AMERICAN STUDIES

LEE CAMP—The government can’t truly represent the people unless the people know what the government is up to. But we’re not told most of what the government does. And when a whistleblower reveals what our government is up to — or a journalist like Julian Assange — they’re horribly persecuted and imprisoned. Furthermore, even if you wanted to claim we have a free democracy in the US, the two corporate parties agree on 90% of the core issues of our country. They agree on capitalism, on militarism, on Wall Street, on environmental destruction, on unlimited surveillance, on a massive prison state, on dystopian policing — they agree on just about everything. So if our choice is between those two parties, then it’s no choice at all. None of our elections are legit in this regard. 

Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin? It’s super easy!…

JEFF J BROWN—During his 1963 commencement speech, JFK pleaded for peace the way presidents Clinton, Bush I and II and Obama lust for war. He announced sweeping treaty talks with the Soviets in tandem with Harold McMillan, the conservative Prime Minister of Britain at the time. For American Empire, whose domination of the world depends on total war, Kennedy’s sentiments expressed in this address were tantamount to treason. Eerily, many of the points he brought up in this talk about what the United States would never do around the world, were already happening through the evil offices of the deep state, and which have exploded exponentially since 1980.

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE—People who suffer conniptions over someone’s failure to adequately criticize China or any other empire-targeted nation universally embody this dynamic. They don’t criticize the US empire, or if they do they don’t do so in a way that reflects how worthy of criticism those power structures are. Washington is plainly far, far more worthy of criticism than Beijing, but those who bleat “You can criticize BOTH” are never far more critical of Washington than Beijing. Typically, they are considerably less critical.

EDWARD J CURTIN—Despite a treasure trove of new research and information having emerged over the last fifty-seven years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. They have drunk what Dr. Martin Schotz has called “the waters of uncertainty” that results “in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed but nothing can be known, nothing of significance that is.” 

Then there are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission.