Obama’s Chief Mouthpiece Tiptoes Out of White House

For some reason, the Obama regime wants the minimum amount of attention paid to the leave-taking of White House “press secretary” Jay Carney. This loathsome liar, who has shown a talent for parrying and evading questions on numerous Obama regime crimes such as the massive NSA Total Surveillance State and assassinations, will now go to his lushly-remunerated reward in “the private sector.” He tiptoed away from his podium for the last time on Friday afternoon, the time period traditionally chosen for the least possible media attention, and for even more camouflage, he did it on the same day Eric Shinseki quit under a cloud, namely a noisy scandal of veterans being put on long waiting list for appointments at Veterans’ Administration hospitals (Shinseki headed the VA), with accusations of some dying as a result of the delays. Of course the Shinseki matter is the “big” story of the day, so Carney could sneak away almost unnoticed.

As an example of the propaganda nature of U.S. "news" media, Carney came to the White House from Time magazine, where he posed as a journalist.

Why Carney cashing in should be a sensitive matter that the Obama regime feels a need to divert attention from is a mystery to me. Perhaps eventually we will learn why. Meanwhile his underling, another frat boy type named “Josh Earnest,” steps into Carney’s shoes.

As the job of all White House press secretaries is to lie and hide the truth, expect more of the same from “Josh.”

The government’s propaganda radio network, NPR, made the fatuous observation that Carney brought an alleged perspective from “the other side” since he was a “journalist” for 20 years. The ease with which “journalists” so often easily transition into government propagandists (not an unusual phenomenon, contrary to NPR fatuities) is quite natural, given that most of those called “journalist” in America are in fact nothing other than propagandists.

Carney’s alleged reason was the usual stale white lie- “to spend more time with my family.” Carney was a Time magazine propagandist for 21 years. Anyone who’s ever read that mendacious rag can infer from that Carney’s level of intellectual integrity. (Time magazine once pegged the death toll under the notorious Phoenix Program, the CIA’s mass torture and assassination operation in Vietnam, at 500. This was well after the actual number was established at around 50,000. Even the puppet “South” Vietnamese “government” said it was 48,000. Just once example of the despicable nature of that rag.)

Carney was infamous for defending the persecution of whistle-blowers and journalists by the Obama regime, the NSA surveillance, the drone assassination program, and much else. He even defended the Obama regime policy of not allowing the press to take photos of tame events, instead having the White House’s own photographers take pictures and post them. This occasioned much impotent grumbling by the corporate media hacks.

The New York Times ran a long puff piece on Carney to mark his departure, which they alleged had been in the works since April. They ran a photo of Obama hugging Carney, and encomiums to how wonderful and talented Carney is from Obama and from Obama regime poohbahs David Plouffe and David Axelrod, two awful operatives who helped engineer Obama’s seizure of power (excuse me, “election,” which involved systematic and convoluted manipulations on a vast scale) and who advise him in office. Well, there’s your "objective journalism" from the NY Times. In a glaring journalistic oversight however, they failed to get a quote testifying to his wonderfulness from his mother.

Ironically, the Times ran a separate article the same day on the Obama regime targeting of journalists to try and force them to name their confidential sources in criminal investigations of leaks. (Of course, every single day the Times runs articles based on unnamed “government officials” whose illegal “leaking” [planting] of "classified information" is authorized by the regime.) If the government had its way, we would only know what they want us to know. I believe all classification laws must be abolished. That is the only way to force the secret state into the light of day and put the brakes on the awful accumulation and abuse of power by the U.S. government. This would also prevent treasonous outrages like the planting of nanothermite explosives that demolished three buildings in lower Manhattan on September 11th, 2001. [See "ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version)."]

A Myth Stronger Than Arithmetic: The “Stolen” 1960 Election

There’s a myth about the U.S. presidential election of 1960: that Kennedy won the 1960 presidential election by “stealing” Illinois. (Specifically that the Richard Daley Democratic political machine, which controlled Chicago, the most populous city in Illinois, cheated.)

People as varied as the reactionary numbskull playwright David Mamet, to disillusioned former CIA officer John Stockwell, believe this myth: Mamet out of ideological fanaticism, and Stockwell I assume out of carelessness. [1]

But this myth is ludicrously easy to refute, namely with simple arithmetic.

People hear this myth so often, it probably never occurs to them to check the most obvious fact on which it must rest- that if Illinois' electoral votes were given to Nixon instead of to Kennedy, Nixon would have won. But simple arithmetic shows this isn’t so. All one has to do is perform a mathematical exercise that a first grader could perform: subtract Illinois’ electoral votes from Kennedy’s original total and add it to Nixon’s, and see which number is larger. The larger number is the winner.

So let’s do what the U.S. media has apparently lacked the resources to do in 54 years.

You can confirm these numbers yourselves very easily online. Kennedy’s electoral college total was 303. Nixon’s was 219. Illinois had 27 electoral votes that year, all of them going to Kennedy. Now concentrate, here comes the tricky part: 303 MINUS 27 EQUALS 276. So if Kennedy had “really” lost Illinois, he would have had 276 electoral college votes. Now ADD 27 to Nixon’s 219, and you get 246.

Now here’s the really hard part. 276 is a BIGGER NUMBER than 246. Since the person with the BIGGER NUMBER has MORE VOTES, that person WINS. So Kennedy with 276 STILL BEATS Nixon with 246.

David Mamet, Richard Nixon’s skeleton, all you right-wing conspiracy theorists, and corporate media parrots who uncritically repeat rightwing political agitprop: go back to first grade and retake elementary arithmetic.

The people who started this myth must have either been extremely cynical, or kindergarten drop-outs.

It probably never occurs to people that mythmakers would be so brazen as to fabricate such an obviously fictive claim. Who would have the nerve? But reactionaries follow the Hitler-Stalin method: nothing is too brazen; in fact, the more whopping the lie, the better, because small lies meet with more skepticism than big ones. People assume that a whopping lie must be true, because no one would dare try to pull such a thing. [2] Also, most people could never see how completely unscrupulous Nixon was- thanks to the U.S. corporate propaganda system consistently covering for him, even after the Watergate burglary, or rather the one Watergate burglary (it wasn't the first one the “Plumbers” committed against the practically unguarded Democratic National Committee offices- not even an alarm? or did the CIA-trained burglars, including JFK assassin E. Howard Hunt, disarm an alarm?)

And Nixon, true to his utterly cynical nature, actually put it about for years afterwards that he didn’t challenge the election results for the good of the country! Chutzpah, forevermore thy name is Richard Milhous Nixon. And notice how his slimy move served a dual political function. He deflects right-wingers who might be angry at him for “caving in,” and he presents himself to everyone else as noble, high-minded, self-sacrificing for the good of the nation, a man so loyal he let himself be cheated out of the presidency to serve the higher purpose of protecting the stability and perceived legitimacy of the political power structure! Nixon, one of the most selfish men who ever lived! A man who spent his life playing every angle for self-advancement and self-aggrandizement. The cynicism is supremely ironic.

Meanwhile, the Zombie Myth of the Stolen 1960 Presidency will never die, it seems. The U.$. media is assiduous about heaping ridicule on true conspiracy accounts, such as the assassinations of the Kennedys and King, and the 9/11 attacks, but this one gets a pass, as do most right-wing conspiracy theories. None Dare Call It Bias and Hypocrisy.

1] Not too many years ago, the idiot reactionary Mamet was given space in the Village Voice (an allegedly “alternative” weekly paper) to spout this impossible conspiracy theory. I sent the Voice a letter pointing out the math, but the “leftist” paper didn’t run it, nor did they run a correction so their readers wouldn’t be disinformed by the falsehood.

2] Hitler explicitly stated that a big lie was better than a small one because the average person wouldn’t imagine that anyone would be so brazen as to tell such an obvious untruth, whereas they are more suspicious of small lies because these are the kind they’re familiar with (and that they themselves tell). But he didn’t mean HE lied. He said JEWS used this technique to evade responsibility for losing World War I for Germany. You see, the Jews were guilty of blaming the German General Staff. Ironically, Hitler’s example of the Big Lie technique was itself a big lie.

From James Murphy's translation of Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”):

“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.

“All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X.

Good or Bad? It All Depends What Word You Choose

Propagandists (often called “journalists,” “pundits,” “commentators,” even “historians,”) have a wonderful smorgasbord of adjectives to use as tools or weapons to promote or degrade people, movements, nations, ideas, whatever, depending on the ideological and political ends being pursued.

Notice how the choice of the adjectives and nouns below depends crucially on the judgment of the person pasting the word onto the target:

Childlike – Childish

Hard-charging – Overbearing

Ambitious- Pushy

Outspoken - Shrill

Feisty - Obnoxious

Bold - Reckless

Cautious - Indecisive

Passionate- Obsessed

Committed – Stubborn

And of course there is the differential standards applied to one’s own killers vs. the enemy’s:

Heroic, Brave, Courageous - Murderous, Vicious, Bloodthirsty

Effective or Precision Weapon, Surgical Strike- Lethal, Deadly

Defense - Aggression. In the eye of the beholder, apparently.

There are differential nouns too:

Security services/ intelligence agencies/law enforcement/ - Secret police

And here's a verb/noun combination and the equivalent applied to enemies:

Defending freedom - Imperialism.

I guess the U.S. subversion and coup in Ukraine was "defending freedom."

 Famously, the shrill and obnoxious Ed Koch was labeled “feisty,” making a virtue of his awful personality. Koch loved to torture people psychologically, and was infamously indifferent to the opinions of others. (A fact that his slogan “How’m I doin’?” was intended to disguise.) Bella Abzug, of course, was “shrill” and “pushy.” (Koch was one in a string of right-wing mayors of New York City stretching back to the late 1970s, and Bella Abzug was a Congresswoman from the same city, famously paired with former CIA undercover agent Gloria Steinem as the bourgeois-approved face of feminism along with Betty Friedan.)

We just saw the fired NY Times executive editor Jill Abramson smeared in the media as “pushy,” a derogatory word never applied to her predecessor male pigs like A.M. Rosenthal (a total prick), Howell Raines (by all accounts an overbearing martinet) or Bill Keller. They were “demanding” and had “high standards,” perhaps, but weren’t “pushy” or “difficult” or “hard to get along with.” (Male sexists have a hard time getting along with female superiors, is the real problem.) Arthur Ochs “Pinch” Sulzberger, Jr, who inherited the paper from his Daddy, couldn’t stand the fact that Abramson criticized some of the paper’s cover-ups, and expected not to be cheated on her compensation. Turns out they’ve been cheating her in her last 3 jobs there- as Washington bureau chief, another editorial post, and finally executive (top) editor. Sulzberger paid her less than men in the same jobs, and then had the brass to lie about it publicly.

See "The facts show it: female CEOs are more likely than men to be fired," the guardian, 17 May 2014.