What's The Difference Between Bombing A Hospital In Ukraine And Bombing One In Afghanistan?

 The level of moral outrage in Western Media, is the difference.

In the case of Ukraine, where the Russians are the culprits, Maximum Outrage. In the case of Afghanistan, where the guilty party was the U.S., a yawn. Or more precisely,  curt, clinical reports,  devoid of emotion, completely neutral morally, with the most damning details omitted.

In addition to Western propagandists whipping up outrage against the Russian crime, add furious denunciations by Western politicians and government apparatchiks. You don't see that when the U.S. commits war crimes and lies through its teeth about it.

The Russians are accused to bombing a maternity hospital in the Ukrainian city of Mariupol. The U.S., during the regime of Barack "The Drone Assassin" Obama, attacked the Medicins Sans Frontieres  (Doctors Without Borders) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, with a U.S. gunship. And "gunship" understates the power of the weapon used, an AC-130 outfitted with cannons and machine guns and much else, capable of directing hugely destructive attacks on the ground, massacring large numbers of people.

There are significant differences between the two attacks. In the case of the Russian attack, based on Western media reports, there is no clue as to whether the hospital was deliberately targeted or the victim of Russian random area bombardment by artillery and missiles fired from miles away. In the case of the MSF hospital destroyed by the U.S., MSF had REPEATEDLY given the exact location coordinates of the hospital to the U.S. military so it wouldn't accidentally attack it. Unfortunately this helped the criminal U.S. deliberately attack it.

The MSF hospital had giant red crosses on the roofs, clearly visible to the pilots of the attacking flying warship. That plane also carries numerous magnification equipment for suveillance, aiming, targeting, firing, and recording evidence of the military's own crimes. (Or "actions," if you prefer euphemisms.)

There is also a difference in the deaths that resulted. The total death toll in the Mariupol attack, as reported by the Kyiv regime and Western media, is 3. Two adults, and one child. A tragedy.

The number murdered in the deliberate U.S. attack in Kunduz- 22, plus dozens more maimed and wounded. More than 7 deaths in Kunduz for each one in Mariupol. Both staff and patients were casualties of the vicious U.S. attack.

Western media harped on the Mariupol attack for several days. But the later reports omitted the number of casualties. Apparently the propagandists decided 3 deaths wouldn't be shocking in the context of a war.

MSF described the attack on their hospital, which was actually a series of repeated bombings lasting an hour in the dead of night:

From 2:08 AM until 3:15 AM local time today, MSF’s trauma hospital in Kunduz was hit by a series of aerial bombing raids at approximately 15 minute intervals. The main central hospital building, housing the intensive care unit, emergency rooms, and physiotherapy ward, was repeatedly hit very precisely during each aerial raid, while surrounding buildings were left mostly untouched. [In contrast, apparently the Mariupol hospital was hit with a single munition.]

The U.S. then followed its usual playbook when caught dead to rights committing an atrocity that ends up publicly visible in "the West." (The people in the victim countries know all about U.S. war crimes. It is the Western publics that are blissfully unaware.) It insists the target was legitimate, a "terrorist" hit. Then when that lie loses all credibility, it switches to "oops, sorry, it was an accident." Apparently the U.S. didn't like the fact that MSF treats all comers, indeed HAS to do so to maintain neutrality and be tolerated by all sides. So Taliban combatants were among the patients there.

The MSF hospital was the ONLY hospital for the city of Kunduz. The U.S. forced its closing, a crimes against all the inhabitants of that city.

For good measure, while issuing soothing, evasive unctuous verbiage publicly, Obama had a U.S. army tank smash through the gates of the hopital days after the aerial attack, an act of intimidation intended to silence MSF. Obama could have a second career as a Mafia don.

For its part, Russia issued this excuse for attacking the Mariupol hospital, through foreign minister Sergey Lavrov: Lavrov said the hospital was being used by fighters. In other words, Russia used the standard Israeli justification for blowing up civilian targets. When Israel periodically devastates the open air concentration camp of Gaza,  "mows the lawn," as the Israeli rulers cynically refer to their periodic wars on the trapped population of Gaza, they claim Hamas fighters are hiding in the targets, using the population as "human shields." (So of course they are justified in murdering the "shields.") 

But the excuse doesn't work for Enemies of The West. Only for the West and its colonial settler implant in Palestine, Israel.

The current U.S. president, the grinning and semi-senile Joseph R. Biden, now has the unmitigated gall to call for war crimes investigations of Russian actions in Ukraine. This guy was vice president for 8 years during the Obama regime, a regime that committed thousands of war crimes and violations of the rules of war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places such as Libya where it targeted civilian targets such as homes and infrastructure. He's the absolutely wrong guy for that task.

Except in the morally-inverted world of Western power politics.

The Western elites expressing outrage over the Ukraine attack are either guilty of selective outrage and applying a double standard, which makes their arrogation of moral judgship an act of insolence, or are flat out putting on an act, which is outrageous, cynical, and disgusting. It can be hard to tell who among them are "sincere," that is to say, feeling actual emotions, which are method actors getting into it, and which are totally feigned in their outrage.

One way to tell if a person or organization  genuine in its denunciations is to test for consistency in their behavior. In this case, we can go back and check if they denounced the U.S. bombing of the MSF hospital. If not, they are phonies. At best, they are self-indulgent poseurs. 

Well, do you really need to check if any Western "leader" (political boss) or major media or government apparatchik or favored house intellectual morally condemned the Obama-Biden regime and the U.S. military for the Kunduz atrocity? Do they EVER condemn ANY U.S. atrocity? Hell, they cooperated in CIA kidnappings and torture of "terrorism suspects"! For those of us with memories, who pay attention, there is no need to check. Feel free to do so as a research project. It would be useful to publish such a study.

I wrote four essays on the Kunduz atrocity by the U.S. in 2015, when it occurred. I wrote at the same time condemning Russia for bombing hospitals in Syria. So I am not motivated by "anti-Americanism," an invented ideology used to dismiss out of hand any critique of U.S. Imperialism and its crimes. I am motivated by NORMAL HUMAN MORALITY!

If you click this link, you will get a page with the four essays on the Kunduz atrocity, the one on Russia, and several other related articles. For details about the attack, see in particular "Why Did the U.S. Launch a Sustained Aerial Bombardment of a Doctors Without Borders Hospital?"
To learn about the murderous AC-130 warplane in particular, see "WikiLeaks Invites Obama to Bomb It," and  "What Happens When One Nobel Peace Prize Winner Bombs Another Nobel Peace Prize Winner?"

 

Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is A Political Godsend For Joseph Biden and Boris Johnson

Two corrupt and venal politicians, the top two politicians in the political power structures of the U.S. and UK respectively, have had a political life preserver tossed to them by Vladimir Putin. (Not that Putin intended that!) Yet the power establishment's "pundits," who spend so much time dissecting political minutiae, haven't deigned to take the slightest public notice of this obvious, major turn in the political fortunes of their "leaders," not in the U.S. anyway. (I haven't studied the UK media on this, but I suspect the same is largely true.) You see, there is a reason this blog is called "Taboo Truths."

Both of these ruthless, selfish individuals, with lifelong records of immoral and sometimes criminal behavior, were in deep political trouble prior to Putin's reckless and foolish move. 

For most of the past year, the chatterers of the U.S. media Blatherariat have been clucking their tongues like a bunch of malicious high school student gossips about how terrible Biden has been doing in the polls, with popularity around only 40% of the public, comparable to Trump's during his presidency. There has been a constant stream of yammering of the dire prospects for the Democratic Party in the 2022 Congressional elections and even the 2024 presidential one. Much ink has been spilled and much gas expelled criticizing the Democratic Party's failure to make itself more popular and to "sell its program" to "the American people."

Establishment power media chatterers said the party may be over for Smokin' Joe Biden.

Suddenly, along comes this great distraction, a foreign "crisis" that has absorbed almost all of the U.S. media propaganda system's attention. BIden, being the lifelong imperialist that he is, immediately started beating his breast and waxing moralistic about the blackness of Russia and the Evil Putin as contrasted with the purity and beauty of the U.S. and its bloc of "democracies" that love "freedom" so much. He and his subaltern lackeys running Europe (plus NATO frontman Jens Stoltenberg and even the ludicrous Justin Trudeau, prime minister of Canada, the U.S.' northern satellite nation) immediately and incessantly vomited forth an unending stream of high-handed, superior than thou denunciations of what they claimed was Putin "threatening to invade Ukraine." While this could be a reasonable inference as to Russia's intent (as indeed turned out to be the case) as a factual statement it was the opposite of reality, as  the Russians repeatedly denied they were going  to invade (while massing military forces along the Russian border with Ukraine). THey were either lying, or Putin changed his mind, but they NEVER THREATENED to invade Ukraine.

It doesn't matter, because BIden is now playing the role of "Leader of the Free World and Defender of Global Democracy" to the hilt. Thanks to the cooperation of most of the propaganda system excluding its neo-fascist organs like the Murdoch propaganda empire and others, Biden benefits from the rally-around-the-leader effect during a manufactured "crisis."  In point of fact, what happens in Ukraine CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A CRISIS FOR THE U.S. BECAUSE UKRAINE IS NOT A VITAL STRATEGIC AREA FOR THE U.S. It only matters because the U.S. is determined to shrink Russia down, to compress it as much as possible.

Unfortunately for the U.S., Russia is one of the two major nuclear weapons powers in the world, the other being the U.S., naturally. Between them, the two possess 93% of the world's nuclear weapons.
Now on to the British prime minister. Boris "Bojo The Clown" Johnson had seemingly been clinging to office as prime minister of Britain by his fingernails. A series of revelations of revelry and partying by him and his staff, in violation of COVID lockdown restrictions imposed by his regime, enraged the public. People had been prevented from visiting dying relatives by the restrictions. Revelations kept coming, with Johnson repeatedly lying, denying, playing dumb, and being just asinine, enraging people even more. (He's done this his whole life, and always gotten over with it, so he can be forgiven for sticking to habit.) Member of his own party, the "Conservaties" (also known as Tories) were publicly criticizing him, some advocating his replacement. (Britain has a parliamentary system, in which the party or coalition that controls Parliament, the legislature, gets to pick the prime minister, the chief executive of the nation.)

 Some wanted the PM to go!

Then, as a side effect of the Ukraine invasion, Vladimir Putin came to the rescue. For Bojo, Russia intimidated and then invaded Ukraine in the nick of time. Johnson has matched Biden in blistering rhetoric, self-righteously posing as an avatar of virtue against the Evil Putin, striving to outdo the stridency of Biden and calling for even stricter "sanctions" (economic warfare).

Bojo The Clown Socks It To Putin! (Rhetorically.)

U.S. elites (political and media) and the ducks lined up behind them (Europe, Canada, Japan) consistently claimed to be "the world." Apparently Africa, Latin America, India, China, indeed almost all of Asia, aren't part of "the world."( Jair Bolsonaro, president of the largest nation in population  in the Western Hemisphere south of the U.S., even sided with Putin!) But don't you call them "racist!" (While the motivation for their hyperbolic lying maybe wasn't racist, the effect sure comes off that way!) 

But finally a bit of evidence to support the notion that "the world" sees things the U.S. way. 140 nations at any rate, which voted in the UN general assembly to denounce the Russian invasion. But 35 nations, presumably on earth and thus part of "the world," abstained, and 5 voted against: Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, and Eritrea. All are easy to understand, except Eritrea isn't so obvious. Presumably they need Russia for something. The Assad dictatorship of Syria needs the Russian air force to stay in power. The Belarus' dictator needs Russia to prop him up, and has allowed Russian forces to stage on Belarus' soil to invade Ukraie. North Korea is North Korea, and has been under brutal economic siege enforced by the U.S., which has pushed sanctions through the UN over N.K.'s missile and nuclear weapons programs. No love lost there.

Bottom line: for both Biden and Johnson, the invasion of Ukraine is a tremendous blessing, with perfect timing to boot. And that's not a "cynical" statement, it's a TRUE statement reflecting REALISM. Taboo truths are are often branded "cynicism" by the power establishment's propagandists. Their other go-to epithet to suppress unwanted facts is "conspiracy theory." Be aware.

"Ohhhh, What A Lucky Man, He IS!"

To understand what led up to the current Ukraine "crisis," you need to read my prior essays at https://jasonzenith.blogspot.com/search?q=UKRAINE, especially "Obama Dictates Terms to Russia To Keep Its Naval Base in Crimea." 

When you go there, you can click on"2022" on the side of the page to see my latest essays. Or just scroll down from where you are now! And put your email in the box on the right side of the page to be notified of future posts. You DO want to be NOTIFIED, DON'T you?

You Call This "Three-Dimensional Chess"? Putin's Boneheaded Invasion Of Ukraine Exposes U.S. Elites' Fatuous Blather

 

 

                                                         Putin: Chess Genius or Boob?

Over the years, a favorite propaganda trope of U.S. media "pundits," imperialist foreign policy apparatchiks and  "experts," and politicians scoring points against other politicians and presidents of the rival political party, has been that "Russia is playing chess" and the U.S. is playing checkers. Then imperialist yakkers trying to stand out in the babbling "foreign policy" mob hyped it up to "The Russians are playing three-dimensional chess," outclassing the asleep at the switch U.S. (This as the U.S. dominates the world, as it has done continuously since 1945.)

Well, if we're talking political strategy, Russian ruler Vladimir Putin is no chess Grandmaster. Incredibly, he has invaded Ukraine- for real this time. Western propagandists and politicians refer to this actual invasion as "another" invasion,  pretending Russia "invaded" the secessionist regions of Ukraine when in actuality they sent in small forces and aid to help defend the regions from attack by the Kyiv regime, which targeted apartment complexes and other civilian targets. Two new states were declared in 2014, which Russia only now recognized, putting U.S. president Joseph Biden into a state of high dudgeon. 

Unmentioned was the fact that for years, Russia has tried to bring about an accommodation between the Kyiv regime and the newly-declared Republics, whereby those Republics would be part of Ukraine but with some autonomy to protect their language and culture.  The Kyiv regimr signed the Minsk Accords, which called for ceasefire, yet the Kyiv regime has never stopped its military attack on the breakaway regions, killing over 10,000 people, committing many war crimes- targeting apartment buildings for shelling and bombing. (The twisted Western media refers to this as "Russian invasion" and a war forced on Kyiv!) 

Another tortured use of the word "invasion" is now even occasionally being applied to Russia and Crimea. Apparently calling it an "occupation" or "annexation" is too feeble a denunciation. Crimea is the site of a vital Russian naval base, which after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia leased from Ukraine. After the U.S. coup of February 2014 and the installation of a regime which immediately targeted Russian-speaking Ukrainians for repression, local Crimea parliament and then the citizens both voted to reunite with Russia. (The people voted 97% in favor, with the Tatar inhabitants, 15% of the populace there, boycotting the referendum.) AFTER that, the Russian Duma voted to reunite with Crimea. (Crimea had been part of Russia until 1954, when Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev transferred it to the Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic, part of the U.S.S.R.)

Russia is landlocked for virtually its entire southern border. Crimea is on the Black Sea, through which ships can navigate to the Mediterranean Ocean and hence to the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Geostrategically, Russia had NO CHOICE but to make sure Crimea stayed in friendly hands. [To understand this, see my article with maps:  FOOTNOTE 1 BELOW.]

Why was it so dumb for Putin to invade Ukraine? I mean really invade. Because even if the Russian army successfully occupies it, it will have to stay there in force to prop up whatever government Russia installs. And it will be subjected to endless guerrilla warfare funded and armed by the U.S. and its Eurolackeys. It will be a bleeding wound, just as Afghanistan was for the Soviet Union. (Does Putin's pining for the defunct SU extend to its debacles?) And the "sanctions"- economic warfare- being waged by the U.S. and its lackeys will significantly damage the Russian economy and hurt its people. In fact, bringing misery to people is the main point of U.S. sanctions. The goal is to create discontent with the government and undermine it, hopefully to overthrow it, as the U.S. is trying to do to Venezuela and Iran, North Korea, Cuba for 60 plus years, and whoever else gets in its way or displeases it.

Ukraine as another Afghanistan brings to mind another interesting parallel. It has emerged that the U.S. WANTED the Soviets in Afghanistan to bleed their army and weaken the Soviet regime. Likewise, the invasion of Ukraine can only be destructive for Russia. The U.S. and its lackeys are doing much to wreck the Russian economy right now. And billions of people are being subjected to saturation, non-stop anti-Russian propaganda which is putting a saintly glow of plucky martyrdom around Ukraine, hiding the key role played by actual neo-Nazis in the regime and its wars. 

The truth is, the U.S. practically forced Russia to invade Ukraine. For weeks leading up to the invasion, the Russians reiterated the same demands they've been making since 1999, when the U.S. double-crossed them and expanded NATO into more nations, violating a deal made with Mikhail Gobachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, in 1989. The U.S. publicly, adamantly refused to budge; Biden himself rejected the Soviet demand to keep Ukraine out of NATO. The U.S. had NATO announce in 2008 that Ukraine (and Georgia) would be welcomed into NATO. Infuriatingly, U.S. propagandists ignore what Putin actually "wants" and invent imaginary goals for him.

The second outrageous provocation was the U.S.-neo-nazi coup in 2014 that overthrew the elected president and replaced the government with one so hostile to everything Russian that it passed laws aimed at oppressing Russian-speaking Ukrainians. 

Here's the echo of Afghanistan: The Soviet Union was lured into invading Afghanistan by a dastardly plot of the Carter regime, masterminded by Carter's "National Security" Advisor, the Russia-despising Pole, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski actually went to Afghanistan to put his fiendish plot in motion, and shortly thereafter the Soviets fell for it. Years later, Brzezinski slipped up and blurted out a boast about what he had done to a French publication, Le Nouvel Observateur [Paris], January 15-21, 1998, p. 76.:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the national securty advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout].

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?

B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q : When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan , nobody believed them . However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime , a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B : What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So these supremely cynical U.S. imperialist brought the world Islamofascism. And people tolerate their continuance in power, their continued rule over us all.

And next time you hear propagandists and politicians describing Putin as diabolically cunning, remember they are building up a bogeyman to distract the people in the countries they rule and to rally support for their own imperialist aggressions.

Brzezinski interview translated from the French by William Blum and David N. Gibbs. This translation was published in Gibbs, "Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion in Retrospect," International Politics 37, no. 2, 2000, pp. 241-242.

Original French version appeared in "Les Révélations d'un Ancien Conseilleur de Carter: ‘Oui, la CIA est Entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes...’" Le Nouvel Observateur [Paris], January 15-21, 1998, p. 76. Click here for original French text.


1]  I published a series of articles on the Ukraine situation in 2014 which are still apropos today.. To see why the U.S. grabbing Ukraine is a dagger aiimed at Russia's vital strategic interests, read "Obama Dictates Terms to Russia To Keep Its Naval Base in Crimea."  When you go there, you can click on "2022" on the side of the page to see my latest essays.
You can search on that page the word "Ukraine" in the search box to pull up all the essays, or use this URL which is the search result: https://jasonzenith.blogspot.com/search?q=UKRAINE

What Is A "Crisis?"

It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Iraq.
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Haiti (again).
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Haiti (again).
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Panama.
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Grenada.
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Cambodia.
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Vietnam.
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Cuba (again).
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Lebanon.
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Haiti.
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Cuba.
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded Mexico (four or five times).
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded the Philippines.
It wasn't a crisis when the U.S. invaded the British colony that became Canada.
It's a crisis when Russia invades Ukraine.

Understand?

File under "Hyper-Hypocrisy."
And by the way, I've missed some.

Countries have been invading countries for as long as they have existed. War and conquest are thousands of years old.

Ukraine is over 6,000 airmiles from the U.S. at the closest points. Ukraine is right next to Russia. Seems that Russia would naturally have a much greater interest in Ukraine than the U.S. should. Yet the U.S. insisted on making Ukraine a U.S. vassal state with the 2014 violent coup.
Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine- morally and politically. To quote Tallyrand,in strategic terms it's worse than a crime, it's a blunder. But the U.S. created the situation, both with its hostile takeover of Ukraine, and it's treachery towards Russia by breaking its promise not to expand NATO, instead relentlessly pushing it right up to Russia's borders and vowing to bring in Ukraine and Georgia as NATO nations. Russia has said scores of times that this is unaccepotable to them. The U.S. answer is the same as what U.S. apparatchik had to say about the EU in her infamous phone calll to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Pyass- "Fuck the EU." It's "Fuck You Russia. You're too weak to stop us."

The biggest loser from U.S. arrogance and aggressiveness is Ukraine.

Bill de Blasio's Excellent PR Adventure

 Bill de Blasio's two terms as Mayor of New York City have shown a certain consistency. A very fast-talking con man (he can talk his way around even the most pointed question that nails him dead to rights- for examples, listen to his weekly appearances on a certain radio program [1]), de Blasio's modus operandi is to gaslight people with grandiose "liberal" rhetoric while instituting reactionary policies behind people's backs. In this, he is in the mold of the Democratic Party's poohbah's, Obama and The Two Clintons. Indeed, de Blasio comes from the Clinton's machine, having managed Hillary Clinton's first campaign for U.S. Senate from New York State. If anything, Bill de Blasio is Bill Clinton on steroids, a guy who talks faster and is more disingenuous. An expert sophist, de Blasio manages to rationalize away any damning evidence against him.

Another consistency: he mostly did the opposite of what he promised to do as a candidate (and what he continually claims to be doing). His positive accomplishments are mainly one: pre-K school for children. Give him credit for that, and that's pretty much it. Otherwise it's betrayals and attacks on people's well-being.

Perhaps his most egregious crime has been his full-throated defense of police brutality. The city police (NYPD) brutally assaulted for months on end the protesters who took to the streets in the wake of the graphic murder of George Floyd by four Minneapolis, Minnesota police. De Blasio consistently vilified the victims of NYPD violence.

Now what is this Excellent Public Relations Adventure of which I spoke in the title? First this introduction to the theme.

One de Blasio scam was baiting people to get COVID vaccines by offering a $100 "incentive." Only they don't pay up. To illustrate the point, I could relate one person's attempt to get paid, an exercise in utter futility, but that story is too lengthy for this essay. Just briefly, the contractor that is supposed to pay, an outfit called "akimbo," doesn't mail the debit cards, doesn't respond to emails, and is unreachable by phone. City employees for their part put people on a runaround treadmill and tell the victims to inform "akimbo." To add injury to injury, "akimbo" makes extra money selling the emails of the vaccinated to spammers. Immediately after getting vaccinated, the vaccine-related spam starts arriving- the $100 debit card never does.

I have a suspicion that de Blasio never had any intention of paying people. At the least, he doesn't care.  He just wants to be able to boast about how he got people to submit to vaccination. 

Now, de Blasio's Excellent PR Adventure: He pulled a similar stunt to the "vaccine incentive" trick  the first week of December, when he announced- informing nobody in advance, and  consulting with no one, according to the New York Times- that henceforth businesses would be required to insist that their employees be vaccinated.  And that everyone, even children as young as five, would have to be vaccinated if they wanted to eat in a restaurant or enter any other public place. All 184,000 New York City businesses were now under Mayoral orders to REQUIRE all their employees to be vaccinated for the new coronavirus, and to screen all people entering their premises for COVID vaccination status. No exceptions, and no option to be tested for infection in lieu of vaccination.

The fact that there was no plan for any of this, and that he never even discussed it with city officials before announcing it, gives the game away. It's not real, but typical de Blasio smoke and mirrors.

Self-styled caudillo de Blasio's edict nominally takes effect December 27. De Blasio will stop being mayor on January 1st, 5 whole days later. His successor has been coy on whether he will enforce the decree of his predecessor. Even though there is no mechanism to enforce this imperial ukase, media in New York City has given a platform to the frenzied overreactions of a few selected  individuals from "the business community." Thus adding to the illusion that de Blasio actually DID something, as opposed to ANNOUNCING something. ANNOUNCING things that never actually happen has been a hallmark of de Blasio's mayoralty. He's very big on making Grand Announcements, such as there will be "zero traffic fatalities" in New York City, and how he'll build- indeed IS building, "affordable housing," a phrase he must have uttered hundreds of times. 

De Blasio has reaped national media attention for several days running so far for his latest stunt. He even got some international media coverage, for example by the BBC, the main global propaganda arm of the British government. That is the payoff.

But what is the point? Is de Blasio merely a political exhibitionist? Does he have an insatiable need for attention because of a swollen ego? Actually he's running for Governor of New York State (state capital is the city of Albany, a nothingburg far to the north). He's been term-limited out of the Mayoralty of New York City because of a law passed by the city's voters in a referendum, a law that a previous Mayor, Michael Bloomberg Billionaire, ignored and illegally ran for a third term, which he won. His opposition includes the current Governor, Kathy Hochul, who inherited the seat after Governor Andrew "The Molester" Cuomo was forced out and his mousy lieutenant governor, Ms. Hochul, was automatically elevated to the top job. Also vying to grab the top political rung in the state was state attorney general Letitia James, until she announced on December 9th she was quitting. On the same day, Hochul publicly endorsed James' reelection for state AG, indicating prearrangement between the two. Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi is also running. (Another announced candidate for Governor in the 2022 election is Jumaane Williams, who was just elected last month as New York City Public Advocate. Ambitious, no?) These are all Democrats competing in the upcoming June Democratic Primary. [2]

Cuomo was finally exposed as a compulsive molester, and for his role in causing the deaths of thousands of elderly nursing home residents and covering it up. Those things, along with the media finally reporting what they knew for years, that Cuomo is a rage-filled, abusive bully, finally pried his fingers from the levers of power.

De Blasio is deeply unpopular in New York City, with 8 million people has almost half the state's population. Outside of the City, the state is quite reactionary, so de Blasio will have to jettison his fake-liberal outer garb. His opponents will try to keep him from getting away with it. But de Blasio is probably thinking back to how he won the city mayoralty. Low in the polls, he ran in a crowded field, which enabled him to emerge on top.

And de Blasio has "raised his profile" with his latest high-handed "mandate."

If de Blasio were somehow to climb up the next rung of the political ladder, he only good thing would be Andrew Cuomo damaging his teeth by gnashing them. Cuomo as Governor had a hobby of making de Blasio's life miserable. It appeared he did it just for sport, as a cat tortures a captive mouse. What poetic justice that would be for the venal, execrable Cuomo!

My latest scam is working like a charm! Albany Governor's Mansion, Here I Come!

  

1]  For years, de Blasio has been hosted every Friday for an hour on "The Brian Lehrer Show" on "public" radio station WNYC, in New York City. WNYC.org. Brian Lehrer, a classic dweeb, always lets the Flim-Flam Man get away with his evasions. Callers who call in to complain about being screwed by the de Blasio regime would be parried with some Clintonian-like "I feel your pain" verbal jujitsu. No matter what he did, nothing could ever be de Blasio's fault.

 

De Blasio is more slippery than a greased eel and can seemingly fast-talk his way out of anything. While Trump could shoot someone dead on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and not lose any support, as he boasted, de Blasio could do it and talk his way out of it with a gusher of verbiage.

2] Letitia James gave as a reason to remaining in theattorney general spot ongoing important cases. These cases are a civil suit against the crook Donald Trump, who inflates the value of his assets to get bank loans, and deflates them on his tax returns. She is also working to strip the National Rifle Association of its registration as a charity in New York State, stemming from the major corruption by its top officials who have used millions of NRA funds for personal expenditures. The NRA tried to evade liability by filing a frivolous bankruptcy claim, which the courts rejected.
 

Evil Propagandist Dies, And Some U.S. Media Hails Him As A Great Man

   A "legend," an "icon," these are words being used on radio "news" stations and elsewhere to describe the noxious, destructive purveyor of ignorant lies Rush Limbaugh, whose cigar smoking caught up with him at the age of 70, dead after "a battle with" lung cancer. (Susan Sontag demolished the obnoxious propaganda habit of describing people with diseases as "battling" the disease in her book "Illness As Metaphor.") (Most people don't read much except junk, so they won't be informed of how evil Limbaugh was.)

Why hail such a malign creature? Treating hard rightwing propagandists and its purveyors as respectable and legitimate gives them credence. The establishment power structure's propaganda system does this to indoctrinate the populace in reactionary ideology and lies that benefits the class interests of the rich and their corporate vehicles. This why even though "liberals" and "the liberal media" were constant targets of Limbaugh's mendacious vituperation, he was never honestly reported or commented on by those elements of the power structure.

You must understand that Limbaugh was part of a much larger phenomenon. Rich oligarchs who control several thousand radio stations in the U.S. decided to flood the airwaves with reactionary agit-propaganda spewed by demagogues into the ears of millions of people. Limbaugh was the most prominent of these- but not even the worst. [For example, Michael Weiner, who goes by the apt pseudonym "Michael Savage," is even worse.] [1]

Instead of sane, rational commentary, people's minds are assailed by neo-fascist rabble-rousing demagogues that the monopoly owners of U.S. radio stations have decided are fit fare to indoctrinate the American public with ultra-reactionary attitudes and warped versions of reality.

Why was Limbaugh so execrable? To prove the point  would be like trying to succinctly explain what was so awful about Nixon. It takes at least a book to do the topic justice. And just citing a few examples looks like picking and choosing. But every day, for decades, Limbaugh spewed reactionary poison into the eardrums of idiots who lapped up his lies.

Like all privileged fascists, Limbaugh was an extreme hypocrite who was addicted to illegal drugs while frequently demanding that other people (especially blacks)  who used outlawed drugs be given draconian prison terms or even be executed. (Limbaugh himself escaped punishment for his own lawbreaking of course.)

Limbaugh was a sexist, racist dog who specialized in character assassination. Just one example: In 2019 he falsely asserted that TV commentator Krystal Ball posed nude for photos at age 14.

Limbaugh spewed thousands of malicious lies during his "career," and it would be impossible to list them all here. So these are but a few of them.

Limbaugh helped kill many people by pooh-poohing the seriousness of the deadly COVID-19 pandemic, which as of this writing has killed about half a million people in the U.S.

Limbaugh didn't just deny global warming, of course, he even denied the fact that CFC's destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere. Not even reactionary scientists deny this.

Limbaugh aided and abetted Trump's coup attempt by incessantly peddling the Big Lie that the Democrats "stole" the 2020 presidential election, a lie equivalent to the Nazi lie that Germany lost World War I because Jews stabbed Germany in the back. Equivalent in being a total fabrication and equivalent in being a malign political lie with terrible consequences.

It is a relief that Limbaugh in effect killed himself by his noxious habit of smoking cigars. He thought this anti-health practice was sticking it to the rest of us. Being anti-social is what reactionaries think is brave non-conformity. Being dead wrong is their idea of "independent thinking." 

Good riddance to a destructive creature.

Sucking on symbolic phalluses did the gay-hating Limbaugh in. Ironic, yes?

1] Mark Crispin Miller offers some revelations about "Savage." See "Mark Crispin Miller's Revelations About Gay Homophobic Crypto-Nazi 'Michael Savage.'"

Limbaugh spent 30 years excreting anti-human agit-propaganda into the airwaves. If you want to sicken yourself by investigating some of his revolting neo-fascist record, you can start with:

"Rush Limbaugh, Bigoted King Of Talk Radio, Dies At 70," HuffPost, 2/17/21; "The Life and Death of a Woman-Hater," New York Times, 2/20/21 [nice to see some establishment media do some truth-telling about Limbaugh]; and "RIP RUSH LIMBAUGH, WHO SPENT HIS ENTIRE LIFE ON THE GOVERNMENT DOLE," The Intercept, 2/19/21.

Kellyanne Conway Thinks Trump Is Doomed

That's the conclusion I draw from her sudden abandonment of Trump less than 3 months before the presidential election.

The prominent political propagandist and reactionary operative gave only one week public notice of her impending departure from the Trump regime at the end of August.

Conway says the reason she's abruptly leaving is so she can spend more time with her family. That's what politicians always say when they don't want to give the real reason they're giving up a plum job.

Conway's husband, rich rightwing lawyer George Conway, is simultaneously quitting the anti-Trump group he's associated with, "The Lincoln Project." .(He apparently couldn't stomach slithering onto the Trump bandwagon, as his hyper-opportunist wife did.) Kellyanne, while more intelligent than Trump, is like him in that she's a fast-talking bullshit artist. Only she's better at it than he is, thanks to her superior intelligence, which she misuses in the service of evil. And has done her entire adult life. (And probably starting in childhood.)

Kellyanne claims she wants to do more mothering. There may be something to that, insofar as the Conways' 15-year-old daughter Claudia has repeatedly sent cries from the heart into the public space bemoaning her suffering under the oppressive rule of her parents. Her parents barred her from making political comments after she demonstrated that she isn't a reactionary clone of themselves. The fact that George quit his anti-Trump group may be taken as evidence of a parental strategy, although how much time can penning an occasional anti-Trump op-ed take? Presumably George isn't quitting his law practice. Perhaps Kellyanne finagled a deal with Hubby that she's leave the Trump tent if he'd give up his anti-Trump scribbling.

But keep in mind, there can be more than one motive or cause for an action. The "need" to better suppress and brainwash her daughter, and abandoning the sinking Trump ship (as she perceives it), can BOTH be reasons she's abruptly departing the Trump camp. Associating with a loser is not Kellyanne's way. She, again like Trump, has to be a "winner."

Kellyanne Conway is a lifelong reactionary political operative.The early part of her "career" was spent advising rightwing Republicans on how to trick women into voting for the GOP, a party that denies women the right to control their own bodies. She's also a shameless opportunist and a chronic liar. All in all, a loathsome creature who has harmed humanity by her existence.

  

   The Wicked Witch of the White House Went WHOOSH!

For a concise 4 minute synopsis of her "career," including how she latched onto Trump after denigrating him when she was working to try and secure the GOP presidential nomination for the fanatical rightist Ted Cruz, see "Who is Kellyanne Conway – Counselor to the President."

For her infuriating propaganda and gaslighting techniques, see "Kellyanne Conway's interview tricks, explained."

The Big Lie: Police Work Is "Dangerous" (It's Not)

In the U.S. the chances of being murdered if you are a cop is LESS than the chance of being murdered if you are a mere citizen. That is a fact. Policing is NOT a particularly hazardous occupation. Other jobs are MUCH more dangerous. Coal mining. Farming. Commercial fishing. Construction. Working in a meat packing plant. All are MUCH more physically dangerous than being a cop, in terms of serious injuries and deaths. (It is not so rare for people to be maimed for life in those other occupations.  It is exceedingly rare for police to suffer such misfortune.)

Cops spend most of their time sitting in their cars. Doing paperwork in their cop fortresses  is another major use of their time. Chasing "perps" down alleys, like on the repression- porn TV show "Cops," a vile propaganda program, is a minuscule percentage of what they do.

There are close to a million cops in the U.S., and yet only around 50 a year are currently killed by other people while on the job. That is half the average of 100 a year of several decades ago, when there were half as many cops. It was safe then, and now it's four times safer.

Yet cops, their fellow traveling reactionaries and white racist cheerleaders, and most of all the U.S. corporate oligarchy's propaganda system, constantly beat their breasts about how police "risk their lives for us." They raise this rhetorical wall of verbal garbage as a shield whenever there is attempt by mere citizens to criticize their outrageous, repressive behavior. (The corporate oligarchic propaganda system refers to itself as "the media," as if it's the one and only media there is, and is purely neutral and objective with no political character.) Very, very rarely, some police are in potentially dangerous (to themselves) situations. And yes, on rare occasions, one or two get killed. It would be like getting struck by lightning, except getting struck by lightning happens far more often than a cop getting killed occurs.

On the other side of the ledger, U.S. police shoot dead over 1,000 people each and every year in the U.S. Now, presumably these aren't ALL homicides. Surely some of these killings must be justified. And yet, one has to wonder why in other "advanced" countries, like those in Europe, and Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the number of people shot or shot dead by police is such a tiny fraction of the U.S number.

Police, like all reactionaries, like to pretend they are being persecuted. In their case, criticism of their crimes is the "persecution." They expect praise for their criminal acts, or at least silence (and media cooperation in spreading lies about their conduct). Police in the U.S. are NOT persecuted. In a nation that has systematically attacked and destroyed the union movement for decades reducing organized labor to a shadow of what it once was, police unions are allowed grotesquely exaggerated political power. Even as teachers' unions are under systematic assault by state governments and billionaires and their hired propagandists pushing "charter schools" and vouchers, police unions are treated with the deference usually reserved for the Roman Catholic Pope.

Because of their role as oppressors of the "lower" (i.e. poorer) classes in the U.S., a growing percentage of the population, cops are hated by more and more people. On occasions when public outrage explodes over police atrocities, cops feel genuinely aggrieved and insulted. THEY are outraged that anyone is outraged at THEM instead of profusely THANKING them for murdering someone, for example. Then they and their reactionary defenders and media propagandist enablers start to bleat about how "dangerous" it is to be a cop, how they have to make "split second decisions" or be killed. This is BULLSHIT. Every time they cold-bloodedly murder someone, or brutally beat someone who rubbed them the wrong way (or who merely has the wrong skin pigmentation) or break into homes ot attack people protesting causes the cops despise, they trot out their alleged need to make "split-second decisions" and screech that the second-guessing is HANDCUFFING the police and ENDANGERING THEM by making them hesitant to become instantly violent like a Hell's Angel or a steroid-addled bodybuilder subject to sudden and unprovoked rages. (By the way, many cops ARE 'roided-up goons. And many are violent veterans of the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, where they developed a taste for shedding human blood. Or just developed a combat mentality, which they apply to their "police" work, "protecting the serving" the rich and the power structure created by and for the rich.)



Cops are NOT "law enforcers." They are social order enforcers. They are guardians of the existing power structure. This is the single most important thing to understand about the police. Everything they do makes perfect sense once you perceive this fundamental fact.

Since "blacks" are the U.S. equivalent of Indian Dalits, "untouchables," and occupy the bottom status rung in a deeply racist society, and "need" to be "kept in their place," a task in which violence has historically been a central tool, although not the only one, we should not be mystified by "why do they keep killing black people?" If it wasn't desired that they regularly commit such atrocities, the legal and political systems would not PROTECT THEM WHEN THEY DO IT. And the only times they are NOT protected is when there is unrest AND the unrest does not SUBSIDE quickly.

Chinese dictator and "communist" emperor Mao Zedong infamously wrote that "political power flows out of the barrel of a gun." It also sprays from the nozzle of a pepper spray can, a tear gas canister, and sparks off the tips of a taser's barbs. That is, power always ultimately rests on physical force. Without the ability to use physical force to enforce one's will when challenged, there is no power. There may be influence, but not power. Power is the ability to force others to do what you dictate, not do what you ban, or to punish for disobedience.

In the current two weeks and counting nationwide (indeed global) mass protests against the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis on March 25, the bourgeois politicians and propagandists have been talking as if they are on the same side as those they oppress. They've been wringing their hands nonstop, Tugging at their chins and wondering how to "fix" the "problem of racism." Meanwhile, the whole time, their police have been violently assaulting the protesters, killing several, and shooting an eye out of at least three people, among other atrocities. But the only "violence" those in power perceive is window-breaking and "looting" by people they insist on tying to the protesters. So as soon as the heat dies down, expect things to be back to business as usual.

Killer cop Derek Chauvin was only indicted after a police station was burned down in Minneapolis. It was only after 8 days or so of national turbulence that Minnesota state Attorney General Keith Ellison, a phony "progressive," took over the case and indicted the other 3 murderers of George Floyd. He is already warning how "hard" it will be to obtain convictions.

Malcolm X once said, "The only thing power understands, IS power." Or in this case, pressure. Pressure from masses of people. Most importantly, most of the demonstrators have been "white." That is new in the Black Lives Matter movement. That is also decisive. Blacks in the U.S. are a small minority, so having allies in the rest of the population is essential.

Ex-Minneapolis police officer Derek "Crusher" Chauvin bravely putting his life on the line to "protect and serve." And ingrates have the nerve to protest! What is the world coming to?

DON'T MISS MY EYE-OPENING YOUTUBE CHANNEL
youtube.com/user/jasonzenith/videos

The BBC Lies About The Holocaust

Amazing lie pushed out all over the world this morning by the premier propaganda arm of the British Government, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Bergen-Belsen was a Nazi concentration camp liberated by British troops. According to the BBC this morning, an estimated 50,000 prisoners died there. (That would be from disease, starvation, and execution.) The BBC every half hour stated that "images of piles of bodies and starving inmates were the first evidence to reach the Wet of the horrors of the Holocaust."

No, they were NOT 'the first evidence to reach the West." Not by a long shot. The Allied armies in the West overran concentration camps in Germany in 1945, during the last weeks of the war. But information about what the Germans were doing was known as soon as the organized mass murder began.

In June 1941 Nazi Germany and its fascist allies Italy, Romania, and Hungary (plus Finland) invaded the Soviet Union. There were three extermination units, called Einsatzgruppen, one assigned to each of the invading German army groups. Their task was to follow in the wake of these armies and round up and execute Jews and Communist Party officials. In a few months they managed to murder hundreds of thousands of people. Of course word of this reached the Soviet authorities, who at that point were allied with Britain against Germany. (In December 1941 the U.S. joined the Soviets and British after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the U.S.) So this was no secret. [1]

All during the war there was a stream of intelligence report and testimony of refugees, escapees, and spies as to the Nazi extermination program in the camps. On a number of occasions in 1944, various Jewish representatives beseeched the U.S. government to bomb the railroad lines to Auschwitz to interrupt the shipment of Jews from all over Europe into this death camp. The U.S. Army Air Force always refused. [2]

It has been a common theme of Western propaganda that the Allies only found out about the Holocaust at nearly the end of the war. But the actual historical record refutes this completely. Of course the sort of propagandists who work for media companies don't give a damn about actual facts.

Is it really possible that the BBC is so abysmally ignorant of history, or has such a feckless research
research department, that they don't know this? No, it isn't.

This is a political lie to protect the reputations of Britain and the U.S. In a very real sense, these nations were accomplices to the Holocaust. Especially the U.S., which barred Jews fleeing the Nazis from entering the U.S. (At least Britain took in some Jewish children, only insisting that their parents stay behind to be persecuted and ultimately murdered by the Germans and their fascist fellow travelers.)

The BBC isn't the only "Western" "news" organization that lies about the Holocaust. A commemoration of the liberation of the Auschwitz Nazi concentration camp, the most notorious of the archipelago of scores of Nazi concentration camps, was recently staged. This political ritual received major promotion in the U.S. corporate media system. A very key fact went completely unmentioned in the broadcast propaganda- namely which army liberated the camp! Of course it was the Red Army. Auschwitz was one of six mass exterminations camps set up to commit mass murder on an industrial scale. All six were set up on conquered Polish territory, apparently to keep them out of sight of the German populace. (The German people were okay with camps on German soil that only murdered thousands or tens of thousands of people.) It was the Red Army that overran Poland from the East, of course, in the drive to Berlin. By going on and on about the liberation while omitting the actual liberators, the clear impression was left that it was the U.S. that did the liberating. This is an example of lying by omission, a common tactic by U.S. establishment propaganda organs.

The BBC has a "history" program they call "Witness." Many of the episodes consist of rehasing anti-Soviet Cold War themes. While not factually incorrect for the most part, it is beating a dead horse. What purpose is served other than ideological indoctrination?

You'd think that now that the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, has ceased to exist for almost thirty years, they could let it go. But no.

Another pet peeve of the BBC is the East German Stasi, or secret police. Since East Germany ceased to exist even before the Soviet Union expired, and in any event was a small and not very consequential country, one might wonder about the motive here too. Did the Stasi even kill a few hundred people throughout its existence? On the other hand, the BBC largely ignores the mass murdering death squad regimes created by its U.S. masters, like the one in Guatemala (250,000 murdered), Iran after they installed the Shah as dictator in 1953 (another 250,000), Chile (at least 3,000 plus more outside its borders), or Argentina, encouraged by the U.S., which murdered 30,000 defenseless citizens. And there are others. In fact, right now the Colombian regime is busy murdering political activists and labor organizers. Since the FARC's latest surrender, they have assassinated almost 1,000 people, including many candidates for office. Not a word of this on the BBC.
Naturally the BBC, reflecting the vile position of the government of which it is a part, supports every U.S. coup, including the one in Honduras engineered by Barack "The Drone Assassin" Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the current ongoing one in Venezuela, just the latest coup attempt there, a criminal campaign that began under Bush the Younger, continued by Obama, and now Donald "Jackass" Trump is carrying the imperialist baton.

Naturally the BBC, reflecting the vile position of the government of which it is a part, supports every U.S. coup, including the one in Honduras engineered by Barack "The Drone Assassin" Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the current ongoing one in Venezuela, just the latest coup attempt there, a criminal campaign that began under Bush the Younger, continued by Obama, and now Donald "Jackass" Trump is carrying the imperialist baton.

Another thing the BBC is loathe to mention is the UK's support for Saudi Arabia's murderous assault on Yemen, which has caused mass starvation and a cholera epidemic in that country. For good measure, the Saudis are bombing the hospitals there, just as Russia and the Assad regime have systematically attacks the health clinics in territory the regime wants to take over. THAT the BBC reports. (As it should, of course.)

When you see such one-sided "coverage," such a clear double standard, and such obsessive trashing of defunct regimes, that's a tipoff that you are witnessing propaganda.

 

Tony Hall, 16th Director-General of the BBC. According the BBC website, "The Director-General is the Chief Executive Officer of the BBC, its Editor-in-Chief. The DG is the editorial, operational and creative leader of the BBC, with responsibility for a global workforce running services across television, radio and online."

But "Tony" is much MORE than that! He is also "The Right Honourable, The Lord Hall of Birkenhead Life Peerage, CBE," don't you know!

The British ruling class leaves nothing to chance. All key power positions are held by their own kind.

Ridiculous hat, by the way.

1]  Einsatzgruppen at Wikipedia

2]  A few examples of the absurdity of the BBC's lie: "The Polish government-in-exile in London first reported crimes in the Auschwitz complex to the western public in 1941.[1] Information about tortures inside this camp was published in the same year in New York in a government report from occupied Poland titled The Polish White Book[1] The Auschwitz camp was also noted in The Black Book of Poland a 750-page report published in 1942 in New York by the Ministry of Information of the Polish government-in-exile, describing atrocities committed by Germany in occupied Poland in twenty-two months between the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and the end of June 1941. Both were printed in New York by The Greystone Press and G.P. Putnam's Sons[1][2]

"In 1942, Lieutenant Jan Karski reported to the Polish, British and U.S. governments on the situation in occupied Poland, especially the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto and the general systematic extermination of the Poles and Jews nationally. He did not know about the murder by gas, repeating the common belief at the time that deported Jews were being exterminated with electricity.[3] Karski met with the Polish government-in-exile, including the Prime Minister, Władysław Sikorski, as well as with members of political parties such as the Socialist Party, National Party, Labor Party, People's Party, Jewish Labour Bund and Zionist Party. He also spoke to Anthony Eden, the British Foreign Secretary, and included a detailed statement on what he had seen in Warsaw and in Bełżec. In 1943 in London he met the author and journalist Arthur Koestler. He then traveled to the United States and reported to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR reacted to Karski's report by inquiring jokingly into animal rights abuses (specifically, horses). His report was a major source of information for the Allies.[4]  "Auschwitz Bombing Debate," Wikipedia,

For the historical context in the broader framework of anti-Semitism, see "Foundations of Holocaust: Roosevelt's decision to not bomb Auschwitz," Jerusalem Post, February 28, 2013.

As to not bombing the rail lines, to be fair, given the inaccuracy of high-level bombing in those days, the ease and speed with which rail tracks can be repaired, there was good reason not to target rail lines. As to bombing the camp itself, there were prisoners of war there. However air raids were carried out against some of the factories in the sprawling complex, where slave laborers were often worked to death. See "The United States and the Holocaust: Why Auschwitz Was Not Bombed," Holocaust Encyclopedia of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Media Indignation Over Trump Staff Firings Shows Breathtaking Hypocrisy

President Trump has canned some personnel who contributed to his impeachment. He could hardly have done otherwise. The individuals are the imperialist zealot Lt. Colonel Vindman, who is being described in U.S. corporate propagamda as "the top Ukraine expert" (during his impeachment hearing testimony in the House of Representatives he revealed himself as a militaristic, anti-Russian zealot, as indeed most of the Democrats' "star" witnesses were), dismissed from his job at the National Security Council, which is a White House agency; his twin brother, another officer, and Gordon Sondland, the guy who gave a million bucks to Trump's inauguration shindig so he could play diplomat. (Trump made him ambassador to the European Union, then unmade him as ambassador.) Sondland testified to the House Intelligence Committee, run by the Democrats' Torquemada, Adam Schiff, that "everyone knew" Trump had a quid pro quo out on Ukraine- do an investigation, or just announce one, into the infamous Hunter Biden appointment to the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma, a no-show job for which he was paid $50,000 a month for five years, and for which he had zero qualifications (nice work if you can get it, and you can get it if your Daddy's the vice president of the U.S.A. at the time). Actually he had just one all-important qualification, being the son of vice president Joseph Biden.

In return for announcing an investigation, Trump would release a bunch of weapons to the Kiev regime to use to kill Ukrainians in the eastern part of the country who seceded after the U.S. coup overthrew the government. (This is translated in U.S. propaganda as "fighting a Russian invasion.")
 And the new Ukrainian president, professional comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, wanted a White House meeting with Trump. (Which he got, and no investigation was ever announced or conducted.)

But under questioning by Republican Congressmen, Sondland admitted that he merely "presumed" this, and the only thing Trump ever said to him was "no quid pro quo." Of course Trump was probably lying.

U.S. media is portraying these guys who lost their jobs as a grave injustice, they're "being punished for telling the truth." Whatever. But here's the hypocrisy, indeed the blatant, cynical double standard.

Do you remember- you probably don't- when Bush II fired a bunch of U.S. Attorneys for refusing to bring bogus election fraud charges against Democrats? You may not recall it because it's one of those things that "the" media has consigned to oblivion, thrown down their Orwellian memory hole, where inconvenient facts are disposed of. Now that Bush the Younger has been rehabilitated (illegal war? institutionalized torture? That's so yesterday!) all is forgiven. (And virtually mo one in America ever cared about a million dead Iraqis anyway.)

Several U.S.Attorneys were told to "investigate" election fraud by Democrats. (The irony is rich, as the GOP has been systematically stealing elections for over twenty years now, most infamously the presidential election of 2000, which they brazenly did right out in the open, ultimately by 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court doing the deed. But the Democrats, craven cowards that they are, feckless and dishonest, prefer to blame for Gore's loss- get this- Ralph Nader!) For example, then GOP Senator and loathsome reactionary "Pete" Domenici of Arizona referred a "case" to the U.S. Attorney for that state for "investigation." When that U.S. Attorney reported back to Domenici that there was no basis to bring charges, Domenici was mightily displeased, and let the U.S. Attorney know it. Subsequently Bush fired a group of U.S. Attorneys who failed to bring bogus criminal charges of election fraud against Democrats.

"The" media did report this at the time- rather, some of the media did- but there was no outrage. Not like the outrage over every thing that Trump does, even when justified.

Look, Trump is a loathsome creature, but he'd have to be a masochist not to fire these internal enemies. He may be totally out of his depth as president, but his aggressiveness prevents him from being rendered impotent. Thus the paradox of a man who doesn't understand power on the national and international level, who is a bumbler and incompetent, still can survive. Indeed, odds are he will be reelected, unfortunately.