Skip to content

Category: Iraq War

Articles for Armistice Day

Arjun Walia: War propaganda and fake news.

Gary Barnett: Why oppose war?

Barry Brownstein: Without free speech, all speech becomes government speech.

Alex Knight: Greta Thunberg vs. Boyan Slat.

Peter Quinones: Blaming libertarianism for every “societal woe.”

Brandon Smith: There are things worth fighting for, and fates far worse than death.

Jacob Hornberger: The case for open immigration.

Robert Wenzel: New tactic from Trump administration to decrease lawful immigration.

Dr. Mercola: Stark evidence of Google censoring health news.

Mac Slavo: NBC uses propaganda to promote the “benefits” of microchipping.

Patricia Hynes: Novermber 11, remembering the tragedy and legacy of World War I.

Matt Agorist: Entire police department now gone after good cops refused to enforce quota system.

Charles Burris: Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the first leftist, and the anti-individualist, anti-capitalist “conservatives.”

Watts Up With That?: Meet the doomers, depressed climate warriors.

Reason: Michigan counties steal properties based on minor tax payment mistakes.

And Alexander Zubatov: 4 reasons why socialism is becoming more popular.

Is Civil War Coming to Amerika?

A Georgetown University poll indicates that 67% of the voters polled believe that civil war can break out at any time in the U.S., because, it seems, there is a lot of anger out there.

That is, a civil war like that of 1861-1865. Yeah, THAT “civil war.”

Donald Trump has been saying nasty things for years, and he elicits anger in people including his supporters and those who apparently despise him.

Now, I can see how after 8 years of Obama and seeing the hostility from the braindead media with their constant lies and propaganda as well as the irrationality on the college campuses, that conservatives can be easily manipulated by Trump’s vitriolic rhetoric.

And because of the mass media propaganda against Trump and the rise in violent groups such as Antifa and the “Democratic Socialists” who believe in violence and coercion and government guns to carry out their schemes, we see a lot of social conflicts out there.

And I can see how some people don’t like being “deplatformed” by snowflake fascists who are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them, the hunger of various sadists to go after the non-“woke” and get them fired from their jobs or banished entirely from “woke” society, or hearing Mark Zuckerberg attempt to defend freedom of speech and diversity of views on Fakebook while at the same time promoting only government-approved propaganda as being non-fake news.

But civil war?I don’t know about that.

Actually, the ones who would probably start a “war” and start shooting and bombing would be the ones whose views show that they believe in aggression, force and coercion as a means to an end.

For example, the Bush wars (on foreigners, not domestic) were wars of aggression started by the elder President Bush in 1991 and then the junior George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003.

And more recently Donald Trump believes in aggression, force and coercion in carrying out the drug war, his tribalistic war on immigrants and his trade war.

And then there are the people on the left who want to impose their socialist and communist policies with government guns. They may be even worse, given that they are feverishly working on disarming all law-abiding civilians and making them defenseless while at the same time promoting only government police and military (and non-government criminals) to have firearms.

But I still don’t think that Amerika is headed toward actual civil war. Unfortunately, a lot of people now are addicted to their stupid little gadgets, their iPhones and smartphones, and they can’t put it down and stop staring at the thing for two seconds. So many people now are addicted to the idiocy on social media, which is a place of extreme hostility, ignorance and anger on both sides.

So, it’s really this social media phenomenon that is causing the social conflicts to be exaggerated and why 67% of the voters polled think that civil war (not just civil unrest, but civil war) is coming.

Unlike an actual “civil war,” civil unrest is when we see Antifa gathering at a “Straight Pride” event and throwing urine bottles at police, and so on. But that’s not a “war.” A war is when various people in some area are armed with guns, semiautomatic rifles, bazookas, cannons and bombs firing all those things at other people in some other area, and vice versa, and it goes on for a while, with masses of dead people on the streets and so on. That’s a “war.”

But are we seeing any indication of that? Occasionally there are Antifa and white supremacists maybe getting into fights. And are there even any more of those kinds of events than there were say 10 or 20 years ago? 40 years ago we had groups such as “Weather Underground” bombing and shooting people. There are isolated incidents here and there over the years. (However, what we have had over the past 20 years have been Americans joining the largest criminal gang in the world and going over to Iraq and Afghanistan and murdering thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent people in those areas, as the aforementioned George W. Bush did start two wars of aggression against the people of those countries and he’s still walking free. But obviously that hasn’t been a “civil” war.)

When I go outside into the center of town or into the stores, etc., I don’t see hostility, anger or hatefulness. Just regular people going about their business, and store clerks being their usual nice and friendly selves. On the public transportation there are people talking to others they are with, just regular conversations, or what I see are most people by themselves and mostly staring down into their stupid little electronic gadgets, totally oblivious to their surroundings. Now, it is possible that they are on social media getting a dose of vitriol, anger and hate in the stupid little Twitter and Fakebook things they look at — but otherwise, I am not seeing any signs of an actual “civil war” brewing. Are you seeing otherwise?

However, when the 2020 election comes around and if the ignorant fascist Trump wins despite the propaganda campaign against him, or if the shrieking bitter old hag Elizabeth Warren wins then we probably will see some trouble after 2020. But I still don’t think it will be an actual civil war. The conditions in society are not anything like they were in 1860. And also, many people now are too Xanaxized, hypnotized and subdued by their addictions to stupid electronic gadgets and social media.

So, everybody just cool it.

More News and Commentary

Jon Rappoport has some memories from the fake news business.

James Corbett has several interviews of 9/11 whistleblowers, in videos and transcripts. “‘But someone would have talked,’ say the self-styled skeptics who believe the government’s official conspiracy theory of 9/11. But there’s a problem with this logically fallacious non-argument. ‘Someone’ did talk. In fact, numerous people have come out to blow the whistle on the events of September 11, 2001, and the cover-up that surrounds those events.” Very extensive report.

Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Orwellian entrapments, surveillance privacy violations and the criminalization of everyday public behaviors in the U.K. and the U.S.

John Whitehead on martial law masquerading as law and order: the police state’s language of force.

Jacob Hornberger discusses the safe haven argument for staying in Afghanistan.

Brandon Smith asks, Who really benefits from the “Iran attacked Saudi Arabia” narrative?

Philip Giraldi on Israel spying and spying, this time on Donald Trump.

David Stockman says, Locked and loaded on behalf of Empire First.

Richard Ebeling says that price controls attack the freedom of speech.

Roger Young on “Beto” O’Rourke wanting to take away people’s guns.

And L. Neil Smith on the “Red Flag Council.”

More Articles with More Reasons to Distrust the Gubmint

Brandon Smith on Red Flag laws: once the Pandora’s box of pre-crime and hearsay evidence is opened, the sky is truly the limit.

Bretigne Shaffer discusses civil disobedience in the forced-vaccine issue.

Pepe Escobar says we are all hostages of 9/11.

Jon Rappoport discusses some earlier questions about the gold stored at the NY Federal Reserve Bank just blocks away from the WTC on 9/11, and possible witness intimidation during the 9/11 Commission hearings.

Washington’s Blog asks, Why would Iran attack the Saudis NOW?

William Astore on the F-35: A wasteful weapon for America’s forever wars.

Barbara Boland on the tell-all book James Mattis didn’t want published.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation on the courts protecting the people’s right to force government to purge records of their First Amendment activities.

Chris Hedges on the CIA and our invisible government.

Laurence Vance asks, What is it that libertarians don’t get about the military?

Patrick Cockburn on Saudi Arabia’s plans for us to forget about the murder of Khashoggi.

And Daniel McAdams points out the healthcare advantages our rulers have over We the Sheeple.

Lew Rockwell on Rothbard and War

Lew Rockwell gave an important antiwar speech, discussing Murray Rothbard’s antiwar views, at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity’s conference on “Breaking Washington’s Addiction to War.”

I especially liked these passages, which describe Rothbard’s basic point of view on war:

War distorts our sense of what service to others truly means. Only to members of the military are we urged to say, “Thank you for your service.” Toward the great entrepreneurs who extend our lives and make them more fulfilling, we are taught to be envious and resentful. They are most certainly not thanked for their service.

The state is able to get away with its aggression thanks in part to its manipulation of language. A soldier who perished in the Iraq war was said to have been “serving his country.” What could that mean? The war was launched on preposterous pretexts against a leader who had not harmed Americans and was incapable of doing so. If the war was in the service of anything, it was the imperial ambitions of a small ruling group. By no means did such a mission, which diverted vast resources away from civilian use, “serve the country.”

War distorts reality itself. Schoolchildren are taught to believe that the American soldier purchased their freedom by his sacrifices. Blasphemous bumper stickers compare the American soldier to Jesus Christ. But in what way was American freedom threatened by Iraq, or Panama, or Somalia? For that matter, how could any 20th-century adversary have managed an invasion of North America, given that even the Germans couldn’t cross the English Channel?

But this carefully cultivated mythology helps keep the racket going. It increases the superstitious reverence people have for past and present members of the military. It puts critics of war on the defensive. Indeed, how can we criticize war and intervention when these things have kept us free?

In short, war is inseparable from propaganda, lies, hatred, impoverishment, cultural degradation, and moral corruption. It is the most horrific outcome of the moral and political legitimacy people are taught to grant the state. Wrapped in the trappings of patriotism, home, songs, and flags, the state deludes people into despising a leader and a country that until that point they had barely even heard of, much less had an informed opinion about, and it teaches its subjects to cheer the maiming and death of fellow human beings who have never done them any harm.

And I like the individualistic view Lew Rockwell gives here:

If we believe in the cause of peace, putting a halt to aggressive violence between nations is not enough. We should not want to bring about peace overseas in order that our rulers may turn their guns on peaceful individuals at home. Away with all forms of aggression against peaceful people.

The people and the warmakers are two distinct groups. We must never say “we” when discussing the US government’s foreign policy. For one thing, the warmakers do not care about the opinions of the majority of Americans. It is silly and embarrassing for Americans to speak of “we” when discussing their government’s foreign policy, as if their input were necessary to or desired by those who make war.(4) Never use “we” when speaking of the government.

But it is also wrong, not to mention mischievous. When people identify themselves so closely with their government, they perceive attacks on their government’s foreign policy as attacks on themselves. It then becomes all the more difficult to reason with them – why, you’re insulting my foreign policy!

Likewise, the use of “we” feeds into war fever. “We” have to get “them.” People root for their governments as they would for a football team. And since we know ourselves to be decent and good, “they” can only be monstrous and evil, and deserving of whatever righteous justice “we” dispense to them.

The antiwar left falls into this error just as often. They appeal to Americans with a catalogue of horrific crimes “we” have committed. But we haven’t committed those crimes. The same sociopaths who victimize Americans themselves every day, and over whom we have no real control, committed those crimes.

Now, it would be nice if he would apply such individualism philosophy to the immigration issue!

Democrats Debate: Who Is Most Control Freak?

The Democrats running for President had more debates this week i.e. it was a kook fest, and I didn’t watch them because I stopped watching television in the mid-1990s. But I have heard many, many excerpts all week on the radio talk shows and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

I don’t know where to start, so I’ll just start with “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg. Well, so far the name “Pete” has not been good for Presidential aspirations (see Pete Wilson and Pete du Pont for instance). Let’s hope the trend continues here.

Mayor Pete tried to use a Bible verse as well as his economic ignorance to shame opponents of the minimum wage to accept his promise to create more unemployment by increasing the minimum wage.

He also made it a racial issue. But when the minimum wage goes up, that causes employers to have to cut those entry-level, low-skilled jobs because the employers can’t afford to pay those workers a wage that’s higher than what their jobs are worth. That is why we get higher unemployment, and entire businesses closing down, when minimum wage goes up by law.

The people most affected by this government-imposed mandatory minimum wage are the teenagers and young adults who are trying to get their very first work experience, trying to get their foot in the door. And it especially affects minorities in the cities.

So Buttigieg and the other interventionists are taking opportunities away from those young people. And teenagers (and many young adults as well) don’t need a “living wage,” by the way, because they are being supported by their parents. But they do need work experience, and if they don’t have it by age 20 or 22, they shouldn’t complain about not being able to find a higher-paying job after high school or college.

I think that most of these lying, dishonest politicians actually know these facts, but they pretend otherwise just for the sake of getting people to vote for them.

And Buttigieg is the one who criticized Donald Trump for getting out of the Vietnam War, but Buttigieg didn’t criticize the Vietnam War itself! Buttigieg criticized Trump for NOT going to some foreign country to kill innocent civilians for no good reason! Meanwhile, I think that each and every young person who got out of going to Vietnam or who went to Canada to avoid it should be PRAISED! They are heroes for not going over there and killing innocent people!

But Mayor Pete is a warmonger and doesn’t see it that way. Hmm, I wonder how many innocent civilians he killed in Afghanistan, a country that HE invaded along with the rest of the U.S. military, and for no good reason. Let’s hope the answer is zero. (Unlike the young Americans who were forced to invade and bomb and murder in Vietnam involuntarily because of the draft, the modern U.S. invaders and bombers and murderers in foreign countries have been doing so voluntarily.)

Anyway, I liked hearing Tulsi Gabbard pointing out that as a prosecutor and California attorney general Kamala Harass oversaw 1,500 marijuana arrests, and that she “blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so,” and that she “kept people in prison beyond their sentences to keep them as cheap labor for the state of California.”

And, I would add, Harris’s fascist anti-“truancy” law in which she arrested and jailed the parents of kids who missed too much school, i.e. were absent too many times from their mandatory government-indoctrination prison camps. (Just like the Germans, Kamala. Yay!) And just as Gabbard says that Harass laughed about jailing marijuana users, she also laughed about jailing the “truant” kids’ parents.

But there seem to be many libertarians who like Tulsi Gabbard for her looks anti-war positions, but she shows a lot of ignorance in that area as well. For instance, she says that the U.S. military shouldn’t be over in those foreign places for “regime change,” but to fight and “defeat al-Qaeda.” And she believes that Islamic fanaticism is to blame for the terrorism. So, she’s just as brainwashed as many people are since 9/11. She doesn’t seem to get that what causes the terrorism in the first place has been the U.S. government’s invading and bombing those countries over there, since well before 9/11 (see this and this).

Being extreme authoritarians, the Democrats seem to want to impose “Medicare for All” on the rest of us. They say they want to fix the medical care system, despite the fact that all their previous interventions have failed. For example, ObamaCare has been in effect for years now, so why is there still a problem?

The medical care system in America was the best in the world before Medicare and Medicaid came in and distorted the markets in medical care. The free market provided people with not only many choices, but because of the lack of government intrusions into medical care, doctors were financially able to provide free care for people who couldn’t afford it or who didn’t have insurance. Dr. Ron Paul was one of those who treated lower income people including minorities, for free. There were MANY doctors like that, way back when. Now, not so much.

But the truth is, these politicians don’t care about people being able to get medical care, as they propose all these terrible things just to get people to vote for them, and that’s it! As FDR said about Social Security or LBJ said about Medicare (or both), these kinds of government hand-outs are to ensure that more people will vote for THEM, for Democrats for all of eternity. That’s all that matters to these people, power and control. Expanded government powers gives them plenty of control.

More and more these power-mad politicians want to take choices away from the people, they want to make private insurance illegal (and soon private-practice medical care) and impose a one-size-fits-all scheme onto everyone, whether they like it or not.

The reason these government worshipers want so much control and want to force you into a “Medicare for All” scheme is that they want access to all your private medical information. They want “cradle to grave” control in medical care, and “cradle to career” tracking and surveillance in the young people as well.

The control freaks, including every hippie freak weirdo at these Democrat debates, want to intrude into every aspect of everybody’s private life, to “prevent discrimination,” to make sure everybody works toward a better social credit score like in China, to make sure that there is “no inequality” in society. Why? Because they are brainwashed social engineering fanatics. And that is why “Medicare for All” with these extremely crazy people.

And what the political elites really want is a two-tier medical system, in which the political class, their henchmen and all their little hangers-on will get the first-class care when they want it, and the rest of us get whatever the apparatchiks think we deserve, just like in the old Soviet Union.

It is just like the two-tiered judicial system we have now. Powerless people who are accused of something by the government get thrown in jail for life, while the elites, the political class get away with whatever they want to get away with. (See Jeffrey Epstein, Comey, Brennan, Lois Lerner, et al.)

And besides Mayor Pete, Kamala Harass, and Tulsi Gabtard, there are the scummy or just plain crazy crackpots, including “Beto” O’Rourke, Jay Inslee, Cory Shnooker, Gillibrand and Biden. But Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are outright communists. They seem to just want the government to have complete control over all industries, labor and employment, and property just like in the old Soviet Union. I’ve never seen a bunch of crazies, ignoramuses and psychopaths as we have in this bunch. They are just as bad as the Rethuglicans.

Speaking of the Rethugs and Trump, their intrusion policies of trade tariffs, debt and deficit spending cause, among other things, higher prices for consumers and thus they lower the standard of living for the society. Trump’s tax cuts, which expire in a few years for individuals, are only helpful in the short term and don’t mean very much in the long term, because Trump and the Republicans refuse to cut spending. They are irresponsible criminals, just like the thieving Democrats.

And Trump’s immigration and drug war police state are further eroding freedom and prosperity in America. Why don’t Democrats say anything about dismantling the Amerikan police state? The NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, TSA, and more. They all need to go. But Democrats love the police state, as that is what their SovietCare program is all about.

Sadly, we never, ever hear anything from Democrats (or Rethugs) about freedom. Just more and more government control, and more and more police state. (Oh, and “Racist, Racist, Racist!” etc.) They all suck. Don’t vote for any of them, or for Trump. In fact, don’t vote at all!

Remembering Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo

One of my favorite antiwar writers and foreign policy analysts, Justin Raimondo, passed away last month at age 67, of lung cancer. He was probably the most consistent and profound antiwar writers out there.

A founder of “Antiwar.com,” Justin was no leftist (like of the “Code Pink” variety). No, he was a champion of the “Old Right,” promoting the views of Republicans like Sen. Robert Taft.

In more recent years Raimondo had been a Trump supporting “America First” nationalist. I don’t know if he would describe himself as such, but his articles and twitter statements had shown that. I don’t particularly agree with that point of view, as I am more along the lines of “freedom first” rather than “America first.”

This extensive obituary of Justin on Antiwar.com tells a lot about him and his earlier years that I knew nothing about. Justin grew up in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s hometown of Yorktown Heights, New York, right near New York City, a place that according to Wikipedia was “of strategic importance during the American Revolution, with the Pines Bridge crossing of the Croton River guarded by the 1st Rhode Island Regiment…”

Justin was a revolutionary in his own way.

The obituary also notes that because he was a rambunctious little kid, he was forced to have to see a psychiatrist. I guess even in those years there were people who viewed little boys showing a lot of energy (i.e. acting normally) as having some sort of disorder. And the psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Soblen, turned out to be a Soviet spy of all things. Not good.

Justin had met Ayn Rand at the age of 14, and was politically active at an early age and co-founded the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus.

Justin was also gay and was actively involved in gay liberation and gay rights. Yet at the same time he supported the very conservative Pat Buchanan for President in three elections, 1992, 1996 and 2000.

I enjoyed reading Justin’s columns because he was a great writer, and because he effectively promoted the foreign policy views of many of America’s founders: policies of non-interventionism.

From the Antiwar.com obituary:

His two most important books were his 1993 Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, published by the Center for Libertarian Studies and reissued in 2008 by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute with a Foreword by Pat Buchanan and an introduction by George W. Carey, and his 2000 biography, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, published by Prometheus Books.

Justin also certainly had an understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When the gangsters and thugs of the U.S. Congress were considering the NDAA provisions in which Americans could be detained and imprisoned for life without charges or trial, he saw exactly where that was going:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) exults that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and anyone can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Graham doesn’t care about any of that sissy constitutional stuff, and never did – throw ‘em in the brig! Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from the “Live Free or Die” state, doesn’t care that she’s destroying the American republic and our constitutional liberties by voting for this draconian measure because, she says, “America is part of the battlefield.”

Nothing illustrates the longstanding warning from antiwar advocates that “war is the health of the state” than this ominous development. The principle that war leads inevitably to the erosion and eventual destruction of our constitutional form of government is being dramatized on the floor of Congress even as I write these words.

The real purpose of the Levin-McCain provisions is entirely unrelated to “terrorism,” either by al-Qaeda or any known domestic outfit. It was put in there to codify a number of important “legal” precedents, which make it possible for the President to declare an American citizen an “enemy combatant” and hold him or her indefinitely without charges. This is the final step in a process that will enable the President to establish a de facto military dictatorship: it’s the “unitary presidency” meets the global economic crisis.

“America is part of the battlefield,” says Sen. Ayotte, quite accurately – and Americans are the target. Resistance is “terrorism”: dissent is a crime, and you’d better shut up and take it if you know what’s good for you. That’s the message they’re sending – and how, one wonders, will Americans respond?

Well, Obama responded by signing that NDAA bill into law, with those provisions in place. (Obama wasn’t exactly a friend of civil liberties, you know.) But then a federal judge struck down those provisions to indefinitely detain Americans, Obama appealed that ruling, the ruling was then given a temporary stay by another judge, but that ruling was finally itself struck down by an all-Democrat-appointed three-judge panel, and that was the end of that. Obama and the Democrats got their way, the legal ability to use the military to detain or jail those who dissented from the Regime’s diktats.

And all this was after Justin had been the target of FBI harassment, so he was rightfully concerned about where the Regime in Washington was headed.

In her tribute to Justin Raimondo on The American Conservative, Kelley Vlahos included the story of how the FBI were investigating Justin and Antiwar.com co-founder Eric Garris, and here is an excerpt from her tribute on that fiasco:

The government had opened secret files on Garris and Raimondo, and at one point the FBI agent writing the April 30, 2004 memo on Antiwar.com recommended further monitoring of the website in the form of  a “preliminary investigation …to determine if [redaction] are engaging in, or have engaged in, activities which constitute a threat to national security.”

Why? You can read in detail here, but much of it was because of Antiwar.com’s mission to criticize U.S. war policies, its linking to government watch lists at the time, and Justin’s writing, particularly on five Israelis who were detained by the FBI in New Jersey after they were spotted by witnesses on a rooftop celebrating and taking pictures in sight of the burning NYC towers on 9/11 and later deported.

The ACLU had taken up their case, rightly, as an example of the government’s hostile attitude against the 1st Amendment. The government had taken advantage of its new 9/11 authorities and the country’s war-time footing to spy and harass dissidents just like the old days. Garris and Raimondo won, but their efforts to have all of the government records expunged is still tied up in appeals. Garris said Justin was at least able to see the latest June 12 hearing in the Ninth Circuit.

And the Antiwar.com obituary notes:

One of the last pleasures Justin had as part of his Antiwar.com activities was seeing, on June 12, three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in 18-15416 Dennis Raimondo v. FBI, roundly rebuke the pathetic Department of Justice lawyer who claimed that the court should have no say in how the FBI held on to evidence when it was clear that no crime was committed.

You see, the FBI and government spooks and goons don’t like it when others expose and shine a light on such apparatchiks’ incompetence, buffoonery, corruption and criminality, so they investigate and harass the ones who do the exposing and/or whistleblowing.

Regarding the aforementioned Israelis, in his September 10, 2010 column, The ‘Meaning’ of 9/11, Justin wrote:

The craziness that ensued in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks had to be sustained if Israel was to take full advantage of the moment – a moment their intelligence operatives anticipated, according to Fox News, in a four-part series [link no longer working, here is another one at YouTube] by their topnotch journalist Carl Cameron, which started out as follows:

Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.

There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are “tie-ins.” But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’”

Fox News has never retracted a word of this story, although they did – after pressure from the Israel lobby – delete it from their web site. It was never mentioned again, at least in “respectable” quarters, and, to be sure, it was never forgotten, thanks to the Internet, where Carl Cameron will be exposing the Israeli connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks unto eternity.

Cameron’s noting that “more than sixty” Israelis had been arrested immediately after 9/11, along with and under the same legal rubric as thousands of Arabs, had also been noted here in this space, before the Fox News broadcasts. Why, I asked in a column, was the US government rounding up Israelis, of all people – unless there was some kind of Israeli connection to the attacks? The answer came in Cameron’s reporting, and subsequent stories in the “mainstream” media: the Israelis, whose intelligence services had been very active on our soil in the months leading up to 9/11, had been following the hijackers, shadowing their every move, without telling us – almost as if they were protecting them rather than trying to stop them.

According to this Salon story on the “Israeli art students,” which Justin linked to and which also refers to Carl Cameron’s report that caught the attention of the DEA and DoD, the Washington Post attempted to put the story to rest, “quoting anonymous officials” (or “unnamed sources,” or “unnamed anonymous government officials,” etc., etc., which is what the news media usually do when they make things up, or are too lazy to do any actual investigative research).

Former CIA agent Philip Giraldi has written about the Americans caught spying on the U.S. for Israel but mostly getting away with it, as well as a possible Israeli spy in the U.S. getting too chummy with U.S. national security officials including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But we dare not tell the truth about such taboo subjects. Except, Justin Raimondo dared and he wasn’t afraid to tell the truth.

In November of 2013 Justin wrote about a new nuclear agreement between the “P5+1” (China, France, Russia, the U.K., the U.S., “plus” Germany) and Iran.

An Israeli attack on Iran, however, would be Bibi’s last resort: the Israelis are good at agitating for other nations to go to war on their behalf, but when it comes to actually doing the fighting themselves – and losing some of their own people – their enthusiasm tends to cool down a bit. Before they attack Iran, the Israelis will do everything in their power to derail the agreement – and no one should underestimate what they’re capable of.

Their first line of attack is through Congress, where the Israel lobby holds a dominant position. Even before the agreement was signed, the lobby’s congressional contingent was already being lined up to introduce new sanctions on Iran. Prominent Democrats, including Majority leader Harry Reid, New York’s Chuck Schumer, and Bob Menendez of New Jersey have already endorsed the new sanctions bill, and the usual Republican suspects are already denouncing the agreement as “another Munich.”

The second line of attack is a possible provocation engineered by the Israelis: this could involve an incident between the US and Iran in international waters in the Gulf, as has happened before, or it could be a simple exposure of an alleged Iranian violation of the terms of the interim agreement. This latter course could be carried out by Israel’s regional allies, including the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), a neo-Marxist cult that has long been an instrument in Israeli hands and has a history of pushing disinformation about Iran’s alleged nuclear activities. Nor should we rule out Israeli collaboration with hardliner elements within Iran: although they are ostensibly in irreconcilable opposition, both Israeli and Iranian hardliners are united in their opposition to a nuclear deal.

The third line of attack would be direct Israeli action against the US – no, not military action (don’t be silly), but some kind of covert action that would inflict enough damage to impact our ability to make the interim agreement permanent.

This isn’t pure speculation: in 1954, the Israelis recruited a group of Egyptians to plant bombs in Western targets, including the American information center, in major Egyptian cities. The idea was to blame the attacks on Islamists and Nasserites, and cause the British government to keep its troops in the Suez Canal zone. The plan failed, but only because the Israeli scheme was exposed: after years of denying the affair, the Israeli government finally owned up to it by awarding their agents medals of appreciation, bestowed on the surviving spies by President Moshe Katzav in 2005.

For years the Israelis have been saying their country faces an “existential” crisis on account of Iran’s nuclear program: another Holocaust, they have said, is imminent unless the Iranians are stopped. And Tehran, they aver, is intent on breaking any agreement they make with the West: the Iranians are determined to acquire nuclear weapons, and will stop at nothing in their drive to destroy Israel.

Justin wasn’t afraid to tell the truth, and he wasn’t afraid of Israel’s “Amen Corner” in the U.S. I think a lot of people believe many false narratives, including about Israel, because they hear nothing but the propaganda over and over from media and pop culture. So most people believe the propaganda about Israel, and that’s just the way it is.

Similarly, many also believe the propaganda about “Trump collusions with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election,” none of which actually happened. It was all made up.

Justin was on to the “Trump-Russia collusions” propaganda from the very beginning. In his November 28, 2016 article, The Witch Hunters: Washington Post pushes campaign to censor alternative media, he discussed the Washington Post‘s post-election article that called non-Hillary-supporting Internet or media outlets “fake news.” In actuality, the Post‘s article, titled, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say,” was itself propaganda and the beginning of a crusade to call the actual truth-tellers “fake news.”

In fact, the Washington Post already began with its “Russian hacking the election” false narrative months before the election, in June of 2016, as soon as Trump’s nomination for President was secured. The Post‘s June 14, 2016 article, titled, “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump,” goes on and on with this or that detail. But, according to former NSA tech expert William Binney and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the DNC computers couldn’t have been remotely hacked, but were accessed locally, with possibly a USB flash drive.

Binney and McGovern debunked the Post‘s evidence-free claims. And of course by July of 2016, Justin Raimondo’s “BS-ometer” was already going off quite loudly, regarding the Washington Post‘s claims of Russia hacking the DNC.

So when the DNC hack made headlines, the anti-Trump media – i.e. the entire “mainstream” media – pushed the Kremlin conspiracy narrative hard. But what is the technical evidence for such a charge? As it turns out, it is thin-to-nonexistent.

What’s striking is that for all this subjective “analysis” and cyber-sleuthing, no one is pointing to what should be the first suspicion in such a case: that the hacking of the DNC server was an inside job.

An “inside job” and not a hack, by the way, has been further backed up most recently by more evidence. The DNC insider who leaked to WikiLeaks is again said to be the murdered Seth Rich. Eventually, that whole “Russia hacking the 2016 election” and “Trump-Russia collusions” conspiracy theory, promoted by the fake news media and believed by millions, will be thrown into the dustbin of history, thanks to investigative researchers and writers like Justin Raimondo.

So, Justin was like Radar O’Reilly on M*A*S*H, who could hear the choppers from far away before anyone else could. Justin could sense and expose the “BS” and the “fake news” before most others, and he will be missed.

More on Fascism and Socialism in Amerika

Jacob Hornberger on Ricardo Salinas’s statist solution to the immigration problem.

Daniel Lazare says that Robert Mueller is in a pickle now that a judge has shut down half of Mueller’s Russia interference case

Aaron Maté says that Mueller’s own report undercuts its core Russia meddling claims.

Robert Wenzel explains how to smash Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s climate scare lunacy (using her own method).

The Daily Caller with an article on Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff admitting to what the Green New Deal is all about (not the climate).

Michael Krieger says that Alex Acosta reportedly claimed that Jeffrey Epstein “belonged to intelligence [sic]”

Kurt Nimmo on the crimes of the CIA and FBI, they only matter when the political class is targeted.

Dave DeCamp says it’s about time we recognize what fuels terrorism.

MassPrivateI on Gen Z adults encouraging each other to sign up for facial recognition at music festivals.

Barbara Boland says that Americans are shocked to find that their rights literally vanish at U.S. airports.

Ron Paul on the anti-Iran warmongers.

David Stockman on “Pusillanimous Powell”: pivoting toward subzero junk.

Richard Ebeling on progressive promises and the cost to liberty.

And Philip Giraldi on the death of privacy: government fearmongers to read your mail. (Don’t they do that already?)

Justin Raimondo Has Died

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com has died. I have linked to many, many of his articles on this blog. He might be best known for the website he founded, Antiwar.com. He was only 67 and had lung cancer.

Antiwar.com’s obituary of Justin Raimondo.

Kelley Vlahos’s tribute, How Justin Raimondo Made Me a Braver Writer.

And Lew Rockwell’s tribute to Justin.

(Edited): I’ll have more to say about this in the next few days weeks.