GM Mustard and the Indian Government: The Game Is up, the Emperor Has No Clothes!
globalresearch / Colin Todhunter
The next stage of the case involving the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) mustard in India is to be heard on 15 September in the Supreme Court (SC). GM mustard could be India’s first commercially cultivated GM food crop, which …
On the Front Line of Fear
Both the mainstream and alternate media are dedicated to creating mass anxiety
as if the front line is a war of consciousness.
Why do they perpetuate fear?
“It seems our society is dedicated to perpetuating a collective anxiety. It’s a social malaise.”
Why Am I So Anxious? Revised from 19/8/16
by Henry Makow Ph.D
My life is good, so I asked myself, “why am I not happier?” I meditated and traced the problem to a generalized anxiety. Addressing this problem has calmed me.
I literally had no reason to be anxious. No money worries. Good marriage. A job that is a hobby. Live in a stable, peaceful country. Things are really awfully good yet my anxiety level prevented me from enjoying life. I analyzed possible causes.
1. I’m Jewish. Many Jews are driven, anxious people by nature.
2. We live in a society that is satanically possessed. Public schools groom children for pedophiles. The natural order (gender ) is being dismantled and we are barely aware of it. We’re under an anesthetic. There are very few genuine constructive influences in society. The ruling elite consists of criminals and psychopaths. The ship of humanity has broken free of its moral moorings and is heading for the rocks.
But none of this affects me personally yet. It’s true I write and tweet about it but none of it has hit home. So why fret over something I can’t change? Jonathan Swift said, if you can’t stumble over a stone, you’ll trip over a straw. Was I a victim of a generalized anxiety that would fix on any excuse?
3. Almost everything we see on the Internet and mainstream media seems calculated to make us anxious. Fear mongering sells. “We’re all going to be chipped and put into FEMA concentration camps etc.” This drumbeat of fear seems calculated to paralyze and prevent action. TV news is a litany of conflict, sickness, and disaster. Turn the channel and you have an orgy of sex, violence, and greed also calculated to make you anxious. The commercials parade beautiful women and products to tempt you. It seems our society is dedicated to perpetuating a collective anxiety.
THE FOURTH DIMENSION
I believe there are four dimensions to reality. We all know about width, length and height. The fourth dimension is morality i.e. God, Consciousness. This spiritual dimension is more Real than the three material one.
In this state, Truth, Goodness, Love, Beauty and Justice are self evident. Occasionally I glimpse this dimension and am reminded to seek God consciousness instead of the human race or the world.
I am reminded to “let go” of the world. Even if the world is completely destroyed, which is unlikely, God is eternal, supreme and immutable. I have to worship God and not mankind.
The earth fits on a postage stamp in the universe. We parade and posture as human beings but we are less than ants. Yes we have the potential to be much more, but that requires missing moral leadership.
We’re all going to die anyway. Best for me to die to the world now and contribute something positive instead of being paralyzed by negativity and fear.
We’re all searching but we don’t know what we’re looking for.
It is God.
Anxiety is due to fear. It is cowardice.
The cure for anxiety is to live fearlessly. Die now and live joyously. Serve (worship) God.
Since having this realization, my anxiety has diminished. Now the challenge is to execute. Instead of being so niggardly self centred, make an effort to bring something positive to every situation.
Inside the Surreal Western-Created ISIS-Daesh Propaganda Machine
globalresearch / Sarah Abed
In order to understand how effective Daesh’s propaganda campaign has been, it’s important to analyze the plethora of information included in this compilation article. This extensive article discusses many different aspects of the Daesh propaganda machine. It also discusses the …
Why the War Party Loves to Call Foreign Leaders Insane
Mises Institute Daily Articles / Ryan McMaken
When the US government decides it doesn’t like a foreign regime, it’s become something of a tradition for US politicians — with the help of a compliant media — to portray those leaders as irrational, unhinged, or even downright insane.
This was true of Saddam Hussein, and it was true of Slobodan Milosevic. In both cases, a foreign head of state was condemned as irrational in order to help justify US invasions and bombings of foreign nations that were no threat to the United States.
The US narrative usually goes something like this — as described by Ronnie Lipschutz:
Why would so-called rogues — and these are the only countries that, according to Washington, threaten US forces, allies, or interests — choose to [threaten the US]? No rational reason can be given, and so irrational ones are offered instead. They hate us, but for no reason since we have no designs on them. They desire vengeance, but for no reason since we have never offended them. They wish to injure us, for for no reason, since they have only been injured through their interference with our pusuit of order.
This narrative helps to reinforce the credulous American public’s naive acceptance of the idea that the US government is an untrammeled force for good in the international sphere, and that any opposition to the US must be based on irrational, evil motives.1 If any other head of state is angry with the United States, it’s simply because he absurdly desires world conquest, or to massacre innocents. Or he may even be insane.
Why We Must Claim They’re Crazy
But there’s an even more important motivation behind portraying “rogue” nations as being run by crazy people. It allows advocates for war to claim that deterrence via America’s huge nuclear and conventional arsenals will not work — and thus these leaders present a grave threat to the American public. Lipschutz notes: “if insanity or irrationality are to blame for wars, deterrence cannot work to prevent them.”
A rational head of state, of course, would understand that any existential threat to the US could mean total nuclear annihilation for the offender. On the other hand, if the head of state is just insane, then all bets are off.
It is not surprising, then, that this narrative is being trotted out yet again in the case of North Korea.
Nuclear deterrence may have worked against Joseph Stalin — who apparently was a super-reasonable and level-headed guy — but Kim Jong-un is just crazy.
Naturally, ultra-hawk John McCain has been at the forefront of this rhetorical effort, calling Kim Jong-un a “crazy fat kid.” Later, McCain’s daughter got in on the act, calling Kim a “total absolute maniac.”
These attempts at portraying Kim as immune to deterrence are so common, in fact, that Isaac Fish from Foreign Policy magazine has declared “there is widespread belief in the US that North Korea is so hard to deal with because Kim is insane.” Fish, on the other hand, concludes Kim has understandable motives just like most everyone else.
Certainly, in social media, it’s not uncommon to encounter pro-war commenters who insist — without proffering any evidence — that Kim is simply impervious to nuclear deterrence, and thus must be killed (along with millions of other North Koreans) in a pre-emptive nuclear holocaust.
Kim is Sane — and Predictable
Those who have actually bothered to study Kim and his regime, however, often take a rather more moderate position.
Charles Peña begins with the obvious question and provides the obvious answer: “But isn’t Kim Jong-un an unpredictable—even crazy—leader who can’t be deterred? The same was said of Stalin and Mao in their time, yet both those leaders were deterred. Moreover, Kim Jong-un would have to be suicidal to launch a nuclear weapon against the United States since the United States has the ability to retaliate with utter devastation.”
David C. Kang also concludes: “Kim Jong-un may be many things, but he is not suicidal. Deterrence will continue to work.”
Contrary to the idea that Kim and the North Koreans are crazed loose cannons, the North Koreans behave exactly as any other regime bent on maintaining its regime. Far from seeking to die in a blaze of glory, Kim wants to go on living as a dictator indefinitely.
As Peña notes, Kim wants “to secure his own survival and that of his regime, much like his father and his father’s father before him. That would certainly explain the executions and assassinations of those who might usurp him, which include family members.”
The regime wants to survive — and not be a victim of “regime change” which is exactly why, as Kang writes, “North Korea isn’t unpredictable; rather, it is the most predictable country on earth.”
Even Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — perhaps the most reasonable person on Trump’s foreign policy team — admits “He may be ruthless. He may be a murderer. He may be someone who in many respects we would say by our standards is irrational. But he is not insane.”
It’s Rational to Want Nuclear Weapons
But why would the regime want nuclear weapons if not to use them? Kim wants nukes as protection against “regime change” imposed by the US, since, as Pena notes, “Having nuclear weapons would seem to be an effective deterrent against regime change. After all, other dictatorial leaders who gave up their weapons programs—such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi—paid a high price for those decisions.”
Jacob Hornberger has explained how Fidel Castro was one of the first to figure out the need for nuclear weapons as protection against American-sponsored regime change: “[Cuba’s success in the Cuban Missile Crisis] showed that if an independent, recalcitrant Third World regime wants to protect itself from a US national-security-state regime-change operation, the best thing it can do is secure nuclear weapons.”
Thus, North Korea’s behavior in this regard has been utterly predictable, rational, and what we would expect from a head of state in his position.
Kim understands nuclear deterrence perfectly well. He knows that it is the only thing that works against the US’s plans for yet another regime change operation.
However, in order to justify a first-strike nuclear war or a pre-emptive war against the North Koreans, the John McCains of the world must convince the world that Kim is simply insane and is not subject to deterrence.
North Korea Is Not Unique
This “he’s crazy!” strategy is then mixed with endless ominous news reports about what new missile Kim’s regime is testing this week, and just how many nuclear warheads he may or may not have. Indeed, the evidence is rather spotty in this regard. For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume that the regime has nuclear warheads, and it has the ability to deliver them to the North American mainland.
Okay, well, then it’s a good thing nuclear deterrence works. After all, we know for sure that the Chinese regime has many nukes, and the ability to deliver them. In fact, the Chinese have had nuclear capability for decades, and will continue to have it.
While Russia and the US both have more than 7,000 warheads and enough nuclear firepower to destroy the planet many times over, the French have 300 warheads, and China has 260 warheads.
Why the Silence about Chinese Nuclear Capabilities?
Moreover, it was just last month that China rolled out new ICBMs, including the DF-31AG, which puts most of the North American mainland within reach — and undoubtedly with far greater precision and reliability than anything the North Koreans have. And yet, all we heard about in the news was about North Korea’s low-rent, often-failing missile system.
So, the Chinese can almost certainly deliver multiple nuclear warheads to North America. So why aren’t we talking about a pre-emptive strike on Beijing? Why not strike now before the Chinese strike us? Is it just because the Chinese leadership — a faceless entity headed by people whom virtually no American can name — is so eminently sane? The Chinese heads of state are almost certainly sane, but unlike the North Koreans — and like the Americans — they seek expansion. This can be seen in the continued shows of strength by the Chinese state in the South China Sea and elsewhere. So why not talk about a war to stop this quest for global dominance?2
In all likelihood, few talk about pre-emptive war on China precisely because it is known that a war against China would be an unmitigated global disaster. North Korea is small enough that the US military establishment can still flatter itself with the idea that it can pull off yet another regime change without having to face a real nuclear arsenal such as that held by China. Sure, Seoul might be totally destroyed, but that is a price the Pentagon is willing to pay.
Indeed, the vast nuclear capability of the Chinese, not to mention Pakistan’s growing ICBM capability, illustrates the absurdity of the claim that any country that has nuclear weapons is about to use them on the US, and thus requires a pre-emptive war.
Yes, North Korea is currently involved in efforts to expand its ICBM capability. But we’re only hearing about it because China, Russia, and others already have the capability. They don’t have to fire test missiles into the ocean. They can already nuke North America, and everyone who’s paying attention knows it. We’ve already been down this road with the the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis, and others.
What to Do
So what is a reasonable response to nuclear proliferation? President Dwight Eisenhower can offer some useful insights here.
The Soviet Union conducted its first successful nuclear tests in 1949. By the early 1950s, the Soviets were testing air-dropped bombs — which made sense for a country with a sizable air force. By 1956, the Soviets were testing medium-range ballistic missiles.
What did Eisenhower do? Did he threaten a pre-emptive war with the Soviets? Did he massively increase military spending?
Source: “US Military Spending in the Cold War Era” by Robert Higgs
No. In fact, during the early fifties, Eisenhower cut military spending, and by the end of Eisenhower’s term, military spending had still not matched the levels built up by Harry Truman during the Korean war. This all occurred while the Soviets expanded their nuclear capability.
Naturally, if Eisenhower were president today, he’d be denounced by neoconservatives as a Russian tool and a traitor for both his military budget-cutting and his reliance on nuclear deterrence. Fortunately for Eisenhower, however, Lindsay Graham and John McCain were not yet in the Senate.
The larger point, of course, is that Eisenhower understood that nuclear deterrence works, and that, while it is an unfortunate option in a nuclear-armed world where much is beyond the control of the US military — it is the most reasonable and low-risk option.
Unfortunately, the current US regime is practicing what looks like the opposite approach.
With his constant “tough talk” about invading or attacking North Korea, Trump and his aides are courting the type of situation that leads to actual nuclear war. After all, for very bad things to happen, North Korea has to only believe that the country is about to be invaded and the regime annihilated. Constant threats of invasion are just the sort of things that lead to misunderstandings, human error, miscalculation, and disastrous wars.
Moreover, its unclear that Trump is taking seriously the possibility that China could act to defend the North Korean regime from destruction. As John Mearshimer recently noted, the Chinese regime views North Korea as an essential buffer state against Western encirclement. The Chinese regime is unlikely to sit around and do nothing while the US adds North Korea to its list of Asian client states.
On the other hand, why talk about any of this when it all can be be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and one need only declare “they’re crazy!” In that case, the possibility of World War III with China and others need not even be weighed. If Kim is “crazy” then prudence dictates we must “do something” before his suicidal insanity takes over and he nukes San Francisco.
The “he’s crazy!” claim thus acts as a magical talisman of warhawks who can denounce all caution and strategic concern that speaks against “taking out” the bad guy who will bomb us any second.
It’s easy to see why John McCain is so fond of the tactic.
- 1. This devotion to the idea of American innocence in a dangerous world is so common, that it is the central point of discussion in Reinhold Niebuhr’s seminal book on foreign policy The Irony of American History. Americans, Niebuhr writes, cling to the idea that human imperfection — an idea captured in the now passe idea of “original sin” — is reserved only for foreigners and other misfits. Americans, on the other hand, are moving ever upward toward worldy perfection.
- 2. Contrary to US talking points, of course, the Chinese are no where near seeking global dominance. They are seeking regional hegemony and continued growth in strategic buffers against American aggression.
Original Article: https://mises.org/blog/why-war-party-loves-call-foreign-leaders-insane
Losing in Syria, the US Will Target Russia More Than Ever – Finian Cunningham
Russia Insider Daily Headlines
The spectacular victory this week for Syrian state forces and allies liberating Deir ez-Zor portends an end to the war. But celebrations should be tempered by the realization that the enemies of Syria will shift their agenda for conflict elsewhere.
If we segregate the many protagonists in Syria’s conflict, the two main rivals to emerge from the melee are the United States and Russia. Russia may have gained the upper hand in Syria. But, ironically, winning the peace in Syria may unleash wars elsewhere.
Systematic Misinformation on Syria. The United Nations AbuZayd-Pinheiro Committee
globalresearch / Prof. Tim Anderson
Featured image: Karen Koning Abuzayd on the left and Sergio Paulo Pinheiro on the right. (Source: UN Geneva/ flickr)
In mid 2012, as foreign jihadists poured into Syria, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon authorised replacement of the Special …
Laughing on the Way to Armageddon. “Russian Influence”, Not a Scrap of Evidence
globalresearch / Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
The United States shows the world such a ridiculous face that the world laughs at us.
The latest spin on “Russia stole the election” is that Russia used Facebook to influence the election. The NPR women yesterday were breathless about …
Sefton Delmer – Allies Lied about German Atrocities
(“I gazed into the mirror… There, staring at me, was the pallid, flabby-mouthed face of a crook” Sefton Delmer, Black Boomerang, p. 218)
Wartime British black propaganda chief Sefton Delmer (1904-1979) told a new recruit: “We are waging against Hitler a kind of total war of wits. Anything goes, so long as it serves to bring nearer the end of the war and Hitler’s defeat. We are up to all the dirty tricks we can devise. No holes are barred. The dirtier the better. Lies treachery, everything.” (Black Boomerang, p. 181)
Sefton Delmer was in charge of a unit that impersonated Nazi radio stations broadcasting demoralizing information to the German people. He had permission to invent atrocities, yet he didn’t mention the Jewish holocaust. Why not?
Sefton Delmer was among the men “who were given the opportunity in 1945 of making changes in Germany” What these intended changes looked like, the German constitutional lawyer Prof. Friedrich Grimm depicts in his book ‘Political Justice’ (pp. 146-148):
In May 1945, a few days after the collapse, I had a notable talk with an important representative of the opposite side. He introduced himself as a university professor of his country, who wanted to converse with me on the historical basis of the war. Suddenly he dropped the subject, pointed to the leaflets lying on the table in front of me, we were flooded with during the first days after surrender, mainly circling around the concentration camp-horrors. “What do you say about it?” so he asked me.
(left, Friedrich Grimm)
“Oradour and Buchenwald? With me you force an open door. I am a lawyer and condemn the wrong wherever I meet with it, more than all, when it happens on our side. I know, however, to make a distinction between the facts and the political use one makes of it. I know the meaning of atrocity propaganda. After World War I, I have read all publications by your experts on this subject, the writings of the Northcliff Bureau, the book of the French minister of the finances Klotz ‘From War to Peace’ (Paris, 1923), depicting how the story of the chopped-off children’s hands was cooked up and what profit one got out of it, the enlightenment writings of the journal Crapouillot comparing the atrocity propaganda of 1870 with that of 1914-1918, and finally the classic by Ponsonby: ‘The Lie in War’ [Falsehood in Wartime], revealing that one had in the preceding war already magazines showing artificial corpse mountains by photomontage composed of dummies. These pictures were distributed, with a space left for caption. It was given out by telephone later on according to the needs from the propaganda centre.”
Thereby I pulled out one of the leaflets exhibiting allegedly mountains of dead bodies out of the concentration camps, and showed it to my visitor, who looked at me taken aback.
“I can not imagine that in this war with all weapons perfected to such an extent, this mentally toxic weapon should have been neglected that decided the outcome of World War I. More so, I know it for sure! The last months before the collapse I read daily the foreign press. There was reported on German atrocities from a central office, operating in a certain turn. There was one occupied territory after the other called to mind, today France, tomorrow Norway, then Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Greece, Jugoslavia and Czecho-Slovakia.
“First were reported hundreds of corpses in the concentration camps, then six weeks later when it was the turn of this same country again, thousands, then ten thousands, then hundred thousands. Here I thought to myself: this number inflation can not possibly skyrocket into the million!”
Now I reached for another leaflet: “Here you have the million!” There my visitor blurted out: “I see, I have run into an expert. Now I also want to tell you, who I am. I am not a university professor. I am of the central office you talked about: Atrocity propaganda – and with it we won the total victory.”
I replied: “I know, and now you must stop it!”
He retorted: “No, now we shall start all the more! We shall continue this atrocity propaganda, we shall intensify it, until nobody shall accept a good word from the Germans anymore, until all the sympathy you had in other countries shall be destroyed, and until the Germans themselves shall be so confused that they do not know anymore what they are doing!”
I terminated the conversation: “Then you shall burden yourself with a great responsibility!”
What this man had threatened us with, came true. The worst, however, was the confusion caused among the Germans themselves.
Prof. Dr. Friedrich Grimm did not know the true identity of his interlocutor: It was Sefton Delmer!