Skip to content

Category: History

Mainstream News Media Do Not Seem to Support a Free Press

I am hoping that the more the new attorney general and the DOJ, and Senate Republicans, investigate the corrupt government parasites who attempted to falsely accuse Donald Trump of “collusions with Russians” and “meddling in the 2016 election,” the more the American people might then actually discover the truth about it. (But I am not holding my breath.)

Alas, many Americans believe myths and falsehoods about America and our elections, as well as other important matters, mainly based on false narratives that have been handed down through generations and promoted by what we know as the “mainstream media.”

For example, Americans believe they are living in a free country, but in reality they are not. Or, at least it isn’t as free as it once was in many ways. Jacob Hornberger has a recent post on America’s life of the lie.

For instance, the way I see it, many people believe that we have freedom of movement in America. But no, we don’t. Do you have the freedom to come and go as you please without having to report to a government bureaucrat or an armed goon at the border? Nope. You see, that would be freedom. But we live in a police state, and a police state is NOT freedom.

And real freedom would include the freedom to keep whatever you earn or honestly acquire, and do with it whatever you want, as Hornberger pointed out. And not have to report anything to the gubmint, your earnings, your charitable donations, your purchases, your property ownership, your business contracts or dealings, etc., because it’s none of the government’s damn business. If it’s none of the neighbor’s business then it’s none of the government’s business, I like to say.

Unfortunately, it seems that most Americans who believe they live in a free country suffer from “Stockholm Syndrome,” and they 100% support and defend their Rulers’ violations of their own rights, their freedom, their property, and their dignity.

But I also wanted to mention that we do not really have a “Free Press” in America. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out, most of the news media and punditry have still been hysterically going with the same “Trump-Russia collusions” since the Mueller Report has been released, even though Robert Mueller concluded that there is no evidence to support such a conspiracy theory, which is exactly what all that has been.

The hysteria is wide-spread, coming from news media people, some of whom actually know the truth but are mere propagandists for the Obama CIA, FBI and DOJ who criminally attempted to prevent a Trump presidency and to sabotage it now that Trump is President — but the hysteria is mostly coming from gullible, ignorant members of mainstream media who just don’t know any better.

But most Americans believe the false narrative and propaganda coming from the national security state and its news media flunkies, so, this case is another example of living the life of the lie, as Jacob Hornberger puts it.

I think that if we really lived in a genuinely free society that the government wouldn’t have the control that it has over the news media, the “Press.” The control that the national security state in Washington has over the mainstream (sic) media is perhaps more implicit and informal than if it were actually enshrined into law. Everything from the Washington Post and New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, have their “unnamed sources,” “anonymous government sources,” “people familiar with the matter,” and so on, many sources of which are government bureaucrats who have an agenda, that of maintaining the status quo (their power grabs) or increasing and strengthening the powers of the State.

However, besides these mainstream media government flunkies, we now have alternative media, such as what we can get on the Internet, and many independent investigative journalists.

In the old days, we had only ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times and Washington Post, and our local TV/radio stations and newspapers, most of whom got their “news” from the gubmint. But there was not really much of an alternative.

The official narrative was what people believed. But now, while most people believe the official narrative, at least now more and more people are getting the truth that they weren’t getting from mainstream government news.

So without the Internet, in the old days people didn’t really have any alternative, so all they heard was official narrative. For example, I always thought that Richard Nixon did himself in by attempting to cover up the Watergate burglary. And that he was helped to be taken down by the “liberal media.” But the more I learned, I see that it was probably the national security state that was behind the whole thing. The actual Watergate burglars and co-conspirators included CIA guy E. Howard Hunt, after all. (Why would a professional CIA spook get involved with some low-level election campaign operation?) And Bob Woodward was allegedly a CIA asset, who was allegedly participating in taking down Nixon allegedly on behalf of the national security state.

And why would the national security state want to take down Nixon? Well, it certainly wasn’t because he was a warmonger and “We’re all Keynesians now,” because the statists love that stuff.

Nixon began his détente meetings with China in February 1972 and with the Soviets in May that year. At the end of the day, the national security state does not want to thaw the Cold War, as we have seen in its apparatchiks going after Donald Trump, who has clearly not been loyal to their Cold War 2.0 agenda.

You see, the national security state thrives on wars, cold and hot, and on terrorism and fears of terrorism, to justify its existence. John F. Kennedy was attempting to thaw the Cold War already in the early 1960s, and look what happened.

So the national security parasites had to take down Nixon to do with their loyalty to their cult and the power trips their beloved State gives them.

Now, why do most Americans believe the official narratives imposed by government? Because the official narratives (such as “lone nut shooter” or “Trump-Russia collusions”) are continuously carried forward by the mainstream news media.

And why is this? Because many graduates from America’s journalism schools are products of government schools, and so they don’t know any better. Just like most Americans, they too were raised to recite the Pledge of Obedience to the flag, to sing the National Anthem, to believe in America’s religion of “American Exceptionalism.”

And worse than today’s graduates of America’s journalism schools are the political operatives and campaign strategists who then became news anchors, news program hosts, reporters, and so on. I could name them here, but you probably know who many of them are. How could you not know who many of them are, when many of today’s news anchors, news program hosts, and reporters started out as political operatives and campaign strategists, or worse, government bureaucrats. It’s a sick revolving door.

So, many Americans who depend on the mainstream news outlets for “information” think they live in a free society, but they are getting propaganda and believing it, hook, line and sinker, and thus accepting one intrusion after another into their private lives or restrictions on their liberty, in the name of “national security.”

Medicare and Medicaid: The Root Cause of America’s Healthcare Crisis

Now, many people really believe that government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, were necessary to be imposed on the people to help the people. Many people are indoctrinated to believe that after many years of government-controlled schooling. Those programs are a given, a normal part of everyday life, they have been made to believe.

However, Jacob Hornberger discusses why those programs are the root cause of today’s healthcare crisis. Those are socialist programs, which involve redistribution of wealth to fund them, and government central planning to administer them.

It was a new system of government central planning imposed by political operatives and bureaucrats to replace the old system of freedom and free markets.

Hornberger describes how things used to be in America with healthcare:

The United States once had the finest healthcare system in the world. It was one based on no government involvement in healthcare. It was a free-market healthcare system. Advances in healthcare were occurring at a phenomenal rate. Doctors absolutely loved what they did in life. Healthcare services were reasonably priced.

In fact, hardly anyone had major medical insurance. That’s because healthcare costs were considered just an ordinary part of life, sort of like periodic car repairs. The price of healthcare stayed within reasonable boundaries.

The poor had no problems receiving treatment by both physicians and hospitals. I grew up in Laredo, Texas, which the Census Bureau said was the poorest city in the United States. Every day the doctors’ offices were filled with patients, some from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, which was on the other side of the Rio Grande. The doctors knew that many of them could not pay for the treatment. It didn’t matter. I never heard of a case where doctors turned away anyone for inability to pay. And Laredo doctors were among the richest people in turn, second only to the oil families. They didn’t begrudge giving people free healthcare, especially since they were making so much money from everyone who could pay.

That’s the way things should be: a way of life in which healthcare is based on the free market and where charity is voluntary, not mandated through the force of the IRS or any welfare-state bureaucracy. A free-market healthcare system is precisely why the United States once had the finest healthcare system in the world.

Everything began going south with the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s…

And, as Hornberger points out, one socialist intervention after another has been imposed to try to fix the terrible effects of the previous socialist interventions, including ObamaCare, and on and on. Now the socialists want “Medicare for All,” i.e. Soviet-style top-down authoritarian-imposed medicine.

By the way, speaking of Soviet “Medicare for All,” Anna Ebeling, who was born and raised in the Soviet Union, wrote an article on how the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the medical care system of Old Russia in the name of utopia, just like today’s “Democrats” want to do. And look what they did! And former Gorbachev-era Soviet economist and then dissident and defector Yuri Maltsev also tells us what Soviet medicine teaches us.

Donald Trump and Regime Change in Venezuela

Jacob Hornberger has this very frank and honest post about the indifference toward the people of Venezuela shown by Donald Trump and his national security handlers. The one thing that Trump and John Bolton and Mike Pompeo really seem to care about is regime change, even if it means large numbers of civilian casualties throughout Venezuela.

Hornberger points out many of the past regime change ops imposed by U.S. bureaucrats, in Chile, Iraq, and Guatemala. U.S. President George H.W. Bush’s war on Iraq in 1991 and sanctions and no-fly zones led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq by the year 2000. And these U.S. bureaucrats didn’t even succeed in ousting Saddam Hussein from Iraq. So, there was no regime change, only the mass murders of innocent civilians. Then Bush’s son, George W. Bush started a new war on Iraq (that was really a continuation of the earlier war on Iraq), which caused the deaths of many hundreds of thousands more innocent civilians in Iraq.

And the bumbling Bushes actually did finally get their regime change in Iraq during the mid-2000s ousting Saddam Hussein. But they replaced the Iraqi regime with a new government that showed obedience to the U.S. government, albeit a sharia law theocracy that didn’t exist prior to the interventions.

Hornberger didn’t mention Iran in his post, although he has mentioned this aspect many times previously. The CIA initiated a coup on the leader of Iran in 1953, followed by the new Shah-led government in Iran that did what U.S. bureaucrats wanted them to do. Throughout the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the U.S. government and CIA continued to support the Shah’s totalitarian SAVAK police state, which led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the taking of American hostages in Iran. The coup and the Shah/CIA’s police state contributed to the radicalization of Muslims and the rise of Islamic extremism in Iran.

And now in Venezuela we have almost civil war, because of mass starvation that Maduro’s government takeovers of industries have caused. Donald Trump and his minions might just impose a coup there or invade the country with the U.S. military. As with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, and all those other countries, U.S. bureaucrats’ interventions and invasions will only cause more death and destruction. That is what government interventionism causes, as history tells us.

But, as Hornberger asserts, Trump and his neocon handlers and warmongers really just want regime change and a U.S.-loyal regime installed in Venezuela. The Trump people really couldn’t care less about the Venezuelan people. And as Hornberger points out at the end of his post, if they did care about the Venezuelan people, they would have them come to the U.S. where there is much more freedom, opportunity and much less starvation and chaos, and wouldn’t be trying to build a government wall to obstruct the foreigners’ way to a better life.

JFK and Donald Trump

Jacob Hornberger has written a lot about the JFK assassination. (Here is one of his major articles on that subject.)

In his most recent post on JFK, Trump, Russia, and the deep state, he writes:

Ever since I began writing on the JFK assassination, there have been those who have said to me, “What difference does it make whether this was a regime-change operation? Most everyone who engaged in it is dead by now anyway. What relevance does the assassination have for us living today?”

The answer: We are still living under the governmental structure that pulled it off, the same structure that has been conducting a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump to determine whether he is a secret agent of the Russian government and, therefore, a threat to “national security.”

And he goes on to explain the historical context of why Donald Trump is being “investigated” as a “national security threat.”

Democrat Warmongers, Socialism, and the Need for an American Brexit

Glenn Greenwald features polling data that suggest Democrats now are the new warmongers, while Republicans tend to agree with Donald Trump in Trump’s getting the military to begin withdrawal from Syria (and, let’s hope, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those other territories that are not U.S. territories where U.S. government military do not belong!). Greenwald notes how the change in party-warmonger association occurred after the 2016 election. Like, “we hate Donald Trump, so if he wants to get troops out of foreign war zones, then we want them in there,” is what today’s Democrat voters seem to be saying.

Meanwhile, across the pond the besieged and embattled-axe Theresa May is doomed as Prime Minister of the U.K. because her clinging Brexit plan is going down to defeat in Parliament. She may very well be replaced by the far-leftist Jeremy Corbin. Why is it that there can only be the choice of left-wing statists or “rightists” conservative nationalists? Libertarians no longer exist, either in U.K. or in the U.S., it seems.

If it is a war between private property advocates and collectivists, socialists and nationalists, the private property advocates are in a teeny-tiny minority.

And here in the U.S. we have the young people attracted to socialism, even though they have no idea what it really is. It sounds nice. And no, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sweden and the Nordic countries are not “socialist” countries, because they are generally “free-market” economies with privately-owned industry and means of production but with a welfare state, just like in the U.S. and the U.K.

Socialism is not Sweden, Norway, Denmark, et al. No, socialism is Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela.

But because those who advocate for socialism are ignorant of what it is and of the history of its murderous, destructive effects throughout history, they advocate for it, because “socialism” sounds nice.

The advocates for continued government central planning in immigration in Amerika, so-called nationalists like Donald Trump, want a Government Wall on the border. They are unified in that. So, not much difference between those guys and the people on the left who want government central planning in other areas. And yes, the controls that the U.S. government has over immigration are examples of socialist, government central planning. As I wrote before, The Donald is himself a diehard socialist. And so are his ignorant followers, apparently. Socialism is all about a criminal police state over the people, in immigration, and all other areas.

Besides the hysterical cheerers-on for immigration socialism central planning police state Government Wall, the other more overt socialists want the government to run just about everything else. What they, too, want is a police state. What do they do if people don’t want to submit to the socialists’ plan for funding and participating in a government-run health care scheme? The socialists send the armed police after the people. What do the socialists do if people don’t obey their government edicts and diktats on firearms ownership, or financial regulations or continuing to use cash, gold or bartering against the rules? The socialists send the armed police after the people. That’s their police state.

But contrary to today’s proud self-proclaimed socialists who want to control every aspect of the lives of the people, and throw the serfs in jail if they don’t comply, or today’s not-so-self-proclaimed socialists in immigration who want to arrest and jail “illegal” immigrants who neglected to get a bureaucrat’s permission to travel or move to a better area, the true purpose of America was supposed to be FREEDOM!

And centralization such as in Soviet Union, European and United States always goes against freedom. Decentralization promotes freedom.

For example, in a free society people are free to come and go as they please, without anyone’s authorization. As long as they are peaceful. If you don’t suspect some individual of violating the person or property of others, then you leave him alone. Don’t punish peaceful, innocent people for the actions of others. The American Revolutionaries, so-called Founding Fathers, would never have wanted a Government Wall on the border of their new “America.”

Besides the freedom to come and go as one pleases, a free society also means the freedom to own and possess whatever material property one wants, as long as one is peaceful and acquires the property honestly, including any kind of weapons or means of defense one wants. No permission from bureaucrats, no registration, no license.

I could go on and on, but the free society that was envisioned by the American Revolutionaries was with respect to self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, private property rights, freedom of contract, freedom of association and freedom of non-association, freedom of movement, and so on.

But those guys didn’t realize what a mistake they made by empowering a centralized government in Washington over the people of the states. The Anti-Federalists were right to be skeptical. If today’s Trump-worshiping nationalists were around at the time of the Revolution, they would never have even considered the Anti-Federalists’ skepticism and their views against centralization of power.

And now, America is too big to be one single country with one single culture, from coast to coast and border to border. It’s just too big. So, we need our own Brexit, too. We need to decentralize, just as the European Union needs to do, just as Soviet Union did.

But I don’t have that much hope for that, for any return to freedom because too many people among the population reject that freedom, on the left and the right, and all points between. Just look how juvenile the Democrat voters are, drooling with hatred of Donald Trump, as well as the nationalist Trump followers, drooling with hatred of foreigners. They are all in agreement that government central planning should continue, and they oppose private property and free markets.

Why Do People Still Embrace Socialism, Despite Its Failure Throughout History?

Jeff Deist of the Mises Institute has a concise overview of the “last war against socialism,” asking, “Why does support for socialism persist?” Despite all its historical failures, the immorality and criminality of it. The self-proclaimed socialists want a planned society, and they don’t care about the lives of those who get in the way of their plans. It is a utopia of extreme narcissism, in my view.

Socialism Is Not Good for You

Zero Hedge with an article on a Venezuela Supreme Court judge fleeing and defecting to the U.S. and denouncing Venezuelan president Maduro. (But will Trump have the guy arrested and charged as an “illegal” immigrant? Probably.)

Related: James Bovard writes about Karl Marx and the great socialist revival. A lot of today’s sheeple youngins are taken in by the utopian vision of “from each according to his means to each according to his needs” (by force, subjugation, coercion, and violence, that is).