The US Institute Of Peace: Drugs, Riots and the Revolution Machine.

 

I was going to write a geopolitical post about what is happening now, because on Friday, we will probably restart the war against Iran. I also wanted to write a psychological post because Mattias Desmet appeared on the Neutrality Studies YouTube channel. But then protests broke out in France and Albania, and when I listened to people talking about them without understanding what was happening, all of this made me feel that I needed to write about it.

This post is mainly based on Mike Benz’s videos. While I like Mike Benz, I disagree with him on a lot of things. He is against the left, while I am a leftist, so we disagree on economic issues. Mike Benz also supports imperialism, while I am anti-imperialist.

Basically, from what I understand, Mike Benz was on the right wing of the American administration and establishment. At some point, during Trump’s first presidential candidacy, he came to understand that the Deep State was using its regime-change apparatus, which includes organizations like USAID and the NED, against the American people. So, while Mike Benz’s problem was that the US was using its regime-change apparatus against its own people, my problem, as an anti-imperialist, is that such an apparatus exists in the first place.

While I think Mike Benz is well-informed and knows a lot, he is still not fully informed. He also seems to think that all of this is quite new, but it isn’t. Although he understands part of the truth, there is still much more for him to discover.

When Mike Benz talks about the “USAID Truman Show they’ve been living under for the past 30 years,” he is describing what I call “the reality of the naive,” which is much older than 30 years.

While Mike Benz focuses on USAID and specific details, I approach things more from a systems-thinking perspective and focus more on how the world works as a whole. For example, I don’t care whether an organization is called the US Institute of Peace or the Institute of Unicorns and Rainbows. I don’t care about the specific people he mentions in his videos because I don’t really care who is actually part of the Blob. Instead, I care about the Blob’s goals and how it plans to achieve them. I want to understand what it does, and I don’t care which specific people or institutions it uses to accomplish its objectives.

Although Mike Benz talks about things similar to those I write about, he still doesn’t know how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Here is an example.

6:33

Time magazine called BCCI the dirtiest bank of all. As Time reported earlier, the National Security Council — the White House inter-agency body overseeing the CIA, the DoD, and the State Department — used BCCI to funnel money for the Iran-Contra deals, and the CIA maintained accounts with BCCI for covert operations.

However, the CIA may have used BCCI as more than just an undercover banker; US agents collaborated with its “black network” in several operations. They maintained cozy relations with international terrorists across Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan, as well as Colombian drug barons, laundering money for the drug trade as the arms business worked hand-in-hand with drug cartels. BCCI became a regional magnet for drug money because it was very easy to convert illicit cash into clean funds when a branch was right next door. That is why they opened local branches, just as they did in Australia with Nugan Hand, or in the Caribbean with the Cayman Islands’ Castle Bank and Trust. All of these were CIA proprietary banks.

This created a CIA/DoD black-market drug economy set up during the Cold War to support Afghan fighters against the Soviets, but it eventually became a lucrative market unto itself.

People wonder how they get away with this, or how USAID, for example, could have funded irrigation crops used in heroin production. This comes straight from the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). The congressional watchdog wrote in a quarterly report six years ago that USAID was actually keeping the drug trade flowing by cultivating and growing poppies.

To understand this, consider how these organizations fit together: USAID and the US Institute of Peace (USIP) operate as part of a single ecosystem. USIP is adjacent to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Originally, the State Department handled overt diplomacy and limited covert operations, while bustling covert ops were conducted primarily through the military via the OSS in World War II and early special operations. However, covert operations were not truly organized until around 1948, when the CIA was created to serve as a layer of plausible deniability for the State Department. USAID was then created as a second layer of plausible deniability for the CIA. Finally, NED and USIP were created as additional layers around USAID so that USAID would not have to get its hands dirty with the most illicit operations.

Instead, dirty work could be outsourced to a third-party NGO that is not technically part of the US government, even though it was created by Congress, reports to Congress, and is funded entirely by the US government. The US Institute of Peace acts like a statecraft equivalent of Blackwater — a private contractor funded and overseen by the US government. If Blackwater kills too many people in Fallujah, the US government can say, “Those were private contractors, not us,” creating plausible deniability.

Given that the US helped foster the drug trade in Afghanistan, when the Taliban tried to eradicate it, the US military invaded and took over the country in October 2001 — the start of the War in Afghanistan. In 2000, the Taliban, which had been responsible for 70% of the world’s opium, reduced production by 99%. Just a year later, after the US militarily invaded, Afghan opium production skyrocketed to 90% of the global supply.

What mechanics are in place to achieve this while the FBI and DEA claim to fight drug trafficking? They maintain emissaries and networks on the ground that interact with tribal leaders, judges, paramilitaries, and extremist groups. Among the most active, celebrated, and infamous of these actors is the US Institute of Peace.

When the US Institute of Peace publicly argues against shutting down the drug trade while actively funding and working with those networks, it is as close as one can get to an open confession from the State Department, the CIA, and the DoD that they are the primary entities responsible for and benefiting from the global narcotics trade.

Mike Benz talks here about how USAID was used to facilitate the illegal production of drugs. He also says:

the State Department, the CIA, and the DoD that they are the primary entities responsible for and benefiting from the global narcotics trade.

Which is basically what I have been writing and talking about, and for which I get criticized. Now, I have used a fragment in my posts that sounds very similar to what he is saying. 

Ben Norton on Trump’s plan for Gaza and Brian Berletic on U.S. plans for a China blockade: a bigger picture. There cannot be peace — “War is peace.” (My rambling)

 

This information is from The Great Heroin Coup by Henrik Krüger. In August 1971, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs announced the location in Southeast Asia of 29 drug refineries, 15 of which were allegedly producing heroin. Among the largest was one in Vientiane, Laos, which was camouflaged as a Pepsi-Cola plant. Richard Nixon, representing Pepsi’s interests in 1965, promoted its construction. Though the plant never capped a bottle, it continued to receive subsidies from U.S. aid for international development.

Richard Nixon, who at that time, among other things, was involved in the Kennedy assassination, worked for the Pepsi-Cola Company. He was the one who promoted the establishment of that plant in Vientiane, which became the leading heroin refinery in all of Southeast Asia. The plant never capped a bottle of Pepsi; instead, the heroin, as Dave said, went straight into the arms of American GIs, supported by American taxpayers through USAID. Furthermore, the main person trafficking that heroin — which was going into the arms of the GIs—was Nien Kalki, a key official of the government the GIs were there to support. This is obviously a distasteful situation.

So now:

USAID, for example, could have funded irrigation crops used in heroin production.

=

The plant never capped a bottle of Pepsi; instead, the heroin, as Dave said, went straight into the arms of American GIs, supported by American taxpayers through USAID.

While Mike Benz talks about Afghanistan in a way that is similar to how I have discussed it, the thing is that none of this is new. He also mentions the Coca-Cola Company in one of his videos and says that Nixon worked for it. But, as we can see from that fragment, when we compare it with the current fragment about Afghanistan, nothing has really changed.

USAID was used during the Vietnam War, through the Pepsi-Cola Company, to support the opium trade in the Golden Triangle. I wouldn't be surprised if USAID had also been used to fund the irrigation of poppy fields in the Golden Triangle through another shell company, under the guise of fighting world hunger, just as it later did in Afghanistan.

Again, people don't know history, so they allow it to repeat itself.

Now, back to the main video.

43:11

Look at what happened in Hungary and what happened in Serbia, for example.

Regarding Serbia’s Foreign Funding Transparency Act, the EU cracked down on them. There were riots in the streets organized by the same USAID, US Institute of Peace (USIP), and NED networks, claiming their law on foreign agents "risks democratic and EU integration goals" because it exposes covert operations.

Serbia, Slovakia, and Hungary all tried to pass laws requiring overt disclosure of foreign funding. And what happened? NED, the US Institute of Peace, and all these USAID networks literally organized street riots and threatened to cut them off from the EU funding apparatus if people were allowed to know the covert sources of foreign funding coming from the US and the EU into their home countries.

Do you get that? Do you see how everything this man is telling you is a smile and a lie?

Look at these headlines: "Street protests, Serbia," "Foreign agents protest" from Euronews, "Protesters in Slovakia rally against legislation they say could harm NGOs' work." Oh yeah, the people in Slovakia just love not knowing where the NGOs operating in their country get their money from. Think about that. How could you possibly be a patriot of your own country and not want to know where foreign money is coming from?

It’s the same thing, right? They make pictures of politicians kissing Putin. Why do you think they claim it’s "Russian" to want to know where foreign funding is coming into Slovakia? Do you think passing a law requiring covert sources of funding to become overt is going to reveal a lot of Russian money flowing into Slovakia? Is that why they say, "Putin wants you to pass this law"?

No, dumbass — not you guys, the proverbial dumbass on the other side of this argument. It's because it will reveal money from USAID, the US State Department, the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the UK Foreign Office, and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They know that if that covert money has to be made overt, the people in Slovakia will be pissed off about the USAID Truman Show they've been living under for the past 30 years. It would make them resent foreign interference from the United States and the EU, making them more sympathetic toward Russia.

Imagine people on the streets saying, "No, I demand to not know where foreign money is flowing into my country! I demand not to know where money from the US, Russia, and France is coming from!" Keep in mind, these laws aren't country-specific; they apply to all foreign funds.

They organize these riots the exact same way they did in Yugoslavia—through the threat of force: people on the streets, angry, menacing, sinister, confronting police, and shutting down highways.

In the Blob’s dialect, "nonviolence" in parliament actually means mob rule.

 

That “mob rule,” created by our regime-change apparatus, was used in Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, and other countries. It was also used in Ukraine and, earlier, in Yugoslavia.

As I wrote before, Mike Benz focuses more on the specific institutions and personnel involved in these operations. Meanwhile, I have been more focused on how they work. That is why I am so interested in the human mind and selfstudy philosophy, psychology, and behaviorism.

Here is a clip from Oliver Stone’s documentary Ukraine on Fire.

41:32

As veiled and masked as color revolutions can be, an attentive viewer can see subtle patterns and similarities revealing their true nature.

To make crowds act as one obedient group, they have to be united at the unconscious level. The masterminds of color revolutions know this well and have perfected the art: symbolism is one of the most powerful tools to achieve this end.

Revolutionary political organizations with surprisingly similar names and even more similar logos have appeared time and again, almost as omens marking the countries that would be hit by the colored plague next. They are often described as being aware and active when they are actually trained and radicalized. They are the ones who take the first shot—both literal and metaphorical — to transform peaceful protests into full-blown coups d'état.

Their fingerprints can be found everywhere on the map of color revolutions. Drawing on all the experience of past generations, simple but effective tools like catchy sing-alongs and chanting are employed. Well known for exciting the crowd and creating a group identity, they depersonalize individuals and make them easier to manipulate. Roses...

Incidentally, one such organization, Hromadske TV, received generous donations from the Dutch and U.S. embassies, as well as from the International Renaissance Foundation — an NGO founded by George Soros.

"I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia, and the foundation has been functioning ever since, playing an important part in events now."

“In crowds the foolish, ignorant, and envious persons are freed from the sense of their insignificance and powerlessness, and are possessed instead by the notion of brutal and temporary but immense strength.”

–The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind – Gustave Le Bon

 

“…if people crowd together and form a mob, then the dynamisms of the collective man are let loose – beasts or demons that lie dormant in every person until he is part of a mob. Man in the mass sinks unconsciously to an inferior moral and intellectual level, to that level which is always there, below the threshold of consciousness, ready to break forth as soon as it is activated by the formation of a mass.” 

–Carl Jung

 

“It is crowds rather than isolated individuals that may be induced to run the risk of death to secure the triumph of a creed or an idea, that may be fired with enthusiasm for glory and honour… Such heroism is without doubt somewhat unconscious, but it is of such heroism that history is made.”

–The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind – Gustave Le Bon

The most interesting part to me was the use of symbols and chants to create a collective consciousness among the masses and turn people into mobs. Once people become psychologically connected as part of a group, they become easier to manipulate.

This kind of unconscious mass manipulation is what interests me so much.

Here is a declassified CIA guide written in 1983 to train CIA field operatives on how to organize riots in foreign countries. It features a section on using agitators — including hiring professional criminals — to manipulate mass meetings and public assemblies, which can result in widespread violence.

As you can see, they advocate for general violence, with the CIA instructing case officers: "Our psychological warfare team must develop in advance a hostile mental attitude among the target groups so that, at the given moment, they can turn their anger into violence demanding the rights taken away by the regime."

In short: make these ethnic minority groups so angry at their government that whenever we pull the trigger at the given moment, they will turn that general anger into physical violence against the state we want to overthrow.

This CIA guide also details how to recruit teachers, doctors, attorneys, and business leaders into specialized cells acting as social crusaders for the CIA-backed cause. Note what it says: through a gradual process, these cells — comprising 10 influential teachers in education, 10 prominent lawyers in the legal realm, 10 captains of industry in business, and 10 medical professionals with pull over hospital systems — will each work within their own spheres of influence. At the appropriate time, their influence will be leveraged to fuse these groups together into a united front.

Using these tactics, a force of 200 to 300 agitators can generate a demonstration involving 10,000 to 20,000 participants. All that is needed are 200 back-channel human assets whose capacity has been built, and we can get 20,000 people to engage in a violent riot against their own government.

This subject has also been explored by the non-conspiratorial philosophical YouTube channel Academy of Ideas, which I have referenced in my previous posts and highly recommend.

The origin of conspiracy theories and cognitive warfare

“Essentially, Dispatch 1035-960 instructed CIA agents to contact journalists and opinion leaders in their locales about critics of the Warren Commission; ask for their assistance in countering the influence of “conspiracy theorists” who were publishing “conspiracy theories” that blamed top leaders in the U.S. for Kennedy’s death; and urge their media contacts to criticize such theories and those who embraced them for aiding Communists in the Cold War, trying to get attention, seeking to profit financially from the Kennedy tragedy, and refusing to consider all the facts.”

-Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America

https://archive.org/stream/CIADOC1035960/CIA%20DOC%201035-960_djvu.txt

To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are. vithout serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion 

• only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
• To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iii) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (iv) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached.
• Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes-off badly where contested by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer
• as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.In private or media discussion not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful: „

No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with, the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attacks on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, A.J.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Van der Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame-on the Communists, but the latter have been much more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame)

Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual eyewitnesses (which are less reliable-and more divergent — and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistic, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason. 

Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out. Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly.have held‘his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a- location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control:’ the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy -conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions. 

Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or'the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.“

 

Here we have an official document describing how the narrative surrounding the JFK assassination was managed. This fragment reads:

To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors).

This is exactly what Mike Benz is talking about in the context of the present day.

So, when he talks about the 30-year-old “Truman Show,” I would argue that we need to go back at least to the JFK assassination, if not even further, to the First World War and the Creel Commission, which was an early large-scale propaganda operation that used mass media, including films, newspapers, and radio.

The history of propaganda goes back even further, as we can see from the example of the USS Maine, whose sinking was used to fuel public support for war through sensationalist reporting.

However, during the First World War, the use of mass media for propaganda became much more systematic. The work of figures such as John B. Watson, Edward Bernays (whose uncle was Sigmund Freud), and Walter Lippmann, alongside the activities of the Creel Commission (officially known as the Committee on Public Information), helped shape the development of modern mass persuasion.

Interestingly, this approach to propaganda was developed and refined in the United States, yet when you ask people what first comes to mind when they hear the word propaganda, they often think of the Nazis or the Soviets and communists. They rarely think of the American propaganda apparatus, despite its main role in the development of modern techniques of mass persuasion.

Now, here is something interesting about Mike Benz in the main video.

1:37:11

From July 2021: "Digital Authoritarianism and Nonviolent Action: Challenging the Digital Counterrevolution." I mean, just that title alone — how many people would be able to disentangle what that means?

This was July 2021. The Biden administration was setting up staggering volumes of its own digital authoritarianism with government censorship at that very time, while simultaneously cracking down on nonviolent action by "Trump World" in the form of January 6th. Of course, they also have the CIA-backed Hong Kong protests here.

Now, they will label anyone in power whom they don't want to have power as a digital authoritarian — whether that’s Trump in the US, the CCP, or the Russian Federation. "Digital authoritarianism" doesn't actually mean digital authoritarianism.

Sometimes it does — for example, I would consider China to be digitally authoritarian. At the same time, I understand why they set that up: it was because the CIA kept trying to overthrow their government, so they closed down their society and installed a system of authoritarianism. That is the exact same way the US did, by the way, as soon as Russiagate broke out. We used the justification of hostile, malign influence from Russia as a predicate to close down our internet and have the ODNI, CIA, FBI, and DHS all work with social media companies to stop propaganda. But it is what it is.

 

This fragment about China is something I wanted to post about, but, as always, I couldn't find the time or motivation. I am constantly wondering what to write about because there are so many things I could discuss.

Anyway, I wanted to write about Chinese censorship and why the Chinese government uses it. The thing is, we in the West are the cultural hegemon, so we have the “most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world”:

Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube.

Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube.

This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation.

This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers.

This tube is the most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world.

And woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people.

Now, if you don't control your information space, the West will use this “most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world” to push the Ukrainian nation toward literal suicide and the German nation toward economic suicide.

I have written about Radosław Sikorski many times. While I think he is a piece of sh*t, I know he is not stupid. On the contrary, Sikorski is very smart, but you simply cannot take what he says at face value.

In my view, the conflict between Europe’s Atlanticists/globalists and the neocons/Zionists resembles a modern version of Carl Oglesby's The Yankee and Cowboy War: Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate. In this analogy, Europe’s Atlanticists/globalists represent the modern-day Yankees, while the neocons/Zionists represent the Cowboys.

Radosław Sikorski was aligned with the European Atlanticist camp and, at the time, was working with Merkel to prevent the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. That is why he made the following remarks, which were reported in The Guardian in 2014:

Polish foreign minister says country's alliance with US worthless

Polish magazine says it has obtained recordings of a conversation in which Radek Sikorski says strong alliance with US 'harmful'

According to a transcript of excerpts of the conversation that was published by Wprost on its Internet site, Sikorski told Rostowski: “You know that the Polish-US alliance isn't worth anything.”

“It is downright harmful, because it creates a false sense of security ... Complete bullshit. We'll get in conflict with the Germans, Russians and we'll think that everything is super, because we gave the Americans a blow job. Losers. Complete losers.”

This was a leaked recording of a private conversation, so it offers a glimpse into what Sikorski was willing to say really thinking.

By the way, I agreed with him at the time. I also thought it was foolish because I believed Poland would end up in conflict with Germany and Russia. However, when those recordings were leaked 12 years ago, I did not yet understand the human mind as well as I do today.

What Sikorski failed to understand, in my view, was the power of the “most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world”: the Western narrative-building machine.

While Sikorski was aligned with Merkel, other parts of the Polish government were working with the neocons/Zionists, advancing American strategic interests. They understood that, as long as the United States maintained its influence over the Western information space, it could shape public opinion in ways that would persuade European nations to act against their own interests.

The best part is that, in my view, things are working according to their plan, because the political right is becoming increasingly popular.

Parties and movements such as AfD and Marine Le Pen's political movement are not here to save you. I believe they are part of a broader political dynamic that ultimately serves American interests.

The immigration debate and the spread of what I call “woke b*llsh*t disguised as the left” are also part of this process. They distract people from the real left, which should be focused primarily on economic and material conditions. The result is the destruction of the genuine economic left and the erosion of what is still good in Europe, all while pushing the continent toward becoming more like the United States.

This is the Americanization of Europe, a process driven in part by the cultural hegemony I discussed earlier — the “most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world.”

And when there is no enemy, one can always be manufactured. This is the logic I see behind the narratives surrounding Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the broader Clash of Civilizations framework.

Now, let's get back to this "Clash of Civilizations" idea proposed by Samuel Huntington. Everybody is flailing around for some paradigm — some big concept that can be used to control people. Huntington's idea was the Clash of Civilizations: there’s Islam, there is us, and all these other groups. The argument goes that the reason the world is so disorderly now, with the Cold War over, is that you have all these ethnic groups killing each other.

…

Now, what about the principle behind the "Clash of Civilizations" — the idea that the big bad guy is Islam? There are a few problems with that.

For instance, the most fundamentalist Islamic state in the world is our big ally, Saudi Arabia. How does that fit into the theory? Saudi Arabia is pretty extreme — it's not even fundamentalist enough for some of the people inside it, but it’s real extreme. Are we trying to undermine Saudi Arabia? Of course not. They're sitting on the oil. In fact, they are our clients; it's a family dictatorship that we keep in power because they make sure the money from the oil doesn't go to the people of the region, but instead flows to London and New York. So they're okay — there's no "clash of civilizations" there.

That addresses state fundamentalism. But what about non-state actors? By far the worst ones are the guys tearing Afghanistan to pieces. You would be hard-pressed to find crazier Islamic fundamentalists anywhere. Where did they get their power from? From your pocket. It is claimed they received about $6 billion from the United States and Saudi Arabia throughout the 1980s. Now they are tearing Afghanistan apart, but we act as if it's nothing we did — because we are only wonderful people.

So where is this "Clash of Civilizations" between Islam and the West? I don't see it. Indonesia is an Islamic state — do you see us trying to undermine Indonesia? There are a lot of rotten things happening in Indonesia; for example, wages are about half the level of China's, which is hardly munificent. Do you see us doing anything about that?

I think this whole concept is a farce. I don't mean a total farce in every sense—there must always be a new paradigm, something people can build their careers on, write books about, and use as a device to control people. That part is true. Maybe this theory will work for them, or if it doesn't, they'll just try something else.

 

Chomsky didn't understand much, in my opinion, or he was engaging in a limited hangout. He revealed some truths, but I don't like or trust him. That doesn't mean, however, that everything he said was a lie.

He talks about a “new paradigm, something people can build their careers on, write books about, and use as a device to control people.” What he is describing connects directly to the following idea:

The entire U.S. ruling class, ruling elite, comes to see terrorism as the preferred means, indeed the only means, to provide social cohesion, to provide an enemy image for the society, to keep it together. According to neocon theory from Carl Schmitt, you have to have an enemy image in order to have a society… This is a very dangerous thing because now it means that the entire social order — political parties, intellectual life, politics in general—are all based on a monstrous myth.

— Webster Tarpley

The “new paradigm” that Chomsky describes — the thing people can build careers on, write books about, and use to control others — is connected to the idea that a society needs an “enemy image” to maintain its cohesion, an idea associated with Carl Schmitt. After the Cold War, this concept was reincarnated in Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations framework.

In my view, the West has repeatedly supported radical Islamist groups at the expense of more moderate, secular, or left-wing movements. The reason, I would argue, is that these movements can serve Western geopolitical interests, whereas secular and left-wing movements are more likely to challenge existing economic power structures by organizing workers, forming unions, and demanding fair wages and better material conditions.

The message, in practice, seems to be this: you can behead people, mistreat women, abuse children, and commit all kinds of atrocities, but as long as you don't allow those “evil leftists” to win, establish unions, or demand fair wages, the empire will tolerate you. It may even help shield you from accountability for your crimes.

This is what I mean when I say “we in the West.” Even when European countries, Canada, or Japan are not directly involved in carrying out these actions, they still remain silent or help protect American interests because they also benefit from the existing geopolitical order. Perhaps we didn't pull the trigger ourselves, and the Americans did, but we remained silent and helped cover up their crimes because we benefited from the system that enabled them.

Now, with AfD in Germany and Marine Le Pen's political movement in France, I believe the rise of the populist right is also part of this broader political dynamic. These movements channel public anger toward cultural and identity-based conflicts rather than the underlying economic structures. Meanwhile, the system continues to produce a steady supply of people willing to serve as cannon fodder for geopolitical conflicts, as Douglas Valentine put it so well in a video I previously shared in my posts.

Douglas Valentine: The CIA and the War in Ukraine (2022) (+ My Views)

Well, that’s the end result of decades of military propaganda in the United States, and it goes back to the Iliad. The rulers of society, who own the property and control the means of production, hire people like Homer to tell their story. Their story only focuses on the heroic soldier who goes off to fight in foreign wars and becomes a hero. It’s the hero myth. The myth tells us that the only way to become a true hero is to fight and die for your country overseas — supposedly in service of the nation, but really in service of corporations like General Electric, Morgan Stanley, and pharmaceutical companies.

This has nothing to do with the 90% of the population who don’t want to get involved in wars or see their sons and daughters sent off to die. But enough people buy into this hero myth. It’s everywhere in the media, which is why Ken Burns can get away with calling the Vietnam War a ‘noble cause.’ Otherwise, he’d be saying that the soldiers who fought and died there did so for nothing. You can’t have that in America. America can’t be a near-imperial power without a steady conveyor belt of cannon fodder.

That’s the purpose of military propaganda, based on this idea of the hero myth ingrained in Western literature. After the Vietnam War, there were one or two anti-war films, but then movies like Rambo and The Deer Hunter came along — which could just as easily have been called ‘Hate Hunter.’ The Vietnamese were portrayed as evil, while the only victims shown were American soldiers.

The narrative since then has portrayed American soldiers as the sole victims of the Vietnam War. You never hear about the landmines still scattered across Vietnam, the people dying from Agent Orange, or the sanctions that crippled the country until 1991. You never hear about the enemy’s suffering, only about American soldiers, because they’re the heroes.

That’s the nature of military propaganda: it’s become more ideological, more fascist, and more ingrained. Many people really believe this myth. The whole purpose of their life is to join the military and fight in foreign wars. If they can’t, they become mercenaries. Our society glorifies violence in defense of the country.

Pacifists, like those in Ukraine, are vilified. You can’t be a pacifist in Ukraine today. Zelensky has essentially outlawed pacifism. This situation has been evolving for decades and is now playing out on the Ukraine-Russia border. A lot of it has to do with the mythology of the war hero and the fascist military-industrial state. Communism was supposed to counteract this, but it got off track a long time ago. Fighting it is hard, and the fascists have gone all in. The world is getting smaller, and only the strong survive. Fascists have always glorified strength, commitment to ideology, and violence—just like the Nazis. No mercy for the enemy. That’s what’s happening now, and that’s why Americans support it. They’ve been trained to believe that’s how the world works, and how it must work.”

 

"Now Americans are already trained, and now Europe needs to be trained — and this is what I mean by 'Americanizing' Europe. We got bad Muslims because of the 'Left' (which isn't actually left), but we still need to give up our workers' rights and protections to be more like America. Just like Americans, we Europeans need to be taught how to hate the enemy, just like America did in Ukraine to make them hate Russians.

This Russophobia is not European, but American and created by America's cultural hegemony. People think this is European stuff, but it's b*llsh*t — just like in the document Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran, which Brian Berletic talks about.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

You have here:

Chapter 5: Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike…

Do you really think they didn't have the same strategy for Europe? Making Europeans the aggressors while giving Americans plausible deniability. When I hear about European hatred toward Russia, I am reminded of what Stephen F. Cohen said."

The administration is still meddling in Russia's internal political affairs. This is a no-no among great powers, but we've been doing it in Russia since 1992. We see this Obama still talks about democracy promotion. Well, one feels his heart's not in it, but he has to do it for constituency reasons. There's a State Department budget for it and all the rest. But the real thing they've done that is a mistake is they've tried to play, as they put it, the Medvedev card against Putin. Putin's a bad guy, Medvedev is a good guy. He's our guy, he's our horse, we'll ride him. First of all, this is misinformed about the situation in Russia. Medvedev is not even a horse yet. He may become a horse, but at the moment there's only one real horse running this race. But secondly, Russian the Russian political class sees what they're doing and they resent it. They don't like it. Even um Merkel, who's close to Putin, complained to Washington about this, told them to stop it. It was demeaning to everybody to be doing this. But it's a it's a it's a reflex. Secondly, there is still Washington's presumption that Russia is weak and we don't have to treat it as a great power and that if Russia wants to be meaningful in the world affairs, it needs the United States. And this is what we were told by Vice President and Biden on three very publicized occasions. When he went to Georgia to Tbilisi right after Obama left Moscow last July with Medvedev and basically said Russia is a spent power, it's a dying nation, we don't have to negotiate with them. People said that's old Joe running his mouth, but it wasn't. It was a scripted speech and it reappeared two weeks later as an interview in the Wall Street Journal. So, this This the position of a powerful faction in the Obama administration. Is it Obama's position? I have no idea. But it's certainly Biden's position. So as this view that Russia isn't serious, we don't have to take into account. I would argue however in fact that arguably, I'm not going to go into why, but if you want to talk about it let's do, that in terms of national security the United States needs Russia more than Russia needs us.

Merkel was complaining about how the Americans threatened Putin and got spied on by the NSA

U.S. spied on Merkel and other Europeans through Danish cables - broadcaster DR

The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) used a partnership with Denmark's foreign intelligence unit to spy on senior officials of neighbouring countries, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Danish state broadcaster DR said.

I also used in my posts a translation of a famous Putin speech from 2007 where he thanked Merkel and Germany. Merkel and the rest of Europe were friends of Putin and Russia, but then the Americans, as the cultural hegemon of the West (including Europe), used the “most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world” in the form of USAID, NED, institutions like the US Institute of Peace, and all the NGOs and universities to turn Europe into what it is now. Now Europe can serve the Empire's purpose.

These are the instruments that Mike Benz talks about in the main video, like USAID/NED, etc. The American regime-change apparatus, which was developed mostly to influence Third World countries outside the Empire, was first turned toward Europe to turn it russophobic, and then was turned via BLM, etc., toward Americans themselves. All of these are influence operations coordinated with immigration, which is also intentional.

It’s simple conditioning through the environment: I can’t make you do something, but I can create conditions that make you decide to do something I want. "I don’t want you to have a social system. I will create a social system that will benefit outsiders more than your own people. This way*, I create in you a hate toward a system that I (ruling class) don’t like because it cuts into my profits, and this way I am able to make you decide to abolish the system I wanted you to abolish so that I can increase my profits. I didn’t force you to do anything; I simply created a condition in which you did what I wanted you to do all along." All those stupid laws regarding immigrants that benefit them so much — it’s not stupidity, it’s malice, and it serves a purpose.

If I were a capitalist oligarch and I wanted to increase profits by reducing social protections and labor laws that cut into profits, then I would make sure that social protections and laws protect outsiders more than the main part of the population. Not only would I create resentment toward the outsider part of the population, but I would also create resentment toward the system. The population will see that those systems benefit outsiders more than them, so I would make the population think they would be better off without those programs. Instead of eliminating those programs myself to increase my profits, I would create conditions in which the people would ask me to do it.

Thank you to everyone who stuck with me until the end of this post. And, as always…

 

“Knowledge will make you free.”

— Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

— Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free; you need to pay attention.”

— Grzegorz Ochman

 

Please pay attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.

 

“Now that we know how positive reinforcement works, and why negative doesn’t, we can be more deliberate and hence more successful, in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That’s the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement—there’s no restraint and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behave—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises.”

— B.F. Skinner, Walden Two

 

“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. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.” 

— Edward Bernays, Propaganda

 

“If the good life of the future consists in so conditioning individuals through the control of their environment, and through the control of the rewards they receive, that they will be inexorably productive, well-behaved, happy or whatever, then I want none of it. To me this is a pseudo-form of the good life which includes everything save that which makes it good.”

— Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person

 

“The cry of “Give me television and hamburgers, but don’t bother me with the responsibilities of liberty,” may give place, under altered circumstances, to the cry of “Give me liberty or give me death.” If such a revolution takes place, it will be due in part to the operation of forces over which even the most powerful rulers have very little control, in part to the incompetence of those rulers, their inability to make effective use of the mind-manipulating instruments with which science and technology have supplied, and will go on supplying, the would-be tyrant.”

—Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

 

“I stand ready to fight, just as before, against the main evil of the state: the rule of spoiled parties and factions over Poland, the forgetting of the imponderables, and the remembering only of money and profit.”

― Józef Piłsudski: In an interview for "Kurier Poranny" about the coup that was supposed to be carried out by Piłsudski, a reading from May 11, 1926.

 

“I stand ready to fight, just as before, against the main evil of the World: the rule of spoiled parties and factions over the state, the forgetting of the imponderables, and the remembering only of money and profit.”