Propaganda, Human Consciousness, And The Future Of Civilization

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON TO FRIENDS AND KIN. WE MUST BREAK THE SYSTEM'S ABILITY TO LIE WITH IMPUNITY.

A duck floats past two fish, looks down and says “Morning boys! How’s the water?” The fish swim on for a bit, then one of them turns to the other and says, “What the fuck is water?”

Corporatist propaganda is to western civilization what water is to fish. Our culture is saturated in it; it informs so many levels of our worldview and most of us never even examine any of them. It informs all aspects of culture, from our beliefs about what’s going on in the world to our understanding of history to what issues we think we’re supposed to care about on a given day to what opinions we think we’re allowed to choose from. People think they know what’s going on in their society, why their country fought this or that war, how their nation’s government and economy operate, when really they don’t know any of those things. All their most basic assumptions about their world, their culture, and even who they are as individuals is fully pervaded by mass media propaganda narratives.

In early tribal cultures, humans depended on campfire stories passed on from one generation to the next to tell them what the world is and how to interpret their experiences in it. Now that role has fallen exclusively to a few highly consolidated corporate media conglomerates whose billionaire owners have a vested interest in maintaining the warmongering plutocratic power establishment that is loosely centralized in the United States, because in that power establishment they get to live as kings.

Whenever the mass media converge unanimously upon a single narrative, your default assumption should be that you are being propagandized.

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) August 21, 2017

The “Nazis are taking over America” moral panic is the most hysterical that the people of the United States have been since the November election results rolled in. Not even at peak Russia hysteria has the general public been so emotionally invested in something so grossly unsubstantiated. Even most of the woke lefties who didn’t buy into the ridiculous Russia narrative swallowed the core message being promulgated by corporate media hook, line and sinker. Few questioned why the entire mass media had converged upon Charlottesville long before anyone died. Few bothered researching to what extent white supremacist groups were holding demonstrations and committing hate crimes throughout the entire Obama administration or asking why those lacked similar coverage. It’s been a nationwide garment-rending psychotic break from coast to coast, and very few people stopped to ask themselves where their ideas were originating from.

There has just been a solar eclipse, so maybe people being outdoors with their neighbors and coworkers looking at something together was enough of a reality check to break the spell, but if the narrative hasn’t done its job already the talking heads on TV will be pushing them back into it by the morning.

This sort of thing is happening constantly. Virtually all political perspectives in mainstream America are formed by propaganda either directly or indirectly, but if you talk about the solution to the status quo being a shift in human consciousness people get impatient and dismissive. They’ll accuse you of offering impractical airy-fairy spiritual-sounding solutions about “getting woke” that only have any relevance to a tiny fraction of the population. “We need real solutions! How do we organize? Should we start a new political party? We need a district-by-district plan!”

They’re fish in water. They don’t realize that every move they make is happening inside this ubiquitous bubble of deceit that is specifically designed to redirect energy and attention toward narratives which favor the establishment. No matter how awesome and pragmatic your idea is, they’ll always be perceived by the general public through a filter of lies which contradict it, and it will have to be actualized within a society that is fully blinkered by narratives tilted to favor the ruling class. This is why fighting the propaganda machine is the single most practical thing that we can do to create a healthy world.

Without Peeking, Can You Tell Me This Man’s Name?#Charlottesville #HeatherHeyer #propaganda #MSM https://t.co/vdlBjyOIo5

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) August 19, 2017

“Getting woke” is not some lofty, impractical attainment accessible only to a small clique who has read the right books and experimented with the right psychedelics and meditated at the feet of the right Hindu masters. It’s a simple matter of seeing through untruths that you had previously mistaken for truths, and, at least on a political level, the bulk of the untruths that the average person carries around with them were put there either directly or indirectly by establishment propaganda. Facilitating a worldwide transformation of human consciousness is as simple as disrupting the stories that humans are being told by those in power.

Of course, just because something is simple doesn’t mean that it’s easy. As we discussed recently, there’s a century of high-budget research and development feeding into the science of these advanced social manipulations, and there’s an unfathomably powerful class with a vested interest in keeping those manipulations up and running. But since the oligarchy rules by creating the illusion of freedom and democracy using propaganda it is by far the weakest point in its armor, and with the democratization of information available to our society via unprecedented internet access a populist information rebellion could definitely kill all public trust in the lie factory. This would ruin an essential foundation of the oligarchy.

Rapidly accelerating 40 year long collapse in trust for US mass media. In particular note the "None at all" column. https://t.co/qcOaw6qBae pic.twitter.com/kBX5q2uLAJ

— Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) August 19, 2017

There is no political solution to an oligarchy which owns the entire political system, but the oligarchy cannot rule without its propaganda machine. Public trust in the mass media is plummeting, though it’s still far higher than it should be. The closer we get that trust to zero, the greater the possibility that we can build a healthy world uninhibited by the manipulations of a few sociopathic billionaires.

I’m a 100 percent reader-funded journalist so if you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, or throwing some money into my hat on Patreon.

About the Author

Caitlin Johnstone is a brave journalist, political junkie, relentless feminist, champion of the 99 percent. And a powerful counter-propaganda tactician.

Virtually all political perspectives in mainstream America are formed by propaganda either directly or indirectly, but if you talk about the solution to the status quo being a shift in human consciousness people get impatient and dismissive. They’ll accuse you of offering impractical airy-fairy spiritual-sounding solutions about “getting woke” that only have any relevance to a tiny fraction of the population. “We need real solutions! How do we organize? Should we start a new political party? We need a district-by-district plan!”

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all.— Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

Six places the US could invade that aren’t North Korea

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

By Sean Stinson

Historians rarely like to predict the future. Nobody likes to be proven wrong, and saying I told you so is often cold comfort. But with mainstream media outlets in hysterics over the imminent threat of war in the Western Pacific, a little perspective would not go astray right now.

Despite threatening to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen", the US is not about to invade North Korea. It has nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so. Pyongyang poses no immediate threat. It has no long range ICBMs or miniaturised warheads, and is a long way, maybe decades away from having them. Besides, why provoke China and Russia with a firefight so close to their borders? Why risk starting a war which would almost certainly spill over into South Korea and Japan, two of the West’s most important economies? No, Washington will just learn to deal with the fact that the DPRK now has a limited defensive capability and isn’t about be bullied into submission.

And why shouldn’t it have a defensive capability? Ghaddafi surrendered Libya’s WMD in 2003 and look what happened to Libya. Iraqi peace initiatives failed to stave off the destruction of that country at the hands of a maniacal US led coalition. Put yourself in Kim’s position, leader of a country once the victim of one of the bloodiest wars of American aggression in history, of which US General Curtis Le May later recalled: “We burned down just about every city in North Korea and South Korea both. We killed off over a million civilian Koreans and drove several million more from their homes.” Thankfully the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, or its latest iteration, preventative war, is reserved for the US alone. North Korea is not about to fire the first shot, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson well knows, recently reassuring Americans not to worry about North Korea and to “sleep well”.

So why all the bluff and bluster? One might well speculate. Could it simply be to make Trump appear presidential in the face of sliding approval ratings? Or perhaps to restore the balance of US belligerency after his strategic withdrawal from Syria? Or could it possibly be to provide cover for military adventures elsewhere? In November 2008, at a time when all attention was focused on the Mumbai bombings, Israel seized the opportunity to launch an attack on Gaza which escaped media scrutiny. There are murmurs at the time of writing that Israel may be planning another ground invasion of Gaza, and possible occupation of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula under the pretext of fighting ISIS. Would the US come to the aid of its client regime in such a scenario? It’s certainly one to keep an eye on.

The overwhelming success of the constituent assembly plebiscite in Venezuela has also provoked a strong reaction from the White House, with the bigly commander-in-chief now openly threatening military action. It’s ironic that Maduro is branded a “dictator” by many of Washington’s allies, including the unelected president of Brazil, Michel Temer. More bizarre that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, representing the Saudi regime which continues to commit war crimes in Yemen, should come forward to condemn the ‘breakdown of the rule of law in Venezuela’. News of human rights violations has spread far and wide through the corporate press, sparking calls for intervention.

Speaking of Yemen, the doubling down on the genocidal attacks on the people of this war torn state in recent weeks has also been underreported, with the US committing ground troops to ostensibly take part in “intelligence sharing”, whatever that means in today’s Pentagon doublespeak. As if years of war, famine, displacement, and poverty weren’t enough, the people of Yemen now have to contend with an outbreak of cholera which has so far affected 500 000. Yemen is of vital geostrategic interest to war profiteers seeking easy access to Ethiopia's untapped oil and gas reserves, and the Port of Aden and soon to be completed Bridge of Horns will provide an alternative trade route to the Strait of Hormuz, currently controlled by Iran.

Relations between the Philippines and US have soured significantly since the populist leader Rodrigo Duterte assumed power last year. Duterte’s moves toward an independent foreign policy favouring ties with Russia and China have earned the ire of Washington, and there are rumours of a possible coup attempt against him, which could once again assume the guise of “humanitarian intervention”, based on his alleged human rights abuses in his ongoing War on Drugs and Criminality. Alternately, reports are surfacing that the US are considering airstrikes against ISIS in Marawi. In either case, destabilising the Philippine government will be the real objective.

South Korean billboard: despite the longstanding propaganda and vilification of the North, many South Koreans are beginning to question the truth and reality behind the endless warmongering by the US and their own government. People want peace, not war, and a reintegration with their national brothers and sisters. The obstinate memory, long held back and almost erased, is coming back.

Moving further west, all signs point to preparation for a regime change operation in Thailand as the US seeks to assert a united Southeast Asian front to counter China’s rise. A provisional military government has held power in Thailand since the ouster of President Yingluck Shinawatra in 2014. The Shinawatra family have deep ties the US establishment, dating back to Thaksin Shinawatra's time as adviser to US-based equity firm, the Carlyle Group. In the 2011 elections, Yingluck openly ran as a proxy for her brother Thaksin, a criminal fugitive living in Dubai.

Finally there is Ukraine, where the government of Petro Poroshenko indicated recently that it ‘has not ruled out’ a military drive to take the eastern province of Donbass by force. This comes on the heels of a New York Times story titled Russia’s Military Drills near NATO Border Raise Fears of Aggression. (Err, pardon? Since when does NATO have a border???) Anyway, just the usual baseless McCarthyite bluster to which we’re all well accustomed. During his recent tour of Estonia and Georgia US Vice President Mike Pence also reaffirmed America’s readiness to defend the region against, you guessed it, Russian aggression.

As a president who was elected on an anti-war platform (his promise of no more regime change earned him a standing ovation at the 2016 Republican National Convention), Trump should probably be commended for his efforts to date. But if history is anything to go by (hardly an 'if'), it won’t be long before American bombs of freedom and democracy begin falling on unsuspecting civilians in some part of the world where the US has no business being. While there are any number of theatres where a military option could readily be used, the Korean Peninsula is not likely to be one of them, and herein lies the ultimate irony: For all the scaremongering about weapons of mass destruction, had Iraq or Libya had a nuclear deterrent, the US would not have invaded them either.

About the Author

Sean Stinson is a new contributing writer from Australia. He blogs at The Last Yawn.

Despite threatening to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen“, the US is not about to invade North Korea. It has nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so. Pyongyang poses no immediate threat. It has no long range ICBMs or miniaturised warheads, and is a long way, maybe decades away from having them. Besides, why provoke China and Russia with a firefight so close to their borders? Why risk starting a war which would almost certainly spill over into South Korea and Japan, two of the West’s most important economies?

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

Let’s Talk About Korea: The Dangerous Tone of US Media

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Previous run on May 3, 2016 TGP STAFF

PART OF A SPECIAL TGP EDITION ON KOREA

Washington’s handpicked puppet, Syngman Rhee, embraces his lord protector, Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for Allied Powers. MacArthur was a hardcore warmongering reactionary who went so far he had to be restrained and eventually dismissed by Truman.

Often, when people are first becoming personally acquainted with me and my political views, I will be asked point-blank: “Do you support North Korea?” I always respond, “No, I don’t support North Korea. I support all of Korea.” Among average Americans and even many who consider themselves activists and leftists, there is a great deal of confusion about issues involving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and its history. The US media makes no effort to educate the public about why Korea is divided — and often blatantly distorts and lies about it.

Among average Americans and even many who consider themselves activists and leftists, there is a great deal of confusion about issues involving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and its history. Each time there is an escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, the level of confusion seems to get worse. The US media makes no effort to educate the public about why Korea is divided — and often blatantly distorts and lies about it.

Why is Korea Divided?

[dropcap]P[/dropcap]rior to the Second World War, the Korean Peninsula was occupied by Japan, which carried out horrendous atrocities against the Korean people. Korean women were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military.

When Korean pacifist Christians went out to protest against Japan in March of 1919, over 7,000 of them were killed. The Japanese military retaliated against nonviolent acts of civil disobedience by randomly setting schools on fire and causing hundreds of Korean children, who had nothing to do with the protests, to die in the flames. Tens of thousands of Koreans were rounded up and tortured by the Japanese on the mere suspicion of involvement in the pacifist, anti-Japanese protest movement.

After the failure of peaceful, nonviolent struggles, Koreans took up arms against the Japanese occupiers. In the 1920s and 30s, Kim Il Sung and others received military and political training from the Soviet Union. The Chinese Communist Party and the Korean Communist Party often closely cooperated in their activities. Armed Korean and Chinese Communists received a lot of guns and money from the Soviet Union as they fought for basic democratic rights against Japanese occupiers.

Critiques of the DPRK in relation to the topic of “human rights” often completely ignore the context and history of Korea. Between 3 and 4 million Koreans died in the Korean War, with no peace treaty ever signed. A similarly large amount died during the 1990s as a result of malnutrition, imposed on the country by the United States. The people of the DPRK are fighting for their very lives against the most powerful and well armed government in the world. Millions of Korean lives have already been claimed by the United States.

When the Second World War ended in 1945, the northern half of the Korean Peninsula had been liberated by Soviet troops. The southern half of the Korean Peninsula soon became occupied by US troops. In the northern part of the country, the major anti-Japanese resistance political parties — including communists, Social Democrats, agrarian revolutionaries, Christians, and many others — merged in 1948 to form the Korean Workers Party.

The understanding at the war’s conclusion was that there would be a nationwide election, in which every political party, including the very popular Korean Workers Party, would be allowed to participate in writing a new constitution.

However, in the southern half of the Peninsula, a military dictatorship was established. Syngman Rhee seized power and violently suppressed all opposition. The Rhee dictatorship was openly supported by the United States. Thousands of US troops poured into the country to prop up the military regime.

When democratic and labor activists living on Jeju Island rose up against Syngman Rhee to demand the free elections promised at the end of the war, US troops joined Rhee’s forces in slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians. Thirty thousand people — roughly one out of every ten people living on Jeju Island — were killed in the aftermath of the uprising.

South Korea: Mass execution of "commies"—were fully endorsed and facilitated by the US army. — South Korea: Mass execution of “commies” were fully endorsed and facilitated by the US army.

In response to US military occupation of the southern half of Korea, the canceling of free elections, and the slaughter of innocent Korean civilians by US troops, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) based in the northern territories of the peninsula, sent forces into the south, hoping to reunify the country and drive out US troops.

The response to the attempted reunification was the horrific United Nations “police action,” more commonly known as the Korean War. The United States bombed every building above one story tall in the northern half of the country. Dams were bombed in order to cause mass flooding of civilian areas. Between 3 and 4 million Koreans were killed.

An armistice was declared in 1953 — but the United States never signed a peace treaty, as was agreed upon. The Korean War technically never ended, and the United States has not even recognized the DPRK as a legitimate government.

“Democracy” in Southern Korea?

[dropcap]D[/dropcap]uring the majority of the years between 1945 and today, the southern half of the Korean Peninsula has been ruled by unapologetic military dictators. Syngman Rhee and Park Chung Hee made no pretense of being democratic. They were violent, repressive military autocrats who were fully supported by the United States. Tens of thousands of US troops have been in southern Korea since the end of the Second World War, and often the US troops were used to violently suppress democratic uprisings against the Rhee and Park dictatorships.After a series of student uprisings, labor protests, and other upsurges among the population, in the 1980s Korea transitioned toward a less repressive government. However, even today the government in southern Korea is hardly a poster child for “human rights.”

The Unified Progressive Party, the only genuine opposition party in southern Korea, was forcibly broken up by the government in 2013. Five candidates from the Unified Progressive Party, who had won seats in the government, were not permitted to take office. The leader of the party, Lee Seok-ki, was sent to prison for 12 years. Her conviction was based on a tape-recorded hypothetical conversation about what to do in the event of war between the United States and the DPRK.

A Korean youth named Park Jung-geun was sent to prison for 10 months in 2012, simply for re-tweeting the statements of the DPRK on social media. Park included sarcastic, anti-communist comments, and was clearly not a supporter of his northern countryfolk. He was still imprisoned.

The National Security Laws in the southern part of the Korean peninsula violate any notion of “human rights” and “free speech.” In southern Korea, making any statement in support of the DPRK, or even vaguely in support of Marxism or socialism, is a very serious crime. Koreans live in fear of openly speaking about the history of their country, the continued presence of US troops, or commonly discussed political concepts like class struggle. Saying anything that could in any way be construed as positive about their northern countryfolk could very well mean being imprisoned or tortured under Korean law.

The current president of the “Republic of Korea” in the southern regions of the country is Park Geun-hye. [Note: Park was recently replaced on charges of widespread corruption, by Moon Jae-in, billed as a "liberal"]. She is the daughter of the previously mentioned military dictator Park Chung Hee. Park was not only responsible for the death of tens of thousands of innocent people; he routinely employed methods of torture, collective punishment, retaliation against family members, and other extreme violations of human rights.

Park Guen-hye makes no attempt to distance herself from her father or any of his autocratic practices and well documented crimes against humanity. She describes her father’s coup d’état — in which he deposed the elected government with violence and established a brutal military dictatorship — as a “revolution to save the country” from communism.

Despite so much ugly repression, US media routinely calls the “Republic of Korea” in the south “democratic.”

Conditions in the North

During the 1960s, 70s, and even the early 80s, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in the northern parts of the country, had a very strong economy.

This fact will of course be automatically dismissed as outrageous propaganda by the average American, but it is confirmed by the BBC [itself no paragon of truth, as it has lately openly degenerated into imperial propagandising.—Eds.]

An article from BBC’s website proclaims: “At one time, North Korea’s centrally planned economy seemed to work well — indeed, in the initial years after the creation of North Korea following World War II, with spectacular results.”

“The mass mobilisation of the population, along with Soviet and Chinese technical assistance and financial aid, resulted in annual economic growth rates estimated to have reached 20%, even 30%, in the years following the devastating 1950-53 Korean war.”

“As late as the 1970s, South Korea languished in the shadow of the ‘economic miracle’ north of the border.”

The DPRK’s crisis of malnutrition during the 1990s was the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The agrarian parts of the Korean Peninsula are all in the south, while the north is very mountainous. Without oil from the Soviet Union, it became very hard for the DPRK’s agricultural system to function. Sanctions from the United States made it nearly impossible for the DPRK to purchase things on the international markets, and as a result, there was mass starvation. [This was not a sign of government tyranny—as claimed by US propaganda— or the "inherent" flaws of socialism.]

Koreans refer to this period of mass starvation in the 1990s as the “Arduous March” and they justly blame the United States’ economic and military blockade of their country for it. The conditions in the northern regions of the Korean peninsula were very bad during the 1990s, and any other government would have most likely collapsed under such pressure.

The DPRK has been able to slowly recover from these disastrous years. The DPRK now trades with Russia, Iran, Venezuela, China, and other countries. The DPRK’s agricultural system has been revamped, and the country has now been able to allocate money toward the construction of new housing units and other infrastructure for the population.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he US media would like us to believe all kinds of disasters and poverty are inherent in communism. But such disasters are usually foreign-made, injected by the revolution’s enemies. A case in point: Sanctions from the United States made it nearly impossible for the DPRK to purchase things on the international markets, and as a result, there was mass starvation. This, once again, “proved to the gullible American people, that “communism doesn’t work.”

Defense spending remains a top priority in the DPRK, and almost every Korean above the age of 18 is somehow involved in the military. Those who criticize the DPRK for this forget that this is a country which is literally at war with the United States. Tens of thousands of US troops are lined up along its borders. The US military routinely rehearses dropping atomic bombs on the DPRK, and US Army General Douglas MacArthur publicly threatened to do this during the Korean War.

Koreans in the north generally feel that the proliferation of nuclear weapons has enabled them to be much more secure as a country. Now that the DPRK has the atomic bomb, the United States is far less likely to attack or invade and carry out the “regime change” it often discusses.

No country, facing such extreme threats and encirclement, can be expected to be a free, open society full of debate and discussion. The DPRK is locked down, in a state of war, fighting for its survival. No sensible person would claim it is a paradise, or an ideal model for human civilization. Under extremely hostile circumstances, the DPRK survives — primarily because of the political brilliance of the Korean Workers Party and its overall ability to mobilize and maintain the loyalty of the population.

Often the US media portrays the DPRK’s leadership as vulgar nationalists or “supremacists.” Those who fall for US media claims that the DPRK is somehow “racist” should note that the DPRK has a record of international solidarity with oppressed peoples around the world.

The DPRK was very supportive of the US Black Panther Party during the 1970s. The DPRK has come to the aid of the Palestinians.

The DPRK also supported the people of Zimbabwe as they fought against the British Empire and the apartheid settler state called “Rhodesia.” The DPRK supported the people of Angola in fighting against Portuguese colonialism. The DPRK even gave military support to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, while the US described them as “terrorists.”

Anti-Asian Racism and War Propaganda

[dropcap]H[/dropcap]atred for the DPRK seems to be almost compulsive in the United States. US media routinely repeats outrageous anti-DPRK allegations that have no basis in fact.

US media has claimed that women in the DPRK are forbidden to ride bicycles. This claim is easily refuted. Women in the DPRK not only ride bicycles, but have won Gold Medals in Olympic sports such as target shooting and weightlifting.

Without the slightest hesitation, US media repeated the claim that a prominent DPRK official was executed by “being eaten by a pack of wild dogs.” This outrageous story was proven to have originated in a satirical publication in China, and was never even intended to be true.

Hollywood churns out films like “Red Dawn,” “Olympus Has Fallen” and “The Interview,” all of which are dedicated to demonizing the DPRK, dehumanizing its population, and psychologically preparing the US public for war. The amount of extreme distortion associated with everything related to the situation on the Korean Peninsula should be very shocking and upsetting to any sensible person.

Many Asian Americans say the manner in which the DPRK is portrayed in US media should be offensive, not just to Koreans, but to all Asians. The anti-DPRK Hollywood film “The Interview,” which caused international tensions, involved extensive mockery of the Korean accent by white male actors. Furthermore, the film notably portrayed Korean women — who were forced into sexual slavery by Japan, and often raped by US troops during the Korean War — as mere sex objects, with white male characters crassly commenting on their bodies.

The extensive mockery of accents, clothing styles and other things in relation to the DPRK all fits into an archaic racist concept commonly called “Asiatic despotism.” At one time, the US and western European press portrayed Chinese, Vietnamese, and even Russian leaders in roughly the same way.

The racist underlying message hinted at in the endless slander and mockery of Korea’s leadership is that the peoples of Asian descent are barbaric savages, who naturally long for autocracy, and need whites to forcibly “civilize” them and teach them about “democracy.” While the extreme demonization of the DPRK’s leaders is the most blatant example, the old racist caricature of “Asiatic despots” and “Mongoloid tyrants” is gradually reemerging in relation to Xi Jinping in China and Vladimir Putin in Russia.

For the last five decades, the DPRK has called for peaceful reunification of the Korean Peninsula. The leaders of the Korean Workers Party currently ask for nothing more than what was agreed upon at the end of the Second World War. They want nationwide elections in which every party, including the communists, can participate. They also want US troops to leave.

This is hardly a radical or extreme proposal. The request of the DPRK is essentially: “Let Koreans run Korea.” There is nothing “extreme,” “crazy,” or “insane” about it.

Koreans are people — just like Americans, Western Europeans, Russians, Iranians, Chinese, or others. However, the Koreans are a people that have been subjected to almost a century of division, degradation and extreme humiliation by foreign powers.

The people of the Korean Peninsula, both in the north and the south, deserve our support and respect, not further demonization and mockery. The US media’s use of such extreme deception and racism in its portrayal of the situation on the Korean Peninsula should be a source of global outrage.

About the Author

Caleb Maupin

Is an American journalist and political analyst. Tasnim News Agency described him as “a native of Ohio who has campaigned against war and the U.S. financial system.” His political activism began while attending Baldwin-Wallace College in Ohio. In 2010, he video recorded a confrontation between Collinwood High School students who walked out to protest teacher layoffs and the police. His video footage resulted in one of the students being acquitted in juvenile court. He was a figure within the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City. Maupin writes on American foreign policy and other social issues. Maupin is featured as a Distinguished Collaborator with The Greanville Post. READ MORE ABOUT CALEB MAUPIN HERE.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

Trump’s Fascism versus Obama’s Fascism

BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES. HELP US DEFEAT THE EMPIRE'S DISINFORMATION.

Barack Obama was the only U.S. President who at the United Nations defended nazism — racist fascism — and Holocaust-denial. It received almost no reporting by the press at the time (or subsequently). But his successor President Donald Trump could end up being removed from office because he said that racist fascists are just the same as are people who demonstrate publicly against them. Trump’s politically stupid (not to say callous) remark became viral, and apparently the press (which had ignored Obama’s defense of nazism at the U.N.) just won’t let go of Trump’s statement unless and until he becomes replaced by his even-more-far-right Vice President, Mike Pence.

Why is there this intense press-coverage of Trump’s support of racist fascism, when there wasn’t of Obama’s (which was actually far more meaningful)? The answer comes closer if we ponder first a different question: How could the Republican Party, which is right-wing at its core, condemn a Democratic Party President who goes out of his way at the U.N. to protect today’s nazis? That wouldn’t be politically practical for Republican politicians to complain about (a Democrat’s being too far to the right); so, they didn’t do it. Similarly, no Democrat will criticize a Republican for being too leftist. There may be a few exceptions, but that’s the general rule: Successful politicians don’t offend their base.

Obama, the consummate poseur, looking dignified while listening to his accomplice in fascist projects (ambassador at the UNO) Samantha Power.

But that still doesn’t fully answer why the press ignored it when Obama defended nazism at the U.N. The rest of the answer comes when we recognize that America’s press gets its cues from the two political Parties. If the ‘opposition’ (and not just the President’s own Party) is hiding something egregious that a President is doing or has done (such as happened there with Obama, and with many other conservative policies that Obama executed), then the press will hide it, too. Republicans weren’t calling attention to Obama’s defense of nazism, because they’d then be offending some of their own supporters. (Democrats weren’t calling attention to it, because a Democrat was doing this, which didn’t fit the ‘progressive’ storyline.) And, if the ‘opposition’ isn’t pointing it out, then neither will the press. The matter will then just be ignored — which is what happened. This was thus bipartisan non-reporting, of what Obama did. There was a lot of that while Obama was President.

In other words: America’s press are tools of, and are led by, the same people who actually, deep down, control both of America’s political Parties — the billionaires. They control both politics, and also the press. Numerous social-science studies have shown that the wealthier a person is, the likelier that person is to be politically conservative — at least to the extent that political conservatism doesn’t threaten his or her particular business and financial interests. As America’s billionaires have come to control America’s politics, this country has been moving farther and farther to the right, except on the relatively few issues (such as immigration, gay rights, etc.) where their own economic interests are served better by a progressive position (or, at least, by a position that seems to most people to be progressive).

Trump’s problem here is that he’s too obviously playing to his Party’s base. Obama didn’t need to do that, because he had massive support from billionaires, and he was a much better liar than Trump, good enough to keep many progressive voters with him even after he had already shafted them in his actual policies. For example, when Obama dropped ‘the public option’ as soon as he became elected, he was excused for it because most Americans thought he was simply being practical and avoiding an ‘unnecessary’ conflict with the opposite Party in Congress. This view ignored that he gave up on it even as being a bargaining-chip to get concessions from congressional Republicans to drive new legislation to be more progressive. Obama had no interest in progressivism. Actually, Obama didn’t want to offend his mega-donors. He thus handed the task of drafting the Obamacare law to the conservative Democrat, and public-option opponent, Max Baucus, instead of to the progressive Democrat and public-option supporter, Ted Kennedy, who desperately wanted (and expected) to have the opportunity to draft it.

Both Trump and Obama (in their actions, if not also in their words) are proponents of what Benito Mussolini called “Corporationism” — big-corporate control of the government, which Mussolini more-commonly referred to as “fascism.” President Trump has been widely condemned both here in the U.S. and around the world (which his predecessor President Barack Obama never was), for his recent blatant statement equating the worst of fascists, which are racist fascists, as being comparable to the people who in Charlottesville Virginia had marched and demonstrated against racist fascists and who were violently attacked and one of them killed by racist fascists, against whom they had been protesting. Trump was equating anti-fascists with fascists, and he even equated racist fascists — ideological nazis — with the people who were protesting specifically against nazism. Apparently, the press won’t let go of it. They treat this event as if top-level U.S. nazism were unprecedented in today’s post-WW-II America — as if this nation were still anti-nazi (as it had been in FDR’s White House), and as if this incident with Trump says something only about Trump, and not also, and far more meaningfully, about today’s American government, including Trump’s own immediate predecessor-in-office, and also about America’s current press-institution, and about what it has become.

As this reporter had headlined on 24 November 2014, "U.S. Among Only 3 Countries at U.N. Officially Backing Nazism & Holocaust-Denial; Israel Parts Company from Them; Germany Abstains”. Obama and his friend and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power were unapologetic about having done that at the U.N., and Obama’s U.N. representative continued in that vein. As I headlined a few months later, on 21 June 2015, "America’s U.N. Ambassador Continues Standing Up for Nazis”. Both of those two news-articles were submitted to all of the U.S. and also to much of the European mainstream — and additionally to some of the ‘alt-news’ — international-news media, but each of the two articles was published only in around a half-dozen of only alternative-news sites. The ‘news’media (especially the mainstream ones) weren’t nearly as concerned about Obama’s blatantly racist-fascist, and specifically anti-Russian, actions, as they are concerned today, about the current U.S. President’s bending-over-backwards to retain his support from America’s racist-fascist or nazi voters, whom he apparently considers an essential part of his base. (Why else would he even say such a thing?)

Whereas Obama was imposing an actual nazi international campaign (via a violent anti-democratic coup, followed by an ethnic-cleansing campaign to cement it) in which his U.N. Ambassador played her necessary role, Trump was politically supporting an important portion of his voting-base, but not doing anything in actual policy-fact — at the U.N. or anywhere else — such as Obama had done. But the press focuses on Trump as if he were initiating the acceptability of nazism in the U.S. body-politic. Trump wasn’t.

Obama had done something truly remarkable: he was the first U.S. President, since the pre-Civil-War U.S. had ended and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln courageously led this nation clearly and explicitly away from its deeply racist past, to support publicly, and to carry out in policy a clearly racist policy-initiative, a blatant ethnic-cleansing military campaign. It aimed to remove from Ukraine’s voter-rolls the residents of the areas of Ukraine where from 75% to 90% of the voters had voted for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom Obama in February 2014 had just overthrown by hiring racist-facist gunmen to drive out of power that man whom those people had so heavily voted for, in what now turned out to have been Ukraine’s final democratic nationwide election. Unless Obama eliminated those voters — ethnic Russians — the far-right politicians whom he had placed into power after the U.S. coup wouldn’t last through the first Ukrainian national election after the coup. Ethnic-cleansing was the only way to make Obama’s coup-regime stick; so, that’s what he wanted his Ukrainian stooges to do, and they tried their utmost to do it (and they’re still trying).

With all of the decades that have passed after World War II, not only Americans but also publics elsewhere, including publics in nations that America considers to be ‘allies’, such as Israel, seem to have lost any consciousness they might have had in the wake of Hitler’s defeat, about what racist fascism — what the ideology (and not just the German political party, where it had an initial capital letter) nazism — actually was, and what it meant. It wasn’t just anti-Semitic fascism that had been defeated in that war, but anti-Korean fascism, and anti-Chinese fascism, and anti-Russian fascism, and more forms of racist capitalistic dictatorship, the nazi ideology, which were defeated in WW II. During John F. Kennedy’s Presidency, the U.S. federal government very reluctantly started to deal with this country’s deepseated residual institutional racism against America’s Blacks; but, still, the ethnocentrism in America — even among Blacks and Jews — remained so pronounced, so that President Obama on 28 May 2014 could, without shame or any political embarrassment, tell the graduating class of future U.S. military leaders at West Point:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.

But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm. Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as Commander-in-Chief, there have been those who warned against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing. Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.

A different view from interventionists from the left and right says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos.

He said that all nations other than the U.S. are “dispensable.” He said that the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums,” and that “It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.” He said that “conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are ... ours to solve.” He derided “self-described realists” who didn’t share his international idealism, of his own nation’s seeking out, instead of warning “against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing.” He said that “America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and that George Washington was wrong.

He was saying that Hitler and Hirohito were right; that they had merely led the ‘wrong’ countries.

This man, who had just led the bloody coup and instigated the ethnic-cleansing campaign that forced two regions of the former Ukraine to secede from Ukraine and to seek instead Russia’s protection (and he then instituted sanctions against Russia for providing that protection to them), was there and then lecturing America’s future military leaders, to instruct them that they would have the right to invade “dispensable” countries, and to “apply force around the world,” in order to deal with the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes [that] compete with us, and governments [that] seek a greater say in global forums.” (He wanted none of that freedom for them.) He said that ignoring George Washington is “the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and is somehow in accord with America’s values, even if not of George Washington’s values.

The ultimate insult was that this was coming from a man who considered himself to be a Black — as if he were somehow in the tradition of Martin Luther King, who had urged America to quit its invasion of Vietnam. Instead, Obama invaded and wrecked Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen.

Well, that wasn’t actually quite the ultimate insult: the ultimate insult was that Blacks continued to believe in him, and never turned against that nazi. They evidently keep what some of them call (as if it were a racial trait) ‘White man’s values’.

Values are not a racial trait, but stupidity and small-mindedness are the human norm everywhere, and no nation is ‘indispensable’ — far less, is any ‘the one indispensable nation’: not ancient Rome, not Germany, not Japan, not the U.S. — none, at all.

That statement by Obama to America’s future military leaders, was only verbal, but its underlying value-system is clearly fascist. When Obama defended racist fascism at the United Nations, it wasn’t by any such mere speech, but by his actual actions, at the U.N., carried out there by his friend and U.N. Ambassador, Samanta Power, as I reported on 24 November 2014. To an intelligent person, actions speak far more convincingly about a person than that individual’s mere words do. Obama’s defense of nazism at the U.N. was a stunning action by him (via his agent), which made unequivocally clear what his actual values were. Obama there and then set a new precedent, established a new low, as to how bad an actor in the international community, the U.S. had become — the depths to which this nation has sunk, after it had performed such an important and very positive role in helping to defeat nazism during World War II — this was a complete reversal of America’s position, on the basic issue of that war, which issue was nazism itself.

Trump’s foreign policies seem to be mainly aiming to out-do his predecessor’s. But, in no way is Trump yet the nazi that Obama proved himself to be. Trump could turn out to be that bad, if the people who are urging him to intensify America’s war against Russia and/or against Iran have their way. The “neoconservatives” (the foreign-policy ideology that’s sponsored by America’s billionaires of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties) seem still to be basically in control. Trump nonetheless could turn out to be the idealist that Obama, Hitler, and Hirohito, were, but there’s at least the possibility that he will instead turn out to be one of “the self-described realists” whom Obama had derided. Trump hasn’t yet exposed his true self, to the extent that Obama did during his eight years. But the ‘news’media are already calling Trump a “White racist.” First (and even before Trump was elected), Democrats, and most billionaires, and their ‘news’media, demagogued that Trump is unfit for the Presidency (and that the super-neoconservative Hillary Clinton must be elected instead) because ‘Trump is Putin’s stooge’. Now, it’s because Trump is a nazi, or because he’s insane, so they’re urging that Trump be replaced by his Vice President Mike Pence. It seems that the people who cheered-on Obama’s nazism (except when they said that Obama was being ‘too cautious’ about it) don’t like Trump, at all.

But, are America’s billionaires really that eager to replace Trump by Pence? One might wonder how far this campaign will go.

About the author

They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The “neoconservatives” (the foreign-policy ideology that’s sponsored by America’s billionaires of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties) seem still to be basically in control. Trump nonetheless could turn out to be the idealist that Obama, Hitler, and Hirohito, were, but there’s at least the possibility that he will instead turn out to be one of “the self-described realists” whom Obama had derided. Trump hasn’t yet exposed his true self, to the extent that Obama did during his eight years.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Human Connectedness and the Disconnected Power Elite of America

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

STREET PHOTOGRAPHY

I was emotional. They are only fossils,

but they have been human beings and

very quickly you make a connection with

these people who lived and died here

300,000 years ago.

Dr.Jean-Jacques Hublin

Human connectedness, the existence of a positive, physical, visual or mental association between two or more human beings is like a chain across time. Searching for one’s ancestry through DNA testing, for example, is one way to lengthen the chain. As for Dr. Hublin, a paleontologist and director of the Department of Human Development at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, simply seeing and holding the fossils got him emotionally connected to human beings 300,000 years old.1 They weren’t his known ancestors. They were simply human beings like him. He had immediately bonded with them so to speak. I get the same feeling simply from viewing pictures of the fossils.

The Disconnectedness of America’s Power Elite

If all human beings had the same positive sense of connectedness the world would not be what it is, a place inhabited by countless human beings living in misery and subjugated and terrorized by evil regimes. As it is, there probably have been few if any cultures or countries throughout history that have not been plagued by a certain tiny percentage of people I will call the power elite. And throughout history America remains the land of the most powerful and dangerous power elite in the world. America’s power elite alone is directly responsible for wars, violent regime changes to install puppet rulers, and for human suffering of all kinds on a large scale.

Some Self Portraits of America’s Power Elite

What country can preserve its liberties

if their rulers are not warned from time to

time that their people preserve the spirit

of resistance? let them take arms. what

signify a few lives lost in a century or

two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed

from time to time with the blood of patriots

& tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was certainly disconnected from the common folk. What did he care if some of their blood was spilt for the sake of another revolution?²

--I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of

bringing about in any way the social and political

equality of the white and black races---and I as much

as any other man am in favor of having the superior

position assigned to the white race."

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln was a racist, disconnected from slaves.³ His Civil War, the most deadly for Americans of any U.S. military intervention, was launched not to free the slaves but to maintain the ability to expand the nation’s territory and with it greater markets and resources.

I can hire one-half of the working class

to kill the other half.

Jay Gould

Jay Gould was a ruthless railroad tycoon and one of 24 robber barons during America’s gilded age in the late 1800’s.⁴

...I should welcome almost any war,

for I think this country needs one.

Theodore Roosevelt

Despite what he said publicly about matters of war and peace, what the consummate warrior in chief wrote to a confidant reveals his true contempt for the common people.⁵

Scare the Hell out of the American people.

Arthur Vandenberg

The disdain for the American people shown by Senator Vandenberg in advising President Truman on how to peddle his proposed Truman Doctrine is pro forma for America’s power elite.⁶

Why do you care about the serfs?

Nick Rockefeller

Nick Rockefeller is a member of the Rockefeller dynasty and thus also a current member of America’s power elite that speaks and acts in unison. His question was in response to the late Hollywood director and activist Aaron Russo saying in rejection of Rockefeller’s invitation to join the Council of Foreign Relations that he “had no interest in enslaving people.”⁷

The immigration of Jews from the Soviet

Union is not an objective of American

Foreign policy, and if they put Jews

into gas chambers in the Soviet Union,

it is not an American concern.

Henry Kissinger

----a massive bombing campaign [involving]

anything that flies or anything that moves.

Henry Kissinger

The above two quotes are among “the top 10 most inhuman Henry Kissinger Quotes” compiled by the late journalist, Fred Branfman.⁸

Medea Benjamin, peace activist and former Nobel nominee for the Peace Prize, after dangling handcuffs and holding signs that said “Arrest Kissinger for War Crimes,” was tossed out of a Senate hearing where Kissinger was about to testify. In writing about her experience, Ms Benjamin quoted the late Christopher Hitchens who said that “Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded."⁹

I think this is a very hard choice, but

the price—we think the price is worth it,”

Madeleine Albright

That was the heartless answer the former Secretary of State gave to reporter Lesley Stahl’s question about whether the price of sanctions against Iran were worth it considering half a million children died as a result.¹⁰

And before any strike is taken, there

must be near- certainty that no

civilians will be killed or injured-

the highest standard we can set.

Barack Obama

Obama’s statement is a perfect example of human disconnectedness and moral rationalization and disingenuousness about decisions that have cost countless civilians’ lives.¹¹ Obama clearly sidestepped a higher standard, that of human morality, or even that of animal morality since few species massively kill their own.

You go into Afghanistan, you got guys

who slap women around for five years

because they didn’t wear a veil. You know,

guys like that ain’t got no manhood left

anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to

shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight

them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot.

It’s fun to shoot some people.

Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis.
U.S. Secretary of Defense War

Need more be added about this particular specimen?¹²

I don’t care how it’s done or its consequences

as long as it boosts our bottom line. And don’t

tell me how it was done.

Archetypical Corporate CEO

In an earlier article I described 255 real incidents of corporate wrongdoing that ranged from the mundane to the deadly.¹³ The most egregious of them could not have been done without either the explicit or implicit order from the corner office (e.g., causing more climate change from production and waste than any other source; diluted cancer drugs to boost profits; exports for sale more weapons than any other country; makes and sells products deliberately intended to kill; finances wars; launders drug money; builds cars “unsafe at any speed;” etc.).

Questions About the Power Elite

What is it about this tiny class of people throughout the history of the world that makes them so disconnected to, so contemptuous of, and so deliberately harmful to the rest of humanity? What causes them to be the opposite of what it means to be human in the view of Professor John McDonnell Tierney? To him, being human means being caring, compassionate, and kind sentient entity-stewards of the Earth.”¹⁴

I am going to break down these two general questions into three specific ones.

1. Evil?

Evil means profound immorality. As this definition goes, evil is simply the deepest of immorality, so should we not expect to find among the power elite some profoundly evil members? Does it also go without saying that lesser degrees of immorality abound among the power elite? A.Q. Smith, a progressive journalist, undoubtedly would think so for he has concluded that “it’s basically just immoral to be rich,” and adds that “people who possess great wealth in a time of poverty are directly causing that poverty.”¹⁵ For me a clear sign of immoral behavior is when the ends of power and wealth justify the means of achieving those ends, and the means always involve wrongdoing from the mundane to the heinous.

2. Pathological?

Chris Hedges, journalist, broadcaster, and prolific author, regards the “pathology of the rich white family [to be] the most dangerous pathology in America---cursed with too much money and privilege [and] devoid of empathy, the result of lifetimes of entitlement.” That statement was just his opening salvo in a long article that ends with: “They steal with greater finesse than anyone else.”¹⁶

Psychologist William Hirstein has mined the expansive field of research and authoritative opinion on what a psychopathic personality is. Its signature attribute was deemed by the medical profession in the early 1800’s to be that of “moral depravity” or “moral insanity.” Other attributes now included by authorities are uncaring, shallow emotions, irresponsibility, insincere speech, overconfidence, and selfishness.¹⁷

Consider for a moment just the 43 U.S. presidents long enough in office to be surrogate murderers and have some experts give us their opinion, which is that being psychopathic fits every single one of them.¹⁸ Their assessments go as far as Obama, but we can turn now to a prestigious panel of psychiatrists who concluded before his first 100 days in office that President Trump “has a dangerous mental illness [and] is paranoid and delusional.”¹⁹

3. Greedy?

Are the powerful elite “cursed with too much money, as Mr. Hedges contends, or are they cursed with wanting even more money? Considering the previous two questions, the answer to this third one might seem irrelevant except that greed motivates evil and pathological people.

In Closing

Can you just imagine if they were to read the quoted remarks of some of their revered, iconic leaders what the responses would be from most Americans, having been indoctrinated from early formative years forward by the power elite to see what they believe?

By the way, what, if I may ask, are your answers to the three questions, and do you have more to raise and answer?

Endnotes

1. Sample, I. Oldest Homo Sapiens Bones Ever Found Shake Foundations of the Human Story. Science, June 19, 2017.

2. Jefferson, T. A Rebellion or Revolution is Needed Every 20 Years! Amin, October 8, 2011.

3. Zinn, H. A People’s History of the United States. Harper Perennial, 2005, p. 188.

4. Lubin, G., Kelley, M.B., and Wile R. Meet the 24 Robber Barons Who Once Ruled America. Business Insider, March 20, 2012.

5. Crucible of Empire. pbs.org.

6. Skidmore, D. Reversing Course: Carter's Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, and the Failure of Reform. Vanderbilt University Press, 1996, p. 17.

7. Watson, P.J. Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal of Microchipped Population. Prison Planet, January 29, 2007.

8. Branfman, F. The Top 10 Most Inhuman Henry Kissinger Quotes. Alter Net, February 12, 2016.

9. Benjamin, M. Will the Real "Low-Life Scum" Please Stand Up? OpEdNews, February 4, 2015; see also, Hitchens, C. The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Twelve, 2012.

10. 60 Minutes, May 12, 1996.

11. Vitkovskaya, J. 9 Revealing Staments Obama Has Made About Transparency and Drone Strikes. The Washington Post, July 1, 2016.

12. Floores, R., Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis: 7 Memorable Quotes. CBS NEWS December 2, 2016.

13. Brumback, G. An Evil Root. OpEdNews, March 8; Dissident Voice, March 15; The Greanville Post, March 20; Uncommon Thought Journal, March 21, 2017.

14. Tierney, J.M. On Being Human, Dreamsinger Little Books, 2011.

15. Smith, A.Q. It’s Basically Just Immoral To Be Rich. Current Affairs, March 30, 2017.

16. Hedges, C. The Pathology of the Rich White Family. TruthDig, May 17, 2015.

17. Hirstein, W. What Is a Psychopath? Psychology Today, January 30, 2013.

18. Howard, J. Psychopathic Personality Traits Linked With U.S. Presidential Success, Psychologists Suggest. The Huffington Post, September 13, 2012. See also, Frank, J. Bush on the Couch. Harper Perennial, 2005; and Frank, J. Obama on the Couch. Free Press, 2012.

19. Bulman, M. Donald Trump has ‘Dangerous Mental Illness', Say Psychiatry Experts at Yale Conference. Independent News, April 21, 2017.

About the Author

Chris Hedges, journalist, broadcaster, and prolific author, regards the “pathology of the rich white family [to be] the most dangerous pathology in America—cursed with too much money and privilege [and] devoid of empathy, the result of lifetimes of entitlement.” That statement was just his opening salvo in a long article that ends with: “They steal with greater finesse than anyone else.”

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found