Never Forget

That America was founded—at least in concept—as a republic in which the people were supposed to take a primary role in choosing their representatives. Without getting into a dispute over when that concept devolved into the reality that the people choose the rulers from a slate of candidates that is selected by a corrupt party system that represents the ruling class. Without getting into an historical argument about how this transformation occurred over time, I think we can agree that this is, in the big scheme of things, where we are. There have been stirrings of unrest—2016 was an existential scare to the ruling class—but the unrest, widespread though it may be, is largely inchoate. Culturally speaking, America is a libertarian nation, for the most part. Which means it believes, as a cultural matter, in little to nothing. The result is a lack of strong, conviction based, opposition to the agenda of the ruling class.

A key to the success of the ruling class has been control over the information system, and the breakdown in the ruling class monopoly over information flow—due to the internet—has been the biggest factor in the spread of unrest. That unrest has not yet have reached a unifying conceptual focus, probably due to the reluctance of average Americans to reexamine their comfortable lack of certainties. The shift to embracing certainties runs against the grain. However, signs of such a shift—again, think 2016, and Trump running again—has the ruling class up in arms. Unlike the subject class, the ruling class is in no doubt, has no trouble focusing on the key problem—it’s the free flow of information that is the threat to “total control”, as no less an authority on “total control” than Hillary recently stated. Note that in this gone-viral quote, when Hillary says “they” she means “we”—and you ain’t “us”:

“Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects it’s real harm, it’s child porn and threats of violence, things that are terribly dangerous.”

It’s the same schtick Hillary was using way back in the Nineties—it’s about the children, it takes a village, etc. No. It’s about exactly what she said: total control—over the subject population. And that total control is necessary to effect what Barry postulated as the goal of the ruling class: a fundamental transformation. It’s about the elimination of the bitter clingers and the total transformation of the subject population into automatons. The agenda really is that big and, yes, it really is global. The Covid Hoax, the Russia Hoax, the Trans Hoax, the Climate Hoax, DEI, the J6 Hoax, etc.—each hoax is part of the push to get the subject population back into the box of believing anything they’re told to believe.

Alastair Crooke enunciated that idea just this week, although with his usual focus heavily on geopolitics. Of course, when Kerry says “disinformation” he means “information” that we don’t want you to have, which limits our “total control”:

John Kerry, just last week at the World Economic Forum, so clearly blurting out the truth: “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to our ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence”.

Translated: Governing is all about narrative control. Kerry articulates the ‘International Order’s’ solution to the unwelcome phenomenon of an uncontrolled populism and of a potential leader who speaks for the people: Simply, ‘freedom to speak’ is unacceptable to the prescriptions agreed by the ‘inter-agency’ – the institutionalised distillation of the ‘International Order’.

Eric Weinstein calls this The Unburdening: The first Amendment; gender; merit; sovereignty; privacy; ethics; investigative journalism; borders; freedom … the Constitution? Gone?

Self designated free speech crusader Jonathan Turley has written about the anti-free speech movement of the ruling class. As usual, his article makes useful, intelligent points, but I’ll simply take issue with one snippet:

“We Lose Total Control”: Clinton Continues Her Censorship Campaign on CNN

the challenge for anti-free speech champions like Clinton is that it is not easy to convince a free people to give up their freedom.

The interesting question here is, of course: To what extent do Americans—or the subject population of the West more generally—remain free?

Another problem is Turley’s full throated support for suppression of dissent against Israeli genocide on US campuses. Turley would frame that differently, but he would avoid the factual realities on the ground in Gaza and other areas bordering the Zionist entity. Support for free speech by Turley only goes so far. Thus he focuses on obvious threats on the left, but not so much on other obvious threats. Consider:

Lord Bebo @MyLordBebo

 “We will remove the jihadist sympathizes and Jew haters from this country [… and we will solve the problem that we have.]”

— Trump

Trump may be many things, but stupid isn’t actually one of those things—no matter what Dems may want you to think. Trump knows that those he labels as “jihadist sympathizes and Jew haters” are not all—or even mainly—aliens with no legal status, who could easily be “remove[d[ from this country”. This is, on the one hand, a shout-out to the yahoos among his base who might favor the suppression of all questions about our Anglo-Zionist imperial foreign policy, but on the other—and more important—hand, it’s also a shout-out to the ruling class, and a plea for campaign contributions from the people who will actually control a second Trump administration. Those campaign contributions will come with strings attached, and Trump—being a sadder and wiser politician this time around—will be reluctant to buck the demands of the ruling class. He will be espcially compliant in the field of foreign policy, in which so few Americans take any interest. Is Melania’s coming out regarding abortion another part of the Trumpian shout-out to the ruling class?

Will Schryver sensibly observes:

This sort of language ought to be very concerning. The definitions of "jihadist sympathizer" and "Jew hater" are likely to be very elastic.

As far back as the very end of the 19th century the NYT was reparting on a Congress held by American Zionists, with the stated goal of “colonizing Palestine”. In 1917 the British government accepted Rothschild bucks in exchange for the promise to turn over part of the then Turkish Empire to the Zionists. Surely reminding people of these old facts, and questioning the justice of it all, doesn’t make one a "jihadist sympathizer" or a "Jew hater"—or does it? I submit that the Zionist imperative to suppress all discussion of history that goes any further than frothing at the mouth denunciations of anyone standing against Jewish supremacy in the Middle East will lead—has already led—to such persons being denounced as "jihadist sympathizers" and "Jew haters". Will that lead to such people—scrabblers among unwelcome historical data—being “removed from this country”? Or just harassed by the FBI, labeled as hate criminals, subjected to intensive surveillance and vilification? We all know how long it takes for our federal courts to vindicate free speech rights.

Or consider this self debasement by another person who knows much better:

“Oct 7 was not only an attack on J*ws, it was an attack on every single American with common sense”

— Vance

Jake Shields responded briefly and accurately:

No it wasn't

If you prefer a slightly longer explanation, follow the link here for the very brief but succinct video of Candace Owens:

Free Speech @FreeSpe88394786

Liars

0:28

6:46 PM · Oct 7, 2024

But here’s a question for Yale Law grad and champion of the little guy JD: If I openly espouse a view that runs counter to what the ruling class considers to be “common sense”, am I propagating “disinformation”? Would that make me one of those people JD’s prospective boss regards as "jihadist sympathizers" and "Jew haters"? Could I be somehow “removed from this country”? Or what?

Not to be outdone, over in the UK:

Keir Starmer @Keir_StarmerOct 7

7 October 2023 was the darkest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust.

One year on from these horrific attacks we must unequivocally stand with the Jewish community and unite as a country.

We will not falter in our pursuit of peace and on this day of pain and sorrow, we honour those we lost, and continue in our determination to return those still held hostage, help those who are suffering, and secure a better future for the Middle East.

Again, what happens to people who decline to join the “we” in “unequivocally” standing with genocide?

Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg 

Note that his sympathy extends to the killed of one race and one race only.

He cannot even pretend to notice tens of thousands of murdered children of another race.

1:00 PM · Oct 7, 2024

Starmer’s royal “we” reminds one of Tonto’s punch line from the old Lone Ranger joke: What you mean “we,” white man? And it seems that the unequivocal “we” in the UK is, well, less than a majority:

No wonder Trump - Vance haven’t really seized on an obvious issue, one that would be wildly popular across the nation, like free speech. Their Zionist backers would not like that.

Now, I referred to Alastair Crooke, above. His article is a good one and he makes a number of points that I really like:

Perfidy in Tehran

The West is in the throes of at least one, potentially two, crushing defeats at the moment – and so the question arises: Will lessons be learned?

As we saw above, Crooke dives into his topic in an unexpected way—by quoting the imperious John Kerry re “our ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence”. But it’s all related, as so often. Crooke moves immediately to the effort to deny what—in this age of the internet—is apparent to all: the Anglo-Zionist wars are going badly. The ruling class wants to control a narrative that’s getting very difficult to contain. They want us to move along, pretend that we didn’t see what everyone can see. It’s all such a “nuisance to system governance and ‘consensus’, as Kerry so branded free speech.” And then he gets onto the topic I began with, only better—it’s the ethos of the Libertarian West:

The structural problem, essayist Aurelien writes is not simply that the western professional class holds to an ideology – one that is the opposite to how ordinary people experience the world. That certainly is one aspect. But the bigger problem lies rather, with a technocratic conception of politics that is not ‘about’ anything. It is not really politics at all (as Tony Blair once said), but is nihilistic and absent of moral considerations.

Having no real culture of its own, the western professional class views religion as outdated and sees history as dangerous since it contains components that can be misused by ‘extremists’. It prefers therefore not to know history.

This produces the mixture of the conviction of superiority, yet deep insecurity, which typifies western leadership. The ignorance and fear of events and ideas that fall outside the confines of their rigid zeitgeist, they perceive, almost invariably, as innately inimical to their interests. And rather than seek to discuss and understand, that which is outside their capabilities, they use disparagement and character assassination instead to remove the nuisance.

But one tires of ideological or dialectical whackamole, thus the open espousal of censorship by the same people who used to ridicule laws against obscenity. For those of us who went through law school back in the 70s, that’s surely a remarkable switch. And that is a significant point. The rulers of the West, contemptuous of all religion but especially of Christian faith, have embraced nihilism. It should not, then, come as a surprise that they are liars.

The ‘professional permanent class’ (the western deep state) eschews any moral underpinning. It makes a virtue of its nihilism. Perhaps the last leader capable of real diplomacy that springs to mind was JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis and in his subsequent dealings with the Soviet leaders. And what happened? … He was killed by the system.

Our system is based on the rulers lying to the subject population. Since our rulers aspire to rule the world, is it any surprise that they attempt the same approach to those foreign leaders whom they see as subjects—if not now, then soon? They can’t break out of this mindset. They lied repeatedly to Putin, and they’re still trying (see below). They also lied to the new president of Iran, Pezeshkian:

Subsequent to the Israeli assassination of Ismail Haniyeh (a guest of Tehran participating in the inauguration of the new Iranian President), western states once again pleaded with Iran that it should again refrain from any military retaliation against Israel.

The new President has said publicly, that European and American officials offered Iran the removal of substantive sanctions on the Iranian Republic and a guaranteed ceasefire in Gaza in line with Hamas’ terms – if Israel was not attacked.

Iran held fire, accepting to appear weak to the outside world (for which it was harshly criticised). Yet western action shocked the inexperienced new President, Pezeshkian:

“They (the western states) lied”, he said. None of the promises were kept.

It appears that both Putin and Pezeshkian have learned from being lied to. The big question is, is our nihilistic ruling class, and our debased and aimless subject class, capable of learning lessons? Crooke is skeptical.

Now, turning to Russia—and I really like that Crooke states, “Washington’s ultimate target is of course Russia”, i.e. the war on Iran is simply another front in that Big War—we also turn to Simplicius. Simplicius has come up with a very good essay on the latest attempt of NATO to pull the wool over Putin’s eyes. We referenced this, with considerable skepticism, not to say outright guffaws, in Land For Peace, NATO Version. Simplicius works off a Newsweek interview with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov on exactly this topic. We'll keep this brief. Here’s the link to Simplicius, but I’ll quote Lavrov’s key points:

The War's Pivotal Impasse Crystallizes as Russia Cements Negotiation Terms

As Simplicius’ title makes clear, nothing has changed. Russia understands that they can’t do a deal with nihilistic liars. If being governed by nihilistic liars is acceptable to Westerners, that’s their problem. But Russia has learned. Russia’s terms remain the same and won’t change.

Lavrov: Our position is widely known and remains unchanged. Russia is open to a politico-diplomatic settlement that should remove the root causes of the crisis. It should aim to end the conflict rather than achieve a ceasefire. The West should stop supplying weapons, and Kiev should end the hostilities. Ukraine should return to its neutral, non-bloc and non-nuclear status, protect the Russian language, and respect the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

The Istanbul Agreements initialed on 29 March 2022 by the Russian and Ukrainian delegations could serve as a basis for the settlement. They provide for Kiev's refusal to join NATO and contain security guarantees for Ukraine while recognizing the realities on the ground at that moment. Needless to say, in over two years, these realities have considerably changed, including in legal terms.

On 14 June, President Vladimir Putin listed prerequisites for the settlement as follows: complete AFU withdrawal from the DPR [Donetsk People's Republic], LPR [Luhansk People's Republic], Zaporozhye and Kherson Oblasts; recognition of territorial realities as enshrined in the Russian Constitution; neutral, non-bloc, non-nuclear status for Ukraine; its demilitarization and denazification; securing the rights, freedoms and interests of Russian-speaking citizens; and removal of all sanctions against Russia.

Simplicius rightly focuses on the issue of denazification. But the whole list of “prerequisites”—conditions that must be met before Russia will even consider negotiations—taken as a whole or taken individually, basically amount to a surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty. So, denazification—what does that really mean? It amounts to rooting out the governing ideology of Ukrainian nationalism. That’s the reality. All the icons of Ukrainian ideology—hero worship of Stepan Bandera, of the Galizia SS division, etc.—are included under the heading of Ukro-Nazi ideology. Russia will decide. It all amounts to a surrender of sovereignty. The “prerequisities” are deliberately tough, even unacceptable by NATO, because Russia is winning. They’ve learned, unlike the West. A ceasefire? Don’t make me laugh, says Lavrov. Negotiations must be for the establishment of a new security architecture for Europe, just like Putin has been saying for years. That’s what end the “conflict” means. That also means the West—or at least the ruling class of the Anglo-Zionist Empire—agreeing to its own defeat.

Read all of Simplicius. It’s not as long as some of his SitReps and it hangs together.