In the Fog of The Presstitutes - 3

Got Truthiness?

There can be no coup or coup d'état without the "assistance" of the media, the press.

That press assistance is measured by various groups around the world each year.

That measurement of the freedom of the press and that measurement of the press doing what it has been designed to do, shows a disturbing trend.

The media or press in the U.S. is at number 46 on the list, barely making the top 50, in terms of quality of reporting (A Tale of Coup Cities - 9).

Of course the drop to that very low position has taken a long time and a lot of work (Mocking America).

The press has helped the military to cover up its vast command systems that form a vast worldwide network of military bases that are even used by the military NSA to spy on everyone (The Virgin MOMCOM - 8, Blind Willie McTell News).

The presstitutes have recently been trying to inject the old cold war fears to perpetuate the plundering of the middle class (Ukraine: Tea Potters In A Tempest, cf. Banker Jekyll Will Hyde Your Money through Banker Jekyll Will Hyde Your Money - 10).

The increasing poverty and joblessness is a result of distributing the welfare of the middle class and poor, by, among other things, sending jobs overseas where Pentagon military presence in 191 countries protects 1% operations in those areas (MOMCOM - A Mean Welfare Queen, American Feudalism - 6).

This has been the history of the past century, the past one hundred years (Viva Egypt - 2), and it continues unabated now:

Washington is pushing the panic button, claiming austerity is hollowing out our armed forces and our national security is at risk. That was the message Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel delivered last week when he announced that the Army would shrink to levels not seen since before World War II. Headlines about this crisis followed in papers like the New York Times and members of Congress issued statements swearing that they would never allow our security to be held hostage to the budget-cutting process.

Yet a careful look at budget figures for the U.S. military -- a bureaucratic juggernaut accounting for 57% of the federal discretionary budget and nearly 40% of all military spending on this planet -- shows that such claims have been largely fictional. Despite cries of doom since the across-the-board cuts known as sequestration surfaced in Washington in 2011, the Pentagon has seen few actual reductions, and there is no indication that will change any time soon.

This piece of potentially explosive news has, however, gone missing in action -- and the “news” that replaced it could prove to be one of the great bait-and-switch stories of our time.

(The Pentagon’s Phony Budget War, Tom Dispatch). This money, your tax dollars, is used to interfere with internal politics of many nations:

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.  (*indicates successful ouster of a government)

• China 1949 to early 1960s
• Albania 1949-53
• East Germany 1950s
• Iran 1953 *
• Guatemala 1954 *
• Costa Rica mid-1950s
• Syria 1956-7
• Egypt 1957
• Indonesia 1957-8
• British Guiana 1953-64 *
• Iraq 1963 *
• North Vietnam 1945-73
• Cambodia 1955-70 *
• Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
• Ecuador 1960-63 *
• Congo 1960 *
• France 1965
• Brazil 1962-64 *
• Dominican Republic 1963 *
• Cuba 1959 to present
• Bolivia 1964 *
• Indonesia 1965 *
• Ghana 1966 *
• Chile 1964-73 *
• Greece 1967 *
• Costa Rica 1970-71
• Bolivia 1971 *
• Australia 1973-75 *
• Angola 1975, 1980s
• Zaire 1975
• Portugal 1974-76 *
• Jamaica 1976-80 *
• Seychelles 1979-81
• Chad 1981-82 *
• Grenada 1983 *
• South Yemen 1982-84
• Suriname 1982-84
• Fiji 1987 *
• Libya 1980s
• Nicaragua 1981-90 *
• Panama 1989 *
• Bulgaria 1990 *
• Albania 1991 *
• Iraq 1991
• Afghanistan 1980s *
• Somalia 1993
• Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
• Ecuador 2000 *
• Afghanistan 2001 *
• Venezuela 2002 *
• Iraq 2003 *
• Haiti 2004 *
• Somalia 2007 to present
• Libya 2011*
• Syria 2012
• [Ukraine 2014]

(RINF, "Overthrowing other people’s governments"). Each of those nations is located in one of the Pentagon's six commands which cover the entire round globe, the world (see "The Virgin MOMCOM - 8" link up-thread), and according to some reports, we can add the Ukraine to the list:

The Estonian foreign ministry confirmed the leaked conversation was accurate. It said: "Foreign minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground. We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition's involvement in the violence." Ashton's office said it did not comment on leaks.

During the conversation, Paet quoted a woman named Olga – who the Russian media identified her as Olga Bogomolets, a doctor – blaming snipers from the opposition shooting the protesters.

"What was quite disturbing, this same Olga told that, well, all the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides," Paet said.

"So she also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can say it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."

"So there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition," Paet says.

(Guardian). So, snipers paid to be doing the bidding of the hard-right were shooting both police and demonstrators which benefited any country but Russia.

The social critics (e.g. Ukraine Through the Fog of the Presstitutes) like Dredd Blog are supposed to be doing something to counter the massive propaganda of the mainstream media:

In our own era, continuous commentary on the political maneuverings around DOMA, health care and immigration has sometimes obscured a massive failure [by the presstitutes] to engage with the issues of poverty, mass incarceration, growing wealth disparity, corporatization, endless war, ecological catastrophe and the striking abandonment of the concept of the common good.

(The Point, "... the Role of the Social Critic", emphasis added). Here at Dredd Blog you can read entire series of posts covering each of those subjects year in and year out (see the index at Series Posts).

The previous post in this series is here.

---

This is dedicated to Rupert Morlock:

---

Epigovernment: The Self-Deceived

M. Class Family asks: "What is Happening to US?"

What would induce a civilization to participate in its own demise, its own death, yes, its own extinction?

For the sane in that civilization it would require that they be deceived, that is, that "the powers that be" have to intentionally or unintentionally make the sane unaware.

That is, since sane people do not want to destroy themselves, their friends, their nation, their civilization, or their planet, they must not be allowed to know that that scenario is taking place unawares.

As to those who are hypnotized into a trance to the point that they are incapable of being in touch with the reality of their impending demise, death, or extinction, I won't waste my time or yours in this post by trying to explain that psychotic denial.

In this post, instead, I want to spend your time and mine on the role of the social critic in this context.

That is, I want to discuss our mission which is to bring the mass murders in Oil-Qaeda to justice.

I am in agreement with those who are of the opinion that the people are not to blame for the crimes of those who govern them.

Origin is important.

The originator of crime is guilty for it, not the victims of that crime (MOMCOM's Mass Suicide & Murder Pact - 5).

Ukraine: Tea Potters In A Tempest

by Danziger

John McCain's senator friend Lindsey, who is constantly sitting on The John's lap, is facing a stiff primary filled with election hot water rhetoric boiling up from the war-hotties in the T-Party.

Wimp it! Wimp it good Lindsey! is their slogan stenciled in blood-red on their hate-filled T-cups.

Which intimidates Lindsey.

So, Lindsey now finds himself among the crowd that faces the political schizophrenia which brought down Romney, the previous republican who ran for president as a disciple of Ayn Rand (who grew up closer to the Ukraine than to the District of Columbia: Ayn Rand: Patron Saint of The Plutocracy).

I say "political schizophrenia" because Lindsey must play the game with the role of Lucifer during the primaries, then he must play the game with the role of Jesus during the general election.

Which makes for some damn strange sicko bedfellows:

The Lord is a warrior and in Revelation 19 it says when he comes back, he's coming back as what? A warrior. A mighty warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe ... I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies 'cause he's coming back as a warrior carrying a sword.

And I believe now - I've checked this out - I believe that sword he'll be

"Jesus is coming with an AR-15" - U.S. General

carrying when he comes back is an AR-15.

Now I want you to think about this: where did the Second Amendment come from? ... From the Founding Fathers, it's in the Constitution. Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus when he said to his disciples 'now, if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'

I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! He was saying in building my kingdom, you're going to have to fight at times. You won't build my kingdom with a sword, but you're going to have to defend yourself. And that was the beginning of the Second Amendment, that's where the whole thing came from. I can't prove that historically and David [Barton] will counsel me when this is over, but I know that's where it came from.

And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don't have one, go get one. You're supposed to have one. It's biblical.

(Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala - 4). If they could only get in touch with the mindset of the general public, which opposes the warmongering machinations this "kill anything that moves" ideology always engenders.

The scenario is summed up well by a veteran blogger's very sane perspective:

It's interesting. Russia does nothing more than sort of mumble in protest as we sign up nation after nation in their neighborhood into our military alliance. NATO is not a boy's club, you know, nor is it an economic organization. It is purely a military alliance, providing for commonality of weaponry and military practices. Russia expresses discontent but does not even make formal protest in the UN as, one after another, we sign up its former allies (satellite nations) into our military alliance.

But then, when we reach the final ones and attempt to sign up the nation that is actually on their border, their equivalent of what Canada or Mexico would be to us, they say "Oh hell no," and we label them as aggressors. They stop our military advance on them and so they are the aggressors.

You did know, didn't you, that the "economic aid package" which Ukraine turned down from The European Union included requiring that Ukraine adopt NATO weapon standards and convert their military within a few years. Aside from what that would cost Ukraine, and the profit it would involve for Europe and the US, it was a military incursion into Ukraine; an attempt to make the Ukrainian military part of NATO. A reasoning person might see why Russia would object to that.

(On My Mind). Meanwhile, the news media now has its fourth or fifth version of the Ukraine news.

Which is much like the proverbial blind men around the elephant trying to explain what they feel in the moment.

Blind Willie McTell News surely must be a good metaphor for the mainstream media during yet another season of the witch.

---

"Season of the Witch", by Donovan

---

Epigovernment: The Tumor

"In this series which Dredd Blog began in December of 2012, an  attempt is made to set forth a hypothesis which explains some of the inexplicable conduct of 'government.'

The hypothesis is that there is an Epigovernment which operates above the level of the visible offices of federal government.

That Epigovernment exerts various degrees of control and/or influence upon the direction and policy of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of what is traditionally considered to be "the government".

The graphic to the upper left (click to enlarge) shows an example diagram of the concept of Epigovernment, while the one below it (click to enlarge) shows a Worldwide Military Command structure ostensibly under the control of The Commander In Chief, who in the normal concept of governmental structure, controls the military as the chief or top commander." (Epigovernment: The New Model - 5).

In today's post I want to argue that the Epigovernment is a tumor.

Before going on though, let's look at what the word "tumor" means in this post's context:

tu·mor ... noun

1. a swollen part; swelling; protuberance.

2. an uncontrolled, abnormal, circumscribed growth of cells in any animal or plant tissue; neoplasm.

3. Archaic.

a. inflated pride; haughtiness.
b. pompous language; bombast.

Origin: 1535–45; Latin: a swelling, swollen state ...

(Dictionary). An uncontrolled abnormal growth, a tumor, relating to government dynamics is what this series on Epigovernment is all about.

The mystery in this story is that utterly "normal" appearing cultural foundations can be a place where abnormal tumor things can begin to take place.

First notice the cultural foundation:

Whitman was an Eagle Scout and a former marine, studied architectural engineering at the University of Texas, and briefly worked as a bank teller and volunteered as a scoutmaster for Austin’s Boy Scout Troop 5. As a child, he’d scored 138 on the Stanford-Binet IQ test, placing in the 99th percentile.

(Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala). Ok, we begin with a very smart, very normal kid, in a very normal culture, but then:

... [Whitman, the very smart, very normal kid] killed a receptionist with the butt of his rifle. Two families of tourists came up the stairwell; he shot at them at point-blank range. Then he began to fire indiscriminately from the deck at people below. The first woman he shot was pregnant. As her boyfriend knelt to help her, Whitman shot him as well. He shot pedestrians in the street and an ambulance driver who came to rescue them.

The evening before, Whitman had sat at his typewriter and composed a suicide note:

I don’t really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can’t recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.

By the time the police shot him dead, Whitman had killed 13 people and wounded 32 more. The story of his rampage dominated national headlines the next day. And when police went to investigate his home for clues, the story became even stranger: in the early hours of the morning on the day of the shooting, he had murdered his mother and stabbed his wife to death in her sleep.

It was after much thought that I decided to kill my wife, Kathy, tonight … I love her dearly, and she has been as fine a wife to me as any man could ever hope to have. I cannot rationa[l]ly pinpoint any specific reason for doing this …

Along with the shock of the murders ... from the University of Texas Tower, everyone wanted answers.

For that matter, so did Whitman. He requested in his suicide note that an autopsy be performed to determine if something had changed in his brain — because he suspected it had.

I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt [overcome by] overwhelming violent impulses. After one session I never saw the Doctor again, and since then I have been fighting my mental turmoil alone, and seemingly to no avail.

Whitman’s body was taken to the morgue, his skull was put under the bone saw, and the medical examiner lifted the brain from its vault. He discovered that Whitman’s brain harbored a tumor the diameter of a nickel. This tumor, called a glioblastoma, had blossomed from beneath a structure called the thalamus, impinged on the hypothalamus, and compressed a third region called the amygdala.

(ibid). This normal individual was involuntarily converted into a murdering monster by his amygdala that was being disrupted by a tumor.

This is a microcosm for depicting how Epigovernment takes over normal behavior of government and causes it to malfunction (On The Origin of The Bully Religion - 2).

Then the dynamics of that government may exhibit some of the same abnormal behavioral patterns as an individual with a brain tumor, even to the point that their own governing behavior becomes "out of character" because it does not make sense even to themselves:

I don’t really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can’t recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.
...
I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt [overcome by] overwhelming violent impulses. After one session I never saw the Doctor again, and since then I have been fighting my mental turmoil alone, and seemingly to no avail.

(ibid). Dredd Blog now calls the source of that influence which develops "uncontrolled abnormal growth" (tumor) the Epigovernment (cf. Epigovernment: The New Model - 9 and MOMCOM: The Private Parts).

"When": The Most Unstable Adverb?

'When': the unstable adverb

The "adverbs" discussed in the "novel" written by author Daniel Handler, shown in the graphic to the left, deal with aspects of what the author calls "falling in love."

Those novel adverbs describe how people experience seventeen various aspects of falling in love: "Immediately," "Obviously," "Arguably," "Particularly," "Briefly," "Soundly," "Frigidly," "Collectively," "Symbolically," "Clearly," "Naturally," "Wrongly," "Truly," "Not Particularly," "Often," "Barely," and "Judgmentally."

Of course this shows how very diverse the "simple" notion of romantic love, lust, sexual desire, or whatever one calls it, can be.

Likewise, the seemingly simple adverb "when" is being used in today's post for a similar exercise which will show that particular adverb's ability to incite, inspire, and elicit just as much passion as those other adverbs associated with "the romance" depicted in the novel.

"Are we there yet?" is often used to show some of the anticipation which erodes patience in a context of "when" something hoped for is going to happen.

That aspect of "when" is totally different if what we are anticipating is a serious threat:

"The First Law of 'When': the more critical an issue is to the future of our civilization, the difficulty of determining when that critical issue will take effect tends to increase exponentially.

The Second Law of 'When': the greater the amount of time it takes for that critical issue to play out completely tends to exponentially diminish civilization's grasp of that critical issue.

The Third Law of 'When': the more destructive the impact which that critical issue will have on civilization tends to exponentially increase the time when that critical event will be understood to have begun to take place."

(Dredd Blog Quotes). I think I can illustrate that with the following additional quote:

Our present extreme fossil fuel driven carbon dioxide global warming is predicted to produce exactly the same methane release from the subsea Arctic methane hydrates and deep mantle methane from the Enrico Pv Anomaly Extreme Methane Emission Zone by the 2050's, leading to total deglaciation and the extinction of all life on Earth.

(Mantle Methane, Arctic News, emphasis added).  That quote is from a recent assertion, however, the idea behind the assertion is a couple of years old.

That distressing assertion brings up "when is this supposed to happen?", and is in opposition to the "when" conceived by most of our climate scientists (Ecologist, A Student Writes ... Global Extinction Within One Lifetime?).

The danger is oh so real and stable, even though the "when" is more unstable (NASA).

These various and conflicting "whens" illustrate "the laws of when" cited to above.

That is because, for one thing, we don't want our extinction to happen any time soon do we?

Is there, then, a valid love of species, love of humanity, and/or love of civilization that is strong enough to cause the greatest "when" of all time?

Is there a love of civilization that inspires us to know that the greatest "when" of all time is right now?

Which is the time when we get serious as a heart attack about the terrorism of Oil-Qaeda!

Or, is our greatest love only like the 17 adverbs used to describe various types of romantic love depicted in the novel?

---

"When" (1 of 18 adverbs)  - by The Kalin Twins

---