Propaganda mind control: turning truth backwards « Jon Rappoport's Blog

Propaganda mind control: turning truth backwards « Jon Rappoport's Blog

To understand war, start with the psychology of the men who make it happen. They may talk about geopolitics and energy, but they’re obsessed with attacking, destroying, and killing. 

They’re Attila the Hun in suits and military uniforms. 

In the delusion called consensus reality, whole populations admire these gangsters, who represent the generalized desire for some kind of revenge against life-as-it-is.

“Okay, boys, all of us in this room here are on the same page. We can let down our guard. We know we love to kill and maim and bomb and enslave and take over land. That’s what we live for. So we need to ID some valuable thing we say is very, very scarce, without which life as we know it wouldn’t exist. Get it? And we privately tell Presidents and legislators and heavy hitters we have to go to war to safeguard this very scarce thing and make sure we can still obtain it. Ha-ha. And for our purposes, the thing is ENERGY. Right? We do whatever it takes to make everybody believe energy is scarce and hard to come by and limited and so on, and war is okay because we fight to make sure we have access to energy. It’s all backwards…but who cares?”

WE NEED TO FIGHT WARS TO SECURE ENERGY SOURCES is really WE NEED ENERGY TO FIGHT WARS BECAUSE WE WANT TO FIGHT WARS.

Is War Now "Inevitable" | Zero Hedge

Is War Now "Inevitable" | Zero Hedge

"As Higgs points out, because of the array of interventions in the wartime economy, war materiel was valued incorrectly and therefore the GDP data overstate economic conditions. Moreover, conscription and arms production gave a misleading employment picture. Instead, Higgs argues, the war was a period of capital consumption rather than capital accumulation. Tanks, bombs, and helicopters have limited uses outside of military applications. The labor that was used to produce them was not available to produce consumer goods and services; in fact, people went without consumer goods. The warships at the bottom of the world's oceans represented lost opportunities for real consumption and prosperity. Conflict is sometimes necessary, but we should recognize what wartime expenditures represent: destruction of life and resources. If a depression constitutes a widespread contraction in living standards, then the Great Depression cannot have ended during the war.

The illusion of wartime prosperity is rooted partly in how national income was calculated and partly in how the statistics were compiled. Gross Domestic Product, one measure of a country's output, is defined as the sum of consumption expenditure, investment expenditure, government expenditure, and net exports. A serious problem arises with government spending: How do we assess something not traded in markets? We can assess my computer, my shirt, and my pen because I voluntarily exchanged money for them. How do we assess government purchases? In the national-income accounting they are valued at cost, but at best this only tells us what those resources could have earned in alternative lines of production. The costs don't indicate the value of what the government has produced.

This problem was compounded by price controls during World War II — official prices simply did not reflect the true cost of the war. If we are going to have meaningful economic calculation, we need real market prices. Price controls and similar interventions introduce arbitrariness and uncertainty.

Procurement at below-market prices is a way to mask the cost of any endeavor. Consider the draft, which forces people into military service at wages below what they would earn on the unhampered market. The amount spent on wages and board for conscripts is an underestimate of the real cost of maintaining the force."

...Mises: "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.'

http://mises.org/daily/5069/World-War-II-Did-Not-End-the-Great-Depression

Stay the fuck out of Syria.

This op-ed written by Congressman Alan Grayson appeared in The New York Times today. Read it, share it with your friends and family, and join more than 75,000 others who oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria by signing on at DontAttackSyria.com.

WASHINGTON - THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I'm not allowed to tell you what's in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion.

On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was "no."

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, "social media" postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached - not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn't possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

Over the last week the administration has run a full-court press on Capitol Hill, lobbying members from both parties in both houses to vote in support of its plan to attack Syria. And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public.

In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.

We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.
Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.

And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the underlying intelligence reports several days ago. I haven't heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don't expect one.

Compare this lack of transparency with the administration's treatment of the Benghazi attack. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to her credit, made every single relevant classified e-mail, cable and intelligence report available to every member of Congress. (I know this, because I read them all.) Secretary Clinton had nothing to hide.

Her successor, John Kerry, has said repeatedly that this administration isn't trying to manipulate the intelligence reports the way that the Bush administration did to rationalize its invasion of Iraq.
But by refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is correct. Perhaps the edict of an earlier administration applies: "Trust, but verify."

The danger of the administration's approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report "doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report."

The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, "it was clear that 'the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.'"

I don't know who is right, the administration or The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision on whether to allow an attack, I need to know. And so does the American public.

We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The "security state" is drowning in its own phlegm.

My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Arab Spring, Syrian "freedom fighters"... Coming soon to a stratast near you...

U.N. wants to use drones for peacekeeping missions - The Washington Post

U.N. wants to use drones for peacekeeping missions - The Washington Post

U.N. wants to use drones for peacekeeping missions

By Colum Lynch, Updated: Wednesday, January 9, 10:45 AM

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations, looking to modernize its peacekeeping operations, is planning for the first time to deploy a fleet of its own surveillance drones in missions in Central and West Africa.

The U.N. Department of Peacekeeping has notified Congo, Rwanda and Uganda that it intends to deploy a unit of at least three unarmed surveillance drones in the eastern region of Congo.
The action is the first step in a broader bid to integrate unmanned aerial surveillance systems, which have become a standard feature of Western military operations, into the United Nations’ far-flung peacekeeping empire. 

But the effort is encountering resistance from governments, particularly those from the developing world, that fear the drones will open up a new intelligence-gathering front dominated by Western powers and potentially supplant the legions of African and Asian peacekeepers who now act as the United Nations’ eyes and ears on the ground.

***

 UN has a Department of Peace Keeping? Doesn't do a very good job of keeping peace, does it?

War is Peace.

VIENNA (AP) — Diplomats say proposed high-level talks between Israel and its Muslim neighbors on a Mideast free of weapons of mass destruction have been called off.

The diplomats said the U.S., one of the organizers, would likely make a formal announcement soon, stating that with tensions in the region high, "the time was not opportune" for such a gathering.
The meeting, to be held in Helsinki by year's end, was on shaky ground since it was agreed to in 2010 by the 189 member nations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The decision to scrap it cast doubt on the significance of the NPT conference and its attempts every five years to advance nonproliferation.

The diplomats demanded anonymity Saturday because they were not authorized to divulge the cancellation ahead of the formal announcement.

***

Because you definitely only want a peace conference when things are peaceful already. It's not like the normal idea for a peace conference is to have it when tensions are high, the apes are flinging their shit at each other and the only grownups in shouting distance are like a racing car in the red.

It's almost like Barry Davis wants a middle east in flames for some reason.