We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up
Saturday, July 23, 2016
I'm not so sure that one can look at "China through a lens, clearly" by reading Jeff Brown's book. Although unlike what I found as mostly extremely positive reports about China in his online articles (now found here), Nissani assures us that in this book Brown presents a reasonably balanced report on current Chinese society. But then Nissani ends up posing many more questions that I had hoped the book might answer.
I was initially very impressed with Brown's writings a few years ago which provided a much needed prospective on China from an American living and working in China (Nissani also lived in China for a brief period) to fill a large void missing in corporate media, and what little coverage they provided was mostly negative. Subsequently I noticed that his views expressed a decidedly and consistent pro-China bias. It was almost like he was trying to convince himself that he made the right choice by moving to China. In other words, there seemed to be no balance to his reporting on Chinese affairs. I suspect that this might be an over-reaction to years of anti-China propaganda that he was fed by US corporate media. For Americans who have little knowledge about Chinese society, this book might be a good entry point.
For background material on contemporary China I recommend reading the Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping (vol. 3). Ever since 1978 when Deng Xiaoping took control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China has launched a broad policy in pursuit of economic development. To accomplish this they opened China to the outside world, particularly to Western capitalist countries, under a "one country, two systems" policy. This policy combines significant (but not exclusive) capitalist development of their economy which is under the control and direction of the CCP. This policy induced, or one might argue "seduced", Western corporations to transfer a lot of their operations to China by offering cheap labor and other inducements as a method to rapidly obtain the high technology of the West while improving China's economy, while for Western corporations the prospects of increased profits could not be ignored. Since then the CCP has pursued a peaceful strategy that attempts to use economic development as a method to deal with conflicts both internal to China and external in foreign relations.
This general policy has succeeded beyond even the CCP's wildest dreams. However, the risk has always been that the capitalist pursuit of profit by any means would have a corrupting influence on China and the CCP. Although China is strongly supporting renewable energies and implementing changes to improve the environment, they appear to be promoting economic development as a major priority over sustainability. China's pursuit of nuclear power seems to be an illustration of this priority.
One major worrying effect of China's success as an economic powerhouse is that the US-led Empire's ruling class now see China as a threat to their domination of the world. This has resulted in the Empire's "pivot to Asia [China]" foreign policy which we currently see dangerously being played out in the conflicts about control over the South China Sea.
Like many of these climate related websites that are funded by wealthy charities featuring writers from corporate media or government media, there is no mention of the 800 pound capitalist gorilla in the room that is driving the plunder of the Earth's natural resources.
"Who are the capitalists?" the professor asks his students. I give the professor a "D" for his answer. Any definition has, of course, an element of arbitrariness to it, but this is especially true when dealing with amounts of income from capital, and even more-so when looking at compensation for boards of directors. I think I can do better. A capitalist is anyone whose income is substantially from the ownership of capital or property.
What I think he describes, if we focus on major financial as well as industrial corporations, is a capitalist ruling class. The amounts they receive on these boards is usually quite inconsequential to their total income. Often it is pocket change to them. Still I believe the subject is well worth thinking about.
Friday, July 22, 2016
In my opinion Shoup is a leading intellectual and writer on the left, and thus his dissection of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as a primary think tank for the Empire should be read seriously.
We learn from the book review and other sources that the origins of the CFR stems from the merger of Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), a major British think tank, with a group of intellectuals and diplomats connected with Wall Street in 1921. This bi-product of WWI created a close relationship between the ruling capitalist class of the British Empire with Wall Street capitalists of the US. (Carroll Quigley has written about this in his book The Anglo-American Establishment.)
Much of the first half of the 20th century in which a multi-polar capitalist world existed, there emerged a contest for world dominance between Germany and Britain. Because Wall Street capitalists had in WWI bet heavily (in the form of loans) on Britain and France in this contest, they were soon able to get the US participation in the war to insure victory and the repayment of their loans (with interest). In WWII this rivalry, their earlier defeat, and bitter memories over the Versailles Treaty activated the deep resentment of the Nazis and provoked them into invading France, the Low Countries, and to launch an air attack on Britain (for less than 4 months) in spite of the fact that many Western capitalists had financially backed the German Nazi party as an instrument that would destroy the Soviet Union, a major heretic in an otherwise capitalist world. In was this same division among the allied capitalist countries that enabled the easy early German victories, and not the overwhelming power of the German military.
The British-American origins of this major "think tank" of the US-led Empire has forged an alliance among Anglo-American capitalists that plays a key role in policies and actions of the Empire that we see today.
While the CFR has a long history, the focus of this book is its role in the formulation and propagation of neoliberalism as the dominant ideological prescription for governments globally since the 1970s. A highly prominent figure within the CFR, David Rockefeller, who was chairman between 1970 and 1985 (and the single largest financial contributor of the organisation’s entire history), was an early enthusiast for Friedrich von Hayek’s free market dogmas at the heart of neoliberal economics.
Only a psychopath could read someone else’s lies from their teleprompter with such feigned emotion. And only the flag-waving, dumbed down masses could believe them. Politicians are puppets, and your only questions should be: “Who is writing their speeches? And who is pulling their strings?”
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Todhunter with his brilliant, penetrating mind refocuses his attention and ours from corporate contamination of food and the harm they are causing independent farmers to another aspect of capitalist rule--the ever present threat of their use of catastrophic weapons, especially nuclear weapons. He was prompted to write this essay by some remarks made by the new British prime minister, Theresa May, who said she wouldn't hesitate to use these weapons of mass destruction (presumably under certain conditions).
Politicians like May are reading from script devised by the elite interests. Members of this elite comprise the extremely wealthy of the world who set the globalisation and war agendas at the G8, G20,NATO,the World Bank, and the WTO. They are from the highest levels of finance capital and transnational corporations. This transnational capitalist class dictate global economic policies and decide on who lives and who dies and which wars are fought and inflicted on which people.
The mainstream narrative tends to depict these individuals as "wealth creators".
Roberts provides and excellent review of Kennedy's opposition to the deep state that had been constructed after WWII to transfer control from the official capitalist government into an invisible government consisting of top capitalist figures in banking and corporations and using the new secret agencies to conduct activities that were illegal or that Americans would not support. Thus Kennedy, and others who stood in the way of this invisible government, had to be assassinated. However Roberts' focus is largely limited to the foreground of Kennedy's assassination and misses the greater significance of this new deep state: the emergence of neo-fascism to replace the capitalist version of democratic institutions of government. The latter became a facade while the former has taken control of all important decisions.
As a former member of the Reagan administration Roberts knows how the US government works. In this article he knows that the CIA functions to hide secrets from Americans and from the rest of the government. There are at least 15 other such government agencies, but I think that the CIA has played and is playing a key role in serving the ruling capitalist class in general, and the 9/11 project in particular. Given his knowledge about how these secret government agencies work, Roberts is very suspicious of the new revelations about the role the Saudi government played in the project.
The evidence of Saudi financing is what restores the credibility of the original story. Nothing changes in the story of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, the attack on the Pentagon, and the crashed airliner in Pennsylvania. American anger is now directed at the Saudis for financing the successful attacks.
To hype the Saudi story is to support the official story.
The murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castille were not unique. On average one black person is killed by police every day. But cameras were rolling and the sight of police lynch law twice in 48 hours was too much for millions of people to bear. So much so that revenge was not just contemplated but carried out. Micah Johnson and Gavin Long were named as suspects in shootings of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Both paid with their lives. If guilty, they were motivated to act on their anger and they changed everything about the movement to end police lynch law.Note: "Convos" in the following video is Gavin Long. (I wonder how long the agents of our masters will permit this video to be shown via YouTube.)
Johnson and Long were both black men who served in the military. Johnson was deployed in Afghanistan and Long in Iraq. Aside from the police version of their conversation with Johnson we know nothing about his thinking. But Long often expressed himself on social media. What he said is worthy of attention.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Ruccio writes a critical review of Boom Bust Boom, Terry Jones and Theo Kocken’s Monty Pythonesque documentary about the crash of 2007-08.
...the film is just not very good. For starters, consider the fact that, after the worst crisis of capitalism since the first Great Depression, only once is capitalism itself even mentioned!The filmmakers ultimately lay blame on human nature.
But that's "par for the course" for many of today's critics of vital political and economic issues. By providing cover for, diversions and distractions from, the debacles of capitalism they reduce any threats to their careers and material well-being from agents of the ruling capitalist class.
Thus anti-capitalist Marxists like John Bellamy Foster are shunted off to university ivory towers to expound about the intricacies of Marxist theory, while other more limited critics are given wide exposure on alternative media. Examples of the latter are Michael Hudson, whose focus is limited entirely to the evils of finance, and Eric Zuesse, whose liberal bias wants government to do more for the poor to prevent the gross inequality that we see today. Because Zuesse blames the "aristocracy" for this, one would think that we were living in the era of feudalism. More severe critics of the ruling capitalist class like retired Prof. Moti Nissani have been forced to avoid the wrath of our masters by escaping to other countries.
Sometimes when people are fed up with lies, hypocrisy, and phony propaganda, they resort to sarcasm. This is a good example.
Is it really necessary for me to explain to you why it’s acceptable, necessary, and admirable for the United States and its minor allies to be blowing up houses, families, men, women, and children in Syria?
This latest story of blowing up 85 civilians in their homes has some people confused and concerned. Let me help you out.
The first half of 2016 has blown away temperature records, capped off by a record hot June, once again bumping up the odds that 2016 will be the hottest year on record globally, according to data released Tuesday.
The monthly numbers from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration puts the planet on track to surpass 2015 as the hottest on record.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Roots to Social Democracy/Capitalism, Socialism: The Failure of Social Democracy (Part 2 of 7) [A must read post]
This article offers the best, most accurate, most concise history of class conflict under capitalism in the 20th century that I have ever seen. Not that it's perfect because it leaves a lot of important details out such as Operation Gladio under the direction of the CIA which used terrorist methods against militant workers in Europe following WWII to insure that only capitalist parties would triumph.
The fact that this sort of accurate history is so unusual is simply due to the triumph of capitalist classes, especially the dominant capitalist class in the US, following WWII. The emerging US capitalist class has tried, and largely succeeded, in re-writing the history of this post-WWII era and re-defining important political-economic concepts (socialism
It is clear to me and this history that social democracy has always been a temporary strategy by ruling capitalist classes to stave off working class interests in public ownership and control of economies.
...World War II was an economic boom for the USA [mostly for the capitalists]. Its weapons, oil, steel, auto, and construction industries grew manifold. Their surplus financed the Marshall Plan to rebuild the capitalist economies of Western Europe and prevent socialist-communist electoral victories. This policy succeeded, especially in Greece and Italy where a majority of workers were leftist.
Europe’s two largest political parties, the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats, adopted and even extended welfare benefits enabled by the Marshall Plan. The “free market” has since largely replaced the state as the politically determining force, and the welfare model is no longer viewed as necessary.
I don't know of anyone in the US with more knowledge of Turkish deep politics than Sibel Edmonds [her comments start at 5:45m] because of her Turkish origins and more especially because of her previous duties as a Turkish translator for the FBI before she became a whistleblower.
As we predicted last year, the deep state coup against Erdogan finally materialized last weekend…but it fizzled out almost as quickly as it arrived. So what are we to make of this would-be putsch? Did Erdogan allow it to happen in order to further cement his control on the rebound? Or was this merely a trial run for the real CIA/NATO/Gulenist coup yet to come? And what role do the Turkish people play in all of this? Joining us today to dissect the mayhem is Sibel Edmonds and Spiro Skouras of Newsbud.com.
The central lessons that must be drawn from the bitter experiences of Corbyn’s period in office and the coup mounted against him is that Labour cannot be reformed.
Corbyn is only the latest in a long line of “lefts”—including his mentor Tony Benn—who serve the political role of concealing the real character of the Labour Party.
Labour was, from its birth, dedicated to the defence of capitalism against the threat posed by the working class.
I first read Friendly Fascism during, ironically, 1984. Shortly after reading it, I visited Gross at his home to talk about the book and learn how more might be done than what he offers in his final chapter, “What Can You Do?” Thirty-two years later I remember little of our actual conversation, only that I’m sure I took it to heart, adding politics to my voracious reading and study habits. My most lasting impression of the afternoon is the generosity shown by both him and his wife with their time, thoughts and tea.
Warnings of and comparisons with fascism have become increasingly common over the past decade since books like Naomi Wolf’s The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (2007) listing ten steps toward a closed, fascist society, and documentaries like Aaron Russo’s 2006 film America: Freedom to Fascism. Internet articles frequently use the term to describe current conditions, and I have often referred to and recommended Gross’ book. The time had come to reread.
I found Gross’ words even more relevant today than in the mid-‘80’s, since they are no longer a translucent warning but a substantive description of the world in which we live. Fascism as Gross describes it is now in full, Huxley-esque bloom.
Oh, but it can’t be that bad; surely that’s an exaggeration meant to emphasize dangerous trends!
We’re so used to keeping vigilant against 1984 (which was required high school reading for many my age) that we’ve ignored Huxley (which was not. Make a note.) What we now have, in the US at least, is 1984 in the user-friendly packaging of Brave New World: Voila! Gross’ Friendly Fascism.
“It is easier to repress well-justified fears than to control the dangers giving rise to them” and since the owners know this, they have furnished us the privilege of paying them for aids to repress our fears and zombify our brains – like the longest workweek and least job security in the West, chronic environmental and food illnesses, TV, addictive and manipulative websites (like the fake book and games), drugs, shopping, dumb phones with “apps” for everything unimportant, tweets, twitters and other sound nibbles conveying far less information that the avian languages they’re meant to resemble, and the ability to instantaneously share photos of our navels with the entire world.
Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties, or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism….the new fascism will be colored by national and cultural heritage, ethnic and religious composition, formal political structure, and geopolitical environment….supermodern and multi-ethnic - - as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie….fascism with a smile…”Gross added, “What scares me most is its subtle appeal.”
As his point of departure, Gross gives us a history of classic Fascism – “capitalism in full nudity” – before discussing the corporate society, the establishment, capitalism, and the coming rise of globalism – all cooperating in the germination of a friendlier fascism. From a distance of three decades characterized by exponential change, some of this groundwork is dated or less than exciting; on the other hand, concepts like globalism – i.e. US-led transnationalism superseding individual nations – are spot-on, while much of the rest remains absolutely engaging.
Take, for example, this quote from Daniel R. Fusfeld
As long as the economic system provides an acceptable degree of security, growing material wealth and opportunity for further increase for the next generation, the average American does not ask who is running things or what goals are being pursued.which illustrates the milieu designed to preoccupy most people while the net was being woven around them.
Or, this comment by Kenneth Boulding
With the coming of science and technology, it is fair to say that we can get ten dollars out of nature for every dollar that we can squeeze out of man.which sets the stage for the environmental devastation we see – well, some of us see – today.
In chapter 3, Gross’ primer on the true purpose behind “philanthropy” would win Cory Morningstar’s approval. Personally, this time I particularly appreciated his occasional sardonic comments, especially when directed against capitalists or capitalism:
Capitalists have never needed theorists to explain the connection between money and power. It has taken theorists at least a century, to develop the pretense that they are separate.A gifted generalist, Gross earned degrees in English, English Literature, and Philosophy, served with Truman’s Council of Economic Advisors, authored the Employment Act of 1946, served as Economic Advisor to the prime minister of Israel and lectured at Hebrew University, Syracuse University, and Harvard Business School. A Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, president of the Society for General Systems Research, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Urban Affairs at Hunter College and the CUNY Graduate Center, so broad was his expertise, so intimate his knowledge of the workings of power, that the jaded senior I have become began to question, during this second reading, whether he intended the book as a warning to intellectuals or a blueprint for those in power.
“Only by wrapping himself and all his agents in the trappings of constitutionality could the President succeed in subverting the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” seemed to foreshadow the Black professor of constitutional law who would suavely assuage the fears of liberals, who saw him as one of their own, while he put paid to his predecessor’s decried decimation of those same “goddamned piece[s] of paper”. Also predictive of Obama-like figure(s): “Multi-ethnic co-optation can also be taken for granted. Particularly conspicuous roles would undoubtedly be assigned…[and here he quotes Samuel Yette, The Choice, 1971) “to provide color credibility where such credibility was crucial to selling an otherwise invalid product”.
Terrorism, environmental destruction, military overkill, methods of surveillance and control (including the legalization of drugs like marijuana so those being controlled can self-harm at will), language distortion through cultural myths and the jargons of overspecialization, and mass culture – he nails them all while demonstrating their use in siphoning power from the masses to the owners, usually with complete cooperation from the losers.
In his concluding chapters, Gross discusses probabilities: It will happen; it couldn’t happen; or, the trend toward it is irreversible. He compares the US of the 1980s with a future US under friendly fascism, illustrating differences with charts. Once again, a mere three decades have transformed these chapters from a caveat to a chilling description of the world outside our windows. Check. Check. Check. I ticked off the items on his lists. I populated the margins of pages where he described opportunities for resistance with a single, repeated word, “gone”. The insidiousness of the slow motion checkmate is breathtaking, even to those of us quite used to exposing our brains to ugly truths. Bargaining at this late stage? Forget it, because “a little fascism is like a little pregnancy.”
This is where the full weight of “Friendly” becomes apparent. As Huxley wrote:
[Y]ou’re so conditioned that you can’t help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren’t any temptations to resist.In this re-reading, I found his final chapter, “What Can You Do?” discouraging for two reasons. First, notwithstanding his work in systems theory (which I had not yet studied when I spoke with him), he did not recognize our culture as a closed system. Second, because so much of what he offers in this chapter is no longer possible.
He does, however, assuage my one jaded doubt: His warnings were definitely intended for those who would act against the monster. No doubt he was quite aware that the owners needed no blueprint. Gross encourages resistance of all kinds from everyone. He also cautions that “[a]ny protest or resistance is better than narcissistic ‘retreat to personal satisfaction’. Noting that the elephant in our room is enormous, with a thick, impenetrable skin, he cites an African proverb: “a single ant will drive an elephant mad…if it crawls into the elephant’s trunk….Any part of the modern establishment has many more vulnerable apertures than an elephant.” He advises us to unlearn the myths the system taught us, join with others who are truly resisting, and to keep fighting.
It is essential to learn from mistakes and false starts, and to begin again in an endless struggle to make things better rather than sit idly by, waiting until they become worse.
I intend to.
 Gross reinforces his text with charts and lists throughout the book.
 P. 335
 Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, HarperPerennial, NY, 1946, p.244
 “The tendency in a closed system is toward equilibrium: to return to center, to remain the same (Capra 1996, 56-61)….The value of a closed system lies in the tendency to remain the same….Ludwig von Bertalanffy wrote in General System Theory (1968) that there are “open systems,” which operate in a state far from equilibrium “characterized by continual flow and change” (Capra 1996, 48). Living systems…are open systems.” Black, Get Over It!, Heinemann, Portsmouth NH, 2004
 P. 379
 P. 386
 P. 30
 “The Rise of the Corporate State in America,” Journal of Economic Issues, March, 1972. I appreciated Gross’ thorough references.
 The Meaning of the Twentieth Century, Harper and Row, NY, 1964
 P. 47
 P. 190
 P. 326
 P. 2
 For the duration of this review I will refer to those with power (TPTB) using Carlin’s apt and accurate term. I refuse them the dignity of capitalizing it, and I absolutely refute the usual sycophantic “elite”, which means (according to Webster) “resembling the finest, best, most distinguished, most powerful”. Fuck ‘em.
 Note: This is also the term Michael Parenti uses.
 P. 3
Monday, July 18, 2016
As an Irishman myself, I’ve always been baffled by why so many members of the British and continental European elite see NATO as a good thing. After all, where’s the glory in being dictated to by an external power whose interests are often at marked variance with your own?
Like right this moment, when it’s plainly obvious the biggest threat to Western Europe is Islamic fundamentalism and the fallout from a destabilized Middle East. But the US remains somewhat impervious to these issues, which it largely helped to ferment, and instead continues to be, bizarrely, focused on Russia.
This topic has often been discussed and condemned before, but this report goes into much greater up-to-date details that the issue deserves.
The patenting of life has been hotly contested for decades. For farmers, it makes seeds and livestock more expensive and takes away their right to freely reproduce them. It also reduces life and culture to a commodity that corporations can own and control. While the WTO agreement allowed countries to exclude plants and animals other than microorganisms from their patent laws, it required that they provide some form of intellectual property protection over plant varieties—the seeds that farmers sow—without specifying how to do that. According to industry representatives who helped draft the text, the US corporations got 95 per cent of what they wanted from TRIPS.
FTAs negotiated outside the WTO go even further and help US and European corporations get what they weren’t able to achieve under TRIPS.
Revolutionary-minded people here in the US and elsewhere may want to pay attention to what is happening in the area around Oaxaca, Mexico (you won't see scenes like this broadcast on American corporate media). Although corporate media is used constantly to dis-inform and distract people, in revolutionary times it serves the ruling class even more aggressively to control people. Once again we seen the urgency of independent media to serve the people.
The author warns people, especially youth, that the people behind such software games like Pokemon Go may not have the people's interests in mind. Quite the contrary.
A company with a questionable pedigree, sporting the next step in technology already used to destabilize and destroy countries, has wrapped its latest creation in decidedly disarming cartoon characters.With the ruling Empire class touting its use of full-spectrum dominance to subdue their enemies, you might consider that we, as critical thinking and informed adults, might also be their enemy. Mind manipulation and control as psychological weapons are an integral part of this spectrum.
Cunningham follows up on an item first reported by the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens website with a more elaborate commentary which it fully deserves.
It couldn’t come at a worst time. Just as the European Union is reeling from the historic setback of Britain voting to leave the 28-member bloc, then comes the scandal of a former top commissioner taking a plum job at a Wall Street bank – to advise on the fallout from the Brexit.
If ever the grubby "revolving door" relationship between the EU bureaucratic elite and big business needed an illustration, it is the news of Jose Manuel Barroso taking up a post with the US investment giant Goldman Sachs.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Allying with political Islam: The United States’ tactical alliances with Al Qaeda and its associates in Syria
The US priority in Syria is Arab nationalist-elimination, and not the elimination of Islamist terrorists, who remain useful to Washington in clearing away the last of the Arab nationalist state obstacles to total US hegemony over the Arab world.Not only does Gowans describe the US-led Empire's double role of supporting terrorist armies in Syria while pretending to fight terrorism, but he reminds us that the US support of terrorism in Syria fits well with its own historical use of terrorism when it is "defined as the deliberate politically motivated infliction of harm on non-combatants". Terrorism seems to be okay to the Empire's many apologists when it is done in support of the Empire's hegemony.
Cartalucci makes essentially the same argument in a piece entitled "Syria's "Moderate Rebels" are not Moderate, not Rebels".
...Al Qaeda has from the beginning, and still does, represent the vast majority of those fighting Damascus and its allies in Syria. Regardless of superficial labels used mainly by the Western media to delineate specific groups, it is clear, even through official statements by both the wider militant movement and specific groups like Jaish al-Islam itself, that they fight beside and under Al Qaeda's banner.
The 9/11 widow makes this opening statement following the reading of the previously censored congressional 9/11 report:
First and foremost, here is what you need to know when you hear any member of our government say the newly released 29-page chapter from the congressional 9/11 report contains no smoking gun — THEY ARE LYING.I hurriedly read the report this morning and my impression was that it contained many weasel-words like "may have", "suggests", and "speculate", and that Saudi officials refused to cooperate in investigations conducted by US intelligence services. This in spite of the fact that the report contained page after page of evidence linking the Saudi government with the hijackers. It looked to me like that the US intelligence services were attempting to hide not only Saudi involvement in 9/11, but their own and other top US figures.
Our government’s relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is no different than an addict’s relationship to heroin. Much like a heroin addict who will lie, cheat and steal to feed his vice, certain members of our government will lie, cheat and steal to continue their dysfunctional and deadly relationship with the KSA — a relationship that is rotting this nation and its leaders from the inside out.