Feed aggregator

Modern Day Propaganda Began with Edward Bernays During World War I – Mike Swanson (06/12/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Sat, 06/11/2016 - 22:34

With thousands of advertisements seen by Americans everyday, and a corporate media that reinforces the needs of Empire, propaganda in the U.S. is more pervasive and effective than ever before.

The manipulation of public opinion through suggestion can be traced back to the father of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, who discovered that preying on the subconscious mind was the best way to sell products people don’t need, and wars people don’t want.

To get a deeper understanding of how propaganda functions in today’s society, Abby Martin interviewed Dr. Mark Crispin Miller, professor of Media Studies at New York University, on her show Empire Files.

Doctor Miller in this interview explains how modern propaganda actually began during World War I.

It also acts to “mold” the mind of the masses through subtle means and not direct hammering to make them come to believe that the way to think is simply the way they should think. And then they come to love the propaganda images and even willing to kill for them. And so today they worship the military-industrial complex as a modern day pyramid and thousands go to college in hopes of finding a place of meaning in the bureaucracy that works in it for themselves.

The reality is Bernay’s discovered that people actually enjoy mind control.

Here are key quotes by Bernay’s from his own book titled Propaganda:

“But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain politicians for news, the newspaper reporters are obliged to work in harmony with their news sources.”

“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”

“The great Allied campaign to celebrate (or sell) Democracy, etc., was a venture so successful, and, it seemed, so noble, that it suddenly legitimized such propagandists, who, once the war had ended, went right to work massaging or exciting various publics on behalf of entities like General Motors, Procter & Gamble, John D. Rockefeller, General Electric.”

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

“Here was an extraordinary state accomplishment: mass enthusiasm at the prospect of a global brawl that otherwise would mystify those very masses, and that shattered most of those who actually took part in it. The Anglo-American drive to demonize “the Hun,” and to cast the war as a transcendent clash between Atlantic “civilization” and Prussian “barbarism,” made so powerful an impression on so many that the worlds of government and business were forever changed.”

You can buy the Bernays book and take the red pill by going here.

Categories: The War State

New Book “CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files” by Jefferson Morley – Mike Swanson (06/10/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Fri, 06/10/2016 - 06:58

Jefferson Morley of www.jfkfacts.org has just released a new book titled CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files.

The book answers the simple question what did the CIA know about Oswald and when did they know it. It reveals the CIA people closest to this question and interviews key CIA personnel.

It is an important book and a must read for anyone interested in the JFK case.

Here is an interview Morley did about his book right before its release.

Here is a transcript of the above interview:

0:00:00 Speaker 1: Your host, Joe Cristiano.

0:00:04 Joe Cristiano: Welcome everyone to Liberty Talk radio, America’s libertarian voice, broadcasting from our studio in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to around the world. I’m your host, Joe Cristiano, and this is your antidote to popular talk radio. Today we’re pleased to have Mr Jefferson Morley as our guest. He’s an author and the editor of JFK Facts, the premier destination on the web for information and discussion about the assassination of JFK. Mr Morley has worked in Washington journalism since 1980 as an editor and reporter for The Washington Post, Salon, The Nation, and The New Republic. He teaches a course in the History of the CIA at the University of California in the District of Columbia. His forthcoming Kindle e-book, CIA and JFK: The Last Assassination Secrets, is the culmination of 20 years of research into the role of certain CIA undercover officers in the events that led to the president’s death. The book reveals the existence of a top secret batch of JFK Assassination files that the CIA is required to release in October of 2017. Mr Morley, welcome to our program.

0:01:22 Jefferson Morley: Great to be here, Joe. Thanks for having me.

0:01:24 JC: I’m going to plead general ignorance on the subject. I’ve read about it. In fact, I think we had mentioned that we had Jacob Hornberger from the Future Freedom Foundation. He gave me more background than I’ve ever known before, regarding the assassination. But the JFK assassination has to be all the way up there with the 9/11 conspiracy. They always call it a conspiracy, and it just rubs me the wrong way. If you’re contrary to what is being published by our federal friends in Washington, it’s not a point of view, it’s a conspiracy. So you’re way up there. So you’re fighting probably the biggest battles, probably even bigger than 9/11, probably the number one battle. And so I give you all the credit in the world. I don’t think I would do it, because I can see this brick wall [chuckle] coming at me real quick.

0:02:21 JM: Joe, there’s definitely a brick wall there. But the point is we are getting past that tired conspiracy debate, because what we have now is not theories, what we have now is the facts. After five investigations, after a lot of declassification of records, we understand the events that happened in November 22nd, 1963, much better. This was the 9/11 of its day. It was a national catastrophe, and it was never well explained. The president was killed under mysterious circumstances really, and the government put in a story very quickly, that one man had killed the president and for no reason. And people didn’t believe that. They didn’t believe it in Dallas, which is a very conservative city. They didn’t believe it in New York, which is a very liberal city. It just didn’t hang together. But the government put forward this story that one man killed the president for no reason, and we’ve been stuck with that ever since.

0:03:22 JM: And what my book does, CIA and JFK, is look at the event, look at what we’ve learned over the year. And what do we understand now? And one thing that’s very clear, Joe, is the original story, that some guy came out of nowhere and shot President Kennedy for no reason… He was a Communist, but not really. What was the motive for the crime? And then the man who was accused, who denied he had committed the crime, Lee Oswald, is then killed in police circumstances. Mysterious, shocking, stunning events. And I wasn’t around then. Well, I was. I was in kindergarten, so I have a vague memory of the day that this happened, but a formative event. Flash forward 50 years later, we understand much better now. That guy who supposedly shot the president, Lee Oswald, he was not an unknown guy who came out of nowhere. He was very well known to senior CIA officials, and I can name a dozen examples. And I don’t have a theory about those officials, but Oswald was well known to senior CIA officials before November 22nd. That’s a fundamental fact, indisputable, that was never put on the table in 1963-64, when they were coming up with this official story. Because if that were known, some people at the CIA would have lost their jobs. That never happened. Nobody ever lost their job because of the Kennedy assassination. Nobody ever went to jail. Nothing.

0:04:54 JM: So that’s why it remains in American political culture to this day. It never goes away. We always have a new movie about JFK or about LBJ or about the assassination, because this event, this single super important event in American history, has never been explained. And the government’s explanation is simply not credible. It doesn’t explain the facts that we know. So at the time, it was soothing. It was like, “Oh, it’s just the tragedy of life. Some guy killed the president.” Okay. That’s fine, but we’re grown ups now. That is not an adequate explanation of how President Kennedy came to be killed. So my book is about, what do we know now and what might we know soon? And so this is not something that is off… This is something that the next president is gonna have to decide about. So let me give you a little background, Joe, ’cause this is important part. My book tells the story, and this is not well known. It doesn’t get covered in major news organizations yet.

0:05:56 JM: I think some of them are beginning to realize that it’s a very good and interesting and important story. But the story is this… Back in 1992 Oliver Stone made his movie JFK, and this was kind of the original depicting Kennedy’s assassination, the conspiracy of his enemies in the Pentagon and the CIA. Very popular movie, very well done, lot of a lot of great actors. And so this critical acclaim for this movie really provoked tremendous debate in Washington. And so Congress, in the wake of that, with Stone pointing his finger and saying cover-up, conspiracy, Congress said well, “The government needs to make all of its JFK records public.” And so they created a law and it’s a pretty good law. And they created an independent group and they went through all the government records. And there was tons of stuff that was secret. This is in 1992. So this is already 30 years after the crime. And so in the ’90s, in the mid 1990s, a huge amount of information came out into the public record.

0:07:01 JM: And that’s how I can tell you this story about how well-known Oswald was to the CIA. These new records that came out, they confirmed that. That was not something that was really shared with any of the earlier investigations. But now it’s pretty clear that there was a lot we didn’t know about the CIA and Oswald. So that law went into effect, a lot came out, people like me and jfkfacts.org and maryferrell.org, which is another website about the assassination. JFK Lancer, a lot of scholars publishing books have picked up on this new material, and really begun to… It gives us a much better understanding of what the Kennedy assassination was all about. And we’re not really wrapped up in that conspiracy debate, conspiracy that. I’m not interested in theories. I’m a journalist and in my experience, the people who wanna talk about JFK theories, are usually the people who don’t wanna talk about the facts.

0:07:58 JM: So my approach is, let’s leave out the theories. You can think whatever you want. You can say, “Jeff, you’re full of it.” Or whatever. I’m not gonna try and talk you into it. What I’m gonna do is, I’m gonna tell you about the evidence. And my book, CIA and JFK is about what the government files, the CIA files that are, known to exist that are known to be related about the assassination and that are scheduled, and this is the kicker, Joe, that are scheduled to be released in October 2017. Why October 2017? Well, when Congress passed that law in 1992 they said, “All JFK records must be made public.” But if the agency has a concern about a name of an informant or an operation, they can request that, that be delayed from being disclosed right away. But after 25 years, everything has to be made public, okay.

0:08:51 JM: That law was passed in 1992, add 25 years and you come to October 2017. So we have this deadline coming up where a lot of this material is supposed to become public. Now according to the law there is a loophole in the law. And the loophole in the law is, the agencies like the FBI or the CIA, if they want this material to stay classified, stay secret after the 25 years is up, they can do that, but they have to get the approval of the president. So next October 2017, we’ll have a new president. We don’t know who that will be. But that president’s gonna face a choice, “Do we make the last JFK records public or not?” And I think it’s safe to say that the CIA and the FBI are going to request that at least some of this material remain secret. So we’re gonna have a fight and the next president is gonna face a real question in October 2017. “What do we do?”

0:09:54 JM: Well, this is the same thing as the, maybe you’ve talked about it on your show, the 28 pages from the 9/11 commission report, which have been… There’s 28 pages that are secret, that have never been made public about about 9/11. And people have been pushing for those to be made public. Senator Bob Graham, President Obama is thinking about it, he said. So that’s like an issue today. Well, the JFK files that are gonna come up in October 2017, it’s the same thing. It’s like, “Here’s a little piece of our history.” Are we gonna make it public or we’re just going to say, “The agencies have the right to keep this history walled off from us.”? So this JFK, it’s 50 years ago, who cares about that? But it’s actually an issue today. It still matters today, it’s still important, and people still care about clarifying this really crucial moment in American history. So my book, CIA and JFK, Kindle e-Book, you can order it now, explores what we really know about these records and who was involved. And my approach is pretty narrow. I don’t come in with a theory. I come in and look at who were the CIA people who knew about Oswald, who were involved in these events in 1963, and what do we know about them?

0:11:13 JM: So like I said, at the top there’s probably a dozen CIA officers who were in some way knowledgeable about Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination. What were they doing? What did they think? Were they manipulating him? Did they underestimate him? Whatever. Any reasonable person who’s interested in the subject would say, “Yeah, we should straighten this out.” Reasonable people don’t extend to the CIA, where it’s their job to keep secrets and they are gonna hang on to these secrets and not talk about it. So it’s an important issue to… It’s an important measure of, does the public, the citizenry, have the ability to kind of pressure their government into being accountable?

0:12:00 JM: And this law is very clear. It was in the past, in 1992, you got 25 years. After 25 years, everything is public, and that’s the point that we’re at now. So the question is, will we get everything? And it’s a test of our government, and it’s a test of ourselves. Same way that the 28 pages are. Can we get this? Can we know the full story of 9/11, or is the government gonna hide it from us?

0:12:21 JC: Right. Why are you publishing the book now, or making it available now? Why not wait till after October, 2017? What’s the logic there?

0:12:38 JM: Because the logic is this, Joe. If there is not public attention put on these records now, the CIA will get away with withholding the maximum amount, and we will never learn anything. So what we need is, we need attention between now and then. We need the presidential candidates to address the issue. “What do you think about the 28 pages? Do you favor the release of the rest of the JFK Records?” Those are basic questions that should be on the table now for the 2016 election. Because if I waited ’til October 2017, it’s too late. The only thing that will stay the hand of the CIA from keeping this material public, is people talking about it and coverage. Because then they’ll be embarrassed, and then they might be embarrassed into doing the right thing. So that’s why it’s coming out now, and that’s why people need to know the story now. We will have leverage in October 2017, if enough people know about this, presidential candidates have talked about it, addressed the issue, said, “Here’s what I think about how the government should approach secrecy issues.” And that’s really the bigger issue here. It’s not what happened 50 years ago. It’s how much of the government’s business can be kept secret? That’s a legitimate issue for 2016 elections. So I wanna get that out there. That’s why I’m publishing the book now. I wanna get that out there now, so that we have a shot at getting these records.

0:14:10 JC: I see. Now what kind of relationship did Lee Harvey Oswald have with with the CIA? You mentioned that relationship or that known factor.

0:14:23 JM: What I said was that there were a dozen CIA officers who knew about him. They were familiar with his file. They were familiar with his travels. They were familiar with his biography. Where did he come from? And he had a very interesting life for a young man. He had been in the Marines and served in Japan and the Philippines. He got a discharge. He went to the Soviet Union out of sympathy for Communism. He lived in the Soviet Union for a couple years. This whole time when Oswald was doing all of this, the CIA was paying close attention to him. And the officers, who I talk about in my book, are the officers who knew about him. They were informed about him. And this isn’t guesswork or rumor or a theory, this is based on the CIA and FBI records that have been released. So that’s what… So Oswald, the accused assassin, was somebody who people at the top of the CIA were thinking about at the time, within a few weeks before Kennedy was killed. And this was all unknown, so it never came out until now.

0:15:30 JM: So that’s the story that I’m getting in, is, what did these guys know? When did they know it? Who did they think Oswald was? What was going on in their lives? What was going on in CIA covert operations? So the story goes really into the heart of how an intelligence agency works. And I’m not saying these guys killed Kennedy. I’m saying, if there’s anybody in the US government who knew about this, it was these guys. So if we wanna understand November 22nd, 1963, we need the records of these CIA officers. We need to understand what were they doing at that time, in terms of political action, psychological warfare, secret operations against Castro? That is the milieu in which Oswald lived when he was accused of the assassination. So this veil has been drawn over CIA operations in 1963, and now only 50 years later is the veil beginning to come down and we can see what was going on. So that’s what this is about is, we are reopening what the CIA was doing in 1963, and trying to understand, did that have some connection to the events that led to the assassination of the president?

0:16:41 JC: Was Lee Harvey Oswald, was he under surveillance? They knew about him, but was he under surveillance during this period of time? And so the CIA should’ve known what he was doing, or where he was, or what he was planning?

0:17:00 JM: Absolutely. Joe, it’s not that they should’ve known, they did know. There’s no doubt about that. Wherever he went, the CIA received reports on his activities, and they received reports from many sources: From the FBI, from the New Orleans Police Department, from the State Department, from a secret operation to open mail. They had opened the letters of Oswald’s mother. So he had a very fat file in the CIA before November 22nd, 1963. And this is another thing that is really not talked about in major news organizations and mainstream media, but it’s also pretty much indisputably true, is the CIA really knew a lot about this guy. Now, was somebody in touch with Oswald? We don’t know, we don’t know. But they were certainly in a position to know everything about him, his politics, his travels, his foreign contacts, his state of mind, his letters from his mother. That’s how detailed their knowledge was of this man.

0:18:04 JC: So was he chosen as the perpetrator of this crime simply because he was an easy target for the FBI, because they can justify it by virtue of his background?

0:18:17 JM: Well, yeah. As somebody said in the White House right after the assassination, this whole story, the president killed by a communist, it was like it was too pat. It didn’t make any sense. And the more you look into that and understand who Oswald was, there’s really no motive for the crime. Oswald was a liberal socialist leftist guy, he wasn’t a crazed fanatic or anything like that. He thought Kennedy was kind of an ordinary politician. The thing that Oswald liked the best about Kennedy was that he was pro civil rights, very unusually for a young man with no education from the south. Oswald was instinctively sympathetic with black people, and this is the height of the civil rights movement, Jim Crow, all of that. And so Oswald was sympathetic. The idea that he would then turn around and kill the most pro civil rights President? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. Doesn’t make a lot of sense. So you ask, “Was Oswald a patsy?” Well Oswald said he was a patsy. When they asked him, when he was arrested, there was a press conference and reporters were shouting at him, and somebody said, “Did you shoot the president?” He said, “I did not shoot the President, I’m a patsy.” And so a patsy, that’s a fall guy, that’s somebody who is set up to take the blame for something that he didn’t do. Oswald said he was a patsy and you have all of these people around him who specialize in secret operations. It’s a possibility that he was set up and manipulated.

0:19:52 JC: Yeah. There’s only one thing that I’m somewhat familiar with. I understand that the rifle that was used by, apparently used by, allegedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald was a Carcano rifle. Am I correct? .

0:20:09 JM: Right, yes.

0:20:11 JC: Now, I’m sort of a gun guy. But many years ago I did a lot of reloading and stuff like that, and I still subscribe to Gun Tests magazine and I read the articles and stuff like that, I haven’t done anything in years. But I own a Carcano rifle. So what I did is that I looked up in my… I got several manuals on certain rifles and their characteristics. And the one characteristic of a Carcano rifle is its inaccuracy. And the reason for that is that it’s an overbore rifle. It was made over-bored. And the logic was, “Well, it’ll be a little less accurate but it won’t wear as much. So men in the field could fire more rounds with it without having to have it refurbished.” And so I thought to myself… I read this and this is only a few years ago that I read this, ’cause I have a Carcano rifle. It’s a garbage rifle [chuckle] and I got it for 100 bucks by the way. And I said to myself, “If someone was going to assassinate the President, you think they would go out and and get a relatively inexpensive, highly inaccurate rifle to shoot at a far distance?” That didn’t make any sense.

0:21:28 JM: No it doesn’t. And your story is great Joe, I’m no gun expert. I’ve read in the forensic evidence, there’s a lot of people who know a lot more. But yeah, a cheap, lousy rifle, and expert marksmen were for the most part unable to get off the number of shots to fit the official theory. So yeah, that’s another aspect of it. Another way to look at the whole story is, would Oswald be convicted based on the evidence that we have now? If you brought this case to… And it’s a very weak case.

0:22:16 JC: Right. A very, very weak case, right.

0:22:17 JM: It’s a forensic case and there’s a lot of… There’s bad evidence, there’s evidence that’s been mishandled or fixed. So part of the problem with this case is, that there’s a effort to kind of draw a veil of confusion over all of it. And the point you bring up, that it doesn’t make sense that this would be the murder weapon for this crime.

0:22:43 JC: Yeah, you could make an argument that he didn’t know any better, he was a wacko, he didn’t know a rifle from a handgun or a knife. But here’s a guy who’s a marksman, apparently he was in the military. And these guys know everything about the one thing that they need to operate properly, and that’s their side-arm, their firearm, their rifle. They know everything about it, they’re one with the cosmos with it. And you don’t take the most inaccurate rifle ever built [chuckle] to assassinate. When I read that it just… I said, “I’ve never heard this before.” And I’m reading… And this is just a technical magazine. This book that I was reading, was a technical magazine, reloading, and talked about different gun powders that are used for the mag. Had nothing to do with the assassination, with Lee Harvey Oswald, nothing at all. It was a reloading magazine. And when I read that I said, “My God, I’ve never heard that before.”

0:23:40 JM: Yeah well, you touched on just one of the many evidentiary problems in this case. And so we don’t have a good explanation of Kennedy’s assassination, but we do have an opportunity to really learn something more. And there are big breakthroughs possible in this, and I think that we could have a drastically different understanding of Kennedy’s assassination in five years, than we do now, if we had all the information. Or maybe not. I’m not making any promises, but there is a lot of very relevant information that the CIA and other government agencies are still hiding. And October 2017 is a real chance for us to get that material. So my book is an effort to kind of explain this whole story, and what’s out there and what might be the explanation. What was really going on with the president and his enemies at the time, and Oswald? And again, it’s a complicated story. It’s prone to over-simplification, but it’s not incomprehensible either, it’s not beyond the pale. We’re talking about the workings of an intelligence agency, and contrary to what you see in the movies, intelligence agencies are a bureaucracy. They follow procedures, even when they’re very secretive. And so we understand now a lot better how the CIA operated in 1963. It’s not a matter of mystification, it’s a matter of fact. And with that we can begin to really understand this great event, important event in American history in a new way.

0:25:22 JC: It just seems that there are so many players in this play. And didn’t it require many people to cooperate in the same way and to assure that there was no whistle-blowers or naysayers or contrarians in this entire production, if you will? It seemed that they had to be incredibly well coordinated and everyone that was told to shut up and say nothing, they had to guarantee they had to shut up. Then the question is, is that Lee Harvey Oswald… He was shot, right, by, I forgot the guy’s name…

0:26:09 JM: Jack Ruby.

0:26:10 JC: Yeah, right. Did that play into that whole scenario that I’m just painting right now?

0:26:17 JM: Yeah, if you go back to the time, this trauma, the President of the United States shot down in broad daylight. We were a year after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the President was killed by a Communist. Lyndon Johnson, who became President that day, was terrified that he was gonna find himself in a nuclear war. And so the convenient truth, that one guy killed the President for no reason, that was very reassuring to everybody in power in Washington. And so President Johnson, before the investigation, decided, they started with what the conclusion was gonna be. That was this guy did it alone, and we’re not gonna talk about anybody else’s motives, we’re not gonna talk about his association, we’re not gonna go there, because it might be war. And so this kind of panicky feeling, which was very real at the time, put this blanket over the story.

0:27:14 JM: Now there were people right from the start, who said, “No, that’s not what happened. What about this? ” And there was a concerted effort right from the start to discourage discussion; it was painful, don’t go there, it’s anti-American. But the fact is, it was very strong. It was very popular right from the start that the official explanation didn’t make any sense. People gave the government the benefit of the doubt, the Warren Commission, many distinguished people, Earl Warren, the Chief Justice, probably the leading liberal in the country, and Richard Russell, Dean of the Senate, leading Conservative in the country. So people gave them the benefit of the doubt, but it just didn’t hang together. Now a lot of people who rushed to defend the official story, they didn’t know that something else had happened. They were probably acting sincerely. They couldn’t believe that anything else was possible. So, were a lot of people in on it? Well, a lot of people were just gonna rally to their country, they’re gonna take what’s most reassuring, they’re gonna go with what the CIA says, if you work at the CIA especially. So the idea that the official story wasn’t right, was kind of incomprehensible to people, especially as you get closer into the government.

0:28:35 JM: If you work in the government you think the government’s a good thing, or a pretty good thing. You work for the CIA, you probably like the CIA. And so there was this tremendous pressure to conform and to reject, and anybody who objected or said anything differently was attacked. Mark Lane, the author and lawyer, who died last week, was the most prominent example of this. He was kind of an obnoxious guy from New York, and put himself forward as Oswald’s attorney. And he wrote this book about the Warren Commission Report and about the assassination called ‘Rush To Judgment’. This book was an amazing best-seller, seven weeks on the New York Times best seller list at number one. So this is by 1965, this is maybe two, three years after the assassination. There were very widespread doubts from the start. And another thing that’s quite interesting to note, and has become very obvious over the years, they say, “Oh, you know, conspiracy theorists, they don’t really know how the government really works.” And that’s often true, people who aren’t well-schooled in the government, with conspiracy theories, that’s not true. But what’s interesting about JFK is, there were lots of people very high in the government who didn’t believe the official story.

0:29:56 JM: And let’s start right there, Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon Johnson endorsed the Warren Commission and said, “Lay this to rest.” All of that. Privately, Lyndon Johnson never believed it. Never. Lyndon Johnson juggled conspiracy theories, but he never believed that one man killed the President for no reason. He thought President Kennedy had been killed by his enemies. He didn’t know who. Robert Kennedy, the President’s brother, he suspected either Mafia or CIA. Jackie Kennedy suspected that there was a conspiracy. I wrote a book about Winston Scott, the CIA’s top man in Mexico in the 1960s, super conservative, super loyal to the CIA, didn’t believe the official story, and wrote it down. So these kind of doubts were very pervasive at the popular level. People said it doesn’t pass the smell test. And even at the elite levels of government people said… They went along publicly because they had to do it, it had a certain momentum, but privately people didn’t really believe that. So that’s another reason why there’s this dissatisfaction. Even leaders of our government don’t believe this story.

0:31:06 JC: Jefferson, excuse me. I hate to interrupt you, but we’ve had a call on the line that wants to break in and ask a question. So do you mind if I interrupt you and we take a call, please?

0:31:16 JM: No. Not at all. Let’s talk.

0:31:16 JC: Okay. Line one, Caller, you’re on the air. Your question or comment please.

0:31:21 Lloyd: Hello Joe, this is Lloyd.

0:31:24 JC: Lloyd, thank you for calling Liberty Talk Radio.

0:31:27 Lloyd: Yeah. On the mystery of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being used by Oswald.

0:31:35 JC: Yes.

0:31:35 Lloyd: It doesn’t make sense from an average person standpoint. But when you put it in the fact that Oswald was passing out the leaflets for the Fair Play for Cuba working under Guy Banister, passing those out, and he was marketing himself as a Cuba sympathizer, which I think he was probably a double agent, kinda working for the CIA at that time. Now in 1958-’59, I believe it was, when Castro was trying to overthrow Batista, the CIA was delivering Mannlicher-Carcano rifles to Castro to overthrow Batista. So now, you have Oswald who purchases by mail order, Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. He paid more than what it should’ve cost. He got the scope with it. It was like $29.95. Back in those days I remember, I was a gun enthusiast as a kid, looking through Montgomery Ward catalogue, you could buy a British 303 rifle, the war surplus, for $8.99.

0:32:52 JC: Wow. [chuckle]

0:32:54 Lloyd: And you could buy several of the old Belgian rifles and stuff like that for $13 or something to that effect. Now, if you’re trying to set up a patsy, what better rifle than to have one that someone is passing out leaflets in support of Cuba, and have the same rifle that the Cubans would use. Any comments?

0:33:20 JM: Yeah. A good point that the Carcano rifle was widely available. It’s peculiar that, if you could get such a cheap rifle anywhere, why would Oswald get it as a mail order item? But I think that the… And it seems unlikely that the rifle did cause the wounds of all the people in the car, such a cheap rifle. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

0:33:56 Lloyd: I believe that the rifle could’ve done the damage. In fact, a long time ago, back in ’72, I was overseas. I was in the Air Force, and I was in a good library, and I actually started going through the Warren Report. I didn’t go through it all, of course, it’s several big volumes. But I found the parts in there where they were going through the trajectory and the ballistics, and all this kind of stuff. And there is a plausible explanation for the bullet that went through Kennedy’s neck, and through the seat, and into Connelly. And a bullet can actually do that, because Connally was sitting down lower than Kennedy, which would give it… And plus, once a bullet hits something, it does deflect somewhat. And then, the other thing is, people say it was a pristine bullet. I’ve seen pictures of the bullet, it was not totally pristine. It was somewhat shaped like a bullet, simply because it was a jacketed bullet. It was not lead nosed, like people use for hunting. And those bullets, unless they hit something really, really hard, do come out pretty much looking still like the shape of a bullet. But I’m kind of a conspiracy theorist. I’ve read a lot of this stuff, but I was just gonna bring up basically the note on the rifle. Why that particular rifle would be one, that if the CIA were setting up a patsy, that is the perfect rifle to do it.

0:35:28 JC: Okay. All right, Lloyd. Great comment. Yes, Jefferson.

0:35:33 JM: Yeah, so in my book I don’t really address these kind of forensic issues, but they’re always in the background. I’ll just say, in reference to his comment, Governor Connally was quite clear that the first bullet hit President Kennedy in the back, and the second bullet hit him in the back and it was two different bullets. Connally said that, and his wife Nellie, who was sitting next to him, said that. And they were both experienced hunters, they knew their way around guns. But if what they say is true, then the Warren Commission was false. Because the Warren Commission said that that’s not what happened. So even right there, at the most basic level, the government’s account is not supported by the two witnesses who were closest at the scene of the crime.

0:36:32 JC: Right. Lloyd, are you still on the air? No, Lloyd’s gone, okay. Jefferson, can we just break for about 60 seconds for station identification and give an opportunity for our sponsors to say ‘hello’. Okay? Okay, thank you. Don’t go away, we’ll be right back. Folks, don’t go away. The second half is gonna be better than the first half, if you can believe that.

0:36:53 S1: You’re listening to Liberty Talk Radio. Political talk derived from a historical perspective not always palatable, but good food for thought. Pure libertarian talk, with host Joe Cristiano, libertytalkradio.com.

[background conversation]

0:38:17 JC: Welcome back everyone. This is Joe Cristiano, you’re listening to Liberty Talk Radio. With us we have Mr. Jefferson Morley. He’s the author and the editor of JFK Facts, the premier destination on the web for information and discussion about the assassination of JFK. We’re discussing his book, the upcoming book, it will be a Kindle e-book, CIA and JFK: The Last Assassination Secrets. The only book that I’ve ever read on JFK was a book by Roger Stone, The man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ. What’s your opinion of that book?

0:38:58 JM: It’s a political tract designed to malign the reputation of a liberal hero, and that’s what Roger Stone does. He’s a hard-ball, right wing, conservative political strategist, and he always… What his political campaigns or whatever he’s involved in, that’s what he talks about, is he goes bare knuckles. Now is it true? No, it’s not true. It’s not factually supported. The case that Lyndon Johnson killed President Kennedy is very weak. And I think Stone brings that up as part of his larger project of advancing a hard-right conservative agenda. Roger Stone, as you may know, has been very close to Donald Trump in launching his campaign. Reportedly there have been some differences between the men. I was hoping that… Roger Stone’s a nice man, I’ve met him. He noticed the assassination story very well. I think his partisan enthusiasms get the better of him. But he could be a good voice for full disclosure on the JFK issue, if he has some influence with Donald Trump.

0:40:17 JM: So yeah, on the internet the “LBJ did it” meme is very popular, it’s popular in Texas. And for sure, LBJ was a real son-of-a-bitch.


0:40:30 JM: The more we know about him.

0:40:31 JC: Right. It’s amazing. [chuckle]

0:40:34 JM: He was mean, and every time you think you heard the most, then you hear another story. [0:40:39] ____ I think it’s very interesting that President Johnson did not believe the official story. Whatever you think about Johnson, whether you like him, hate him, whatever, he was a superb political mind. He was a genius. He had an incredible political mind, a nose for power. Look at what he did in his life, where he came from and all that. You can’t say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So when LBJ says the government’s version of the story is incredible, I give that a lot of credibility.

0:41:15 JC: Yeah. Well, then then the question remains, if the official story is in question, who killed JFK?

0:41:32 JM: I don’t think we can point to individuals, but I think we can say, what’s never been investigated is the possibility that the president was killed by enemies in his own government, and people with the ability to cover their tracks through the use of official secrecy. So we’re talking about people working in classified agencies, which would be Defense Department and CIA. So if there was a conspiracy, that’s where you need to look. And if you wanna look at the people who were most likely to be involved, you know that’s what my book is about. We can get down and talk about specific people. So I think that if we got all the records we’re talking about, we might know a lot more about the culpability of certain CIA officials and the death of the president.

0:42:21 JC: What would be the motive? What was the motive, in your opinion, at this point in time?

0:42:26 JM: You know, Kennedy had taken a series of decisions that were very disturbing to the Defense Department, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs and the CIA. And there were three, really, that were… The first was the refusal to support the CIA brigade at the Bay of Pigs, which was attempting to overthrow the Castro government. A lot of people in Miami and the CIA never forgave Kennedy for that, they felt that he had abandoned them in the line of fire. That that was disgraceful. Then during the Cuban Missile Crisis a year later, in October of 1962, Kennedy’s advisors and the Joint Chiefs strongly recommended that he invade the island, destroy the Soviet missiles that were being built there, and throw out Castro. And Kennedy refused to do that, even though the Joint Chiefs were unanimous, and even most of his civilian advisors favoured them. And Kennedy rejected that hawkish advice and pursued a more dove-ish policy and settled the crisis without a war.

0:43:40 JM: And then the third thing was, in 1963 Kennedy pushed very hard for a test-ban treaty on the testing of nuclear weapons. And this was opposed by the Joint Chiefs, at least privately. And so Kennedy was moving the country’s foreign policy to the left. And he was gonna reopen diplomatic relations with Cuba and he was perceived as a threat to US national security by a lot of people. So that would give the motive for an assassination operation, which would be to defend the national security of the United States. That’s how such people might have seen it. So, I think that’s the leading possibility that’s never really been examined. And that’s where the evidence that’s still secret… That’s what we’ll learn about if we get those records.

0:44:30 JC: Yeah. You know if this occurred today, there would be a lot more skepticism than there was back then. I mean, back then we could not perceive that anything internally would have been involved in that thought process at all.

0:44:53 JM: Right. Yes. We know a lot more about how the government works. You know, in 1963 the CIA was just a rumor. And even the best informed journalist in Washington really had no idea how the CIA actually worked. And that’s very different now. And so, we do have much more skepticism. And likewise, the same thing, we have more knowledge. So since Ed Snowden came along, we understand much better how this mass surveillance system, NSA, and all that, works. Before we could’ve guessed, you might have thought this or that, but the government lied about it, constantly. The congressman would say, “Sir, do you spy on millions of Americans?” “No, we do not.” That was a lie.

0:45:47 JC: Right.

0:45:47 JM: Right. Now we know much better. And so the government has less credibility as people become more informed, and they can’t get away with those kind of lies anymore. So that’s the current relevance of JFK, which is, if we’re gonna stop the government from lying today, one place to start is what happened 50 years ago. Because that’s way in the past and doesn’t have anything to do with anything, it’s history, right? But if we can’t do it on JFK, we don’t have a prayer of holding the government accountable today. So there is a contemporary importance to the JFK story. It’s a reflection of, do we have the ability to hold the government accountable, back then or today?

0:46:31 JC: I’m gonna ask you a very unfair question, if you don’t mind. [chuckle] And that is that, there are other events that the government’s story doesn’t seem to hold water. I mean, it sounds good, but it doesn’t run very well. And of course I always pick on 9/11. The only thing I know, for example, about 9/11 as a fact… I own a company that does occupation health testing. And we are the quintessential experts in respirators and respirator use. We do training on it, we have special machines that cost thousands of dollars to make sure that it fits properly. I mean, if you had to question the state of Oklahoma regarding respirators you came to me. I mean that’s… We are the people. And we do thousands of fit tests on every conceivable respirator in the world made. Yet on 9/11, the government indicated that they had just received 3,000 respirators that they were giving out to all the people who were helping with the rescue effort. And I’ll never forget this, I sat by the TV when I heard that, and I literally yelled out, I’m not kidding you, I yelled out as if I was speaking to someone in the room and saying, “No, you didn’t!” And then I looked, I said, “Who am I talking to? There’s no one in this room but me!”, [laughter] you know. I just felt stupid, I said, “I’m talking to the television set.”

0:48:00 JC: And the reason why they came out so quickly, was because I knew the respirators are just-in-time inventory and you can’t get 3,000 respirators. You may be able to get 20, but you can’t get 3,000. Now, you can get 3,000, but you’re gonna have to wait. And of course, they didn’t give out 3,000 respirators. They gave 3,000 dust masks out, and the dust masks are only used for very specific types of contaminants and they have to be fitted properly so that they work, etcetera. I won’t go through the whole history. And I’m yelling. I’m saying, “Well, this is all wrong.” In fact, the government broke every single regulatory rule regarding respiratory protection that they write about. They broke every single one of them.

0:48:44 JC: And I was so angry. I said, “How could they do that when they impose these restrictions on companies,” and justifiably so. The companies should be doing this. But then they break every one and say, “Look how great the government is. They gave 3,000 respirators out free of charge to all these people,” and that was all bunk. And after that, I became incredibly skeptical of everything the government said about 9/11, everything. I started questioning everything. Now, I don’t know much about it. I’m just like the average guy on the street. Who knows what happened? But I guess my point being is, that we seem to have that same skepticism today regarding the JFK assassination as we do now of 9/11. Of course, of everything I’m saying, that means I’m a conspiracy nut and all this other stuff. But spare me with that, you know?

0:49:34 JM: No, no no, I mean it started with JFK, because the government didn’t produce a credible explanation and never did. And so people’s skepticism and cynicism about the government went up. And if you chart, over time, do you have faith and confidence in the federal government? World War II, ’50s, ’60s, it’s rising. 1964 Warren Commission is issued and it goes like this. It goes straight down and has never really recovered. Now, there were other things that weren’t there, Vietnam and all of that. But that was when people learned that it was in the government’s interest to put out a certain kind of story, because that satisfied all the interests. It didn’t satisfy the interests of truth. It satisfied all the political interests. So we have that same skepticism.

0:50:29 JM: Now, 9/11, Joe, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. 9/11 was a conspiracy. I think it was a conspiracy created by Osama bin Laden and this guy named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed came up with the plan and hired the guys and bin Laden gave the money and they conspired and the result was the 9/11 attacks. I think that part of the story is true. Now, where government secrecy comes in, the 28 pages is, who else was involved in this? Was there more Saudi money going to these guys? What did the US know about that? There’s aspects of the story that we don’t know and that the government would prefer to hide. Do those change the fundamental picture of who was the intellectual author of the crime? I think we know who the intellectual author of the crime was on 9/11. It was Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

0:51:23 JC: Yeah, yeah. But it garners enough skepticism that it’s difficult to accept anything that is being said today, and it sort of skews the compass. It’s like putting a magnet next to a compass and you never know what direction you’re going into. Just the other day the president said on television… I don’t remember the exact words, but he says his administration respects the sovereignty of foreign countries. And you think about all the drones that are being flown all over the place, [chuckle] dropping bombs in sovereign countries and sometimes it’s hospitals and innocent men, women and children. I mean, the audacity to say something like that. You don’t have to be a news-hound and verify it. You know this is happening, and what they say is an exact contradiction of what they’re doing, that you see every day on television. And I think the United States is losing its credibility, not only in the world, but with its own citizens. And this is why the likes of a Donald Trump, for example, or Bernie Sanders and those guys and maybe a third-party candidate is getting so much attraction during this electoral season.

0:52:41 JM: Yeah, yeah. I mean, when the government makes these implausible statements, it’s playing with fire. Because it’s very reckless, and it undermines everything that the government does. It undermines the notion that we can act collectively, which we have to do. And so the propagandistic aspects of this… It’s in this national security realm where the lies, the fake statements, are especially profound. Because it’s always dressed up with, “We’re protecting you. So you can’t know this, ’cause it’s for your own good that we can’t tell you this.” It’s a very pernicious argument, and it makes people very cynical. Because they feel that they’re being played, and they are. And the country was kind of played after the Warren Commission. We didn’t have a real investigation of why the president was killed. We had an investigation of convenience. And the explanation we got was what served the array of political interests in Washington. And that’s still the way the game is played now. So the challenge is, how do we, the average people out there, hold the government accountable? And we do have these powerful new media tools, the internet. So the people have some more power, we had whistle-blowers from the inside, like Ed Snowden. We have Wiki leaks. So it’s a struggle. It’s a constant struggle.

0:54:22 JC: Now, can you divulge to us at this point in time? Or would would you prefer to withhold it? What is the conclusion of your book?

0:54:32 JM: The conclusion of my book is, if we wanna know the truth about who killed President Kennedy, we have to have all the evidence. And so we don’t, we don’t have all the evidence. But if we wanna know the truth and we wanna know specifically about the dozen or so men and women who I talk about in my book, then let’s see the evidence. But until then, we’re not going to have that whole stupid conspiracy thing, right. We’re gonna say the facts, which is the government is concealing… The CIA’s concealing its records about the JFK assassination to this day. Now, why are they doing that? I mean, I’m skeptical to suspicions. If you don’t have something to hide, don’t hide anything. The CIA has nothing to hide on JFK, they will produce these records. If they come forward and say, “We wanna hide something,” then I will say, “I think they got something to hide, because they’re telling us that.” Right?


0:55:23 JM: So the conclusion of my book is, we’re going to come to this moment in 2017 and we’re gonna have that conversation. There’s gonna be attention to this issue. Believe me, Joe, there’s gonna be attention to this issue, ’cause people understand now, what’s out.

0:55:38 JC: Yeah, if in fact these papers, when they are presented in October of 2017, reveal that much of what the government, or some of what the government has said about the assassination of JFK is proven to be incorrect or false, you think this was going to have an effect on mostly everything that the government has said about other incidences that occurred? Do you think there’ll be some sort of backlash against government in general? And would it be broad enough in scope to maybe lessen or weaken the government, as we know it today?

0:56:15 JM: Yes, absolutely, it will. And this is the symbolic importance of JFK is, it still resonates, it still… It’s kind of archetypal American story. I teach this stuff in school, so I meet a lot of college students, and they’re still fascinated by it. Although it’s very far from them. People like me, who actually can remember the day, barely, I was in kindergarten, we’re going fast. So the number of people who actually can remember the event is shrinking every year, but there’s still this very basic interest. And so clarity about the Kennedy assassination would have, I believe, a powerful ripple effect of saying, “Hey, you know? We gotta get this right. We have to hold secret agencies accountable.” It will create this pressure for more disclosure, more accountability. That’s all to the good.

0:57:07 JM: So I think that that’s why October 2017 is important, because it’s not just about now. It’s about the 28 pages. It’s about mass surveillance. It’s about, what are we gonna do about this today? It’s a kind of exhibit A from the past that is very relevant to the present. And so, yes, I believe it will have political ripple effects if we learn more and can clarify the JFK story.

0:57:31 JC: And I think those ripple effects will be very unsettling, but overall they’ll be good long-term for the salvation of this country, whatever is left of it. And hopefully will help steer us in the right path, because right now we just seem to be going in the wrong direction. So I hope your book is an impetus towards correcting that journey that we’re on, which I don’t particularly care for. Now we have about two minutes to go. I like to give you the last two minutes to sum things up, inform our listeners how they may reach you, or order your book and when it’s available, etcetera. So the rest of the show is yours.

0:58:13 JM: Yes, so Joe, thanks for the opportunity. I love to be able to have a real discussion instead of like a sound-bite discussion, where we can talk and we get a caller who knows something and he can say his piece. So thank you for taking the time. My book, CIA and JFK: The Last Assassination Secrets, is a Kindle e-book. You can get it on Amazon Download. You can preorder it now, it’ll be available on June 10th. And it really is a roadmap to what we know about the CIA and the JFK assassination, and what we might learn in the near future, and highlights the importance of the secrecy issue in the 2016 campaign.

0:58:56 JM: So, I urge people to look for the book on Amazon. Or wanna know more about me and look at JFK facts, which is JFKfacts.org. It’s a website about the assassination. We present a lot of news, a lot of information, answer your questions. And you can email me, editor@JFKfacts, and I’m always answering questions from readers. People are curious about this. So, I think the more people who know about this, the more we will have attention on this very timely issue of secrecy and national security in 2016. And the JFK story is just a brilliant, fascinating way to understand how we got into the predicament today. So my book is a guide to that right.

0:59:47 JC: Well, maybe this will be the spark to send us in the right direction. I wanna thank you so much for being on our show, you’ve been a delightful and informative guest. And I do hope you will accept our invitation, maybe, to return at a later date when there’s some updates. And if you do just give us a call when you think it’s appropriate, we’d love to have you back on the show.

1:00:05 JM: Joe, I would love to do that. There will be more news, so we will talk again and I look forward to that.

1:00:09 JC: Okay. Thank you so much for being on our show. Folks, this is the end of today’s broadcast. We’d like to thank our sponsors for the financial support. And we’d like to thank you for listening in. You can further the cause of liberty by recommending this program to your friends. Let us hear from you. Our email address is comments@libertytalkradio.com. Remember, you’re either allowing your liberties to be taken away or you are striving to protect them. Unfortunately there is no middle ground. Until next time, this is Joe Cristiano. You’ve been listening to Liberty Talk Radio. Stay well, stay tuned.

Categories: The War State

Who Really Was Lee Harvey Oswald – 50 Reasons for 50 Years Episode 1 – Mike Swanson (06/07/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Mon, 06/06/2016 - 21:01

This short video looks at the Warren Commission version of who Lee Harvey Oswald was and reality.

This is video one in the 50 Reasons for 50 Years Series done by Len Osanic of wwww.blackopradio.com. I will post one episode of this series every Tuesday.

Categories: The War State

The Size of the Military-Industrial Complex is Staggering – Mike Swanson (06/03/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Fri, 06/03/2016 - 09:25

The size of the military industrial complex is so big it is hard to wrap your head around how much money is going to defense contractors.

I did this interview with the guys at the www.wakeupcallpodcast.com about my book The War State and the MIC.

Here is the youtube for it:

You can also listen to the audio mp3 file by going to their website by clicking here.

Show notes for podcast are also available on this page.

Now I made a mistake during the interview.

I said that the US defense department is the number 3 employer in the world.

Actually it is the number one employer on the planet with 3.2 million employees.

The Chinese army is number two with 2.3 million people.

Wal-Mart is third with 2.1 million and then Mcdonalds with 1.9 million.

Even though the Chinese army has a lot of people in it the size of it still does not compare with the United States at all and in fact the Chinese government has announced that it is going to reduce its army by over 300,000 people.

At the same time the US national security state is making a pivot to make China a big threat and danger to keep the world tensions going and fear as that is what it thrives on and believes is important to maintain. It’s called the “China Pivot” and Clinton promoted it in Foreign Affairs and the way Trump talks is in alignment with this strategy. He says he wants to spend more on the military to deter China and that we should be scared of them.

China is spending $147 billion on its military in 2016 for 1.5% of GDP.

This is the second largest defense budget behind the US whose official budget is $543 billion for 4.8% of US GDP and 48% of US defense spending. The numbers I gave in the interview were from the book and are for 2013, so the budget has gone up since then to new records.

However the official budget does not factor spending for wars and if you add that the budget is close to a trillion dollars and if you add in the payments to the national debt from past defense expenditures it all is over half the entire Federal budget and more than the 17 countries after the US, including China, in their defense spending combined so there is nothing to be scared of.

In fact much of the money being spent on defense goes to useless weapons and airplanes like the F-35 that barely can fly.

Categories: The War State

This Top Clinton Pick for Secretary of State Would Be a Disaster – Mike Swanson (06/09/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Thu, 06/02/2016 - 01:00

We all know that Hillary Clinton helped push Barrack Obama into some major foreign policy disasters when she was Secretary of State.

There was the debacle in Libya for one thing.

And then there were secret arms deals.

But if Clinton becomes President you can expect even more disasters to come, because her closet foreign policy advisor is Victoria Nuland.

If Hillary Clinton becomes President you can expect Nuland to become Secretary of State or National Security Advisor to her.

Who is Nuland?

Well she got big in government working for Dick Cheney during the Bush years.

Philip Giraldi has an excellent article about her at the American Conservative website.

Here is one quote from the article:

Nuland comes from what might be called the First Family of Military Interventionists. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for the New American Century in 1998 around a demand for “regime change” in Iraq. He is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an author, and a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of a number of national newspapers. He has already declared that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, a shift away from the GOP that many have seen as a clever career-enhancing move for both him and his wife.

Victoria Nuland became an Assistant Secretary of State working directly under Hillary Clinton and is still serving in that position.

She helped organize the coup in Ukraine and a series of anti-Russian policies that led to a foreign policy mess in Europe.

It was also a corrupt game she was playing.

Here is a video clip of Nuland bragging to a lobbyist group that wants to “invest” in Ukraine.

Notice all of the corporations and defense contractors that sponsored the group she is speaking too with their symbols on the sign behind her. If that doesn’t look like an iron triangle at work I don’t know what does.

That was a public talk Nuland gave to money men.

Here is a private dirty discussion that Nuland had as she helped engineer the coup in Ukraine.

You can listen to a great interview with Giraldi about Nuland and Clinton done by Scott Horton by going here.

The thing is this is going to be a tight Presidential race as we head to November. If you watch MSNBC you would be convinced that Clinton can easily beat Trump. But I think they underestimate him, because they do not understand the electorate now and Donald Trump’s mind control methods.

To learn more about the origins of these type of operations grab my book The War State.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

50 Reasons For 50 Years Introduction – Mike Swanson (05/31/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Mon, 05/30/2016 - 23:53

This short video summarizes the controversy in the JFK assassination.

In 2012 Len Osanic of www.blackopradio.com began a series of 50 videos leading into the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

I am going to post one video from this series every Tuesday.

This series is designed to highlight the cutting edge of research exposing the conspiracy and the cover-up behind his murder. This introductory episode briefly recounts the history of the controversy, and sets the stage for the episodes ahead.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

What To Make Of Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Views? – Mike Swanson (05/30/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Mon, 05/30/2016 - 10:37

Critics say that Donald Trump is all over the map in terms of foreign policy plans, but there are a few core concepts that are always there.

Scott Horton joins Adam Camac and Daniel Laguros on www.wakeupcallpodcast.com to discuss Donald Trump, his foreign policy views, his big foreign policy speech, and how he should approach foreign policy in a potential matchup with Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Horton is the host of the Scott Horton Show, which mostly focuses on foreign policy topics, and assistant editor for antiwar.com.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

Donald Trump’s Mind Control Methods Revealed – Mike Swanson (05/29/2016)

TheWarState.Com - Sat, 05/28/2016 - 21:24

The Manchurian Candidate – 1962

I have been reading a fascinating book by Eva Horn. She’s a literature professor in Germany who has written a book titled The Secret War: Treason, Espionage, and Modern Fiction

Eva Horn finds in political fiction a means to analyze political secrets and changes in American culture.

In one section of her book she writes about the classic 1962 movie The Manchurian Candidate.

The plot of that movie is about mind control methods.

The movie focuses on a Korean War POW who becomes brainwashed by his captors into becoming an assassin robot to be switched on when the time is right.

He comes home to be under the control of his mother, whose husband is running for President of the United States and gets on TV and talks like Joseph McCarthy warning of communist spies.

It’s all weird.

But the movie also shows how the viewers of the movie themselves have been controlled by their own television sets.

It shows how television had come to play a key role in how people perceive of their political candidates and shows how important TV was becoming in 1962.

The image above is from the movie. In the movie you see this Presidential candidate act crazy and stupid. But when he is on TV he makes a good impression. So you get to see the difference between reality and the TV image, but it is the image that matters so much and so can at times be more real than what is real.

Remember this is just two years after the first televised Presidential debate.

Now that was 54 years ago and TV images are more important in elections now than ever before.

It is all about perceptions as we enter a strange moment in the American empire.

We have voters angry with what they have seen in both parties crying out for change.

And Donald Trump has channeled their anger to defeat all his Republican primary opponents.

No one thought he could do it, but he did it. But if Trump wins will he be able to make the changes people desire? To do that will require more than just defeating election opponents, but shaking up entrenched government.

For instance he would enter office trapped by Federal Reserve policies and has already said he would essentially welcome printing more money and having the nation go deeper into debt if the Federal Reserve demands it.

President Obama first ran for President promising to diverge away from Bush style foreign policies, but found he was a bit trapped by the deep state bureaucracy. His rule has been more marked by the continuation of previous foreign policies than changing them.

What few people know though is that Donald Trump used an arsenal of mind control techniques to destroy his primary opponents.

Scott Horton, host of the Scott Horton Show, did an incredible interview about this with Scott Adams, the Dilbert Cartoonist, who broke it all down.

You can listen to this interview by going here: Scott Adams on Donald Trump’s “Master Persuader Skills”

I asked Horton if I could make a transcript of this interview so I could share it with people and he was gracious enough to let me do that.


00:31 SCOTT HORTON: Alright, you guys, welcome back. I’m Scott Horton. It’s my show, the Scott Horton Show. Up next, it’s Scott Adams, the author of the Dilbert cartoon, and also turns out a very interesting political analyst other than in cartoon form. Welcome to the show! How are you doing, Scott?

00:53 SCOTT ADAMS: I’m doing great, thanks for having me.

00:55 SCOTT HORTON: Very happy to have you here. I saw you on CNN saying some very interesting things. We talked about it here on the show a little bit. I’ve been reading your blog a little bit more and learning a little bit more about what you have to say about this Donald Trump phenomenon, and thought I’d like to give people a chance to hear it. If you could, first of all as you explain on your blog, could you explain the moist robot hypothesis? Which I think I agree with just from hearing the title. And then from there, what exactly is a master wizard, if you could?

01:27 SCOTT ADAMS: Well, the moist robot hypothesis, I wrote about it in my latest book ‘How To Fail At Almost Everything And Still Win Big,’ but the idea is that we’re essentially programmed computers, that free will is an illusion, and that if we take care of our bodies, our minds generally go to a good place. So, the ideas that we can be easily influenced by a master persuader, someone who has the talent to know how to program that user interface that is human beings. That set of skills is very well-known. Science has tested it. There’s lots of studies about what influences people. I’m a trained hypnotist by background, so I recognize in Donald Trump a number of these skills of persuasion that he himself says he has. He wrote a book called The Art of the Deal where he talks about negotiating, and that field of negotiating, hypnosis, persuasion, influence, it’s all kind of the same thing. It’s the same set of skills.

02:31 SCOTT HORTON: That’s interesting. I told this story before, I took psychology and social psychology in junior college just to try to protect myself from this kind of thing so I could try to be reasonable and make my decisions based on information and not in an emotional way or some looking glass self way, or some victim of advertising or political spin kind of way. I want the truth, damn it. And yet, I recognized that everybody else in class were going into advertising or government for a living and that’s why they were there was to learn how to manipulate people. I don’t know if any of them will ever attain the rank of master wizard, but basically, I guess you’re right. At the end of the day, what’s reason got to do with it? It’s all about how you make people feel, and if you feed ’em jelly beans while you tell ’em your argument they’ll be 75% more likely to agree with you at the end kind of thing. It is like that.

03:23 SCOTT ADAMS: Yes, and with Donald Trump it goes way beyond just saying things that people wanna hear him say, although that actually is a method of persuasion. If you say something that someone is thinking before they’ve said it, then that’s a hugely persuasive thing to do. They’ll end up agreeing with everything else you say after that. So when Trump did that about blocking Muslim immigration temporarily, he accurately guessed that a large percentage of the general population was thinking that, but wouldn’t say it out loud. And polls have backed him up, so that was not just a good guess and not just a politically expedient thing, which is the way it’s being reported, but it’s a deep persuasive technique. I’ll give you another one. When Trump talks about whether Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State of all-time or not, that’s a trick called selling past the close. If he makes you think about the question of who else is as bad as she was, you’ve already accepted the premise that she was bad and all you’re talking about is whether she was the worst. So, when you see somebody set up a question in that form it’s a car salesman trick.

04:39 SCOTT HORTON: Mm-hmm.

04:40 SCOTT ADAMS: When the car salesman says, “Do you think you would like the blue one in your driveway better or the red one?” He’s making you think past the decision of buying it.

04:50 SCOTT HORTON: But that’s a pretty cheap trick, isn’t it? That doesn’t sound like a wizard technique as much as kind of a hack technique there, no?

04:57 SCOTT ADAMS: Well, first of all if you saw only one of the techniques in isolation of course it wouldn’t mean much.

05:02 SCOTT HORTON: Oh, I see.

05:02 SCOTT ADAMS: But you have to understand that you’re getting a blizzard of associations and influence every time Trump opens his mouth. But the other thing that’s interesting about influence is that you can tell somebody what you’re doing while you’re doing it to them, and it won’t affect the fact that it works. So the fact that I told you just how that works, the selling past the close, that doesn’t change its effectiveness. It still works.

05:33 SCOTT ADAMS: The other big trick that Trump does is he directs energy to where he wants it. My best example was during the first debate when he got the gotcha question about his comments about women in general, and he quickly brought up Rosie O’Donnell because that just absorbed all the headlines and turned it into sort of a focus on a character that he knew would not be popular with his Republican base. So he basically just owned the conversation simply by moving it to someplace irresistible that would keep the energy there, and you’ll see the same trick over and over.

06:12 SCOTT ADAMS: For example, when Chris Cuomo was interviewing on CNN, this was a while ago, a few months ago, and said, “The Pope had some bad things to say about capitalism.” The question was to set up to get Trump to disagree with the Pope. Alright. That’s what the question was designed to do. But what Trump did was he didn’t fall for it. He said instead some version of, “The Pope should be worried that ISIS is coming to take over the Vatican.” Now, as soon as you get that in your head, you forget what the question was. Because as you imagine ISIS coming into the Vatican and taking over, which by the way always has a at least one pinky in truth, because ISIS would love to do that. They would love to do that if they could. So nothing he says is 100% crazy, but it’s just provocative enough that it takes all the energy to a place where he’s strong, which is his opinions about immigration, defense, economics, and away from anything that would be a weakness for him.

07:16 SCOTT HORTON: And now, but I see he’s saying, Scott, on CNN that what this amounts to is the others have no chance whatsoever. And Jeb Bush can basically do nothing but cry because, as you put it, on CNN they’re bringing sticks to a flame thrower fight. And he is just a giant, stomping and crushing them, and I can see your point there that there’s really nothing that they can do about this at this point. He’s light years ahead.

07:41 SCOTT ADAMS: Couple of clarifications. First of all, I don’t support Trump. I’m not endorsing him. I’m rather just analysing his methods, and in my blog for entertainment, I predict that he’s definitely gonna win. And I use what I call the master persuader filter to make those predictions. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s true. I’m just saying that if you predict things based on this filter, see how it does. So I used that filter to predict if Carly Fiorina would hit a top in the polls after she’d mentioned the dead, squirming, aborted baby image. Because what she did was pair that image with her in people’s minds, and that really is the master persuader suicide. So that’s something that Trump would never do, and it killed her. That was the end of Fiorina after that association.

08:34 SCOTT ADAMS: If you look at the closing statements of the last debate, each of the other candidates said something terrible was happening, the world was coming to an end. Trump made maybe a quick statement about, “Things are bad. I’m gonna make this place great, great, great. It’s gonna be terrific. Look at all the things I can do. I’ll find trillions of dollars of free money that’s overseas and bring it back.” So what he does is he says things that make you simply feel good. At least in that example, none of it is a lie. He just focused on things that make you feel good. Now, you don’t have a choice about feeling good when people say things that are images you like. That’s just an automatic association. But if, let’s say, Rand Paul has a good intellectual idea of how we should approach taxes or anything else, that’s an intellectual reason. Your brain can look at that. It can reject it. It can begin to accept it. Usually, it rejects it because we don’t like to change our minds, but Trump doesn’t work on that level. He’s not working on the rational level. He’s going for automatic connections.

09:42 SCOTT HORTON: And he’s winning. It’s terrific. No. I’m just kidding. Alright. Hold it right there everybody. We’ll be right back after this break with Scott Adams, the author of the Dilbert cartoon, and a master wizard hypothesis about Donald Trump and his control of the masses’ minds. It’s a lot of fun. Go read his blog. It’s a lot of great stuff on there. We’ll be right back.

11:01 SCOTT HORTON: Well, that was kind of a fitting intro for this interview with Scott Adams, author of the Dilbert cartoon. Hello, is that even the right way to say that? Author of a cartoon?

11:13 SCOTT ADAMS: Sure. I think creator, but author works too.

11:16 SCOTT HORTON: Yeah. There you go. Yeah. Boy, I’ve been reading your stuff for years, and years, and years.

11:20 SCOTT ADAMS: I’d like to think I’m not that old, but okay.

11:23 SCOTT HORTON: Sorry about that. Me too, if it makes you feel any better. Alright. Hey listen, so everybody, Scott has this theory about the master persuader, and he says that Donald Trump is one. And boy oh boy does he know all the tricks for getting people to give him his way, and he uses them unapologetically. And boy is it working in the head-to-head polls with Hillary. And of course, he’s just way ahead of everybody else. He’s by far the frontrunner of this campaign, and he doesn’t seem… In the last couple election cycles, the Republicans all had their little Herman Cain, Rick Perry moment, but it never lasted. But this is nothing like that. This is just… Man, is he way out ahead and staying there?

12:05 SCOTT HORTON: But so here’s the thing though, to a lot of us, this guy is a freaking maniac. He doesn’t seem to have any principles whatsoever, he believes only in himself, some of his solutions are things like, “I will find the most ruthless murderer in the entire Pentagon to kill every last Sunni until their Islamic State is gone.” Or some madness. “The free exercise clause of the first amendment, well, a lot of the privileges that we’ve had are gonna have to go.” And things like this. Maybe he can master persuade some people, but some of the rest of us are thinking, “Boy, I sure don’t support any other candidates I’ll say, but can I say I support him the least when he’s talking outright about violating people’s right to pick what church they go to and this kinda thing?” This is madness. How can he get away with it? That’s the real question I guess.

13:00 SCOTT ADAMS: Where did he say anything about limiting the rights of legal Americans? I don’t think he said anything along the lines of that.

13:07 SCOTT HORTON: Yeah, no, he did. Well, I don’t exactly the frame of the question, but it was a legit newspaper reporter, Yahoo! News or AP or Reuters or one of them. They were asking him about closing down Mosques, and then he referred to the Bill of Rights as a privilege. He said, “Well, we’re gonna have to get used to the idea that we’re gonna have to get rid of some of these privileges that we have had up until now.”

13:32 SCOTT ADAMS: Was he talking about specific Mosques? I don’t think he was talking about banning Mosques in general.

13:39 SCOTT HORTON: No, I don’t mean to imply in general, but it didn’t seem like he was gonna be discriminating that carefully. You know what I mean. It was a pretty threatening statement the way I heard it.

13:51 SCOTT ADAMS: But let me check it. This is fun for me because I’ve actually never talked to anybody with the opinion that you’ve just expressed. And I’ve been waiting because I just want to ask you a few questions, if you don’t mind.

14:01 SCOTT HORTON: Sure. Yeah. No, of course.

14:03 SCOTT ADAMS: What makes you think you know what’s in his mind given that he says loudly and often that he negotiates and asks for outrageous things so he can negotiate back? Given that he states that and lives it, and demonstrates it in 100% of all he has done for decades, why do you think it’s different this time?

14:24 SCOTT HORTON: Well, I don’t necessarily, but I have a problem. To me it’s criminal enough, almost, that he would normalize that kind of thing when it used to be, even under George W. Bush, that, “Hey man, don’t be intolerant toward Muslims just for being Muslims.” And Trump is saying, “Screw that, anybody who has a minority share of the power, feel free to pick on them one way or the other. That’s the side I’m on,” he seems to be proclaiming. This guy basically talking in ways that no other Republican would legitimize that level of bigotry. Like rounding up all the Mexicans and getting rid of them. That kind of deal or all the illegals, 12 million people.

15:28 SCOTT ADAMS: But keep in mind, the things you’re angry at, are the things you believe he thinks. Not the things he’s proposed.

15:34 SCOTT HORTON: No. I’m talking about the things that he’s talked about. We’ll round up all the illegal immigrants and get rid of them. I’m not saying I think he will actually do that, but I’m saying he’s creating an atmosphere where the right is worse than they always are. And he’s helping give a stamp of approval on that from on high.

15:52 SCOTT ADAMS: Well, that’s true. But let me just drill down on any one of those claims because what happens is if you drill down on any one of them, individually you end up saying, “Okay. Well, he’s just trying to do the job of the President which is get rid of the illegals and keep the legal people in, and protect them.” So really that’s just his job description is what he described. I mean, there’s no one who thinks the country should have 11 million illegals. There are just different ways that you deal with it. Either you’re trying to work with him… And by the way, I would agree with working with people and trying to figure out a way to keep the people who’ve been good citizens if not legal Americans.

16:37 SCOTT HORTON: I certainly don’t care if there are 12 million illegals in the country. What’s illegal? The government said they can’t come in? I don’t care about that. And a lot of people don’t. A lot of people would be happy to welcome them all wherever the…

[overlapping conversation]

16:53 SCOTT ADAMS: Let me ask you though… What’s interesting is that Trump provides a plan, which you can hate, but it’s not being compared to another plan. So if you have an opinion on his plan without an alternative, which I haven’t heard yet, then you haven’t quite created an informed opinion. So what would be the alternative to…

17:13 SCOTT HORTON: You’re asking me for one? Repeal every immigration law. That’s my solution, that’s easy.

17:18 SCOTT ADAMS: Just open the borders?

17:19 SCOTT HORTON: Yeah, of course. Is this a free society or not?

17:22 SCOTT ADAMS: I accept that as a consistent opinion.

17:27 SCOTT HORTON: I’m a Libertarian. I’m very consistent.

17:30 SCOTT ADAMS: But Libertarian means just get rid of the governments in general, right?

17:34 SCOTT HORTON: Of course, yes, absolutely. Wars first. War and torture and mass rounding up and deportations are the first things to go. Mass imprisonments and mass murder.

17:45 SCOTT ADAMS: But if you follow that, don’t you become Islamic eventually?

17:49 SCOTT HORTON: Huh?

17:50 SCOTT ADAMS: Wouldn’t the Islamic forces take over wherever there wasn’t a government to stop them?

17:57 SCOTT HORTON: Oh, come on man. Are you really saying that? One-seventh of the population of the world is all hell-bent on one Islamic empire to rule them all, is that what you think?

18:07 SCOTT ADAMS: That’s what they say. I’m just reporting what they say.

18:11 SCOTT HORTON: Well, whatever. But if a five-year-old in kindergarten said the same thing, are you gonna go, “Oh, okay. I guess you represent all the five-year-olds and you’re all coming to get me?” That’s completely stupid. What are you talking about?

18:19 SCOTT ADAMS: Well, it is a group of people who have taken over most of several countries already and they’re planning attacks on other shores.

18:30 SCOTT HORTON: Oh, no. They’ve taken over where America, by invading, has created ungoverned spaces. They have filled the vacuum in the smallest part of Iraq, and okay, the majority, at least half of Syria, but that’s because America made it that way for them. And it’s not because their religion mandated all of this stuff or…

18:48 SCOTT ADAMS: That’s right, of course. Of course. Of course.

18:51 SCOTT HORTON: Aggression.

18:52 SCOTT ADAMS: I’m agreeing they’re going into a vacuum, but…

18:54 SCOTT HORTON: I’m saying you might as well be frightening me with Khrushchev from the ’50s is gonna come forward from the past to come and get me or some other ridiculous bogeyman. No. The American people have… There’s no enemy state on this planet. The closest thing we have to an enemy are these Jihadist groups, and our government supports them right now in Syria, where they accidentally supported them before in Iraq and in Lib… Well, Libya was pretty deliberate. And anyway, no. All our government needs to do is stop intervening to protect us from terrorists. They’re not protecting us from terrorists, they created these guys in the first place, Scott, come on.

19:29 SCOTT ADAMS: You don’t want me talk, do you? ‘Cause you’re afraid of what I’m gonna say next. You know… Yeah?

19:33 SCOTT HORTON: No, no, no! No, I’m not. I’m just answering your question. Please go ahead, the floor is yours.

19:37 SCOTT ADAMS: Well, you just said that ISIS filled the vacuum that we created and you said, “Why don’t we create a vacuum over here by getting rid of the government?” And I’m saying that vacuums get filled. That’s all, I’m just agreeing with you, that…

19:50 SCOTT HORTON: Yeah, but you said it’s…

19:50 SCOTT ADAMS: That bad people fill vacuums.

19:52 SCOTT HORTON: Yeah, but I’m saying you’re really saying that the likelihood would be the vacuum would be filled in America. Not in Iraqi Sunnistan, but in America. It would be filled by the Islamic state, and the US government is the one holding them at bay? Come on.

20:06 SCOTT ADAMS: Well, it would be settled by bad actors, Pete.

20:08 SCOTT HORTON: Tell me more about Donald Trump’s magic tricks.


20:15 SCOTT ADAMS: Okay. What would you like to hear?

20:18 SCOTT HORTON: Well, how is it that he gets these right populists to not mind all the completely ridiculous, inconsistent, and horrible things that he says, and only see him as their champion? He even says, “The problem is wages are too high in America and that’s why the companies are leaving.” At the same time, he says he’s gonna make all their wages go higher, and they just don’t care. Is it because he has a coin and waves it in front of their eyes, or what is it?

20:46 SCOTT ADAMS: Well, I think the game of getting elected is saying lots of bullshit that people will believe, and they think all the candidates do that. There’s nobody out on the trail who’s saying things that can actually happen. It’s all a lot of magic tricks of cutting expenses and cutting taxes at the same time and a lot of magic. So his particular brand of baloney tastes different than other people’s but it’s not less ridiculous.

21:13 SCOTT HORTON: See now, here’s a point where you and me are completely eye to eye is when Jeb and the rest of them cry that, “Oh, Donald Trump is illegitimate,” or Karl Rove, “This guy is so far out of bounds,” whatever. He’s actually on some of these issues, he’s just one click to the right, or maybe to the left of them, on this thing or another. And if he’s completely illegitimate, they sort of have four fingers pointing back at themselves, it sure seems like in a big way.
21:40 SCOTT ADAMS: [chuckle] Right, he’s had some interesting traps. Take for example his call for abandoning Muslim immigration. Well, you don’t see until it develops, is what a trap that is. Because as soon as I asked you for an alternate plan, obviously, that’s not your job to come up with alternate plans, and you had one I guess. But if he does that to a standard politician, they have two choices. They either say, “I don’t have a plan,” and then they can’t get elected. Or it’s worse, they say, “I do have a plan, we’re going to let people in, we’ll do it in some rigorous way,” and then the odds of something blowing up after that is so high that nobody’s gonna put their name on that plan.

22:19 SCOTT HORTON: Right.

22:20 SCOTT ADAMS: Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to say, “I support Plan A,” and then Plan A is what causes a building to get blown up in three years. She’s never gonna put her name on that. So Trump has created a situation where there can only be one plan under discussion, and it’s his. And you can hate that plan or you can love that plan, but there’s only one plan because nobody else…

22:39 SCOTT HORTON: Alright now, Scott… I’m sorry, I just wanna apologize to you. I’m actually keeping you over time a little bit, but I’ll like to ask you one more thing if that’s okay.

22:47 SCOTT ADAMS: Sure.

22:47 SCOTT HORTON: About Iraq War II. And this is a miracle to me. This is something that Ron Paul tried so hard and he made great progress, but was never really able to succeed in any serious way. But Donald Trump, I think, has done so much to normalize regret over Iraq War II on the right. And he outright just says about Hillary Clinton for example, “Oh, I’m anti-Muslim? She killed a million of them, or 100,000 of them or something,” he said, “and because of her stupidity, and her mistakes, and her ignorance, and this kind of thing.” Well, that’s the exact same base that supports him, were the hardest core supporters of Iraq War II, who hated anyone who told them otherwise. And here, Donald Trump says, “Oh, now you’re an idiot for supporting the war. At least she and Dick Cheney were idiots for supporting that war,” and it doesn’t seem to hurt him at all with the right. And I wonder how is he pulling that off? Well, they’re able to get over that cognitive dissonance of having to take back their previous position that me and everybody at antiwar.com were all a bunch of traitors who should’ve been run out of town on a rail for knowing better back when.

23:58 SCOTT ADAMS: Well, that’s part of his magic, certainly he can make anybody believe in anything, but there’s more to that trick. Again, when he said Hillary Clinton killed hundreds of thousands of people, the media went scrambling to figure out if the number was really that big or if she only killed 50,000 or 100,000. Right? So once you have this in your mind that it’s some big number, “Oh sure, he always exaggerates, but God, Trump didn’t kill anybody. All he did is hire a lot of female executives for his company over the last decade when nobody was doing that. Hillary Clinton actually killed women, hundreds of thousands of women, innocent women. She killed them,” with her policies, he would say. Again, I’m not taking sides, I’m just giving you the Trump persuasion method.

24:42 SCOTT HORTON: Yeah, and that really is the thing. He’s willing to say things that no one else would ever dare. For example, the right wing meme that George W. Bush kept us safe, and never mind the anthrax attack and never mind this, that or the other thing and certainly never mind 9/11. That stuck for years, and Donald Trump is just like, “Yeah, really?” And got rid of it with the wave of his hand. Pulled the rug right out from under Jeb and hit his head and everything on that one. And that was a really powerful argument for a long time. I don’t know how, but they had gotten away with it until Trump said, “Well, hey, who was in charge on the big day, man?”

25:22 SCOTT ADAMS: Yeah.

25:23 SCOTT HORTON: I think that actually is helping, because I consider him actually to be quite a few clicks more dangerous than the average Republican who I think are all pretty dangerous as far as that goes, but I think he is so funny. And I just love him for destroying Jeb Bush and the way that’s it happened, reducing Jeb to a crying little baby and everything, is so beautiful, but I think he really disarms people with that humor. He knows just what to say to make you laugh while he cuts somebody, but it sort of makes him seem less dangerous than I think he really is. I don’t know if Mussolini ever really had a great sense of timing for a punchline.

26:05 SCOTT ADAMS: The whole fascist Mussolini thing, I get the analogy and I get that he’s got the mouth that looks like Mussolini, but when you start analysing who he’s after they tend to people who are not Americans to protect Americans, so his frame is completely different than those guys. I do get that there’s enough similarity that people are making sort of an automatic connection. Very similar to the master persuader theory, if you were actually to dig into the details of, “Is he a fascist?” or “Is he Hitler?” it falls apart pretty quickly. But it feels like it, it totally feels like it. Even I get that too, but rationally, it’s not even close.

26:45 SCOTT HORTON: Yeah. Well, there’s some parallels. It’s never the complete hyperbole but when you’re talking about picking on people because of who they are, then that is something that typically, at least recently in America, we’ve tried to live down that past and do better. And he’s bringing that back in a way that is further to the right than what was even the populist right in say, the 1990’s I think.

27:10 SCOTT ADAMS: So far he’s only been after criminals. He’s not said anything about a group that were not actually trying to kill us, and he’s not anti-Muslim, he’s just saying, “Hey, if nobody has a better idea how to keep us safe, let’s do this temporarily until we figure it out.” That’s not crazy. You can hate it, but it’s not insane.

27:35 SCOTT HORTON: Alright, fair enough. Hey listen, I kept you way over time here. I really appreciate your time on the show, Scott.

27:40 SCOTT ADAMS: Alright, thanks for having me.

27:41 SCOTT HORTON: It’s very interesting stuff there. Alright, so that is Scott Adams. He is the creator and the author of the Dilbert cartoon. It’s blog.dilbert.com for the cartoons and the political writing and all the rest of it. And yeah, see you all tomorrow.

For more from Scott Horton go to:


(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

Andrew J. Bacevich, “America’s War for the Greater Middle East”

TheWarState.Com - Tue, 05/24/2016 - 09:50

Now a retired colonel after nearly a quarter century in the U.S. Army, as well as professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University, Bacevich brings a valuable dual perspective to this study of American foreign policy over the last forty years. Taking as his point of departure the fact that few, if any, American soldiers were killed in the Middle East from the end of World War II to 1983, the author of Breach of Trust and The Limits of Power investigates why the region has been the scene of constant conflict and high American casualty rates in recent years.

Founded by Carla Cohen and Barbara Meade in 1984, Politics & Prose Bookstore is Washington, D.C.’s premier independent bookstore and cultural hub, a gathering place for people interested in reading and discussing books. Politics & Prose offers superior service, unusual book choices, and a haven for book lovers in the store and online. Visit them on the web at www.poitics-prose.com.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Categories: The War State

PBS America at a Crossroads: Inside America’s Empire

TheWarState.Com - Tue, 05/24/2016 - 09:45

In this film Robert D. Kaplan explores how in 2007 America is now effectively an empire. As a reporter for the Atlantic Monthly and author of eleven books he’s seen this empire develop first hand.

Robert Kaplan has been advisor at the highest levels of the American government. From March 2008 to spring 2012, Kaplan was a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, which he rejoined in 2015. Between 2012 and 2014, he was chief geopolitical analyst at Stratfor, a private global forecasting firm. In 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appointed Kaplan to the Defense Policy Board, a federal advisory committee to the United States Department of Defense. In 2011, Foreign Policy magazine named Kaplan as one of the world’s “top 100 global thinkers.”

Categories: The War State


Grab This Free Report: Why IDM Mining Is Our Top Gold Stock Pick

This free issue of WSW Monthly is devoted to the rise in mining stocks and how to profit from it. It includes our top mining stock pick of July, which is IDM Mining (we own 140,000 shares and 70,000 warrant options of it, because we put our money where our mouth is). But do not think about buying it or any other mining stock before you read this report. To get this report click here