Media lies
© Global Research
Have you ever believed something someone said and then found out it was a lie? You remember the initial feeling of shock and indignation, followed by anger at the audacity of the liar and then perhaps depression that human beings are prone to such weakness and insincerity. Then you might have struggled to understand why, and maybe you achieved that understanding, or not.

Being lied to is undoubtedly something that most people have experienced, and it's a valuable experience in that, ideally, it enables us to spot lies and liars before they cause us too much harm or heartache. The point being, everyone knows that people lie, that they justify some things they do with lies to themselves and others. The reason people lie is generally well understood also. We all live our lives according to a spoken or unspoken set of rules or values. When what a person wants conflicts with those rules, they resort to lying to cover up their momentary departure from living a moral life. Such lies can be conscious or unconscious.

What most people rarely, if ever, experience in the course of their lives, however, is a person who lies as a matter of course or who makes a lifestyle out of lying. We're talking here about someone for whom what they want is always at odds with conventional morality and they can therefore never be honest or express what they really think, feel and want out of fear of being utterly rejected (or worse) by their peers. Such a person would constitute a fundamentally deviant or abnormal human being. They might be fully aware that their desires sharply diverge from those of the average person and actively seek to cover them up with lies, or they may simply react 'instinctively' in each moment with a lie in a (largely unconscious) effort to preserve their ability to exploit others in service to their unwholesome desires.

The reason for this brief analysis of lying is that it relates directly to a shocking realization I recently had about the 'war on terror'.

Over the course of the past few years of watching events play out on the geopolitical stage, it has become increasingly difficult for me to digest them in any classically Cartesian way. In fact, my attempts to do so resulted in a severe case of logical dyspepsia. The problem, which is plain for anyone with the eyes to see, is that the 'war on terror' - described by its architects as a war to eliminate terrorism and promote 'freedom and democracy' - has resulted in a large net increase in terrorism and social and political instability and a concomitant decrease in actual freedom and democracy.

Stupidity or Sadism?

Soldats US Irak

La GCT : génère des profits pour les fabricants d’armes depuis 2001
Faced with this glaring contradiction between stated goals and net results, I had to find a way to explain it. Two main options seemed open to me. The first, and most palatable of the two, is the idea that people waging the 'war on terror' are a cabal of bloody-minded cretins who must have trouble tying their shoelaces each morning. How else to describe a group that stubbornly continues to pursue policies that achieve the direct opposite of their, apparently heart-felt, goals? But that explanation threw up a similar problem to the one I was attempting to resolve; because the Western political, corporate and military policy-makers behind the 'war on terror' are clearly not a bunch of cretins in the official definition of that word. On the contrary, the evidence suggests they are smart, charming, ambitious (often to an extreme) and highly capable in their chosen field of leading the peoples of Western nations.

So I was left with my less-savory second option, which was to look at the results rather than the rhetoric. The conclusion, in that case, is that these people are liars and their 'war on terror' is not about eliminating terrorism and bestowing freedom and democracy on the world. It's about the exact opposite. In line with them being inveterate liars, they would, of course, cover up their agenda to sow chaos and death around the world by lying about it, and what better way to cover up your unholy urges than by presenting them as the exact opposite of what they are. With enough persistence in this deception, and drive to give vent to their abominable appetite, such a person could even end up convincing even themselves that killing civilians was, in a way, 'freeing' them or at least serving the 'greater good' (as long as you don't have to explain in too much detail what your definition of the 'greater good' is).

As I pondered this idea, many other unsavory truths became apparent to me. For example, war is very profitable for the people who own the companies that make the weapons. And war must be frequent and recurring for the profits to keep flowing. In the USA, UK, France, etc., major 'defense contractors' are given US taxpayers' money to make weapons, that are then given to the US military, which is then ordered (on some pretext) to shoot them at people overseas. To ensure that the taxpayer does not become disgruntled about the misuse of their taxes, an enemy posing an existential threat to the taxpayer is necessary. Overseas civilians should, naturally, be targeted by the weapons because this helps to provide a continuous supply of angry people - aka 'enemies' - to bomb, thereby providing a continuous source of income for weapons manufacturers (and their political friends who launch the unending wars).

But enough of generalities. On looking closely at Western government foreign policy over the past 10 or 20 years, it became clear to me that not only is the 'war on terror' about the opposite of freedom, it's not even primarily about that. From a geopolitical point of view, it seems that the USA in particular has a serious problem with Russia. Basically, the 'war on terror' is really a mask for a war (on all fronts) against Russia. I've written about this before in great detail, but as each day passes more and more evidence comes to light that suggests this thesis is accurate.

The Fact of Russia: An Existential Threat to the USA

The US' problem with Russia is that it exists today as the world's largest country with plentiful resources on the Eurasian landmass and with a government inclined to chart its own course towards a multi-polar world. That may not sound like any kind of a threat to you or me, but you have to understand that, until the appearance of Putin, the political and corporate 'elite' in the USA figured they had the whole world at their feet, or certainly they believed they were well on the way to creating that particular reality.

Nuland Kiev

US freedom cookies in support of a fascist coup, Victoria Nuland in Kiev Feb. 2014
Can you imagine being in the position where your life's work was nearing completion when out of nowhere the actions of another person threatened to prevent you from achieving your goal? Not by deceit or with malevolent intentions mind you, but simply as a result of the natural order of things. You'd be entitled to feel angry, frustrated, but would you hatch a plot to destroy the other person? That's precisely the position the US 'elite' have found themselves in, and precisely what they have been trying to do to Russia for having the temerity to question and challenge the 'reality' of an 'imperium americanum'.

So Putin's Russia is most decidedly viewed as an existential threat by those who would own the entire world unchallenged.
Everything that has happened over the past few years between the West and Russia, not to mention the 'war on terror', has to be seen and understood in this light.

Recently, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) - which replaced the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the group that lobbied for a 9/11-type attack in 1999 - produced a paper that confirms what I have just said.

The co-author of the report is PNAC founder Robert Kagan (husband of Asst. Sec. of State Victoria Nuland, the woman responsible for replacing Ukrainian democrats with Nazi-infested putschists in 2014). The CNAS report is titled "Extending American Power: Strategies to Expand US Engagement in a Competitive World Order" and like most other papers published by these chief US policy makers, lobbies again for the use of the US military to achieve unchallenged US world dominance.

American leadership, the report claimed, "is critical to preserving and strengthening the bedrock of today's international order," jeopardized, they believe, by rival world powers Russia and China. As Zbigniew Brzezinski once commented, "some stirred up Muslims" (i.e. jihadi terrorism) is easily tolerated - supported even, in order to provide the rationale for war against Russia - but the world's largest nation attempting to have an equitable input into the global order is beyond the pale for the would-be rulers of the world.

Europe or Bust

While there are many clear examples of the extreme and perfidious actions Washington's 'reality creators' are prepared to take to 'stop Russia' and 'secure the world for America', and I'm sure most readers are well aware of them, the ongoing debacle about the US/NATO "missile defense system" in Poland and Romania is interesting.
US Missile Defense Poland

'Which way's Russia...I mean IRAN, sir?'
The 14-year-long project(s) finally went live in Romania last week and the Russians were, of course, not happy, seeing the missiles as designed to intimidate them and force them into a position of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. I do wonder, however, if Russian annoyance was also partly due to the US government's repeated treatment of the world population as if they were idiots by trying to claim that the missile system is designed to protect against Iranian missiles, despite the fact that Iran was last year welcomed back into the international community, largely by the US government.

Another interesting aspect of the strategy of placing US missile systems in European countries is that Russia is not really intimidated, because Russia could easily blow up any and all such missile systems with its own missiles. But here's the rub: in the event of Russia being forced to do such a thing, it would, de facto, be attacking a European country, as of now, Poland or Romania. This would seriously sour Russian/EU relations for a long time, which is exactly what the US government has been trying to achieve for several years. Are EU officials aware that, if the US were to succeed in forcing Russia's hand to destroy the missile systems in Europe, it is European citizens that would pay the price while psychopaths in Washington high five each other? Or have they become so 'atlanticized' that they have adopted the US elite's strong aversion to reality?

A policy of constant lying can't last forever though. Eventually, actual reality intrudes and you get exposed in one way or another. And since, as the object of the American lies, Russia has every reason to expose the truth about those lies when convenient, the American narrative is falling apart, piece by piece, and more and more people are seeing it. The question that remains then is this: will the U.S. implode from the weight of its own deception and corruption first, or will the psycho reality creators use their 'Samson option' and try to take the world down with them?