“World of the naive” — the noble lie of an international order built on soft power, hiding the gangster nature of the state.

First, I would like to address something. I constantly write about the “World of the naive,” in which most people, in my opinion, live. Perhaps I named it incorrectly, as the word naive carries a negative connotation that causes people to take it as an attack or denigration. I took this name from the TV series Mr. Robot, which I highly recommend as an exceptionally good philosophical show. In this series, the main character says:

Elliot Alderson: What I wouldn’t give to be normal, to live in that bubble, reality of the naive.

Now let’s start with the video.

 

7:53

When I pitched the Trump campaign on changing the Department of Defense’s name back to the Department of War in 2023 and 2024, I made passionate arguments that we should rename it. I argued this on the basis that the “rules-based international order” was a kind of noble lie. The Department of War, as it stood from 1789 to 1948, only changed its name to the Department of Defense so they could lie to the American people about conducting war. If we changed the name back to the original Department of War, at least the American people wouldn’t be lied to about what we’re actually doing. We could still do dirty tricks with the military, but it would be slightly more honest—which was really all I was asking for.

I said a similar thing about USAID right the week it was announced it was folding up. I titled it “Making Our Dirty Work a Little More Honest: The Benefit of Nuking USAID and Simply Having the State Department Own It Directly.” That was not to say we can’t do CIA covert action, State Department influence work, or dirty work—just that we should make the dirty work a little more honest. That way, at least we know what we’re voting for.

The purpose of this was to say that, at least, we would know we’re at war. We wouldn’t be lying to the American people about defending ourselves in Zambia, Pakistan, Nigeria, or South Sudan. It’s war. We’re killing people who had no intention of attacking the American homeland, and in many cases, had no intention of attacking anyone. We were doing so-called “national security,” but it wasn’t—it was national interest. We were just taking it, lying, and saying that we were defending ourselves, that “it’s coming right for us.” But there’s not even a predicate to argue that calling it the Department of War was supposed to put it back in the bucket.

This is a “World of the naive” — built on narratives and lies of the West, which is why Mike calls it a “kind of noble lie.” When I see most people believing in this noble lie, those are the exact people living in the “World of the naive” I am talking about. I also wrote a post titled “…those Believing in ‘America First’ and ‘Fortress America’ are Naive.” This belief in the “World of the naive” — this noble lie of a “rules-based international order” — leads people to believe that America is a normal country rather than the center of an evil, parasitic empire built on oppression and exploitation.

I would like to highlight one thing Mike Benz said:

“We’re killing people who had no intention of attacking the American homeland, and in many cases, had no intention of attacking anyone.”

That is precisely why I call it a F**KING EVIL EMPIRE! We are killing people who wanted to do nothing to us or anyone else. Funnily enough, earlier in this video, Mike uses an Ariana Grande song to explain the motto of our Evil Empire:

“I see it. I want it. I like it. I got it. That’s the State Department motto.”

When you have a massive empire causing chaos around the world with the motto “I see it, I want it, I like it, I got it,” causing millions of people to suffer and die just so it can get what it wants, claiming that calling it an “Evil Empire” is unobjective makes me say: FUCK OBJECTIVITY! We in the West are behind the vast majority of the drug trade, illegal arms trade, human trafficking, and more.

Now, let’s bring in two examples.

30:51

“

When I said this is a very US80-type thing, we love this tactic: we say you’re your own sovereign country, but because we basically have military vassal state control, when funds go to the state-owned oil company, gold giant, or metals and minerals giant, the revenue doesn’t hit the bank account of that publicly owned entity first. It goes to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Then, to make sure you’re proceeding with your milestones, we disperse portions of those funds in tranches. This is a way to make sure the government does everything we want it to do — or else we freeze their money.

This is something I think I’ve told you guys about. When I was at the State Department, the Ukrainians were putting forth a bill to try to retake control of their Ministry of Education, which, after the 2014 coup, had basically been transferred to a Euro-Atlantic accrediting body that was hitting Ukrainians with all this LGBT propaganda. The Ukrainians didn’t want it, so they introduced a bill in Parliament to move accreditation and their school curricula back under the Ministry of Education’s control. I remember seeing an inbound policy proposal sent to all of our State Department accounts, suggesting we consider freezing Ukraine’s funds held in the New York Federal Reserve Bank to threaten them into dropping the bill — basically holding the Ukrainian public hostage unless they trans their kids, in so many words. I thought that was mortifying, but it shows you the economic hitman power of this kind of relationship. It’s very powerful, and what it often does is contort internal politics so people set aside their principles just to get the money unlocked.

This is what’s been happening in Hungary. Let me show you what I mean.

By the way, let me run this argument again. When is the next presidential election scheduled for Syria? Does anyone think there’s an election date? When is our former ISIS/Al-Qaeda-installed vassal government going to have an election again? Something tells me not anytime soon.

This is also what happens when you rely on hard power. When you have a kind of martial law, you can’t allow elections. If we successfully toppled the government of Iran and installed Reza Pahlavi, do you think we would allow him to be subjected to an election? No way. It would be Zelensky on steroids—just like the Shah was when the CIA toppled Mossadegh in 1953. The Shah stayed in power for about 25 years with no elections removing him.

This is what happens when you don’t have a soft power apparatus to nudge hearts and minds: you kind of have to get rid of elections. You have to get rid of elections in Venezuela, Ukraine, Syria, and Iran. I don’t know how much I like that, guys.

Remember all the anti-Russian laws and prosecutions in Ukraine, along with all the extremist narratives being pushed? That is not purely internal to Ukraine — in my opinion, it is driven externally. Now we have the explicit example of forcing curriculum policies in Ukraine that Mike provided. Since they exerted control over that, do you really think they don’t hold absolute control over all the anti-Russian policies currently being pushed?

If you want to read more on this, here is a breakdown:

1:00:14

They’re protecting their own crimes.

And I can go on economic issues, another red line: any implementation of policies against existing agreements with the International Monetary Fund and other foreign partners; any attempt to challenge the bankster gangsters who were privatizing Ukraine’s industries and cutting them up to be sold at fire sale prices to the George Soros clan and to Wall Street in London; any renegotiation with the IMF, any attempt to have your own national sovereignty — can’t do that either; exerting pressure on regulators as opposed to supporting reforms to strengthen their independence.

So, making sure that essentially the IMF and the NGOs maintain total control over the regulatory groups.

But it goes on, and it includes in cultural issues: any attempt to review the Russian language law, any attempt to allow the Russian language on Ukrainian TV or in Ukrainian schools.

So USAID through its money gun, the State Department through its sanctions arm, NATO through its military and security network as well as its civil affairs branch — they had Zelenskyy by the balls from month one. Not a single thing, whether it’s culture, media, trade, security, economic policy, or energy policy, every single thing was blocked under threat of him being couped out of office the same way Yanukovych was.

Ukraine never got to vote for a president. The only thing they could vote for after 2014 was which puppet would do the bidding of the blob.

This whole trajectory of Ukraine was accurately described in a video I cited in an earlier post:

Ukrainian totalitarianism: there will be no peace? (Translated) Phoenix Program 2.0 and What I Fear Most.

31:06

He could lean neither on civil society nor even on his close surrounding. Zelensky's first step shown that his initial intention was to achieve peace, take his place in history as a savior of Ukraine, earn the monument and love of the people. At the beginning of his term, he said that he wants to comply with the Minsk course and make an agreement with disloyal part of population.

But it was practically impossible. Nazis met his calls to lay down weapons with a sarcastic grains.

This confrontation peaked when Zelensky went to the front lines and faced of terrorists. Nazis only laughed and it ended with nothing. By the end of the first year of the term of Zelensky's hopes to become a savior of Ukraine crumbled. Russian establishment supported peace initiatives made a large prisoners exchange resumed negotiations. Zelensky tried his best to pull battalions back from the front line. See that famous video above. But it all had a large barrier. Nationalists played a huge role in the state administration media and on national narrative overall.

There is no need to tell all Minsk court story now. However, let's recall its core. Ukraine was obliged to provide a political reform which would reintegrate rebel republic's people back to the national political life. After that, Russia had to push LDPR back to the Ukraine. And as you can see, no matter how far you are pulling troops back from the front line, there is no territory regaining. If there is no political reforms, which Zelensky had no power to provide, such reforms would throw Nazis back to marginal state, making them an obstruction and bound loss of them to the fate of Sashko. That couldn't happen.

Soon the office square was swarmed by black shirts who demanded to prevent any reforms calling it capitulation and red line. Poroshenko quickly joined the protest as he was realizing Nazi role much better than Zelensky.

So if you can't defeat it, lead it.

Zelensky was a weak politician from the start. He tried to go against the flow but was simply flushed away. Sorosite anti-corruption bodies and Tkachenko was controlled by foreigners, SBU and internal affairs each played its own games. The street represented by patriotic organizations, volunteers, and Ukrainian Freikorps gained more influence.

 

The soft arm of our empire — in the form of "Soros-funded anti-corruption bodies" — and the hard arm in the form of nationalist groups created by those NGOs took control of the state. This brings to mind a short video clip featuring Max Blumenthal, which is perhaps the best brief explanation of this proxy conflict against Russia:

Georgia is removing Eduard Shevardnadze first, then moving on to Ukraine with the Orange Revolution. These are revolutions that may have been guided by the CIA, but were carried out through foundations like the Open Society Institute and the National Endowment for Democracy, which is mostly US-funded.

And, you know, we created private media to drive these revolutions, and many of the students who participated in them were earnest, good-hearted people who thought, 'We just want freedom, we just want what the West has to offer.' But they were ultimately used as pawns in a geopolitical game that continued this process of destabilization.

Those "good-hearted people" believed in private media created by the West, which curated their reality and led them to start a revolution. This is what I call the "reality of the naive" — a world curated by lies, which is only possible if you place blind faith in authority.

1:06:22

In the early hours of January 3rd, shortly after Maduro was captured, Rubio reached Rodriguez by phone. Speaking in Spanish, Rubio told her that she had a choice between working with the US or witnessing a broader attack targeting Venezuela's infrastructure, military bases, and senior officials.

"What? I thought this was a drug bust. [laughter] Why wasn't the whole legal predicate for doing this that, you know, someone four degrees removed from Maduro owned an airplane associated with the CIA cocaine trade in the 1990s, and that's how we know Maduro is the kingpin of the cocaine empire of the Latin Americas? What's all this about bombing military bases and assassinating senior officials? Is that also legally predicated on the CIA's Cartel of the Suns?"

"You got two choices, sweetie. We can send you crates of hundreds of millions of dollars of unmarked cash, but you have to do everything we say. Or we'll just murder everyone you love and conduct a broadscale military Hiroshima of your country."

"Uh, I'll take the pallets of cash and WhatsApp selfies, please, for 600, Alex."

After some negotiation, Rodriguez agreed.

Again, I struggle to think of a time we've ever done this to a sovereign country with the military. We'll do this when we're dealing with African rebel groups or Central Asian terrorist cells—we'll sort of do diplomacy by hard power. You know, "Listen, do you want pallets of cash and to keep your head on your neck, or do you want to go to war with JSOC, the Special Forces, and Army Rangers? In which case, we'll take the mines anyway, you'll be dead, your people will be broke, and we're just going to seize it anyway. Want the easy way or the hard way?"

That's what we do to terrorist groups or some African warlord known for beheading babies. That's why we get to use the DoD to do the negotiations, basically to have hard power light the way rather than some State Department negotiation.

Now, listen to that transcript and compare it to my previous posts, such as “The gangster nature of the state — from the JFK assassination through Watergate, Iran-Contra, and up to 9/11. The Doomsday Project: a secret government, the deep state.”

The gangster nature of the state — from the JFK assassination through Watergate, Iran-Contra, and up to 9/11. The Doomsday Project: a secret government, the deep state.

 

Yet, I often hear smart people whom I respect claim that the great Michael Parent(RIP) was unobjective because he was "anti-American." Was he really unobjective and anti-American, or did he simply observe the real world and understand the true gangster nature of the state?

2:41

We also have developed in modern times some democratic features, some means of trying to fight back and restrain this arbitrary power. What I'm trying to say is that along with government, we also have a thing called the state. And along with governance, along with policies, and along with those things, we have this other instrument, even in a democratic state.

And that instrument — whether it's in Democratic France, or Democratic England, or Democratic Germany, or Democratic Italy, or Democratic USA, or Democratic Canada — all of these countries, all of them have these other instruments and agencies that act like a bunch of gangsters. That act repressively, that use surveillance, that use every dirty trick in the book: unequal enforcement of tax laws, name it, the bringing in of drugs into whole neighborhoods and communities, trumped-up murder charges, assassination.

And that you have in the middle of these democracies—you have the state within the state known as the National Security State. And that state is capable of the most unspeakable crimes that you can think of. And those crimes are perpetrated against their own people; they're perpetrated against people all around the world.

Not long ago, I got a letter from a woman who's been a community organizer in Chicago. And she said, with grief in her heart, she said, "I remember the '60s. I remember the tremendous democratic organization and leadership that was developing in the Latino and African American communities. And I remember those leaders. And every single one of them today is either dead, shot by the police, or in Marion Prison on trumped-up charges. And I remember the demoralization that took place, the shattering of those organizations. And after those organizations were shattered and demoralized, then in came the drug traffickers. And those drug traffickers, the thing I remember the most about them is that they were aided and abetted by the feds, by the federal agents themselves."

And this is what happens. That is, we are dealing with a state that was engaged in domestic counterinsurgency. And it was more interested in having a population that was unorganized and demoralized than a population that was organized, that was effectively fighting for its democratic rights. Because if it's organized and it's effective and it's powerful, it will start making demands and start pursuing its interests. And it will start cutting in on the interests that those police, and those coppers, and those undercover people, and those forces of military and "law and order" are dedicated to protecting: protecting the status quo, protecting those with property against those who don't have it.

And by the way, for the last thousand years, we've had theorists who have made that point, except they make it proudly. Adam Smith said, as the divisions of property become increasingly unequal, it is more and more necessary to have a state to defend those who have property from those who do not. John Locke: the purpose of the state is to defend those who have property from those who do not. James Harrington — you can go on — James Madison, Alexander Hamilton. The only difference was that when Marx said it, he said it was to defend those who have property from those whose labor is expropriated by those who accumulate wealth off their labor, who have all the property. He changed it a little bit, and he said it wasn't just haves and have-nots; it was haves taking it from those who produced it and created the haves.

And throughout the world, dominant economic interests today have enlisted the efforts of assassins and torturers. As we talk at this moment, the CIA and other such agencies in this country and other countries have sponsored violence, torture, death squads, drugs in scores of countries—from Zaire, to Angola, to Mozambique, to El Salvador, to Guatemala, to Indonesia, to East Timor—and you go on and on, all through to Western Europe, to the USA, to Chicago and Detroit and Boston and New York. They have systematically targeted in many countries the clergy, peasant leaders, intellectuals, journalists, student leaders, labor union leaders, workers, and community activists. And such tens of thousands have been murdered and assassinated to prevent social change, to destroy any kind of redistributive politics, any kind of government, any kind of social movement that is not willing to reduce its people to economic fodder. And with NAFTA—with the North American Free Trade Agreement—we now see the Third Worldization of the USA will continue full speed ahead.

The gangster nature of the state is cloaked by the democratic facade and by the democratic substance of the government. I mean, there is some democratic substance there — democratic victories have been won, we have struggled, and certain things have been won. And yet, in the midst of this, this state still goes on.

And what is so compelling about an issue like drugs, as Michael Levine was pointing out, is that it's not that we're saying the government is not doing enough about drugs or that they're losing the war against drugs; it's that the government, or elements in it, are active perpetrators and purveyors of drugs.

And what is so compelling about the JFK assassination is how nakedly the gangster nature of the state is revealed. It is an awakening. And to know the truth about the JFK assassination is to create a delegitimating force that calls into question the entire state system and the entire social order it represents.

And this is why, for 30 years, the mainstream press has suppressed or dismissed out of hand the findings about JFK's death — the findings of independent investigators like Peter Dale Scott, Harold Weisberg, Carl Oglesby, Mark Lane, Anthony Summers, Philip Melanson, Jim Garrison, Sirhan Sirhan, and dozens and dozens of others. They're called "assassination buffs." They're not buffs. Even that word is a limiting, marginalizing, and diminishing term. A "buff" is a kind of hobby pursuer, you see; it's a kind of a quirky person who follows quirky little interests. Would you talk about "Holocaust buffs"? Would you? No. They are serious investigators of a very serious crime, which leads to all sorts of serious understandings about the criminal nature of the state.

And this is why they relentlessly — the mainstream media, the opinion leaders, and the political leaders of this country — relentlessly attack or ignore this literature. And this is why they give fulsome, gushing, ready publicity to the likes of Gerald Posner with his book Case Closed, which got put into every major magazine. I couldn't put the TV on all week without seeing this guy's face and hearing him blather these kind of cliché statements whose credibility is dependent on you being totally ignorant of what the investigators for 30 years have been uncovering and the questions that they've been raising, and who did a grotesque, idiotic whitewash of the whole thing.

And this is why they savaged — they savaged Oliver Stone's movie JFK, a movie that was very accurate about the specifics of the murder, a movie that reached millions of people, that broke through that thing that they were keeping down. It's the only movie in the history of Hollywood — and I wrote a book called Make-Believe Media, which is about TV and films, so I think I know something about films, at least I spent the better part of a year reading a lot of literature — it's the only movie that I know of that was attacked six months before it was ever released in The Washington Post, in The New York Times, and in Time and Newsweek, and attacked relentlessly for a year after it was released.

And this is also why, in this past week, they kept up the relentless propaganda campaign with the 30th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination to show that Oswald was the lone assassin. And they're always limiting the question, just as the Warren Commission did a priori: Was Oswald a lone assassin? Did he act alone? Did he or did he not act alone?

Meanwhile, all the serious investigators have a different question. It's not that he was not at all one of the people who shot Kennedy; he did not act at all, although he was involved in another way — he was involved as a fall guy.

And this is why they do this. If you want to know why, you just listen to them. It's not my analysis; it's what they say. The propagandists of the right and the center know why they've got to trash this issue and contain it. Listen to what Tom Wicker of The New York Times had to say. Now, Tom Wicker—he's never written a movie review in his life. JFK came out, and Tom Wicker, who is a columnist, a Washington columnist for The New York Times, suddenly became a movie reviewer. And instead of getting the usual movie review length of 800 words, he got 2,000 words. It's a whole page with pictures and all that.

And in that review, he tells us that if the "wild assertions" in Oliver Stone's movie are taken at face value, Americans will have to accept the idea that most of the nation's major institutions conspired together and carried out Kennedy's murder. In an era—Wicker goes on—in an era when mistrust of government and loss of confidence in institutions (the press not the least) are widespread and virulent, such a suggestion seems a dubious public service.

So truth or not truth has nothing to do with it. He's saying the question is institutional legitimacy. Wicker understands the heart of the matter: a full revelation about the murder would be a serious attack upon the legitimacy of the dominant institutions of state and class—the press not being the least of one of those institutions, a faithful servant of it, the system that New York Times writers faithfully defend. Playing before mass audiences, the movie JFK did not finger a cabal of malevolent perpetrators, but in fact pointed the finger at the National Security State itself as the murderer.

Damage control. You know, back in 1978, the House Select Committee reported, in fact after an investigation, that there was more than one assassin shooting Kennedy there, and there therefore was a conspiracy. In response, The Washington Post immediately editorialized in a 1978 quote:

"Could it have been some other malcontent whom Mr. Oswald met casually?"

It gets better. It gets better:

"Could not as many as three or four societal outcasts with no ties to any one organization have developed in some spontaneous way a common determination to express their alienation in the killing of President Kennedy? It is possible that two persons, acting independently, attempted to shoot the president at the very same time."

[Laughter]

It is possible. It's not at all likely. So sometimes those who deny conspiracies create the most convoluted fantasies of all.

Does any of this sound familiar?

"Could not as many as three or four societal outcasts with no ties to any one organization have developed in some spontaneous way a common determination to express their alienation in the killing of President Kennedy/blowing up of Nord Stream?"

Doesn't that sound almost identical to the Nord Stream sabotage story, where a few Ukrainians acting independently were alleged to have blown up the pipeline?

"It is possible. It's not at all likely. So sometimes those who deny conspiracies create the most convoluted fantasies of all."

"The most convoluted fantasies of all" — like former erotic models codenamed "Freya" supposedly carrying out the Nord Stream operation. This illustrates that what is happening today is nothing new; it has been taking place for decades.

In my previous posts, I mentioned how much it frustrates me when people say, "Look at what has happened to the West now," as if this conduct were a recent development. Don't get me wrong: when I escaped the "reality of naivety" around 2006, I saw the real world for the first time. Back then, I began to understand the war in Iraq through Al Jazeera English on the internet while it was still a good source of news and when its headquarters were bombed by Israel and America. That discovery led me to 9/11, and I initially thought, "Ah, 9/11 is when the West became evil." Then I came to understand the JFK assassination, and I thought, "Oh, so that’s when it started."

Then I learned about Operation Gladio, the Dulles brothers, secret deals with former Nazis, and Operation Underworld. You can trace this trajectory even further back—to World War I, the creation of the Federal Reserve, or the Creel Committee. Go further still: the sinking of the USS Maine and the Spanish-American War. Deception, false-flag operations, and wars built on fabrications have been standard practice for a very long time.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

— Frank Zappa

The time has come when maintaining the illusion is simply too costly. They are taking down the scenery, leaving naked imperialism fully exposed.

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.

 

 

“Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”

— Frank Zappa

 

“Schools train you to be ignorant with style [...] they prepare you to be a usable victim for a military-industrial complex that needs manpower. As long as you're just smart enough to do a job and just dumb enough to swallow what they feed you, you're going to be alright [...] So I believe that schools mechanically and very specifically try and breed out any hint of creative thought in the kids that are coming up.”

— Frank Zappa

 

“There is no better breeding ground for the bacteria of falsehood and legends than the fear of truth and a lack of will.”

— Józef Piłsudski (The Year 1863, Introduction, 1924)