RIP Robert Parry (1949-2018)
This video is something North Americans, drowning in fake news from corporate-owned media and suffocating under an avalanche of censorship, need to see. It’s the real America. I know that Oliver Stone, Noam Chomsky and others would like America to be something better than the ruined nation it is, but Stone’s own investigations, and many, many other examinations by others (notably, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman), reveal that it is, as the Bible aptly describes it, a wild beast and a false prophet. It is, in fact a wild beast within a wild beast.
I found the above video on YouTube and wouldn’t be surprised if that has been yanked. This video is banned in Nazi Ukraine, of course, and is being suppressed in the US. I did manage to find a website where the video can be bought, either in streaming format or as a dvd. I have ordered and received my copy and urge others to do the same. And I may very well have to pull my downloaded copy, above, and it may be the producers who wish me to. If that happens, I’ll put up a trailer for it and maybe grab a few excerpts, via Avidemux, from the movie.
The Anglo/American world power aka the two horned beast (that arises out of the ‘earth’) aka the False Prophet
(image from the book “Revelation – Its Grand Climax At Hand!” by the Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society)
The Christian Bible presents 3 special beasts in the book of Revelation having the same basic form. They are, of course, symbols. Those beasts all have 7 heads and 10 horns. Two of those beast wear crowns. The first beast, referred to as a dragon, is identified plainly as Satan, and it is said to give its authority to the second beast, which represents the dominant human world powers, from the Bible’s standpoint, since the rise of the Egyptian world power: 1. Egypt 2. Assyria 3. Babylon 4. Medo-Persia 5. Greece 6. Rome 7. Britain-America. “True, there have been other world powers in history besides the seven – just as the wild beast John saw was made up of a body as well as of seven heads and ten horns. But the seven heads represent the seven major powers that have, each in its turn, taken the lead in oppressing God’s people. In 33 C.E., while Rome was ascendant, Satan used that head of the wild beast to kill the Son of God.” -page 189 of “Revelation – Its Grand Climax At Hand!” published by the Watchtower Bible And Tract Society Of New York, Inc./ International Bible Students Association of Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A. Following the revelation of the first two seven-headed beasts, we learn from chapter 13 that another wild beast “ascends out of the earth.” Whereas the second seven-headed beast ascended out of the sea, this one ascends out of the earth. The “sea” simply means the turbulent sea of humankind out of which arose various kingdoms. They came and went, actually, but as time progressed, they – or many of them – began to firm up or stabilize and they developed into enduring nations. By the time the two-horned wild beast of Revelation 13:11-13 arises, nation state boundaries are largely fixed, so that this beast, not having seven heads and ten horns, can be said to have arose from the earth. That beast possesses two horns like a lamb, but a mouth like a dragon.
Indeed, the monstrous British Empire was followed and supported by the even more monstrous American Empire (which support came after a period of mutual antagonism between those two powers), and part of what made them monstrous was the fact that they slaughtered – and are still slaughtering – their way to glory in the name of God. As Jesus Christ said, “If the light that is in you is in fact darkness, then how great that darkness is!” (Matthew 6:23b) Jehovah’s Witnesses – I’m not a Witness; They wouldn’t have me if I wanted to be part of their org and I don’t want to be part of their organization – say that the word ‘dragon’ means swallower down. I have not investigated that claim, and I don’t recall the Witnesses explaining it, but it tracks. Uncle Sam does his creator’s will (Revelation 13:2) when he pursues an imperial, terrifying regime change course, swallowing down nations by destroying and/or enslaving and ruining them. My country, Canada, is certainly one that has been ruined by both its awful leaders (violent, racist, elitist) and by the example and influence of our powerful southern neighbor. By now, Canada would probably have lost even the ability to fake it (polite, friendly Canada) had our leadership not been traitorous and continentalist. But our leaders have indicated to the American ruling class that they don’t need to invade Canada to get Canada. They will hand over Canada, via creeping deep integration and free trade agreements.
From pages 357, 358, 359, 363 of “The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism” by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, the following:
==== === == =
“The atrocities committed by [General William] Westmoreland’s killing machine as it was “grinding the enemy down by sheer weight and mass” [Robert Komer’s words] are readily discerned even in the bureaucratic prose of the Pentagon Papers and other government reports, but it was only after the Tet offensive of December 1967-February 1968, when the Pentagon Papers record terminates, that the full force of U.S. power was launched against the defenseless population of South Vietnam. Operation SPEEDY EXPRESS, conducted in the first six months of 1969, was only one of many major pacification efforts…
“[Kevin] Buckley’s Newsweek account describes the events as follows:
All the evidence I gathered pointed to a clear conclusion: a staggering number of noncombatant civilians – perhaps as many as 5,000 according to one official – were killed by U.S. firepower to “pacify” Kien Hoah. The death toll there made the My Lai massacre look trifling by comparison…
The Ninth Division put all it had into the operation. Eight thousand infrantrymen scoured the heavily populated country-side, but contact with the elusive enemy was rare. Thus, in its pursuit of pacification, the division relied heavily on its 50 artillery pieces, 50 helicopters (many armed with rockets and mini-guns) and the deadly support lent by the Air Force. There were 3,381 tactical air strikes by fighter bombers during “Speedy Express”…
“Death is our business and business is good,” was the slogan painted on one helicopter unit’s headquarters during the operation. And so it was. Cumulative statistics for “Speedy Express” show that 10,899 “enemy” were killed. In the month of March alone, “over 3,000 enemy troops were killed… which is the largest monthly total for any American division in the Vietnam War,” said the division’s official magazine. When asked to account for the enormous body counts, a division senior officer explained that helicopter gun crews often caught unarmed “enemy” in open fields. But Vietnamese repeatedly told me that those “enemy” were farmers gunned down while they worked in their rice fields…
There is overwhelming evidence that virtually all the Viet Cong were well armed. Simple civilians were, of course, not armed. And the enormous discrepency between the body count [11,000] and the number of weapons  is hard to explain – except by the conclusion that many victims were unarmed innocent civilians…
The people who still live in pacified Kien Hoa all have vivid recollections of the devastation that American firepower brought to their lives in early 1969. Virtually every person to whom I spoke had suffered in some way. “There were 5,000 people in our village before 1969, but there were none in 1970,” one village elder told me. “The Americans destroyed every house with artillery, air strikes, or by burning them down with cigarette lighters. About 100 people were killed by bombing, others were wounded and others became refugees. Many were children killed by concussion from the bombs which their small bodies could not withstand, even if they were hiding underground.”
Other officials, including the village police chief, corroborated the man’s testimony. I could not, of course, reach every village. But in each of the many places where I went, the testimony was the same: 100 killed here, 200 killed there. One old man summed up all the stories: “The Americans killed some VC but only a small number. But of civilians, there were a large number killed…”
“Returning to SPEEDY EXPRESS, Newsweek reported that although John Paul Vann found that SPEEDY EXPRESS had alienated the population (a profound discovery), the Army command considered its work well done. After all, “the ‘land rush’ succeeded. Government troops moved into the ravaged country-side in the wake of the bombardments, set up outposts and established Saigon’s dominance of Kien Hoa” – a notable victory for “our Vietnamese.”
“Operation SPEEDY EXPRESS was regarded by the Army as a “stunning success.” Lauding the Commanding General on the occasion of his promotion, General Creighton Abrams spoke of “the great admiration I have for the performance of the 9th Division and especially the superb leadership and brilliant operational concepts you have given the Division.” “You personify the military professional at his best in devotion and service to God and country,” Abrams rhapsodized, referring specifically to the “magnificent” performance of the 9th Division, its “unparalleled and unequaled performance.” During Operation SPEEDY EXPRESS, for example. On another occasion, when awarding him the Legion of Merit, Abrams referred to George Patton III, one of the men best noted for converting “pacification” into plain massacre, as “one of my finest young commanders.”
= == === ====
The bolding in the last paragraph, above, is mine.
“You are from your father, The Devil, and you wish to do as your father desires.” – John 8:44a
Is it any wonder that this supposed champion of democracy and human rights – the United States – supposedly on the side of God and the angels (“two horns like a lamb”), is also referred to at Revelation 19:19-21 as a false prophet? And what does this champion of democracy actually think of the people, meaning ‘most’ people? Does it care about what they think? More to the point, Does it care about their safety more than the safety of its ‘defense’ contractors and its capitalist class? (I know how Palestinians and Yemeni people, whose brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers are being slaughtered with American-sold weapons and/or by uncle Sam’s approval and sometimes with direct American assistance, would answer that question. And note that there are weapons and then there are weapons.
Sanctions are used by the US as a weapon. Countries targetted for regime change – Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria – or whose political class shows too much interest in its own people and not enough interest in the US-based investment community, get hit with all manner of destabilization methods, including sanctions. One of the latest has to do with already totally destitute Palestinians. And the targetting of those defenseless people, already broken and literally ‘living’ in rubble (in Gaza), is tantamount to calling to God to “Bring it!” We shall see.) “…while Reagan was being extolled (in the United States) for leading the world towards peace at the December 1987 Washington summit, where the INF [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty was signed, the United Nations General Assembly, speaking for “the community of nations,” voted [on] a series of disarmament resolutions. It voted 154-1, with no abstentions, opposing the build-up of weapons in outer space (Reagan’s Star Wars) and 135-1 against developing new weapons of mass destruction. The Assembly voted 143-2 for a comprehensive test ban, and 137-3 for a halt to all nuclear test explosions. The US voted against each resolution, joined in two cases by France and one by Britain. None of this was reported in the Free Press, the “community of nations” being irrelevant when it fails to perceive the Truth.” – pages 96 & 97 of “Deterring Democracy” by Noam Chomsky. Noam elsewhere refers to the US as the UN’s veto champ. Not only does that collective Anglo/American false prophet (with the American component coming to dominate) present itself as benign and godly (with regime change – almost ALWAYS overthrowing democratic states – that it refers to as humanitarian intervention), but it (American component) urges the world to accept the false savior that was first known as the League of Nations and which then became the United Nations. Abandoning God, his standards (via a course of regime change and unbelievable destruction of human and other life) and his plan of salvation for believing humankind, which centers around God’s appointed savior, Jesus Christ, the United States urged the people of the earth to get behind a human scheme that in fact represented not God, but the bloody world powers under Satan’s control. (Note that the American Empire is not consistently against the UN. When the UN ‘behaves’ it is fine with it. When the UN ‘misbehaves’, the US ignores and/or lambasts it. But it has not destroyed it for it is sometimes useful to the American-led Corporatocracy.)
“The annual survey of human rights put out by the U.S. State Department has this primary characteristic: it strives consistently and without intellectual scruple to put a good face on totalitarian states within our sphere of influence. The bias is so great, the willingness to accept factual claims and verbal promises of military juntas is so blatant, the down-playing of the claims and pain of the victims of official terror is so obvious, that these reports are themselves solid evidence of the primary official commitment to the dispensers of terror rather than its victims. They constitute a defense of client fascism, not of human rights. The highly touted “human rights program” must be understood in this context…
“Our massive intervention and subversion over the past 25 years has been confined almost exclusively to overthrowing reformers, democrats, and radicals – we have “rarely” destabilized right-wing military regimes no matter how corrupt or terroristic.” – pages 16 & 17 of “The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism – The Political Economy Of Human Rights, Volume 1” by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman
“The UN is “functional” today because it is (more or less) doing what Washington wants, a fact that has virtually nothing to do with the end of the Cold War, the Russians, or Third World maladies.” – Noam Chomsky, page 200 of “Deterring Democracy” (pub 1991)
About this part of the second seven-headed, ten horned beast of Revelation that is singled out and referred to as a wild beast that ascends out of the earth, John tells us:
“And it misleads those who dwell on the earth, because of the signs that were granted it to perform in the sight of the wild beast, while it tells those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the wild beast that had the sword-stroke and yet revived. And there was granted it [the power] to give breath to the image of the wild beast, so that the image of the wild beast should both speak and cause to be killed all those who would not in any way worship the wild beast.” – Revelation 13:14,15
The second seven-headed beast experienced a sword stroke during WWII when all the nations, including the dominant Anglo/American world power, were pummeled. The British Empire especially was quite damaged. Following that war, the American component of the Anglo/American world power became ascendant and more powerful, and godless and perverted, than any human power that had come before.
Indeed, The United States did not prevent the birth of the League of Nations (an “image” of the second seven headed wild beast) and encouraged its creation, even though it didn’t right away ratify the convention creating it. By taking the position (falsely), supported by the entire beast – heads and body and all components, including religious components, therein – that this was all God’s doing, the proponents of the false savior that was the League and is now the United Nations figuratively killed those who didn’t and don’t agree. We who disagree are, in their view, damned. So be it. We who do not get the slave’s mark of 666 (Revelation 13:18) are, in the eyes of this godless world, evil and damned. (3 is used in the Bible for emphasis, while 6 denotes missing the mark from God’s standpoint) That “image” of the second seven-headed wild beast is itself a third seven-headed wild beast, scarlet-colored, which is fitting for a number of reasons, including those just given. (The third, scarlet-colored seven-headed wild beast, unlike the two preceding seven-headed beasts, possesses no crowns. That’s because, most of the time, it only represents nation states. It is not those nation states.)
A major focus of the UN is war, supposedly preventing it. But it really can’t prevent war because it is comprised of anti-god states, all whom possess weapons industries that make and sell weapons and therefore profit from war. Additionally, The UN’s Security Council isn’t united and one member can always veto another. Look at how often the US, together with Israel and maybe one or two other small countries, veto resolutions, in the General Assembly, calling on the US to obey international law, especially in regard to Nazi Israel’s treatment of Palestinians! One of the Security Council’s members – namely uncle Sam, aka the false prophet, aka the wild beast that ascends out of the ‘earth’ – wants war more than other UN members and, right now, he’s itching to have it with two of the other (permanent) members of the Security Council! What’s more, the UN’s blue helmets are armed gangs who rape and plunder and terrorize in order to subdue populations that would otherwise resist absorption into the American-led Corporatocracy. Haiti is probably the best example of that. And where does the UN stand on Africa? Usually on the side of foreign great powers. It actually aided and abetted genocide in Rwanda, as Edward Herman and David Peterson report in their book “Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide In The Propaganda System, 20 Years Later.” It fought alongside the US and South Korea in the devastating Korean War, which began in 1950 and was provoked by South Korea and its allies. The fighting stopped in 1953, with the signing of an armistice, but not the signing of a peace treaty. Don’t expect the establishment, including Wikipedia (which can be edited by anyone who knows how to), to tell you the truth about that war.
Here’s some of the twisted, anti-God thinking (from page 244 of “Revelation – Its Grand Climax At Hand!”) behind supporters of the false prophet’s false savior:
“Christianity can furnish the good-will, the dynamic behind the league [of nations], and so change the treaty from a scrap of paper into an instrument of the kingdom of God.” – The Christian Century, U.S.A., June 19, 1919, page 15.
“The League of Nations idea is the extension to international relationships of the idea of the Kingdom of God as a world order of good will… It is the thing all Christians pray for when they say, ‘Thy Kingdom come.'” – The Christian Century, U.S.A., September 25, 1919, page 7.
“The Cement of the League of Nations is the Blood of Christ.” – Dr. Frank Crane, Protestant minister, U.S.A.
“The [National] Council [of Congregational Churches] supports the Covenant [of the League of Nations] as the only political instrument now available by which the Spirit of Jesus Christ may find wider scope in practical application to the affairs of nations.” – The Congregationalist and Advance, U.S.A., November 6, 1919, page 642.
“The conference calls on all Methodists to uphold and promote highly the ideals [of the League of Nations] as expressed by the idea of God the Father and God’s earthly children.” – The Wesleyan Methodist Church, Britain.
“When we consider the aspirations, the possibilities and the resolutions of this agreement, we see that it contains the heart of the teachings of Jesus Christ: The Kingdom of God and his righteousness… It is nothing less than that.” – Sermon by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the opening of the League of Nations Assembly in Geneva, December 3, 1922.
“The League of Nations Association in this country has the same holy right as any humanitarian missionary society, because she is at present the most effective agency of the rule of Christ as the Prince of peace among the nations.” – Dr. Garvie, Congregationalist minister, Britain.
Considering all the crimes of the UN, Why would anyone suggest that we are better off with it? It’s sort of like arguing whether the filter on a cigarette is a good idea. Sure, but only if you don’t believe there’s an alternative to the cigarette, such as not having cigarettes at all. Chomsky told me personally (and respectfully) that he doesn’t believe in God. (He said that if he can’t measure something, then he’s not going to believe in it. But why does he suggest that God can’t be measured? I can measure Chomsky’s mind, an intangible, by what it produces. Ergo…) Those who choose to reject God, the Creator, and therefore his plan of salvation for imperfect, but loyal humankind, put themselves in the impossible position – especially if they are good people like Noam Chomsky or the late Robert Parry – of having to always choose a lesser of two evils, in politics and in all serious matters. Principled in some ways, at some times, such persons become pragmatic during elections. With regard to the UN, Chomsky thinks it is better that we have it than not. Perhaps. But that’s not the central issue. Only the faithless see things that way. I might also suggest that it’s better that we have the UN than not, but I would certainly qualify that and leave my audience in no doubt where I stand on the UN, religiously. And that matters. I will not be a purveyor of mysterious lawlessness.
Mysterious lawless obtains when those without a moral compass observe the world’s political and other leaders doing bad things and they conclude that “Those people are smart. They know a thing or two and they know right from wrong, and yet, there they are being lawless. I guess bad must sometimes be good.” Those with a useful moral compass don’t draw such conclusions and cannot become victims of the bad examples set by others.
I’m right now reading “The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism – The Political Economy Of Human Rights, Volume 1,” (supported partly by the Lannan Foundation which sought to suppress John Pilger’s work) by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. It’s a must read in my view and the authors don’t pussy-foot around, which is why the US establishment sought to suppress the book (which the authors talk about a little in the Prefatory note for the first edition of this book). They state bluntly that “Washington has become the torture and political murder capital of the world.” (pg 18) In it, the authors refer to what they call “subfascism.” The distinction between fascist and subfascist comes about in this way; Fascism obtains via mass popular support and therefore genuine legitimization of the fascist state. Whereas, When you have juntas that rule by force, terror and deceit and they do not represent the will of the people they are therefore not representative of the entire country. Is ‘subfascism’ a useful concept? I’m sure that sometimes it is. But until I came upon the explanation for the term, it simply confused me. I’m probably not going to use it much, because I don’t want to confuse others, but I thought that it was worth mentioning here.
“The ugly proclivites of the U.S. clients, including the systematic use of torture, are functionally related to the needs of U.S. (and other) business interests, helping to stifle unions and contain reformist threats that might interfere with business freedom of action. The proof of the pudding is that U.S. bankers and industrialists have consistently welcomed the “stability” of the new client fascist order, whose governments, while savage in their treatment of dissidents, priests, labor leaders, peasant organizers or others who threaten “order,” and at best indifferent to the mass of the population, have been most accommodating to large external interests. In an important sense, therefore, the torturers in the client states are functionaries of IBM, Citibank, Allis Chalmers and the U.S. government, playing their assigned roles in a system that has worked according to choice and plan.” -page xxii of the Preface to “The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism, The Political Economy Of Human Rights, Volume 1,” by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman
I think that those concepts lead to some interesting, if not terribly useful, ideas. Is most of America ruined, mentally and spiritually? There’s lots of American culture. Alongside it, here and there, perhaps, is some of Jehovah’s culture. How much of Jehovah’s culture do you suppose is out there? How many people, good and bad, are okay with ‘using’ God? (“My God! He doesn’t celebrate Christmas?!” The brother of my half brother hates me because I don’t worship Santa Claus but do worship God. At my father’s memorial – he didn’t want a funeral service – that brother of my brother came up to me, shook my hand and said “Merry Christmas” and walked away. I didn’t have a chance to respond. My jaw literally dropped. That person was in the army, courtesy of my father who never bothered to educate himself or care. We are Canadian, but What’s the difference?) How many people lie, or just tell white lies? I do neither (which doesn’t mean that I’m superman and can’t break). And, now that Americans (and others) have been blasting corporate owned media, including big screen movies, at their heads for many years, How many people think that torture, nuclear warfare, smoking (that’s back big time in movies and tv), Big Pharma and Big Brother are okay? How many people, subjected to “National Security Cinema” think that all of those things are fine, as is the marauding American military? How many Americans are okay with all of that darkness, even while, if you asked them whether Nazis are good or bad, most would answer “bad”?
Is America fascist or subfascist? How can the source of the world’s fascism today – not to mention its absorption of so many Nazis before and after the war to defeat Hitler and not to mention its very Nazi-like Phoenix Program, targetting politicians and civilians, in Vietnam – be merely subfascist? One thing’s for sure; If America’s ruling class is fascist – and it is the definition of fascist as far as I’m concerned – then it is also anti-Christ and anti-God and doomed. Jesus Christ said, “Where your heart is, there your treasure will be also.” (Matthew 6:21) What does that mean? It means that if we invest everything in this anti-God world, then, when it goes, we will go too. If we invest our soul – all of our eggs – in this wild beast of Corporatocracy, willingly and knowingly, then when it is destroyed, we will be destroyed along with it. If we invest our soul in the sure thing backed up by Jehovah God, then when Armageddon goes down, we will survive. Jehovah is more powerful than Nazi America and the Corporatocracy that he leads.
The US uses the UN, disrespectfully. Noam Chomsky gives many good examples, including, in relation to the arming of the genocidal, fascist Indonesian army, the example of America’s ambassador to the UN back when Indonesia brought hell to East Timor and the world shrugged, much like it’s doing today in relation to the carnage being unleashed in Yemen, courtesy of the US and its staunch ally, and big time head chopper, Saudi Arabia. Below, I’ll present that example and a few others. This is the UN that the wild beast aka the False Prophet wants people to think will help save them. It’s a major, evil “Look over there!” ploy. We are to look at the false savior instead of the real savior. People are helped to do so by their willing embrace of other ideas, like the Lie, that prime them for acceptance of additional lies.
“Indonesia, A Proudly Fascist Nation?” by Andre Vltcheck
“In its new-found zeal for international law and the United Nations, the New York Times repeatedly turned to one heroic figure: Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He was brought forth as an expert witness on “the new spirit of unanimity at the United Nations,” explaining that there were “some pretty egregious violations of international law in the past,” but now “the major powers have convergent interests and the mechanism of the U.N. is there waiting to be used.” His “firm espousal of international law” was lauded in a review of his study The Law of Nations. The reviewer took note of his “sardonic, righteous anger,” which recalls “the impassioned professor who suspects no one is listening” while “clearly fuming that an idea as morally impeccable as international law is routinely disregarded as disposable and naive.” In a Times Magazine story, we learn further that Moynihan is “taking particular delight” in being proven right in his long struggle to promote international law and the United Nations system, “abstractions” that “matter dearly” to him. At last, everybody is “riding Moynihan’s hobby-horse” instead of ignoring the principles he has upheld with such conviction for so many years. No longer need Moynihan “revel in his martyrdom.”
“Omitted from these accolades was a review of Moynihan’s record as UN Ambassador, when he had the opportunity to put his principles into practice. In a cablegram to Henry Kissinger on January 23, 1976, he reported the “considerable progress” that had been made by his arm-twisting tactics at the UN “toward a basic foreign policy goal, that of breaking up the massive blocs of nations, mostly new nations, which for so long have been arrayed against us in international forums and in diplomatic encounters generally.” Moynihan cited two relevant cases: his success in undermining a UN reaction to the Indonesian invasion of East Timor and to Moroccan aggression in the Sahara, both supported by the US, the former with particular vigor. He had more to say about these matters in his memoir of his years at the United Nations, where he describes frankly his role as Indonesia invaded East Timor in December 1975:
The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiberable success.
“He adds that within a few weeks some 60,000 people had been killed, “10 percent of the population, almost the proportion of casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War.”” – pages 199 & 200 of “Deterring Democracy” by Noam Chomsky
“The official story is that the Korean War began when the Soviet-backed North invaded the South on June 25, 1950. The US then came to the South’s aid. As is the case with most official US history the story is incomplete, if not downright false. Korea: Division, Reunification, and US foreign Policy notes: “The best explanation of what happened on June 25 is that Syngman Rhee deliberately initiated the fighting and then successfully blamed the North. The North, eagerly waiting for provocation, took advantage of the southern attack and, without incitement by the Soviet Union, launched its own strike with the objective of capturing Seoul. Then a massive U.S. intervention followed.
“Korea was Canada’s first foray into UN peacekeeping/peacemaking and it was done at Washington’s behest. US troops intervened in Korea and then Washington moved to have the UN support their action, not the other way around. On June 28 [Lester] Pearson lied to Parliament, telling the House that Washington acted on behalf of the international organization because the troops foreseen in the UN charter did not exist. “In this case the United States recognized a special responsibility which it discharged with admirable dispatch and decisiveness.” In reality American troops landed 24 hours before the UN endorsed military action and President Truman told the press they would intervene 11 hours before the UN voted to support the mission.
“The UN resolution in support of military action in Korea referred to “a unified command under the United States.” Incredibly, United Nations forces were under US General Douglas MacArthur’s control yet he was not subject to the UN. Canadian Defence Minister Brooke Claxton later admitted “the American command sometimes found it difficult to consider the Commonwealth division and other units coming from other nations as other than American forces.”
“After US forces invaded, Ottawa immediately sent three gunboats. Once it became clear US forces would not be immediately victorious, Pearson began lobbying to mount “some kind of international force” for Korea. In his Memoirs he explained “I was anxious that Canada should assume full responsibility by sending an expeditionary force. There were, however, members of the Cabinet… who did not support a forward foreign policy.” Both the Prime Minister and Defence Minister were wary about committing Canadian ground troops with Claxton fearing the US was “getting [Canada] into something to which there really is no end.” But, Pearson pressed his colleagues hard. In an August 3, 1950 letter to Prime Minister St. Laurent, Pearson insinuated that he’d quit as external affairs minister if Canada failed to deploy ground troops to Korea.
“Canada’s famed peacekeeper pushed to send troops into an extremely violent conflict. Two million North Korean civilians, 500,000 North Korean soldiers, one million Chinese soldiers, one million South Korean civilians ten thousand South Korean soldiers and 95,000 UN soldiers (516 Canadians) died in the war. The fighting on the ground was ferocious as was the UN air campaign. US General MacArthur instructed his bombers “to destroy every means of communication and every installation, factory, city and village” in North Korea except for hydroelectric plants and the city of Rashin, which bordered on China and the Soviet Union, respectively.” – pages 52-54 of “Lester Pearson’s Peacekeeping – The Truth May Hurt” by Yves Engler
That happened after Canada was instrumental in dividing Korea, as always, following the lead of the US, following the guidelines of it’s hawkish Cold War NSC 68 document, which was rabidly anti-communist and anti-Soviet Union. But the real concern behind all of that was simply the profits of the American, powerful, capitalist special interests.
Elsewhere, Engler gives us another example of official Canada’s service to the American-led Corporatocracy. People know about the US’s regime change course and its assassinations of democratic leaders, including Patrice Lumumba. But how many know about Canada’s involvement in Lumumba’s assassination? Looking at that presents another example, as well, of UN perfidy. From “7. Canadian Coups” in “Canada In Africa – 300 Years Of Aid And Exploitation,” by Yves Engler, we get the following:
Once countries won their independence Ottawa began to deliver aid as a way to maintain its influence on the continent. Canadian officials were particularly concerned about blunting radical decolonization…
Most Canadians would probably be surprised to know that the Canadian military played a significant role in coups that overthrew African leaders…
In the final days of a hastily organized independence, the Congolese people elected Patrice Lumumba, a stridently anti-colonial leader who had been imprisoned by the Belgian authorities. But he would be prime minister for only 81 days. The political forces Lumumba galvanized threatened Belgium’s plan to maintain control over the newly independent country’s resources and in particular the behemoth mine Union Minière. To undermine the elected prime minister the former colonial power backed a secessionist movement, a coup and Lumumba’s assassination. During this time Ottawa was a willing partner in Belgian/US policy…
While Washington and UN officials pressed Lumumba to request a UN force to quell social disturbances in Kinshasa, Lumumba ultimately asked for an international force to halt a rebellion in the east of the country…
Nearly 2000 Canadian troops served in the Organsation des Nations Unies au Congo (ONUC) despite Congolese authorities reservations…
While Lumumba never openly argued that Canadian soldiers were undesirable, Soviet officials did. Prior to their deployment the Soviet Union’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Kuznetov, explained: “Canada is a member of the NATO military block which also includes Belgium which has committed an aggression against the independent Congo. In these conditions the dispatch of Canadian troops or any other state belonging to a military bloc of which Belgium is a member, would constitute nothing but assistance to the aggressor from his military ally.”
Canadian archives suggest that Moscow’s criticism wasn’t far from the mark…
Ottawa promoted ONUC and UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold’s controversial anti-Lumumba position… Canadian troops within the UN force were also concentrated in militarily important logistical positions, including chief operations officer and chief signals officer…
Canada’s strategic role wasn’t simply by chance. Ottawa pushed to have Canada’s intelligence gathering signals detachment oversee UN intelligence and for Colonel Jean Berthiaume to remain at UN headquarters to “maintain both Canadian and Western influence.”…
To bolster the power of ONUC, Ottawa joined Washington in channelling its development assistance to the Congo through the UN. Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah complained that this was “applying a restriction to Congo which does not apply to any other African state.” Ottawa rejected Nkrumah’s request to channel Congolese aid through independent African countries…
Ottawa supported Hammarskjold even as he sided with the Belgian-backed seccessionists against the central government…
The UN head also worked to undermine Lumumba within the central government. When President Joseph Kasavubu dismissed Lumumba as prime minister – a move of debatable legality and opposed by the vast majority of the country’s parliament – Hammarskjold publicly endorsed the dismissal of a politician who a short time earlier had received the most votes in the country’s election.
Lumumba attempted to respond to his dismissal with a nationwide broadcast, but UN forces blocked him from accessing the main radio station…
To get a sense of Hammarskjold’s antipathy towards the Congolese leader, he privately told officials in Washington that Lumumba must be “broken”…
…When the Congolese prime minister was overthrown and ONUC helped consolidate the coup, the United Arab Republic (Egypt), Guinea, Morocco and Indonesia formally asked Hammarskjold to withdraw all of their troops.
Canadian officials took a different position. They celebrated ONUC’s role in Lumumba’s overthrow…
…Colonel Jean Berthiaume assisted Lumumba’s enemies by helping recapture him. The UN Chief of Staff, who was kept in place by Ottawa, tracked the deposed prime minister and informed Joseph Mobutu…
Ghanaian peacekeepers near where Lumumba was captured… requested permission to… place Lumumba under UN protection. Unfortunately, the secretary-general denied their request. Not long thereafter Lumumba was executed by firing squad and his body was dissolved in acid.”
Patrice Lumumba (1960)
“Ban Ki-moon Supports Israeli High Crimes” by Stephen Lendman
“UN Peacekeeping Paramilitarism” by Stephen Lendman
“The Fairy Tale About A Brave Canadian General In Rwanda” by Yves Engler
“…we would suggest that Dallaire should be regarded as a war criminal for positively facilitating the actual mass killings of April-July, rather than taken as a hero for giving allegedly disregarded warnings that might have stopped them.” – pg 63 of “Enduring Lies – The Rwandan Genocide In The Propaganda System, 20 Years Later,” by Edward Herman and David Peterson
Well, uncle Sam. You have been calling to God to “Bring it!,” incessantly, loudly, since you came into being. You are a superpower. You are this world’s dominant superpower and your influence on the direction that this world has taken has been great. You have been responsible for the runination of most of the nations of the earth and most of its inhabitants. Like the whore of false religion who made the world drunk on the wine of her fornication – treating with you for mutual gain and betraying God (Revelation 17:2) – you too have played a role in making the world drunk – mentally and spiritually ruined – with your neoconservatism, neoliberalism and the Lie. And you have been at the forefront of selling the game of ‘riches for the strongest’, this dark world’s operating principle. It’s exactly the opposite of Jesus’s golden rule which tells us that we should care for others the way that we would want others to care about us. All of those dark ideas and beliefs – not fully held, which one would expect – go together.
The Lie, which posits that 1. Humankind, collectively, is God and 2. We are all, and everything is – knitted together by an energy, or force – helps you to swallow your neoconservatism down and to sell it to others. Neoconservatism is the belief in deceit, inequality and violence. And, as one would expect, those who are already in positions of dominance in this world are neoconservatism’s greatest champions. And how does one come to be powerful in this world? 1. It’s simply a matter of choice, although, at this time, those who choose to self-modify into being believers in inequality, deceit and violence, get help – moral support – from the dark world (of those who have already embraced darkness) around them. In this dark world, in which ruined people see themselves as God, there can be no real evil, since God decides on what is good and bad and can, therefore, just call evil ‘good’ and good ‘evil’, whenever he wishes. 2. Those who have self-modified into being believers in neoconservatism and ‘riches for the strongest’ get ahead of and on top of others, simply, by rule-breaking. The UN is a great example of how that works, but anyone anywhere at any time can strategically rule-break and thereby make ‘progress’. The US got the world to huddle around the League of Nations and to hammer out the rules that would conduce to civilization, but never intending to let that org work that way. The idea is that you strategically break rules, knowing that others who ‘do’ desire law & order, for all, will not make the same moves. Normal, un-modified people, who don’t think terrorism and torture and agreement-breaking are okay, will never be able to deal with the lawless crowd, who go from strength to strength. Those in that crowd end up in positions of authority and from their positions of dominance, they can now dictate outcomes, including outcomes that benefit them and theirs. We could imitate them, and many do, but then once we decide to imitate them, we have lost our souls, for there is Judge who does not approve of inequality, deceit and violence and has no intention of allowing that forever. And for those who wonder why he has allowed it at all, see my essay titled “The Issue Of Universal Sovereignty.”
You can believe actively and conveniently only, or you can believe actively and internally, which means fully. Those who self-modify into being believers in inequality, deceit and violence, cannot alter reality, nor can they evade consequences. Those who embrace darkness and the Lie have introduced conflict into their souls that causes them to become trouble-makers who are forever trying to convince themselves, by convincing others, that their Lie is the Truth, but that can’t be done and therefore the trouble-making continues. The disturbance doesn’t die down, but increases and so the trouble-making, the perversity and the calling to God to “Bring it!” gets more incessant and louder and the violence on earth increases. What matters is what you do, which includes the harmful lies you tell. Jesus Christ said of people, “By their fruits, you will know them.” By our deeds, we will be revealed. We will all be corrected, because we are all imperfect. We make mistakes and commit crimes, because of imperfection, but we can be forgiven (depending). But those who cross the line and knowingly and actively work against God and his holy spirit can’t be forgiven, as Jesus Christ indicated (Matthew 12:31,32). Ruined ones who cross the line will all answer for their crimes, for their sins, eventually, even if they don’t think so.
In the case of uncle Sam, he has played a big role in bringing the earth to ruin and he has clinched his adverse judgment, from God, with his additional crime of helping to turn people away from God and his plan of salvation for loyal, believing humankind, by pushing, conveniently, the idea that humankind is God and the United Nations, which he brought to life and dominates, is tantamount to the Kingdom of God on earth. Stay tuned!
“This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God. In time Noah became father to three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But the earth had become ruined in the sight of the true God, and the earth was filled with violence… After that God said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth itself is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth…” – Genesis 6:9-13
“But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came and the appointed time for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” – Revelation 11:18
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be…” – Matthew 24:38,39
From pages 286-288 of “The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism, The Political Economy Of Human Rights, Volume 1,” by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, the following:
The Nazi Parallel: The National Security State and the Churches
…A close study of recent trends – including the specific totalitarian ideology of the generals, the system of ideological manipulation and terror, the diaspora, and the defensive response of the churches (and their harassment by the military juntas) – reveals startling similarities with patterns of thought and behavior under European fascism, especially under Nazism. Fascist ideology has flowed into Latin America directly and indirectly. Large numbers of Nazi refugees came to Latin America during and after World War II, and important ingredients of fascist ideology have been indirectly routed into that area throughout the U.S. military and intelligence establishment. Whatever the source, however, it has met a need of the local and foreign elites that dominate the area, and has been modified to meet their special requirements.
The ideology designated the “National Security Doctrine” (NSD) now prevails among the military elites that rule east eight Latin American states – Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. The doctrine has three main elements: (1) that the state is absolute and the individual is nothing; (2) that every state is involved in permanent warfare, its present form being Communism versus the Free World; and (3) that control over “subversion” is possible only through domination by the natural leadership in the struggle against subversion, namely the armed forces. The first two elements of the NSD closely parallel Nazi ideology, which laid great stress on the organic Volkstaat [people-state] and the deadly combat in process between the forces of good and evil (Bolshevism, Jewry). Geopolitics is also a favorite source of ideological nourishment to the Latin military elite, as it was for the Nazis. Nazi doctrine did not give primacy to the armed forces, although they were assigned an important place, but the Leader and the Party played an elite role. The special place of the armed forces in the NSD reflects in part the self-interested rationalization of the privileged and dominant military elite; it also represents the choice of vehicle by the colossus of the north, which has long invested in the military establishment as potentially “a major force for constructive social change in the American republics” (Nelson Rockefeller).
An important ingredient of Nazi ideology, anti-Semitism, is absent from the NSD, although it has found a home with the military of certain countries (specifically, Argentina, where there has been a long anti-Semitic tradition). But the NSD also lacks any element of egalitarianism or notion of human community, both present in grotesquely perverted form in Nazi ideology, so that the Latin American version has been well adapted to justifying and institutionalizing extreme inequality and domination by a small elite. The NSD is not a doctrine with ugly potential consequences for specific minorities; it is one that fits the need for disregard and spoliation of the majority. The special place of army and police merely assures that the military elite will share in the spoliation along with the traditional elite group. It is, therefore, an appropriate doctrine for what we have been calling “subfascism.”
Since the generals sponsoring the National Security Doctrine have been nurtured by and dependent on the U.S. military-intelligence establishment, and look to the United States as the heartland of anti-Communism and Freedom, it is little wonder that the economic doctrinal counterpart to the NSD is quite congenial to the interests of multinational business. The military juntas have adopted a “free enterprise – blind growth” model, on the alleged geopolitical rationale that growth means power, disregarding the fact that dependent growth means foreign power. Since profits equal investment equal growth equal power, it works out that state support for large interests – domestic and foreign – and neglect of the masses, is sound policy. We saw earlier that in the economics of client fascism, that is, National Security Economics, the welfare of the masses is no longer a system objective – the masses become a cost of goods sold, something to be minimized – so that although the military juntas sometimes speak of long run benefits trickling down to the lower orders, this is really an after-thought and is not to be taken too seriously.
Furthermore, since the world is one of good and evil, with “no room for comfortable neutralism” (Pinochet, echoing a familiar refrain of his U.S. mentor), and since free enterprise-growth-profits-USA are good, anybody challenging these concepts or their consequences is ipso facto a Communist-subversive-enemy. This is a logical deduction from NSD principles, and it is also clearly just what General Maxwell Taylor had in mind in telling the students of the police academy of the lessons of Vietnam and the need for anticipatory counter-subversion. It also means that any resistance to business power and privilege in the interests of equity, or on the basis of an alternative view of desirable social ends or means, is a National Security and police problem…
The authors go on to point out that the churches in Latin America, by and large, Conservative, became the single, large organizational opposition to NSD. (They also state that “throughout World War II one important segment of the Protestant Church (the Confessing Church) refused to pray for military victory, and by the war’s end many hundreds of clergmen had died in concentration camps.” One, Jehovahs Witnesses took that very stand and always have and in every country, but the authors have chosen to ignore them. Two, I don’t recall Jehovah’s Witnesses saying anything about the principled stand of the Confessing Church.) The authors note that the churches’ defence of the defenceless made things difficult for the fascists authorities. “Furthermore, the church and religion are part of the ceremonial apparatus of the Christian-West-Free World, and however little the generals may regard Christian principles, the symbols should be available for manipulation of the lower orders. But they have not been readily available, and the conflict between the churches and the military juntas has escalated in Brazil and throughout the empire.” The authors go on to point out that the then newish features of the churches, including an inclusion of more democratic thinking, didn’t help the churches in their struggles with the generals. “The Catholic Church has not been able to swallow passively the intensified post-1964 day-by-day spoliation of the Indians and peasantry… The Latin American churches have been unified and radicalized by subfascist terror and exploitation.”
“As the church has reached into the communities of the poor it has been obliged to see and feel the problems of this exploited mass, and the result has been a further democratization of the church, expressions of remorse at its elite supportive role in the past, and a new concern for meeting the needs of all the people now…” (pg 291) Perhaps. To the extent that that is true, it’s good. But as an organization that’s supposed to represent God, it has certain duties. Those include telling the people about Jehovah’s Kingdom and his plan of salvation for loyal humankind, something that the people also need. Those requirements aren’t small potatoes and the churches failure to carry out its core teaching duty places it, in certain respects, on the side of their tormentors here in Latin America. Going along with the authorities idea that the United Nations represents the Kingdom of God on earth can’t help the churches to gain any blessings from God. Nor can its many unscriptural teachings, such as biological evolution, Christmas and The Trinity. And its stand on blood is as unforgivable as was Adam’s eating, in full knowledge of the rebellious character of the act, of the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. As the Christian Bible notes, “Unless Jehovah builds the house, It is in vain that its builders work hard on it.” (Proverbs 127:1a) The role that the Latin American churches came to play in defending the victims of the fascists, which the authors of “The Washington Connection” have pointed out, represents “hard” work and means ‘good’ work, from God’s standpoint. And hopefully individual priests involved in it will have benefitted, spiritually, personally from it. But Christendom, as part of global false religion, aka Babylon The Great, can only look forward to a world-wide, UN directed pogrom in which it is not only opposed by the torturing, soulless fascist leaders of Latin American and their American enablers, but it is devastated. She has brought that upon herself. She accepted the state’s affections and favors in return for her stamp of approval as a representative of God, an arrangement whereby she has shared in the rulership over humankind of the wild beast and its invisible ruler. And when her former paramours are finished with her, God, through the agency of his deputy King, Jesus Christ, will finish them off. (See Revelation chapter 17)
“One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me: “Come, I will show you the judgment on the great prostitute who sits on many waters, with whom the kinds of the earth committed sexual immorality and earth’s inhabitants were made drunk with the wine of her sexual immorality…
“And he carried me away in the power of the spirit into a wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored wild beast that was full of blasphemous names and that had seven heads and ten horns…
“The ten horns that you saw mean ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority as kings for one hour with the wild beast. These have one thought, so they give their power and authority to the wild beast. These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them…
“He said to me: “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is sitting, mean peoples and crowds and nations and tongues. And the ten horns that you saw and the wild beast, these will hate the prostitute and will make her devastated and naked, and they will eat up her flesh and completely burn her with fire…
“And I saw the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage the war against the one seated on the horse and against his army. And the wild beast was caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who worship its image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulphur. But the rest were killed off with the long sword that proceeded out of the mouth of the one seated on the horse.” (Revelation chapters 17 & 19)
The number 10 is used in the Bible to symbolize completeness. The long sword of Jesus’s mouth here means his authority, which includes his authority to put to death Jehovah’s enemies. ‘Kings’ refers to the secular authorities. And you’ll recall that the “false prophet” is the Anglo/American world power aka the two-horned wild beast that ascends out of the ‘earth’.