x22 report on the continuing war agenda

Very good x22 report podcast with plausible analysis on the latest events in Belgium, and the war in Syria.

My Two Cents #6

Latest "My Two Cents" political vlog style video.

Politics is done in the Darkness podcast # 6

I've decided to continue my "Politics is Done in the Darkness" podcast/ audio-cast, but as audio only, so not something with an accompanying YouTube video. I will still be making the "My Two Cents" videos, which I think of as specifically for YouTube, and also via blogs and such.

This latest covers topics such as the peace agreement in Syria, the ongoing tragedy of what the west did to Libya, and some open-ended thoughts on the level to which our votes count, or do not count.

Analysis from David Stockman

Although I am not a supporter of the Trump, this article makes a lot of sense. And it was worth it for the historical background alone. Link here.

On the"refugee crisis"

In one of his essays, I seem to recall that Gore Vidal pointed out that to really solve a political problem, one has to get to the root of the problem. In fact, if memory serves, he had a really clever definition of the word "root," which went back to either the Greek or Latin, well, root. I can't remember the definition well enough right now to summarize it here.

At any rate, what is at the root of the so- called, "refugee crisis," is the fact that the US and some other countries decided that "Assad must go" and attempted to overthrow his government, using mainly the same methods they used to overthrow the government of Libya. As an aside, notice how they now have to send military aviation into Libya again to wreck the lives of those poor people even further. This suggests that perhaps they did not get the outcome in Libya that was desired from the first military operation, a military operation, by the way, which was disguised as the "Arab Spring."

So, to solve the so-called "refugee crisis" the US must decide it isn't really intent on overthrowing Assad, and then, at the very least, allow the Russians, Syrians, and Iranians to rebuild the country, which will allow refugees to return home. Very simple, except the US, for some reason, can not let go of the idea that "Assad must go." This, even after it would seem that they must not have gotten what they wanted out of their Libya project, as evidenced by the fact that they have to send military aviation into Libya again.

The real question(s) is/are: Why does Assad have to go? Why did Qaddafi have to go? And, even, why did they believe Saddam Hussein had to go? (Even I think Saddam was far worse than either of the other two.) The "refugee crisis" could not exist if the west stopped creating refugees.

Sad but likely true report on Syria

There seems to be a few, at least, competing analyses of events in Syria. It also seems likely that any analysis of the war in Syria would include looking at events in Iraq and beyond.

Some of these reports seem to be a little optimistic, and indicate that the Russians and the Americans are coming to some understanding about what should happen next in Syria. Others, like the one I will post below, indicate that the Russians and Americans are far away from reaching any consensus, and perhaps there is great potential for a war between two superpowers. Let's hope not.

Perhaps, as some analysts have put forward, the problem is that the different agencies within American government do not agree on the outcome in Syria. For instance, one plausible scenario is that White House might be looking to come to an agreement with the Kremlin in order to fight IS.

I would hope that those who believe the US and Russia are working out differences and finalizing a plan for the end of the war are correct. I fear that the other analysts might be more correct though.

Article from WSWS 

Politics is done in the darkness podcast #3

Third in  a series of political podcasts

Politics is done in the darkness podcast #2

The second of what is intended to be a series of podcasts about politics.

Paris, France post two

One other note about the coverage and analysis of the meaning of the attacks in France the other day. People are already predicting how the future will unfold based upon this factoid or that, this theory or the other. The truth is nobody yet knows how the future will unfold, or if they do, they don't know what the masses will come to think of this future. I would say that the analysts, critics, and conspiracy theorists are way ahead of the curve this time, but also very pessimistic in their outlook.

It is too soon to tell whether this will mean greater suffering for the people of the Middle-East, not to mention the world. It could mobilize the western countries to double down with a policy of trying to remove Assad from power, while at the same time purportedly taking on ISIS. Or, the Russians might have more to say about that than some of the analysts might believe currently, and the focus could shift towards ISIS alone. Or, if we are very lucky, reason could prevail, and peace could be made. But don't hold out on that last one.

Finally, for tonight at least, nothing is really clear yet about what happened in France, except it was terrible and violent. In other words, we don't know what it means yet, and only time will tell if we ever find a reason that makes sense for not only what happened in France, but also what has happened in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Ukraine......

The bottom line is really no explanation could be ruled out at this point, based on the history of the 21st century thus far. Let me pose this as a question then: Does it not seem as though some of the people who claim to oppose ISIS have had a little something to do with the rise of ISIS? Just a question. Just wondering. Don't get too upset about it please.

Why is this congressperson saying things that seem true?

Hmm...Congressperson, Dana Rohrabacher, is saying some odd things for a congressman. He seems to be speaking the truth about Syria and Russia. Why would he do that so openly? Is US policy about to change? Difficult to know, but fascinating nonetheless. If it isn't what the ruling elite want from him, and they perceive this becoming a problem for their policies, then it could become difficult for this congressperson to keep telling so much truth. (note: For any who come across my blog, I am trying to use html code more when posting video - not to mention in general. So, be patient with my mistakes please.)source: Russia Insider YT.

Southfront Report October 30

This is from SouthFront, about Syria and Iraq, dated October 30.

Can this article really be saying what it seems to?

This is from a site called South Front, that does sort of  a run down each day of military developments involving Russia (and others maybe), while also providing some insight into the strategy that might lie behind what information can be uncovered. This line stood out: "Iraqi security sources stated that the US-led coalition’s airstrikes killed 22 army and volunteer servicemen on Tuesday. The coalition warplanes targeted the Iraqi forces’ positions after they advanced the al-Jama and al-Davajen bridges near the city of Ramadi."

This seems to be saying that the US bombed Iraqi positions, not ISIS. That can't be what it is really saying? Can it?

Video Link Including Summary

CrossTalk: Syrian Turning Point?

From RT via Russia Insider. Politics certainly is done in the dark, and listen at about 21 minutes in, when the former diplomat talks about the "deep state." Also, Sukant Chandra, who is often good, is very good here. Keep in mind, RT is the station McCain and some of his friends want shut down, or at least kept away from Americans.

Do Americans Have A Clue About Syria Right Now?

Alan Sabrosky on US in Syrian Skies

Knew nothing about him, and don't know if would agree with everything he is about, but every word in the interview was chosen in a careful and deliberate way, to cut to truth and leave falsehood behind.

James Corbett on Who is ISIS

A pretty thorough, although somewhat drawn too much from mainstream sources, which are known to sometimes simply be put out for propaganda purposes. But, all in all, a very good video trying to piece together how this thing called "ISIS" came to be. And, who ids really behind their creation, which is the more important question.

Syrian Girl Talks On Latest War In Syria.

I didn't get it before. ISIS first had to move in and capture that military base, which seems to mean disabling a part of the Syrian air defense. This may be why the US was reluctant to bomb syria before. It isn't about ISIS. It is about Assad. This is just an excue to go ahead, tepidly, with the plan to break up Syria. But now, according to Syrian Girl, the Russians have sent a ship, and maybe more air defense supplies? Strange though, the Syrians acted as though they welcomed the Americans fight against ISIS, even within Syria if they were told in advance.

Tarpley on McCain

This is the recent podcast of Webster Tarpley. It is more than an hour long, but I post it because a good portion of the show is devoted to the questions, just now being addressed (or more like dismissed) in the major media. According to Tarpley (and we should all be able to see this anyway) John McCain did meet (allegedly) with ISIS in Syria. One thing Tarpley doesn't talk about enough is the Israeli (alleged) connection. Others do, and I hope to post some of those videos soon too.




And, it seems that this video has disappeared as of October 2015 at the least. Hmm. Well, it is all out in the open now anyway. The Russians have called the US bluff, and now the US is admitting it supports "moderate" (whatever that could mean) "rebels" (which is the euphemism).

Morris on many topics

Morris is really on top of things in this video. He covers many topics, too many to mention

What the state relies on

Most people probably haven't given it much thought, but the main way the state, any state (other than maybe Iceland) manages its affairs is really through its "intelligence" services. For instance, the people might be allowed to see a larger US made war on the news (to some extent at least), but what happened in the weeks, months, and even years that led up to that? I would bet that various states were acting out there tragic plays on the world stage, usually using spy craft.

Of course, if anybody gets too close to the truth about any of these events being played out in the dark, they are labeled a "conspiracy theorist." Or, perhaps worse things would happen to them. I'm convinced that often not a word would be said to the targeted person. Strange things might happen. There is the idea of the "targeted individual." I tend to believe it is true simply because of some weird stuff that happened to me personally. Perhaps there will be a time when I write about that. Not now though.

"Targeted Individuals" have the perception that they are being monitored, and even harassed, in various ways by...somebody. I would call that somebody either "the shadow government" or "the deep state." They might not know why this is being to done to them. Many people would write them off as simply paranoid, or in need of psychiatric help. I'll eventually get to what I think about the psychiatric establishment, and to put it nicely - I'm not entirely convinced they know what they're doing.  But after the Snowden revelations, is it too far fetched to think people are being monitored and even harassed? Hmm?

You see, this is what they would do. They would play little games. They would ruin a person's credibility. They might even harm the people you love around you to get to you, and never come out of the darkness. The targeted person might never truly understand why they have been made a target.

Noam Chomsky once said that states operate kind of like mafias. He didn't mean it in this way. He was talking more about foreign policy. In fact, he would probably consider everything I've written thus far as "conspiracy theory."  But I would contend it applies the same way to how things are handled inside the state as well.

One quote I've been coming across a lot recently is the one by Voltaire. It can be paraphrased as you know who has power over you by who you can't criticize. So, this leads me to another area of the shadow government one must ignore, which is the Zionist connection. Actually, many people have been openly wondering how much influence Israel has on our politics, which would mean over the shadow government. When a hundred senators vote to legitimize the war on Gaza, it is hard not to see the influence. On the other hand, the White House doesn't seem to be 100% in with the Zionists. Maybe about 90%?

Either way, democracy has failed. It is hard to go on about democracy when the elected government is doing the exact opposite of what would benefit the people. When I learn about a meeting of NATO in Wales that benefits nobody, and only causes more problems for world peace, then I know democracy has failed. It doesn't even rise to the level of a joke. Or, as George Carlin once said, "They don't give a f--k about you!"

What Voltaire left out is we must look at who we not allowed to praise as well. We, in the "west" are not permitted to think, much less say, that Qaddafi or Assad, or dare I mention, the evil Hezbollah, might be more than a cartoon caricature. Certainly, we can't mention that something positive for their people could have been accomplished through them. The "west" (meaning the US) makes the rules about who is a terrorist and who isn't. We aren't even permitted to know our own status as citizens. Are we on some list? The state will attempt to make it hard for one to find out his or her status regarding such lists.

Which brings me to ISIS. This is a strange case, but not so strange if we examine the recent history of the shadow government. The US has armed its future enemies many times. But here the enemy seems to be an enemy if in Iraq, but less so if it is fighting in Syria against the Assad regime. Personally, I believe, but can't prove, that ISIS is a creation of the shadow government, probably with the help of the Zionist wing of the shadow government in particular. But I don't know that.

The point is we are given a cartoon version of reality. Our friends are our friends, and we have enemies. But the truth is our friends are often our enemies, and even within our borders, it is hard to discern which side the players are on. Think of the movie the "Manchurian Candidate." In the movie, the most patriotic ones outwardly, happen to be working with the enemy - but this is to accomplish their own goals and then likely turn on their enemy/allies. I know. It is all so confusing.

A person might believe they are not important enough for the state to take interest in what they do. I'm not convinced of that. Hopefully, I haven't written anything that makes me too interesting.

Good night and good luck.