Philip Giraldi: All American Lie Factory

Source: https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-all-american-lie-factory/

[This article is derived from a speech I made at the July 23rd Peace and Freedom Rally in Kingston New York]

There are some things that I believe to be true about the anarchy that purports to be US foreign policy. First, and most important, I do not believe that any voter cast a ballot for Joe Biden because he or she wanted him to relentlessly pursue a needless conflict with Russia that could easily escalate into a nuclear war with unimaginable consequences for all parties. Biden has recently declared that the US will support Ukraine “until we win” and, as there are already tens of billions of dollars of weapons going to Ukraine plus American “advisers” on the ground, it constitutes a scenario in which American and Russian soldiers will soon likely be shooting at each other. The President of Serbia and columnists like Pat Buchanan and Tulsi Gabbard believe that we are already de facto in World War 3 and one has to wonder how the White House is getting away with ignoring the War Powers mandates in the US Constitution.

Second, I believe that the Russians approached the United States and its allies with some quite reasonable requests regarding their own national security given that a hostile military alliance was about to land on its doorsteps. The issues at stake were fully negotiable but the US refused to budge on anything and Russia felt compelled to take military action. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a good war. I categorically reject anyone invading anyone else unless there is a dire and immediate threat, but the onus on how the Ukraine situation developed the way it did is on Washington.

Third, I believe that the US and British governments in particularly have been relentlessly lying to the people and that the media in most of west is party to the dissemination of the lies to sustain the war effort against Russia in Ukraine. The lies include both the genesis and progress of the war and there has also been a sustained effort to demonize President Vladimir Putin and anything Russian, including food, drinks, the Russian language and culture and even professional athletes. The latest victim is a Tchaikovsky symphony banned in Canada. Putin is being personally blamed for inflation, food shortages and energy problems which more properly are the fault of the Washington-led ill-thought-out reaction to him. There is considerable irony in the fact that Biden is giving Ukraine $1.7 billion for healthcare, while healthcare in the US is generally considered among the poorest in the developed world.

I believe that Russia is winning the war comfortably and Ukraine will be forced to give up territory while the American taxpayer gets the bill for the reckless spending policies, currently totaling more than $60 billion, while also looking forward to runaway inflation, energy shortages, and, in a worst-case scenario, a possible collapse of the dollar.

All of the above and the politics behind it has led me to believe that the United States, assisted by some of its allies, has become addicted to war as an excuse for domestic failures as well as a replacement for diplomacy to settle international disputes. The White House hypocritically describes its role as “global leadership” or maintaining a “rules based international order” or even defending “democracy against authoritarianism.” But at the same time the Biden Administration has just completed a fiasco evacuation that ended a twenty-year occupation of Afghanistan. Not having learned anything from Afghanistan, there are now US troops illegally present in Syria and Iraq and Washington is conniving to attack Iran over false claims made by Israel that the Iranians are developing a nuclear weapon. Neither Syria nor Iraq nor Iran in any way threaten the United States, just as the Russians did not threaten Americans prior to a regime change intervention in Ukraine starting in 2014, when the US arranged the overthrow of a government that was friendly to Moscow. The US has also begun to energize NATO to start looking at steps to take to confront the alleged Chinese threat.

The toll coming from constant warfare and fearmongering has also enabled a steady erosion of the liberties that Americans once enjoyed, including free speech and freedom to associate. I would like to discuss what the ordinary concerned citizen can do to cut through all the lies surrounding what is currently taking place, which might well be described as the most aggressive propaganda campaign the world has ever seen, far more extensive than the lying and dissimulation by the White House and Pentagon officials that preceded the disastrous Iraq war. It is an information plus propaganda war that sustains the actual fighting on the ground, and it is in some senses far more dangerous as it seeks to involve more countries in the carnage while also creating a global threat perception that will be used to justify further military interventions.

Part of the problem is that the US government is awash with bad information that it does not know how to manage so it makes it hard to identify anything that might actually be true. Back in my time as an intelligence officer operating overseas, there were a number of short cuts that were used to categorize and evaluate information. For example, if one were hanging out in a local bar and overheard two apparent government officials discussing something of interest that might be happening in the next week, one might report it to Washington with a source description FNU/LNU, which stood for “first name unknown” and “last name unknown.” In other words, it was unverifiable hearsay coming from two individuals who could not be identified. As such it was pretty much worthless, but it clogged up the system and invited speculation.

My personal favorite, however, was the more precise source descriptions developed by military intelligence using an alphabet letter followed by a number in a sequence running from A-1 to F-6. At the top of an intelligence report there would be an assessment of the source, or agent. A-1 meant a piece of information that was both credible and had been confirmed by other sources and that was also produced by an agent that had actual access to the information in question. At the other end of the scale, an F-6 was information that was dubious produced by a source that appeared to have no actual access to the information.

By that standard, we Americans have been fed a lot of largely fabricated F-6 “fake information” coming from both the government and the media to justify the Ukraine disaster. Here is how you can spot it. If it is a newspaper or magazine article skim all the way down the text until you reach a point towards the end where the sourcing of the information is generally hidden. If it is attributed to a named individual who indeed indisputably had direct access to the information it would at least suggest that the reporting contains a kernel of truth. But that is almost never the case, and one normally sees the source described as an “anonymous source” or a “government official” or even, in many cases, there is no source attribution at all. That generally means that the information conveyed in the reporting is completely unreliable and should be considered the product of a fabricator or a government and media propaganda mill. When a story is written by a journalist who claims to be on the scene it is also important to check out whether he or she is actually on site or working from a pool operating safely in Poland to produce the reporting. Yahoo News takes the prize in spreading propaganda as it currently reproduces press releases originating with the Ukrainian government and posts them as if they are unbiased reporting on what is taking place on the ground.

Another trick to making fake news look real is to route it through a third country. When I was in Turkey we in CIA never placed a story in the media there directly. Instead, a journalist on our payroll in France would do the story and the Turkish media would pick it up, believing that because it had appeared in Paris it must be true even though it was not. Currently, I have noted that a lot of apparently MI-6 produced fake stories on Ukraine have been appearing in the British media, most notably the Telegraph and Guardian. They are then replayed in the US media and elsewhere to validate stories that are essentially fabricated.

Television and radio media is even worse than print media as it almost never identifies the sources for the stories that it carries. So my advice is to be skeptical of what you read or hear regarding wars and rumors of wars. The war party is bipartisan in the United States and it is just itching to seize the opportunity to get a new venture going, and they are oblivious to the fact that they might in the process be about to destroy the world as we know it. We must expose their lies and unite and fight to make sure that they can’t get away with it!

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

Ordo ab Chao: Paleoconservatives

Paleoconservatives are most distinctive in their emphatic opposition to open immigration by non-Europeans, and their general disapproval of U.S. intervention overseas. The prefix “paleo” derives from the Greek root “palaeo” meaning “ancient” or “old,” and refers to the paleoconservatives’ claim to represent a revival of the Old Right, in contradistinction to neoconservatism. The term “paleoconservative” was coined in 1986 by Jewish academic Paul Gottfried, who served as an adviser to Buchanan’s campaign. With Buchanan being a Knight of Malta, Gottfried once noted an “occasional paleo association with over-the-top Catholicism.” In fact, counter-revolutionary, Roman Catholic European precursors to the Catholic paleoconservatives include Joseph de Maistre and Charles Maurras of Action française. Some modern European right-wing intellectuals, such as Alain de Benoist of the Nouvelle Droite, are also esteemed by many paleoconservatives.

A professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, Gottfried is the author of numerous books and articles detailing the influences which various German thinkers, such as Hegel and Schelling, have exerted on American conservative political theory, and was a friend of many political and intellectual figures, such as Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan, Samuel T. Francis and Murray Rothbard. Gottfried attended Yeshiva University in New York as an undergraduate and then attended Yale, where he studied under Herbert Marcuse. Gottfried devoted a chapter of his memoir to Marcuse, under whom he was a “rapt, indulgent disciple.” In later years, one reviewer called Gottfried a “right-wing proponent of the Frankfurt school.”

Gottfried became involved with the New Left journal Telos, established in 1968. Telos began introducing the ideas of Western Marxism and of the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. However, with the disintegration of the New Left, Telos flip-flopped to the other end of the ideological spectrum. Largely under Gottfried’s influence, Telos began focusing on the ideas of Carl Schmitt and Alain de Benoist. Telos’ editor-in-chief is Russell Berman, an American professor of German Studies and Comparative Literature, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Founded in 1919 by Republican Herbert Hoover, the institution has been a place of scholarship for individuals who previously held high-profile positions in government, such as George Shultz, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Boskin, Edward Lazear, John B. Taylor, Edwin Meese, and Amy Zegart.

Gottfried complained regularly in his writing about “ill-mannered, touchy Jews and their groveling or adulatory Christian assistants”—his phrase for neocons who he claimed had hijacked the Republican Party and American policy. He opposes both the Civil Rights Act and white nationalism. “If someone were to ask me what distinguishes the right from the left,” Gottfried wrote in 2008, “the difference that comes to mind most readily centers on equality. The left favors that principle, while the right regards it as an unhealthy obsession.” According to Gottfried in The Conservative Movement: “[The paleoconservatives] raise issues that the neoconservatives and the left would both seek to keep closed… about the desirability of political and social equality, the functionality of human-rights thinking, and the genetic basis of intelligence… like Nietzsche, they go after democratic idols, driven by disdain for what they believe dehumanizes.”

Gottfried worked closely with Samuel T. Francis, a non-Catholic paleoconservative and friend of Pat Buchanan. In 1986, Francis joined the editorial staff of The Washington Times as an editorial writer, and was editor of the Citizens Informer quarterly newsletter, as well as an editor of The Occidental Quarterly, a white nationalist and self-described “pro-Western” publication sponsored by William Regnery II. According to Gottfried, Francis had an encyclopedic knowledge of the literature of H.P. Lovecraft.

Francis and Gottfried were both influenced by James Burnham’s seminal work, The Managerial Revolution, in which he suggested that a new form of society was emerging to replace capitalism, composed of a ruling class of “managers.” Michael Shelden, author of Orwell: The Authorized Biography, saw Burnham’s work as having an influence on Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. For Francis and Gottfried, the managerial state is an ongoing regime that remains in power, regardless of what political party holds a majority. According to Gottfried, when the managerial regime cannot get democratic support for its policies, it resorts to sanctimony and social engineering, including mass welfarism, positive rights, laws punishing racism, sexism and homophobia, and centralized control of public education.

In part based on Burnham’s idea of the “managerial revolution,” Francis developed a theory for a new populist movement based on the idea of “Middle American Radicals” who could provide a social base for resistance. According to Francis, “If we could somehow take out the ideology, change the minds of those who control the state, and convert them into paleo-conservatives, the state apparatus itself would be neutral.” In Francis’ opinion, the Republicans have failed to tap into the sentiments of “Middle Americans” because of their focus on free-enterprise economics and support for globalist policies. He believed that while Buchanan may not have won the presidential campaigns in either 1992 or 1995, his relative success marked a victory in mobilizing forces that would only continue to build over time:

‘The importance of the Buchanan campaign lies not in its capacity to win the nomination or the national election but in its organization of those forces into a coherent political coalition. That coalition includes the remnants of the “Old Right,” as well as various single-issue constituencies (pro-lifers, anti-immigration activists, protectionists) to which Buchanan is one of the few voices to speak.”

For the most part, Francis explained, conventional conservative causes such as small government, low taxes, strong national defense and economic growth are “bourgeois” issues that belong to a different era. However, according to Francis, former Klansman David Duke’s defeat in the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1991 marked a “turning point” in American history. After leaving the Klan, Duke formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), which he claimed was a civil rights organization designed to protect the identity and interests of Caucasian Americans. A former one-term Republican Louisiana State Representative, he was a candidate in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1988 and the Republican presidential primaries in 1992. Duke’s chief accomplishment was to rebrand white supremacism and present a more polished image. “In Duke’s hands, racism takes on a people-loving, positive spin,” observed Village Voice correspondent Leslie Savan. “There’s nothing wrong with black people being proud of their heritage and their race,” Duke insisted, “There’s nothing wrong with white people being proud of theirs.”

In Francis’ opinion, Duke managed to “redefine the ideological pivots around which American politics revolve” by demonstrating the real issues were racial. But Duke’s surprising popularity was due to his rebranding of racist ideas in a less objectionable form, by opposing quotas for affirmative action, multiculturalism, civil rights legislation and unrestricted immigration. The underlying message that resonated with voters, according to Francis, is that “the historic racial and cultural core of American civilization is under attack.” Francis therefore defined “authentic” conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.”

From the book, Ordo ab Chao, Volume Six, Culture Wars

Nationalism to Confront Globalism in Glasgow • Patrick Buchanan

Source: Nationalism to Confront Globalism in Glasgow

“Extraordinary, isn’t it? I’ve been hearing all about COP,” said the queen to the duchess of Cornwall. “Still don’t know who is coming. … We only know about people who are not coming. … It’s really irritating when they talk but they don’t do.”

Queen Elizabeth II was expressing her exasperation at the possible number of no-shows at the U.K.’s coming climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland.

Among the absentees may be Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose country generates more carbon dioxide than the U.S. and EU combined.

Behind the queen’s exasperation, however, lies a political reality.

Nations like China are discovering that meeting goals for cutting carbon emissions can stall economic growth to where the regime itself is at peril.

Forced to choose between what is best for the country now and what is better for mankind in some indeterminate future, leaders are putting the needs of the nation today over the call of the world of tomorrow.

As the countdown to Glasgow proceeds, China’s energy situation is described by The New York Times:

“China’s electricity shortage is rippling across factories and industries, testing the nation’s status as the world’s capital for reliable manufacturing. The shortage prompted the authorities to announce on Wednesday a national rush to mine and burn more coal, despite their previous pledges to curb emissions that cause climate change.

“Mines that were closed without authorization have been ordered to reopen. Coal mines and coal-fired power plants that were shut for repairs are also to be reopened. Tax incentives are being drafted for coal-fired power plants. … Local governments have been warned to be more cautious about limits on energy use that had been imposed partly in response to climate change concerns.”

Earlier this year, Beijing had pledged to stop building coal-fired power plants outside China. But at home, Beijing is going all-out to mine and burn coal to keep the world’s greatest manufacturing plant producing and the world’s largest labor force employed.

Forced to choose between fighting climate change and preventing a possible recession or depression, Xi is unapologetically putting China first.

Nor is China the only Asian economic power grappling with an energy shortage. India, the world’s third-largest producer of carbon emissions after China and the U.S., is facing a potential power crisis.

Coal accounts for 70% of India’s electricity generation. Yet, 4 in 5 of its 135 coal-fired power plants have critically low levels of coal inventory. With its economy picking up, New Delhi is going to be in the market for more coal to burn. Lectures about carbon emissions are likely to go unheeded.

In Europe, wholesale electricity prices have increased 200% since 2019, a result of surging natural gas costs driven by high demand in Asia and lower-than-expected deliveries from Russia.

Most EU countries rely on gas-fired power stations to meet electricity demand. Some 40% of that gas comes from Russia. With completion of the Nord Stream II pipeline, German and EU dependence on Russian gas is going to rise.

Is Russia, rich in fossil fuels that are still in demand, and the world’s fourth-largest producer of carbon dioxide, likely to placidly accept watching its customers move away from Russian coal, oil and gas to solar and wind?

On Friday, U.S. oil prices hit a seven-year high amid a surge in global demand and a supply crunch induced by OPEC. West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. oil benchmark, climbed to $82 a barrel. Gas prices followed.

Oil is at its highest price since OPEC launched its price war against U.S. shale producers. In November 2014, OPEC stunned world oil markets by refusing to curb production amid soaring shale output.

Crude prices went into free-fall as OPEC sought to drive the higher-cost U.S. producers out of the market.

Such economic nationalism raises a relevant question:

Why would OPEC nations that depend on oil exports for much of their national income champion a worldwide abandonment of the fossil fuel sales upon which their regimes’ survival depends?

In brief, world demand for coal, oil and natural gas is surging, as are prices, just as the climate conference, whose goal is to reduce and eventually eliminate the burning of coal, oil and gas, is about to meet in Glasgow.

Will nations such as China, India and Russia be willing to forgo the coal, oil and gas upon which 80% of the world’s power plants currently depend, to be replaced by windmills and solar panels?

At the insistence of Sen. Joe Manchin, the heart of President Joe Biden’s climate agenda — a program to replace U.S. coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind, solar and nuclear energy by steadily increasing taxes on the former and subsidies for the latter — will apparently be dropped from the $3.5 trillion budget bill.

Prediction: In the long run, nationalists fighting to meet near-term needs of their constituents and countries are likely to prevail over the globalists who profess to be serving all of mankind.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”