a democracy at that time and public opinion was not able to be so easily manipulated as it is now. So work began on demonizing communism in general and the USSR in particular.

This creation of an existential monster bent on “world domination” and conquering and occupying the U.S.A. was an essential element in firmly establishing the NSS and to make it virtually immune from public scrutiny. Early on when Allen Dulles became Director of the CIA (DCI) he and his associates prepared the ground for an operation called “Operation Mockingbird” which entailed placing articles in the major media and bribing/hiring/blackmailing journalists, editors and publishers to adopt stories and policies favorable to the CIA and its mission. This actually was not new but just resurrected the policies of the Wilson Administration during WWI when it established the Committee on Public Information that was used to insert anti-German propaganda (mainly lies and distortion) in the U.S. press who were forced to publish them or get shut down. Many publications were banned and anti-war activity was forbidden  and many were jailed including the greatest socialist leader the U.S. has known Eugene Debs.

Now that the CIA had established its domination of the American media it could crank out as much propaganda as it wanted to and shape public opinion by creating an Orwellian state almost instantly. The oligarch class, again led by Wall Street, had already been cranking out anti-communist propaganda privately since the thirties and this created a pincer movement that was able to nip the movement started under Roosevelt to establish a more democratic society–this movement wasn’t so much ideological as cultural and some of it had to be “allowed” to continue but the “threat” of the Soviet Union was kept in the forefront of public discourse at all times such that the American people continued to support a gargantuan NSS and that State was able to engineer military production in key Congressional districts creating automatic support of any major weapons systems regardless of its usefulness and the entity that President Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) was born.

Peace, therefore, was not an option. Whether there was conflict or not, whether diplomacy could work or not for the NSS, CIA and MIC (all obviously the same thing) to continue to get dollars from Congress the public must be persuaded that we are under constant threat of death or invasion from evil external enemies. This was, as many experts have understood, the only way the U.S. could maintain cohesion and thus the Cold War was supported by “liberals” and “leftists” of all kinds as the one way to focus the country and keep power focused on the central government, i.e., Washington. The left saw that a strong Washington was a major step in insuring social justice by creating laws that transcended local power and forcing things like desegregation in the South and all the expansion of civil rights that have occurred since the sixties. Thus the Roosevelt liberals married the neo-fascists on Wall Street and created our world today.

However, there was one major fly in the ointment that threatened to bring down the whole Cold War edifice and that was the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Stay tuned for part 2 of this series.

The Holy Spirit

I tend to be very interested in politics, culture and economics but more as fan as part of my love for history. I don’t, honestly believe people will be persuaded by anything I say–but I feel driven to reflect on the issues of the day anyway as a kind of duty. But my real goal is to try and connect people to the Holy Spirit. I use that term instead of “God” because I like the sound of it–but I mean God. As a Christian the Holy Ghost (a term I don’t like) is part of the Trinity. I’m not interested in the whole concept of the Trinity right now–perhaps another time but the Holy Spirit is as much God as any other Person in the Trinity. This term also was sometimes called “Sophia” and was thought to be feminine in principle–but these early Christians, called Gnostics (meaning people who did not “believe” in God but, rather, experienced God) have suffered cyclical repression since even before Christianity became part of the Roman Empire’s repressive regime.

I believe many problems are directly related to the lack rather than the excess of religion. Without religion of some kind–and it doesn’t have to be God-centered, there is no solid foundation for ethics–and without ethics no society can endure for long. Ethics need not be rigid like the early Jewish laws that tell us we should be killed if we fart on Thursdays before a full Moon or whatever. Ethics means something in the heart that comes from the understanding that we are connect to each other and something greater. You can have a secular ethics but, in my opinion, it has to connect to some sense of a larger reality–for those people I recommend Stoicism of Buddhism that can be practiced without any necessity for God but both of which have a very strong sense of the transcendent.

For me, of course that strong sense of transcendence means is the Holy Spirit–something which I have experienced directly–I don’t have religion “faith” I have direct experience of the Holy Spirit or, as I often call it, the “Angelic realm” which is not really much different.

When Moses asked God his true name God answered that he should be called “I am that I am.” This is my extent of theology. From that flows everything, ethics, love, life, politics, culture. Our political economy should be slanted in such a way that allows us to experience pure being and be guided by the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalist Christians want the opposite–they want a world guided by the Pharisees full of repression, rules and lots of “them” and “us” and war, repression, fear, hate. This is unacceptable and Jesus would have found it unacceptable.

Prayer is when we connect with our deepest being which is God–the Holy Spirit is the active principle of the Trinity that guides us to the Father/Mother (sorry there is no sex at that level). I urge you to pray by contacting the I am part of you where we all connect–that part of us that is most unique, special and precious within us and, at the same time, is most universal.