What you are about to read is a review of the book “Reportage: Essays on the New World Order.” I wish every person on Earth could get the information in this book streamlined into their information bank. Since they cannot, this is the next best thing, right?

Liars are never persecuted, only those who tell the truth. James Corbett is one of those truth-tellers.

James Started in 2007, and either we are all late or he was ahead of his time because what he coined his work all the way back then is “Open-Source Intelligence News” and when you look through his work back then all the way up to now, he has continued this philosophy. Now onward and up, we go. —JLC. EIC. TFM.

Introduction-What Are We Talking About?

So, my book reviews, I know, are not well formatted, they fall somewhere on the spectrum between, revealing the main points so you don’t have to read it, debunking the fake, and giving them flowers when they are great, like this piece. Doing my best to separate the truth, from the lies being published as truth, and the propaganda being placed to deceive the reader, but there is no lies to reveal here, and you don’t have to take my word for it, you can look into every claim for yourself.

Not sure what a standard book review should look like. When I was in school, I would read the book in class and skip the report, so I don’t even have that as a reference point. I’d take an F before I stood up in front of the class and read a report. I was that kid. All I know is I love this book, and I want others to know about it.

This will most definitely be a “Flowers”-type review. This man, James Corbett wrote such a beautiful, well-sourced and extremely important, collection of essays from the last 15 years. Barely Western-centric, being he is a citizen of Japan, human-centric is more like it. This is just an unimpeachable piece of artistry, interesting, informative-but not dull-informative, dense with facts but saturated with stories and storytelling you want to know the conclusion of. Conspiracy theories, some would say, till you notice the little numbers throughout each essay and realize they are linked to evidence of every claim made in the essay.

Check this guy’s track record he’s been ahead of his time on every issue over the last 20 years. Intuition? Maybe. But there is evidence for every claim he makes.

Every chapter is an essay with unimpeachable sources that James goes out of his way to make available to the reader.

Source Availability to Reader

This is probably the coolest part of this book, especially to someone—like me— who fancies himself a fellow seeker-of-truth. James purposely made this book a masterpiece to people of my ilk.

It begins with a beautiful foreword by Journalist/Author, , founder of the terrific publication Unlimited Hangout and author of the most researched and well-sourced books on the Jeffrey Epstein story One Nation Under Blackmail Vol. 1 & 2. There is way too much to say about Whitney's work, hit the link above or search for her anywhere.

Relative to this, her foreword for Reportage was as perfect as could be:-) If we were to put James and Whitney’s work into a genre of journalism, say Open-Source Intelligence, they would be as close as you could get to each other. As far going for the stories that others dare to tread, exhaustive sourcing, leaving no room for anyone to poke holes in your arguments, but so unique that no one could ever call it a copy+paste from either end.

Share The Freedom Manifesto

Share

Subscribe now

Author’s Preface is next up to bat and plugs you in to whatever relative info remains, James takes this time to give you the “day of birth” scenario and how the book came to be in your possession.

The final introduction chapter came to be something close to my heart, like a shout-out to the nerds to which I am proud to be. A how & why section for factchecking his work yourself. He makes it abundantly clear, which might not be if you’re if you’re new to his work, that this guy is simply trying to share the truth. And it’s my personal position that any person who has read/listened/ingested/absorbed his work in any form will be that much better because they did, without a second wasted.

Let me explain:

The 3rd pre-section, past the foreword and preface is “A Note on Notes”, which is an instruction manual to utilize the steos that were taken on his end to makedamnsure that you, the reader, are empowered to verify every claim made so you can follow the evidence yourself and see what conclusion you come up with.

And by the way, Woodward & Bernstein, WOULD NEVER!

“To avoid overcrowding the page” and causing a distraction he used “endnotes” instead of “footnotes,” following each chapter. Because they are all separate essays that, although different, piggyback off of each other, and definitely fall in the same genre, but each carry their own sources (endnotes) before the next chapter (essay). Each essay has its own message. And the endnotes are not there as a formality as they are for some. They are there to be checked. They are there for credibility’s sake. And so that you may look into it yourself and find more. They are literally there to further educate the reader.

Explanation from the book:

Instead, I have striven to provide exactly as much information as is necessary for you to independently search for the source yourself. For books, this includes the publisher and year of publication; for websites, the name of the website as it appears on the website and the date of publication (if available); for videos, the exact title of the video and the name of the uploader. Misspellings and grammatical mistakes have been preserved for the sake of accuracy.

He addresses the issue with sourcing to web publications, which you—no doubt—must do to get anywhere, and provides his best solution to the problem of dead links:

First, there is the problem of impermanence: links tend to break over time, meaning that over the course of several years most of the online posts cited in this volume will no longer be accessible at their original address.

And second, there is the problem of readability: long URLs are unwieldy and as such are useless to all but the most meticulous of readers.

Solution:

In an effort to feed two birds with one scone, then, I have tried wherever possible to cite archive.today website capture links...

Unfamiliar with archive.today, it’s a web archiving site that saves screenshots of web pages. Those website captures are preserved at the same archive link even if the original page gets changed or removed. Not only does this solve the issue of impermanence, it also helps with the problem of readability, as archive links are considerably shorter and easier to read (and reproduce) than regular URLs.

And for content that is not capturable using Archive.Today there is other methods to instill this information in time:

PDFs, for example, cannot be archived by this service. Likewise, videos are not archivable. In these cases, link shorteners have been employed; specifically, youtu.be links in the case of YouTube videos and bit.ly links in the case of PDFs or Wayback Machine links.

It is made abundantly clear, that not only does he provide evidence for the claims he makes in this book, he goes above and beyond to make damn sure that if anyone wants to look into, or do further reading, it is available, with the least effort possible. And it even provides a few tools for future use. In my own sourcing, I try real hard to provide links from the “Wayback Machine (Internet Archive)” so there is less chance of them disappearing or being altered, and any time I hit a dead end when looking for anything online I search it there also. It’s an amazing tool for finding articles that the “Powers That Be” tried to remove or memory holed. It’s also a good way to bust through paywalls, some of the time.

My final word on the sourcing: I’ve been packing this book to work with me for, I don’t know, six months, every single day, people have asked about it, but not a word about the mention on the cover of the “New World Order”, until last week, I had it sitting next to my work computer and someone unfamiliar to me at the time asked me about the book, specifically about the reference to the “New World Order.” I didn’t know if he was complaining, so I got defensive, and he said, “Oh, I don’t care about you having a book out here, I just don’t know why you would be reading these kooky conspiracy theories, you’re smarter than that, right?”

It was a glorious moment, I opened the book to the first essay I ran into, flipped to the end notes and showed him there is evidence for every claim made here.

Including the term “New World Order.”

I said, “I’m not chasing kooky conspiracy theories. In fact, this is a book about conspiracy truths, not theories and has links to evidence of every claim. And the reference to the “New World Order” isn’t crazy, it was said by many people including our president George H.W. Bush” (on September 11th, 1990, H.W. Bush said, “Out of these troubled times, a new world order can emerge.)” To which I showed him.

It was a pretty cool moment, because after I showed him what I was talking about he was no longer talking down to me like some lost idiot and was talking to me.

Let me also be clear, I am aware that it is normal for nonfiction books to have a bibliography/footnotes/endnotes with their sources, I just love the way that James went above and beyond to make his sources unbreakable. Also, lots of Pulitzer Prize winning authors use bad sources and don’t expect you to follow up. This is what made Norman Finkelstein’s career and will hopefully destroy Bob Woodward’s.

Let us now move on to the content.

The Reportage of “Reportage”

Reportage is a collection of 18 extremely well-researched essays on what I’d describe as stories left out of the syllabus in grade school, whether it be due to ignorance or “for your own protection.” I suspect the latter. These are the stories that make corporate media slugs sleep with one eye open and they would never tell you about. Things left off the record for fear of being, according to the DHS, “mal-information”, you know, “Information that is based on truth but is shared with the intent to attack an idea, individual, organization, group, country or other entity.” Key phrase: “Based on Truth”

A great scholar of our time, by the name, Michael Malice, once said, “You take one red pill, don’t swallow the whole bottle.”

In this book James takes us down a winding road of perfect metaphors and storylines, initially *red pilling you, then *black pilling you, and then ends with a bow and a nice *white pill.

In case you have no clue what the f**k I just said:

*James tackles a topic in each essay that has been otherwise cloaked in secrecy, the consensus has marred it a third rail, “conspiracy theory”, or a topic not spoken about in polite society, and in the following pages the cloak is ripped from your eyes, leaving no room for reasonable doubt, with the effect of what I would call positive radicalization (taking the red pill).

*As it continues you start to consider what this really means, is everything a lie? The world seems like a darker place (taking the black pill).

*Through the muck and the mire James seems to always be able to find a positive call to action, leaving you feeling like maybe things will be okay after all. You have taken the ‘white pill.’ Courtesy of the mind of James Corbett

Subscribe now

New Media

Let’s start with chapter one, Reportage: Adventures in the New Media. Being the introduction chapter to the book, many dynamics are introduced in this chapter. We meet the “Mighty Metaphor” as James uses in many forms throughout the book.

“As an ook comth of a litel spir.” Translates to “Mighty oaks from little acorns grow.”

And with this he introduces us to the “little acorn” the Corbett Report began as. Like that little acorn that grows to a mighty oak so did James. This is an introduction to how James Corbett came to be James Corbett of the Corbett Report.

Beginning with a studio apartment in west Japan, all he could afford on his “entry-level salary and student loan debt from” his “fun but economically ill-advised time earning a master’s degree in Anglo-Irish Literature at Trinity College Dublin.” Which very luckily had an internet connection that came with the apartment. Exploring the internet in 2006 he found that podcasts had happened, and discovered YouTube, whose algorithm kept pushing him 9/11 Truth videos and although a lot of them were silly he was finally served one with enough truth in it that he could do a search and verify it. This claim was, that the CIA had met with Bin Laden in the summer of 2001, he looked it up and it was true.

There was a report in Le Monde on October 31, 2001, that Bin Laden had travelled to the United Arab Emirates for kidney dialysis in July of 2001 where he met with a representative of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Or it could’ve been Operation Northwoods, a verifiable “false flag attack” approved by everyone all the way up the line then vetoed by John F. Kennedy.

James describes his red pill moment:

I wish I could remember precisely which video or series of videos got me chasing these “wild rumours” down the internet rabbit hole. . .

All I know is that I spent the fall of 2006 learning more about the world than I had learned in my 26 years combined.

From there the chapter continues until The Corbett Report is born and the acorn is now a mighty oak.

The lesson here is, I believe, that great things come from humble beginnings. These are words everyone in alternative media should hold onto. Keep going, our credibility doesn’t come from institutions, it comes from telling the truth!

Subscribe now

The 9/11 Terror Trade

As inspiring as the previous is, it’s followed by tragedy. The ultimate high/low two piece makes appreciate the high. The first time I read this chapter I tried to tell a friend about it, and she reacted to what I was saying with, “Jordan, the people jumping out of windows? It’s too terrible, there must be some kind of coincidence!” Indeed!

The day after the attacks on the World Trade Center the SEC opened an investigation into “an unknown group of equities traders with advance knowledge of the 9/11 plot” that “made millions betting against the companies involved in the attacks.”

One example: United Airlines. The Thursday before the attack more than two thousand contracts betting that the stock would go down were purchased. Ninety times more in one day than in three weeks. When the markets reopened (after 9/11), United’s stock dropped, the price of the contracts soared and someone may have made a lot of money, fast!

United wasn’t alone, they were only a fraction of the companies who stood to gain, and did, from these blood-soaked bank transfers.

They are either an ugly, greedy mistake, meant to leave us chasing our tails in confusion, or as a message: You can’t touch us, we’re bigger than you’ll ever be, go ahead and try.

I think it might’ve been the latter and If you’ve seen the news lately, I think the were right. They drew us in, drained us, and maimed us for twenty years until we said, “Fuck! You win, Jesus Christ, keep the shit!”

Right!? We never honestly left, so, they’ll be back.

Accompanying United Airlines in the blood moneey smorgisporg, included Boeing, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Munich Re, and the AXA Group.

These Wall Street “anomalies” were not only beating the system by betting against it, they were also trading on stocks that were guaranteed to do good, especially if you had “insider information” confirming that business was about to be booming.

In the same period as the suspicious short sells they're was also a six-fold increase in purchase of Raytheon stock which shot up in price as Raytheon-supplied Tomahawk missiles were deployed to Afghanistan.

Not stopping there, “9/11 researcher and author Kevin Ryan uncovered an important clue in a 2003 FBI briefing document that was declassified in 2009. In “Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11” he examines this document, which describes the results of the Bureau’s investigations into two of the pre-9/11 trades it had identified as suspicious. One of those trades was the purchase of 56,000 shares of Stratesec in the days prior to 9/11. Stratesec, which provided security systems to airports (including Dulles Airport) as well as to the World Trade Center and United Airlines, saw its share price almost double when the markets reopened on September 17th, 2001.”

Here’s where it gets real dark:

The Stratesec trade traced back to a married couple whose names are redacted from the memo but who are easily identifiable from the unredacted information: Mr. and Mrs. Wirt D. Walker III. Wirt is a distant relative of the Bush family and a business partner of Marvin Bush, brother of George W. (Bush).

According to the briefing Wirt and his wife, Sally, were never even interviewed, because the FBI’s investigation of them had “revealed no ties to terrorism or other negative information.

It doesn’t end there but I won't spoil the best. James tells the full story in this essay. Leading one to ask, who are these people? What world is this really? Moving on…

Up/Down Politics

(I think this is my favorite.)

The next chapter starts with the “Parable of the Ants”. I really love how James does these parables to carry the story.

This essay begins with a colony of ants who live on a “loop of string.” Torn apart and polarized by the divisive opinion of which direction to go since the string where they call home is only big enough to go in one of two directions.

One group of ants, who called themselves “forwardists,” contended that to move forward was to maqke progress. And since progress was, in the forwardists’ estimation, the key to happiness, they believed all the ants should move forward all the time.

On the flip side of course:

Another group, known as “backwardists,” disagreed. They chastised their forwardist friends for confusing progress with happiness. True happiness, the backwardists preached, lies in knowing where you came from, not in dreaming of where you had never been.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Despite their differences for the most part they got along until one defining event split them down the middle. This almost sounds like Israel-Palestine before 1948.

For a while the forwardists and the backwardists lived and worked together happily enough, despite their differences. One day, though, a fast-moving backwardist inadvertently ran into an inattentive forwardist coming the other way, knocking him off the string. Recriminations followed. Angry forwardists and spiteful backwardists started to separate and form competing camps. Ants who had never had a strong opinion on the matter—the ones who moved forward on some days and backward on others—were forced to pick sides. As a result, children were separated from their parents, spouses divorced, siblings split up, friendships dissolved.

Soon. The ants erected a barbed wire fence between them. “Then, as battle lines hardened, they replaced the fence with a brick wall. Before long, guards were stationed on either side of the wall to make sure no one breached it.”

Germany? Vietnam? Israel-Palestine? Maybe in the beginning, but here’s the tragic part.

The ant opponents stopped speaking to each other, except to hurl the occasional taunt or insult across the divide.

Within a generation, no one even remembered what the wall meant anymore or what the whole argument was about. The philosophies became muddled. So muddled, in fact, that some forwardists began walking backward and some backwardists walked forward.

Despite the confusion, the ants remained determined to pass their traditions down through the generations. Forwardists told their children scary stories about the monstrous backwards ants who ate forwardists’ children for breakfast, and the backwardist children were likewise taught that forwardists were ravenous beasts who preyed on all but their own kind.

Fearmongering led to fear, fear led to fights, fights led to wars. Sometimes the FWDist would win, sometimes the other side would.

Finally, the ants had enough on both sides and sought out a truce. Both sides would go “their separate ways.”

The forwardist, afraid of a sneak attack kept lookout behind them, just in case. The backwardist did the same.

But then, a most remarkable thing happened.

Off in the distance, each ant leader saw something approaching. As the two leaders drew nearer, they discerned not a single form ahead of them, but many forms. A long line of moving forms, marching single file. They looked tiny. They looked black.

At last, the objects were close enough for the leaders to recognize individual shapes. Ants. And not just any ants, but the very ants they had sworn to never see again.

Suddenly, all the ants in each long line realized, to their horror, that the unthinkable had occurred. Forwardists and backwardists, who had set out in opposite directions and had travelled without changing course, were now heading toward each other. What they believed to be a permanent split from the other camp of ants had in fact been the reverse. Halfway around the string, the old enemies were converging.

What does this mean… I don’t want to spoil it but there is many similarities between the forwardists/backwardists and our politics between the left and right. Completely superficial. James goes on to explain that just like the ants, if we were to see our left/right politics from a different angle, or another dimension maybe it wouldn’t seem so perplexing either.

Continuing with all new metaphors to explain our politics at home.

Meet the Uppists: The “elites” in our society.

Meet the Downists: The regular people just trying to get by.

Through this, with excerpts from Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope James brings light on uni-party politics and how they fail us all.

What else?

Following the “ants” James takes a stroll down memories lane for a lesson in EUGENICS from the people that we should’ve suspected, of course!

“The Ptech Story” was about a cyber attack to scale with 9/11, that also happened on 9/11.

Followed by “Selling Your Soul for a Matrix Steak” takes a real life look at what money actually is, and how close to eating a “Matrix steak” we really are.

Next James gives us the plans to “Really Defeat Globalism.” Exposes the “Biotech Billionaires” and their “GMO Doomsday.”

A slight intermission…..that looks like this:

Followed by “The Strange Life of Maurice Strong.” Another favorite James rights the obituary that he should’ve received after his passing and tells the story starting a generation earlier with his anti-capitalist aunt and the newly formed Soviet Union.

Here’s what the obituary would’ve said in a “reasonable world” by James Corbett:

Disgraced kleptocrat Maurice Strong died in 2015 at the age of 86. He was shunned from polite society and forced into a life of exile in Beijing after his decades of business intrigues, crimes against humanity, and environmental destruction unraveled. His savagery culminated with an attempt to profit off the death of starving Iraqi children.

His funeral was a quiet affair, attended only by those few family members who could not find it in their heart to ignore him completely. Former friends and business associates like Paul Martin, James Wolfensohn, Kofi Annan, Conrad Black, and Al Gore all avoided calls for comments on their disgraced colleague’s passing.

And here is what was actually said:

On Wednesday, hundreds will gather across from Parliament Hill for an extraordinary commemoration. The Governor General, the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment, the former president of the World Bank—among other dignitaries, in and out of office—will pay homage to one of the great Canadians of his generation.

They will celebrate the life of Maurice Frederick Strong, who died on November 27. His passing brought the obligatory obituaries and personal tributes. But in a country that often hides its light under a barn, Maurice Strong—and the feverish, consequential life he led at home and abroad—should not go uncelebrated.

And here is his final resume if you will.

President of Power Corporation of Canada. President of the Canadian International Development Agency. Chair of Petro Canada. Chair of Ontario Hydro. Head of the United Nations Environment Programme. Founding member of the World Economic Forum. Father of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Committed globalist.

James tells the story of his life. He was the founder of the Canadian International Development Agency, which does the same type of stuff as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). If you don’t know about them here is my own work on USAID:

The Real Meaning of “Independence”

Fourth of July; Independence Day in the United States is the most important holiday currently in circulation. It is a “reminder of the war that was fought in the name of liberty to cast off an oppressor.”

In the course of human events, nothing has been more dangerous to the ruling class than the concept of freedom. I'm not referring to the documents that have encapsulated and encouraged freedom and charted the development of this idea—the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, Emancipation Proclamation, or any of the other pieces of paper on which the concept of freedom has been inscribed— but to the idea itself.

• All human beings are born equal.

• There exist inalienable rights that no self-proclaimed (or proclaimed any other way either) authority is ever justified in usurping.

• Our life, our liberty and our property are inviolable.

• We are duty-bound to resist anyone who seeks to violate this freedom.

• “These are the truths we hold to be Self-Evident:

  “On the shoulders of philosophical giants,” we stand, “who possessed not only the intuition and understanding to grasp that living under tyranny is not the natural condition of humanity, but the courage to fight and die for those convictions.”

  The idea of freedom has been dangerous to those who aim to dominate others precisely because it is an idea—a fire in the minds of men that, once lit, can never be put out. will ne

  The “Idea of Freedom:”

• Once aflame the torch of freedom cannot extinguish.

• Although the torch carriers can, the “torch of freedom cannot be imprisoned, stabbed, shot, or guillotined.

• The documents which enumerate these ideals can be ignored, amended, or destroyed altogether, but the light of freedom shines eternally.

• “is dangerous precisely because it is innate, indestructible, and, ultimately, irrepressible.”

All true in the days of old.

Examples in the book include the 73 BC, slave rebellion sparked by Spartacus; The 1381, Peasants’ Revolt, when King Richard II of England levied a poll tax on the British serfs, already in poverty under the English Feudal system. But what about in the 21st Century?

But the tyrants of the twenty-first century are not stupid. They do not suffer from the same delusion as the tyrants of old—namely, the idea that human freedom can be suppressed by the barrel of a gun. Granted, there remain repressive regimes throughout the world that employ the infrastructure of a police state to encroach further and further upon the rights of the people. Yet more insidious by far is the way that the deep state operators, the powers-behind-the-throne of today’s democratic dictatorships, use psychological warfare to convince us that slavery is freedom. That the answer to the problems created by centralized forms of control is to impose even greater centralization of control. That people are most independent when they are in a state of utter dependency, relying fully on these systems of ever-more-centralized control.

Find examples of this in Reportage.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Freedom Manifesto

The Final Fourth(ish) of the Master-Piece “Reportage”

First up is “The 9/11 Whistleblowers” essay based on the research James put into a documentary by the same name.

The Corbett Report

Episode 362 - 9/11 Whistleblowers

Listen now

7 years ago · 1 like · The Corbett Report

Because “someone would have talked” and someone did, many someone’s.

The last few I will leave for you to discover

“Why we must oppose Bilderberg”

“Introduction to Spontaneous Order”

“Who Controls the Environmental Movement?”

“Escaping The Grand Chessboard” which zeroes in on internationalist/globalist Zbigniew Brezinski, father to Mika Brezinski of MSNBS’s Morning Joe. Detailing Zbig’s use of civilization as one grand chessboard and the people who inhabit as the pawns on this board.

And many, many more. If this does not interest you, I really do not know what you are doing with your life!

More to come, very soon.

Thank you for reading!

Editor-in-Chief

"Biden’s too old", says Jake Tapper; "Duh!!!" Says America.

The following video added in post, due to not being able to find it before publishing:

So, I’ll begin with this. When I first heard that this book was coming — after Tapper shamelessly plugged it everywhere in America — my first thought was what a hilarious thing to do.

Get a book deal, write a book, and promote it as an investigated, researched, tell-all of the cover-up that you and your entire sector of journalism carried out personally.

The book should’ve been called “My Original Sin.” But before I go on to criticize it mercilessly, I must first say this… It’s pretty good. It contains mainly everything. Plus, some tidbits that weren’t public. Nothing that changed the story, but enough that we can read between the lines and see it in a more detailed light.

It has zero enlightenment, or accountability, but it does confirm everything we were seeing with our own eyes and journalists on the right and left (mainly outside of corporate media) had been yelling at the top of our lungs and being called bad names for saying.

It’s a pretty honest book to be written by such a dishonest person.

The premise is dishonest, but the book seems to be honest.

Going through it I kinda had to remember that while he is saying all of this, he is also leaving out his part of the corporate media cover-up, but it didn’t matter because this cover-up was so vast and broad that you could write a detailed book about the cover-up, leave out your part, and it still feel complete.

I also thought that maybe he was gonna admit to his part in the cover-up. Take accountability for it a little bit, but that chapter must have got cut by the editor. Maybe they said it too “wordy.” Like this introduction.

With that being said, if you want the whole “Behind the Scenes” of how far they were going and how things were playing out, all wrapped up in one place this is an excellent book, and an even better book review.

It’s all there, all the way down to how they rigged the Primary to make sure the sitting president was the only one with a chance to win.

There’s quite a bit of apologia for party and the administration. Mostly in the form of things like, “No one else could beat Trump.” Or one aptly named chapter “He Totally Fucked Us”.

I don’t know much about Alex Thompson, maybe he’s as innocent as they come, but if he is he’s in bad company, because Jake Tapper definitely took part in the cover-up of the president’s cognitive decline, and even the character assassination of anyone who criticized the president or his media lapdogs.

Maybe he secretly wanted Biden to drop out and allow a Primary process that would possibly produce a viable candidate for the Democratic party. Hell, they might’ve got my vote. I’ll vote for less bombs and more speech. Now, enough about myself, let’s get into this book.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Freedom Manifesto

The “Original Sin”

This book was filled with villains. Most of the villains in this book, were working in their own interests. They had a job to do and that job was keeping the 25th amendment at bay. If Biden was impeached, it would be unemployment for them.

There is, however, moments of villainy that really stand out. Such as the acts of White House doctor for the president Dr. Kevin O’Conner.

On November 19—the day before the president’s seventy-ninth birthday—the White House released the results of Biden’s health examination by White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor. The assessment was perhaps more notable for what it didn’t include than for what it did: There was no mention of a cognitive exam. That seemed odd to physicians who were paying attention. Many consider it standard practice to begin performing such tests when a patient turns sixty-five, even if they aren’t showing symptoms. Several of the tests can be done in about ten to fifteen minutes. They do not provide conclusive diagnoses; rather, they are a tool for early detection.

It seemed appropriate to perform a cognitive test on a seventy-eight-year-old man—especially one who was starting to show flashes of memory loss, especially one who was president of the United States.

Dr. O’Connor has been Biden’s doctor for 13 years. Let’s see what he had to say about President Biden’s decline:

O’Connor told people that the ten-minute test was for physicians who saw their patients only occasionally, and he constantly saw the president.

When others suggested doing the test to make sure that Biden was capable of being president, O’Connor would sometimes point to the Oval Office and say, “Biden’s already being president.”

He’d add that people may not like how Biden was doing the job, but that was different than being incapable.

“President Biden remains a healthy, vigorous 78-year-old male, who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency,” he wrote.

Still, O’Connor detailed Biden’s physical deterioration. The president’s “ambulatory gait is perceptibly stiffer and less fluid than it was a year or so ago,” and he has “experienced increasing frequency and severity of ‘throat clearing’ and coughing during speaking engagements,” he wrote. Biden was old and had a shuffle, so O’Connor arranged for a neurological exam to see if his physical movements signaled a deeper disorder, such as Parkinson’s.

“There were no findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorder, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s or ascending lateral sclerosis,” O’Connor wrote. Still, some doctors speculated that the only reason to perform a neurological test but not a cognitive one was if you feared the results. (pp. 46-47 Kindle Edition)

{h}e privately expressed worry about the toll it was taking. He fought other Biden officials on scheduling to try to get Biden more rest. O’Connor quipped that Biden’s staff were trying to kill him, while O’Connor was trying to keep him alive. (p. 48)

Let’s skip to right before the election. A chapter called “The Last Medical Exam”, which came in the aftermath of the Hur report, where Special Council Robert Hur stated he would pass on prosecution because the jury would see Biden “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” and would never convict. Good news, right? Wrong.

We can now actually watch that interview in full, but it’s a long rough watch. I’ll post it below:

Taking place in February 2024, “The Last Medical Exam” seemed to be a fluke, now, since they obviously missed the cancer that was currently growing in his prostate. Dr. O’Connor:

O’Connor had long pushed back on political advisers interfering in his medical evaluations. He told others that he did not believe the science required him to do a cognitive test. He saw the president frequently, and if he had reason for concern, he would have performed one. Ultimately, Biden’s political advisers agreed.

They had also boxed themselves in with their own public insistence that Biden had not lost a step and was as sharp as ever. Finally doing a test would be an admission that there were reasons for concern. And even if Biden did do a test, his aides believed that his critics would still not be satisfied. There was also the risk of the unknown, of what such a test might reveal. On February 28, O’Connor released his final medical summary, which listed degeneration of Biden’s spine and the new use of a nightly breathing machine for sleep apnea. But Doc declared Biden “fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency.”

Citing O’Connor, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at the briefing that Biden had no need for a cognitive test.

“He passes a cognitive test every day.” (p. 146)

That was in February.

Now, take those words, and watch this video:

See how smooth he talks, now here’s 2020:

Pretty rough but we could explain it, now here’s 2024, post-“final exam”:

So, my only defense of this is I have 2 little kittens. Now, I see them every day so it’s hard me to tell they are growing, because it’s happening gradually every day. But I looked at a picture of them from a couple months ago and realized, “Oh, shit, they’re getting really big!”

Or, even more relevant to this, I have a kind of a stutter but it’s more like, I repeat a word quickly halfway through it. But I do it so quickly it’s hard to notice. A friend who was used to seeing me every day came to visit me in jail, and five minutes into the conversation she said, “Jordan! Are you developing a stutter?”

I said, “No, I’m talking-I’m talking j-just like I always have.”

She said, “Are you sure? Are you okay in there?”

I said, “I’m doing fine. It’s-it’s actually not so bad, so bad, in here right now. Dad’s in here with me and it could be a lot-lot worse.”

I haven’t stopped noticing it ever since. But she didn’t notice it until she hadn’t seen me in a while.

Maybe, now this is granting him a lot more grace than I think he deserves, if Dr. O’Connor hadn’t seen him all the time he would’ve noticed that Joe Biden doesn’t have a stutter, Joe Biden is dying in front of us on live television, or maybe he’s a villain in this conspiracy also, and didn’t want to lose the highlife. Working as a doctor to the president.

The name of this book should have been “The Great Enabling.”

Share The Freedom Manifesto

Share

Subscribe now

Let’s Talk About the Politburo

The “Politburo” is the group of loyalists that came with Biden. They all had extensive experience in politics and had the ear of the president.

One of them, the aides would sometimes joke, “could get Biden to start a war if they wanted.”

In the 2020 campaign, titles meant little. There was technically a campaign manager, a communications director, and deputy campaign managers, but the ultimate decision-makers were a group of seasoned political veterans known internally by any number of nicknames, including “the Politburo”: Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, and the policy wonk Bruce Reed. They’d worked with Biden for many years, if not decades.

There were other close aides. Anita Dunn and her husband, Bob Bauer, joined the team in 2015 to help Biden prepare for a presidential bid, even as most of their colleagues from the Obama administration backed Clinton. (p. 20)

• Mike Donilon

  • “Donilon had been in the center of Democratic politics for decades, shaping dozens of campaigns, beginning in the late 1980s when he worked on the campaign of Douglas Wilder, the first African American ever elected as governor. Something of a loner, he was a man of few words and could be immovable when he had a theory of the case. A former pollster, he now often went with his gut. He had crafted Biden’s messaging for 2020—“a fight for the soul of the nation”—even as the data supporting that approach was fuzzy at best.”

  • “Donilon’s brothers were also in the national spotlight; one had been a national security adviser for Obama, and the other was the spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Boston. They shared Biden’s Irish Catholic working-class self-image. The president valued Mike Donilon’s advice so much that aides would later joke that if he wanted, he could get Biden to start a war.”

• “Ricchetti, an affable former lobbyist and an alum of the Clinton White House, had been Biden’s chief of staff through Beau’s illness. Ricchetti was also a friend, and all four of his children would end up working in the Biden administration.” (p. 21)

• Reed had grown up in Idaho, the son of a politician, and had been a Rhodes Scholar studying English literature and a speechwriter for Al Gore. (p. 21)

The next layer of leadership outside the Politburo was “Anita Dunn, expert in communications and (Bob) Bauer, a respected lawyer, who had both worked for the most powerful Democrats in Washington. They didn’t have the almost familial ties that Donilon, Ricchetti, and Reed did, but Dunn and Bauer had more credibility with the Democratic establishment, including Obama.” And with them came another layer of secrecy about the president.

Share The Freedom Manifesto

Share

Subscribe now

Aspects of the Cover-Up

This cover-up, maybe not as consequential, only time will tell that, but more widespread, with more characters and more dishonest actors, than Watergate or Iran-Contra.

This cover-up started with his family, then the “Politburo”, the aides, the Cabinet, Pentagon, State Department, then if it gets past all that, the corporate media is there to do their due diligence and discredit what you “think” you saw.

Press conferences were pre-planned and workshopped. Joe had flashcards and pre-written answers during interviews. When something happened like in the picture above when Joe fell off the bike, there was an internal crisis, and prewritten answers for when it came up during the press conference.

Jake Tapper maintains that he wasn’t part of this and was actually “very critical” of the president’s health, but there is no way that he didn’t know about the president reading off a teleprompter during interviews. Interviews that took place at CNN.

And get this, it still wasn’t enough. They couldn’t coverup everything. Not in the information age. I’ve never been to DC, but I knew my president’s health had declined, and I was still very early in my political journey. Joe Rogan was talking about it in 2020!

Anyone who pointed out this decline, especially if they had something to lose was shamed into losing it.

Critics of the Decline

In the right wing/independent left everyone said that Joe Biden was fucking up by running again. His decline was obvious to anyone not part of the “blue-no-matter-who” cult.

But they were ignored, slandered to the fringes, or inside their own silos. Screaming into the ether.

I’m talking Megyn Kelly, Glenn Greenwald, , Michael Shellenberger, , and many others, you know who they are.

The voices from within the corporate structure of what was once the “Mainstream” or from within the establishment, that attempted to sound the alarm were attacked brutally, criticized daily, and relentlessly discredited. The book talks about this, maybe not enough, but it’s there.

Special Council Robert Hur, the book says, “was an American success story:”

Hur had worked for years in the public sector including as a US attorney for Maryland and was now comfortably ensconced as a partner at Gibson Dunn, a white-shoe firm where he represented big clients—such as Meta and the NFL—and was finally making some money to support his wife and three kids. Hur was an American success story. He was the son of refugees from the Korean War, and his father remembered American soldiers sharing their food with him when he was a boy. Born in New York City, Hur had been taught to appreciate the greatness of America. His parents didn’t talk politics, but they told Hur and his sister to work as hard as they could. And they told him that he would go to Harvard, which he did, followed by Stanford Law School, then a clerkship for US Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. (p. 95)

He accepted the job as the Special Counsel and had no clue who he would be Special Counsel for:

Hur’s phone rang one Friday in January 2023. It was Miller, who wanted to know if Hur would consider serving as a special counsel.

“Can you tell me anything else about it?” Hur asked.

“Not really.”

“There isn’t anything else you can tell me about the investigation? Who’s being investigated?”

“A senior government official,” Miller said.

Hur asked for the weekend. He discussed it with his wife, Cara. They speculated that it was some undersecretary of the Interior in trouble for an improper flight or something. A quick and easy matter.

On Monday, he called Miller back. “I’m inclined to do it,” he told him. “But it would be helpful if you told me more about it.”

“It’s a very senior government official,” Miller said. (pp. 95-96)

“In addition to a sense of patriotic obligation, Hur felt a sense of duty toward the Justice Department, which had been caught up in some very difficult cases with politically charged dynamics.”

Fastforward a bit: the report goes public, and the character assassination begins (from the book): “The White House communications strategy was to slime Hur as an unprofessional right-wing hack, and Garland as weak—and essentially fired.”

• Kamala Harris called his comments in the report, ‘“gratuitous, inaccurate, and inappropriate, the way that the president’s demeanor in that report was characterized could not be more wrong on the facts and clearly politically motivated—gratuitous… [W]e should expect that there would be a higher level of integrity than what we saw.”

  • “Gratuitous became the word of the day for partisan Democrats.” (The old trick Tapper knows all too well.)

• “Special Counsel Hur report on Biden classified documents issues contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with long standing DOJ traditions,” tweeted Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder.

• MSNBC anchor Ari Melber devoted a segment to the question of whether Hur was succumbing to “ageism.”

• One New Republic writer raised the stakes for fellow journalists, saying, “Any news org that puts Biden’s memory in the headline is actively rewarding Hur’s bad faith and giving the Trump campaign what they want.”

• On February 10, two people close to the president told Politico that Biden thought Garland hadn’t done enough to rein in Hur’s report, that “Hur went well beyond his purview and was gratuitous and misleading in his descriptions.”

• Biden sources said that most of the president’s senior advisers “do not believe that the attorney general would remain in his post for a possible second term.” They added that Garland “should have demanded edits to Hur’s report, including around the descriptions of Biden’s faltering memory.”

  • To Garland allies, this was basically Biden publicly firing Garland, his exit date to come after the November election. The cause? He had behaved ethically.

• (In front of Congress) “You could have chosen just to comment on the president’s particular recall vis-à-vis a document or a set of documents,” observed California Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff. “But you decided to go further and make a generalized statement about his memory, didn’t you?”

  • Hur argued that his “assessment in the report about the relevance of the president’s memory was necessary and accurate and fair. Most importantly, what I wrote is what I believe the evidence shows, and what I expect jurors would perceive and believe. I did not sanitize my explanation. Nor did I disparage the president unfairly.”

  • I think the Authors misquoted this exchange between Hur and Schiff. It’s a distinction without a difference, but I don’t like it when writers change quotes to make them sound better or flow easier or whatever reason. Tell me what you think (this is their only exchange I could find, and I scrolled through the entire hearing):

    No. I figured it out, the Schiff quote is what Schiff said to Robert Hur directly and the Hur quote is from his opening statement at the beginning of the hearing, but when you put them together it sounds like that was Hur’s response to Schiff.

Finally, what happened to Hur:

Hur had no doubt assumed that he would just go back to Gibson Dunn once he finished his stint investigating that “undersecretary of the Interior.” But after the report came out, Hur had been roundly vilified by the Biden administration, Democratic officials, and Democratic allies in progressive media circles.

It was not unlike how the political right had treated James Comey and Robert Mueller. Law firms and corporate legal teams got the message.

Hur spent several months looking for work. (pp. 144-145) Emphasis my own.

Dean Phillips:

Congressman Dean Phillips’s grandmother was Pauline Phillips, better known by her pen name, Abigail Van Buren—the famous advice columnist behind Dear Abby.

Dean Phillips, although there were several other viable candidates trying to primary Joe for the democratic nomination (Marianne Williamson, Robert Kennedy, Jr.) Dean was the only one who was from the DC establishment, and the only one who was treated openly as a threat. The other two were attacked legally behind the scenes, but Congressman Dean Phillips was treated like a real problem.

He was also the only one attacking the most obvious issue, the one they were all complicit in covering up, his mental decline.

Throughout 2023, as the president’s speaking and walking skills seemed to visibly decline*, it was clear to Phillips that Biden’s communication problems likely indicated some cognitive issues. It was also clear that his fellow Democratic officials were in deep denial about this. “People will talk their way into beliefs,” Phillips would later say. “Even O. J. believed he didn’t do it at the end.” When Phillips pressed them, some Democrats would offer what the congressman called the “yes, but.” As in: “Yes, Biden is in decline, but can you imagine Trump winning?” (p. 120)

---

*It was sooner. His visible decline was there my first time seeing him during the 2020 debates. Oh, not to mention, “You ain’t black!”

---

Phillips believed that Trump would win if Biden was the nominee. We’ll never know for sure if he was right but what we do know for sure, Kamala Harris wasn’t the one. I know they say she started too late in the season, but other countries spend just a few months on election season. No where else in the world are the leaders and representatives of the country perpetually running year-round for the next election season, like we do here.

Canada’s election season is limited to minimum of 37 days, max of 51.

Only in America is election season an entertainment spectacle used to boost ratings.

A way for campaigns to drain money from the people, networks to sell ads, and news. I know this, I participate, the election season is like March Madness for me.

Anyways, Dean Phillips sees Joe Biden is declining, physically and cognitively, he begins to seek out a competitor to primary Biden, for fear of Donald Trump winning, who he believed was an existential threat. If he didn’t find anyone he would have to do it himself, which he doesn’t want to do.

In July 2022, WCCO’s Chad Hartman asked Phillips if he wanted Biden to run for reelection in 2024. “No, I don’t,” Phillips told the radio host. “I think the country would be well served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats who step up.” (p. 121)

Before trying to run himself, he first tried to push the leading Democrats into running, to no avail.

“[a] day before appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation, Phillips called House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the White House to give them a heads-up that he would be making a call for a competitive Democratic primary.”

White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients called him “insane” for what “he was about to do.”

Phillips requested to talk to the president, Jeff Zients said, “that’s not going to happen.”

Acknowledging that he would consider running, first he wanted a primary to see if there was a better contender out there. He was very complimentary to Biden. Couldn’t have said it sweeter.

Phillips went on NBC’s Meet the Press and said he would like to see “Joe Biden, a wonderful and remarkable man, pass the torch, cement this extraordinary legacy.” His preference for another Democratic presidential candidate, he said, would be “a moderate governor, hopefully from the heartland, from one of the four states that Democrats will need.” (p. 121)

Unfortunately, the niceties didn’t carry over to the corporate media fanatics.

He opened the show with “Biden currently faces just two minor democratic challengers. Robert Kennedy, Jr (I was surprised he said his name) has a famous name…” “Lawyer…” “…Vaccine skeptic whose candidacy has been boosted by Steve Bannon (El Diablo!) and financed in part by *MAGA donors, believe it or not.”

*What Chuck meant to say is some Americans supported him.

“Marianne Williamson” is a “self-help author and was on the debate stage briefly in 2020.”*

*He means she’s not serious.

“And Cornell West…” “…Green Party…” “…taking votes from the left…”

From this moment Dean Phillips became the enemy.

Back in 2016, when Bernie Sanders would complain about the extent to which the process was rigged, with the DNC making it difficult to challenge Hillary Clinton, Phillips thought he was just being a sore loser. When Marianne Williamson, another outsider Democratic candidate, would complain about being shut out of the process in 2020, Phillips would deride her. But now he came to see what they had meant. (pp. 122-123)

That was the end of the conversation—and the beginning of an effort by the Democratic establishment to exclude Phillips from the process as much as they could. Every White House pressures its party establishment to make things harder for potential challengers, but members of the Biden team tested and pushed those boundaries.

They did their best to pretend Dean Phillips didn’t exist.

The DNC subverted the primaries to land more in Biden’s favor. Because Biden won South Carolina and had a lot of support there the DNC changed the calendar to make the South Carolina primary the first one scheduled which has never been done.

In 2020, Biden had come in fourth in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire, second in Nevada, and first in South Carolina, where he had deep appeal with older Black voters. Without looping in other Democratic Party leaders, Biden unilaterally called for making South Carolina the first state contest.

Listen to their reasoning for this, publicly:

Clyburn (South Carolina Congressman who “didn’t ask for his state to be first”) admitted later that the White House did it to protect Biden from “embarrassment.”

Biden framed his decision as about lifting underrepresented Black voices and suggested that anyone who questioned it—including Phillips—was undermining Black voters, even racist. That claim was undercut by the fact that he called for the calendar change to be for only one presidential cycle—the one he was running in—and the calendar would be revisited in 2028.

Internally, however:

Internally at the White House and the DNC, aides privately admitted that the main motivation was helping Joe Biden, not uplifting Black voters.

The DNC also made clear that there would be no party-sanctioned debates, challengers notwithstanding.

It was machine-style politics to ensure that Biden would be the nominee, even as millions of Democratic voters were making plain their serious concerns about his ability to do the job.

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin and its chair, Ben Wikler, refused to recognize Phillips as a candidate.

Phillips had to sue all the way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that he should be included on the ballot.

This is what every challenger of Biden faced. Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr’s running mate, Nicole Shanahan, a very wealthy tech entrepreneur from Silicon Valley, spent hundreds of millions of dollars of her own money fighting the hundreds of lawsuits that were thrown at them by the party establishment, and that was just for challenging him.

Dean Phillips treatment was unprecedented, unbelievable, authoritarian, and undemocratic. And he only got a fraction of the attack that RFK, Marianne Williamson, and others received.

It turned Bobby Kennedy, lifelong Democrat and champion of the environment to join Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

Everyone should listen to the speech below. I followed the story he tells as it happened. It contains no lies!

The Question we are all Looking for the Answer to, “Who was running our Country?”

wrote in his final article of 2024:

1. WHO’S RUNNING THE COUNTRY? In what may be the most ambitious coverup of the modern era, Joe Biden withdrew as candidate for re-election without a clear explanation of why (“I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down”), technically remained president despite obvious unfitness and non-engagement, yet his White House to this day has escaped questions about who’s making executive decisions. We now know America hasn’t had a functioning president for at least this year and probably longer, which means someone other than the president has been making presidential decisions.

   What few queries that have come in about this have been met with chiding disapproval by the White House, which issued verbal whacks of rolled-up newspaper. A conspicuous example was an exchange between James Rosen and National Security Spokesman John Kirby in an August 26th gaggle. “Who’s running the country?” Rosen asked, at the beginning of a two-week Biden vacation. “Is he a ceremonial figure in some sense at this point?”

   “You know better than that,” Kirby snapped. “I mean, my goodness, he talked to Prime Minister Modi today… He monitored in real time what was going on over the weekend. I mean, come on.” Somehow answers like this were good enough for most people in Washington.

   The Wall Street Journal, perhaps the only major press organization to commit resources to the question, ran a series of stories noting that as far back as October, 2021, former Majority leader Nancy Pelosi had to grab a microphone away from Biden in the middle of a speech to Congressional Democrats explaining a $1 trillion infrastructure bill. That debacle marked Biden’s last such meeting with his own party’s caucus.

   Biden aides were instructed not to show him negative news articles about himself, and told the Journal that national security meetings as far back as 2021 were sometimes canceled on Biden’s “bad days.” These scattered tales come from unnamed sources, and unraveling how this almost certainly illegal Weekend at Bernie’s illusion was maintained by the entire White House across the years will be a major task for incoming officials, prosecutors, and future historians.

   This scandal notably required the active cooperation of nearly every reporter with a White House pass. Worse, the security and policy disaster is ongoing. We still have nearly a month to go in a tense foreign policy environment, and the public has essentially been told to stop asking who gets the call if missiles start flying. Is it Kirby? Pelosi (doubtful)? Jake Sullivan? Jill Biden? Barack Obama?

   The White House has been brazen in all this, not even bothering to prop up recently defeated Kamala Harris as its putative executive (she and husband Doug Emhoff bugged out to a $7 million Hawaiian retreat after Election night, not even pretending to remain involved).

   America has seen incredible political deceptions in its past, from the Gulf of Tonkin to WMDs, but this real-world Dave script involves someone not named Biden steering presidential authority to approve billions for shooting wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, while handing out pardons in record numbers, among God knows how many other things. Is there even a word for fraud on that scale? A lot of people need to go to jail behind this caper.

It’s funny. You could read that instead of this book and be totally caught up. However, it is nice to know everything it looked like it was, yes, it really was. Who was running our country? NOT, Joe Biden.

Matt Taibbi wrote this and published it before new year’s, 2024. He doesn’t have a White House press pass, or CNN backing him, all he has is what he has built himself in his little independent Substack . And the paragraph above is more scathing, and more complete than two veteran reporters with a book deal and access to the White House could do.

Outlined above is a stolen presidency, covered up by an internationalist cabinet of neoliberal war hawks secretly running the country, while White House Aides, Jill Biden, and various friends and representatives of the president were at the controls.

Controlling the world with the push of a button and the slide of a pen. Praying to God the ship stays on course, and they keep their jobs.

Just look at Kirby, the guy is terrified!

While the public stands by yelling as loud as they can that “the emperor has no clothes!!!”

And they just smile and wave, smile and wave, smile and wave….

Farewell Joe, farewell.

Thank you for reading. This is Editor-in-Chief at

“With each crisis our government incites, We the People lose more of our freedom.”

Scott Horton’s Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine, The Libertarian Institute.

First a bit about the Author, Scott Horton. By reading book reviews in various publications over the years I grasped that a writer of an esteemed publication such as my own, , here on Substack, I would be behind if I waited for a book’s release to get a copy. Other publications get their hands on copies in advance, read them, and have their review already ready when a book is released. Too bad I hadn’t figured this out and got the nerve to send a message until a week after its release, so as my readers are privy to me being, I was late as usual. With that being said, as a fan of ALL things and Scott Horton adjacent, it was, how should I say, refreshing, to know that not only is Scott Horton a well-read, well-spoken genius of geopolitics, with over five thousand interviews stretching back to when I was in kindergarten, and the top intellectual of our times, he’s also generous! Even with me being two weeks late to email, and my, not just one, or two, but three messages totally fan-boying out like a high school schoolgirl, he simply said, and I quote, “hehe. gimme your mailing address.”

So, when the book came in the mail, I was revved up to get it read and get to writing but, boy I wasn’t ready for what was in that box. At 678 pages and over 6600 citations there’s no fucking reason that this isn’t a New York Times Best Seller and book of the year. Maybe a Pulitzer Prize Winner but, from the words of Chris Hedges, who is a Pulitzer Prize Winner, so he should know, those things are bought and paid-for like the Oscars. Only narrative fitting stories make that bill, Provoked, instead, is narrative shattering story, and we couldn’t have that. In fact, this book lays out quite efficiently, maybe more efficiently than anyone else, a rebuke of one of the more recent Pulitzer controversy's, the prize for the “Russia, Russia, Russia” Disclosures, by another name of course.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Declaration of Liberty

The book came in a medium-sized box, a box awful large for a book and it took up the entire box! I brought it inside, opened the box, pulled out this massive book, and started flipping through it. Let me just say, this book is a geopolitical analysts wet dream! It has everything! First off, it has every single moment that pertained to Russia’s relationship with the United States for the last 35 years, and you quickly realize that Russia has been scapegoated as evil doer of all things evil, since the fall of the Soviet Union. Since the Ukraine invasion, I have been trying to figure out when the rise of Russophobia happened in the United States, because there was never one thing that made me think that I should be against Russia, but many people in a bipartisan manor regard Russia as an evil empire. I had come to the belief that this was rooted in Russiagate, but this book proves that it went so much deeper than that. This was a systemic hatred that carried over from the fall of the USSR and ran parallel to the financial need to excise demons, militarily. commented once on his show America This Week w/ that when he went to study abroad in Soviet Russia before the fall, there were entire studies, whole careers, dedicated to the Soviet culture, “Soviet Studies” and such. People whose entire careers and college major was going to be studying these people in the Soviet Union, so when the Soviet Union fell, where did these people go? Where indeed.

I finally made it through the book once, but this is not a book to just read and get the story. For me, this is something to keep at arm’s length any time you start to wonder, who’s the bad guy here? Well, we wouldn’t do that right? Or something in the news simply doesn’t make sense. Search through the book, there’s a chapter on it. Or something related to it. Even the most recent story about the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), there’s plenty of evils by them to refer back to in this book. From the Berlin Wall to Russiagate, this book gives you SO MUCH, it leaves no room for doubt! As soon as I finished typing this today, I clicked over to my YouTube feed, and what do I see? Scott vs. Eli Lake at the SoHo Forum, debating this book, and I had to add this in during the edit, because I must say, after reading this book, although Eli might’ve made a good argument, I couldn’t tell. It sounded like gibberish, anyone can read off what CNN says is true, but I’ve read this book, and dug through the footnotes, and no argument to the contrary of what this book says, well, we’re not even speaking the same language. Scott kills it, as usual.

To clear up the handwringing from the Michael Moynihan’s of the world who will strawman the entire book with a single dumbass line, “Er, we did? Why not Putin? What he did?!” (in best caveman dialect) Scott includes realistic options that Putin could had besides invading!

Anyone wanting to know why America’s foreign policy is such a disaster needs to look no farther. Scott’s last book Enough Already explained the terror wars of the last 20 year's fully, and Fool’s Errand is a damn masterpiece on the ‘war in Afghanistan’, they are both a result of our foreign policy. I haven’t read Hotter Than the Sun yet, but knowing it’s about nuclear war, it’s what we are heading toward if this continues, but Provoked tells the story of how it got this way and hangs them with their own words. It’s very much the inside story that played out just beyond the public eye. It wasn’t completely buried in classified documents and such, however, there is some of that, most of these stories were in the public’s eye, but we neither knew it was the story, nor had the ability to place it all in order and view it as one single story. Let’s be honest, how many people, on average, have analyzed 6,600 news stories or pieces of data on a subject. Scott was uniquely equipped for this because, fuck what and Iraq War “Stool Pigeon” has to say, Scott’s been there, damn near since the beginning, following geopolitics, and interviewing the people there, in the know, during the time that this would have been fresh on their minds. Regardless of what those narrative-driven voices have to say about any of this, it means nothing. The evidence says different. And Scott give’s SO MUCH EVIDENCE for every single claim he makes. You can only come away with one position, what Scott’s saying is right, and the rest is just noise!

Subscribe now

Share

Share Declaration of Liberty

I listened to the critics of this book, disputing it with Scott like Noam Dworman, owner of the Comedy Cellar, just dying to come up with a reason this book can’t be true, and he couldn’t do it. He was left arguing that Scott had an exchange with Candace Owens that wasn’t a struggle session (meaning, they got along). Oh, and one of his sources thought it was kinda odd that Saudi’s had been involved in 9/11, or something to that effect. I’m sorry, if you feel 100% OK, about everything that went down with 9/11, maybe the DHS should have you on a list. While I’m talking about Dworman, one of his criticisms when he had Dave Smith on, was the ‘not one inch’ quote was mischaracterized and he’d “read a whole book about this” discrediting it, so I think, damn, I’ve got to get this book. The book is Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate by M.E. Sarotte, and it maps out how “Not one inch towards the Russian border” was the agreement that was made in the “2+4 Meetings” and others alluded to it in subsequent talks. They said, “they would not move NATO one inch further towards Russia’s borders in unified Germany” after the fall of the Soviet Union if Gorbachev “let East and West Germany reunify”, his claim is they said this once during the meetings and he read this book proving this, hoping no one else does their homework. The entire premise of the book was “Yes, they did say this, and they meant it”, Scott uses Sarotte’s book as a source too. He explains that Baker made this claim to Gorbachev at the same time that Robert Gates was saying this to the head of the KGB. Then they started to turn it on its head, so that it fit their interest, saying “what we meant was we wouldn't not move NATO towards Russia”, that’s what we meant, and “who cares? Russia’s not a great power like we are.” They’re a second-rate power. What they mean by that, besides demeaning the people is in power politics there should always be a buffer zone between ‘great powers. in order to keep peace. Ukraine is that buffer zone. By the way, all of this is in Provoked, just one book. Sorry, Sarotte. Most importantly, was Gorbachev believed it and they lied to him.

Thinking of liars, Nile (sic) Ferguson debated Scott on his book also, and after hitting more roadblocks than a fire fighter in the Palisades, he decides, well Scott must be wrong because “he doesn’t speak Ukrainian” (!!!) These people with come with one claim and expect, as they always have, everyone to bow at their feet! Scott offers fifty pieces of concrete, unimpeachable evidence to destroy their unfounded claims, leaving them arguing about what languages he knows and who he hangs out with, it’s fucking pathetic!

Share Declaration of Liberty

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Through this book I gained a perspective, that I already half believed, that the ‘War in Ukraine’ had happened after American meddling into other people's politics for decades, creating fear and instability, as they do with everything they touch, but I wasn’t sure of this next part. I didn’t want to be so cynical, but it’s here in black and white. They didn’t do this because it’s what they believe in. There’s lots of devastation and desecration caused at the hands of belief, but these people don’t believe in ANYTHING. They’re simply interested parties, and working to secure that interest no matter who gets in their way. In the chapter The Iron Triangle, Scott shows this exactly:

According to Secretary Albright, an informal poll of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations showed opposition to expansion by a margin of two to one. If so many leaders of America’s foreign policy establishment were opposed to NATO expansion due to concerns about provoking a negative reaction from Russia, then how did the hawks win?

Representing the establishment consensus, George Kennan ironically, and wrongly, thought that “[w]ere the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” But Kennan was a diplomat and historian, not an economist.

Of course, Kennan was wrong about this, as Scott tells what will actually happen per economics, but this is the fucking establishment consensus! It’s what those demons put out there. Here’s what economists who were not on the board of Lockheed Martin say:

The end of American militarism would have been a shock to the arms manufacturers, to the benefit of everyone else whose money they had been confiscating and destroying. With a peace dividend, all that wealth, material, labor and talent could be reinvested in improving the production of actual goods and services to benefit the public’s quality of life. [167]

But their interests rested somewhere else, listen to where:

But the vested interests were not going to give up without a fight. As Richard Cummings explained in his 2007 article “Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,” [168] the 1990s-era U.S. Committee to Expand NATO (later renamed The U.S. Committee on NATO) was a project of Lockheed Martin Vice President Bruce Jackson. The policy was in large part a racket for selling jets either directly to the Eastern European states, or failing that, to force the American taxpayer to pick up the tab for them. Cummings wrote, “The objective of the committee was to push for membership in the NATO military alliance for former Soviet bloc countries including Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.” [169]

The New York Times reported in 1997, “[A]t night Bruce Jackson is president of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO, giving intimate dinners for senators and foreign officials. By day, he is director of strategic planning for Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world’s biggest weapons maker.” [170]

—A committee called the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO, a military alliance that was only supposed to exist long enough for post-WW2 Europe to become strong enough to defend themselves against the Soviet Union, not only continues to exist long after Europe’s return to strength and the fall of the Soviet Union but has the Vice-President of one the largest weapons companies in the world campaigning for its expansion! Which happens to be a direct threat, and a way to continue conflict with the newly liberated Russia. Maybe the guy just really believed NATO was a net good for the world…..

Cummings explained the facts of life. The relationships between the neoconservatives’ think tanks, lobbying firms and defense industry amounted to an “iron triangle” that rules the capital city and virtually “always gets what it wants.” [171] Lockheed Martin and their contemporaries had a simple interest in mind: selling big-ticket weapons systems to the new allies to bring their militaries up to NATO standards. Poland got expensive new fighter jets [172] and missile systems. [173] It was a tax money goldmine. [174] Soon Jackson created the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, [175] and worked hard behind the scenes with a lobbyist named Sally Painter [176] to publish the “Letter of 10,” signed by Eastern European states in support of launching Iraq War II in 2003. [177] Jackson got his way there as well, though the degree of the Iraqis’ liberation remains in dispute. [178]

In 1999, the epitome of corrupt American big business showered millions of dollars on NATO officials, foreign ministers and diplomats from across Central and Eastern Europe at a big party in Washington in celebration of NATO’s 50th anniversary. Boeing, Motorola, Nextel, TRW, Honeywell, United Technologies, Ford, GM, Kodak and Raytheon along with various high-power lobbying firms were in attendance. The Washington Post quoted Gerald Robbins of 3Com Corp boasting about their contracts supplying equipment for NATO’s AWACS surveillance and control planes flying missions over Kosovo. “NATO is a big customer,” Robbins said. [179] The Military-Industrial Complex that President Ike Eisenhower helped to build and then warned about on his last day in office [180] has captured our government, in alliance with foreign states in the Middle East, Europe and Asia, and their allied domestic lobbies. [181]

Horton, Scott. Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine (pp. 143-144). The Libertarian Institute. Kindle Edition.

Just to be clear, the “Capital city” he’s referring to is our nation's capital, Washington, DC, and to be even clearer, “The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq”, is a front for BUY MY WEAPONS PLEASE!

“Hey, I started up a couple committees, we’re trying to “expand” this NATO and “liberate” them Iraqi’s, we determined in our committee's that the best thing for that is fighter jets and bazookas, and I happen to know just the place to get a few…….”

Back to the book, let’s talk about the title, I’ve heard a few “Nobody” critics take issue with the title, they are nobodies! The title is perfect. It’s akin to Dr. Fauci’s biography being called “Safe and Effective”. It’s perfect, throughout the book Scott organically starts running into complaints and warnings, and sometimes musing menacing's about how NATO expansion, among other things is gonna “provoke” the Russians”, and like clockwork, or maybe guilt rising up from deep down inside of their guts. The immediate media narrative following the February invasion was “mention the attack/invasion/whatever you wanna call it but you must refer to it as Unprovoked”. They ran with that myth continuously, like many of the recent media myths, passed down from high. “Joe Rogan/Horse Dewormer”, “Donald Trump/Russian Asset”, etc. Also, looking at it through the lens of it being a Russian provocation, this book gives the most thorough, most complete, and most up-to-date walk through the Russiagate scandal from beginning to end, nothing left out and everything cited.

This book starts at the George H.W. Bush Administration and lists America’s provocations against the Russians through every administration including Trump 2.0.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Declaration of Liberty

This book is a must-read for a few groups of readers, those that would like to know what actually is going on between Russia and Ukraine, this books for you.

If you’d like to read a thoroughly unbelievable but factually accurate story of corruption, greed, malfeasance, and out and out disregard for human life at the top of our government, this books for you.

If you’d like to know where your hard-earned tax dollars go when they enter the hands of the government, this is a great start!

If you’d like to know how the freest country on earth, became hated by the whole damn world, this is your book.

If you’d like to know how foreign policy has worked in America for the last forty years, this books for you (by the way, the lead characters of this book are the American deep state).

And if you’d like to know why two neighboring countries are approaching three years at war, with so much blood lost on both sides, one side has run out of 20-year-olds to get slaughtered on the frontlines, and both sides are using slavery tactics to force people to fight to the death, and would like to know how we could’ve saved these people, this is the book for you! It’s all there.

Thank you for reading! Have a wonderful day.

Editor-in-Chief

First Thought: Where is the rest of it?!

Hmm… Some timing: This book it seems, was very conveniently released, half-finished, around the same time that the media dropped their “Joe Biden’s too old” cover, and this war was not even close to being over! Like this was going to be the October Surprise in case they needed something to make Joe Biden seem like he was still capable to carry the office. It was released October 15th, 2024, when the question of the Biden Administration’s ability was very much a top issue. This book does a lot to lend them credibility for what’s been happening in the last three and a half years.

Enter the Context

Where are we at right now? It’s the beginning of December; Donald Trump just had a very big win at the ballot box. Two weeks later Joe Biden approves the use of ATACMS missiles to be fired into Russia, they have a range of 190 miles. The phrasing they keep using is “Deep into the heart of Russia…” What makes it worse is they (Ukrainians) cannot use these weapons without us. They don’t have the capabilities. They need our satellites and data entry systems to enter the coordinates.

I must thank from Liberty Lockdown because his show was my first hearing about the Storm Shadow Missile System that was approved by the Europeans. They come up in a minute. In the following video is Putin addressing this 2 months ago,

So, Putin has known about this, he’s saying if they go through with this, we, NATO and the West, (which includes the US) are declaring war with Russia. Following 30 years of provocations from Washington, as was mapped out in the new book written by , released this month called Provoked: How Washington started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine, with 7,800+ footnotes pointing directly to the source. Absolutely superior to this book by Bob, being that Provoked lays out the controversial truth and gives proof of every single claim and War lays out the mainstream account, in the worst form, says nothing remotely controversial and can’t even be bothered to give actual sources for that. (If it sounds like I’m trying to sell you the book, I am. We need as many people to know the truth laid out in this book as possible. It’s the only way to beat this propaganda machine)

As of writing this, it’s late-November, early-December, Joe Biden has approved use of long-range missiles to be fired into Russia, the very next day, November 19th, a new story breaks that Ukraine has used them, firing 6 ATACMS missiles into Russia, they were able to take down 5 of them and the 6th malfunctioned, then on the 21st Ukraine fires British Storm Shadow missiles, and US made HIMARS into Russia, here’s Reuter’s on this:

After approval from the administration of President Joe Biden, Ukraine struck Russia with six U.S.-made ATACMS on Nov. 19 and with British Storm Shadow missiles and U.S.-made HIMARS on Nov. 21st, Putin said.

"From that moment, as we have repeatedly underscored, a regional conflict in Ukraine previously provoked by the West has acquired elements of a global character," Putin said in an address to the nation carried by state television after 8 pm Moscow time (1700 GMT).

The next day after that Russia uses the new Oreshnik missile against the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. Which I understand could be loaded with nuclear weapons if they want, and they were testing it out as kind of a show of force. I want to underline this again, Ukraine DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITIES TO USE THESE WEAPONS if they are being fired, military personnel from Britain and the US are doing it, and Putin knows this.

I really am hoping this doesn’t put Russia in a dangerous position in the war. Making it unlikely that they will overreact, but what it does is cause more of a public outcry in Russia which, there’s no telling what that could lead to. Not because I love Putin but because I love living. It could work in our favor and make Russia more willing to negotiate which is what I believe it’s supposed to do, or it could cause more of an overreaction leading to more escalation. This is why war is the worst possible scenario for all circumstances, there’s just too many possibilities and it’s unpredictable to chance. We’re talking about human lives. This thing could have been negotiated 2 years ago, while Ukraine still had middle-aged men left alive, but that’s the current, now here’s the past.

A Propaganda Puzzle

This book is like a jigsaw puzzle of propaganda. The quote above is from the book and Woodward quote's it in interviews and whatnot. It’s truly, everything I hate about these pro-war establishment types. It sounds like fantastical, Bruce Willis Die Hard-esque, American Exceptionalism, bullshit, you would expect a Washington-ite, boomer-con, from the intelligence community, to quote! “That Lloyd Austin is such a strong man! He ain’t gonna be played for no fool!” And the board-sitters of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are creaming in their pants! Bob appeared on Colbert to promote his book sometime last month and just oozed bullshit:

Colbert: …In that reporting, you uncovered an event that you say is one of the most dramatic, and significant in US Military history. What was that?

Bob: There are a number of them. One I was able to get a literal transcript of, the General in the US, who is Defense Secretary.

Stephen: Lloyd Austin?

Bob: Lloyd Austin, strong, forceful man, calls up his counterpart in Russia and says, "We know you were about to use a Tactical Nuclear Weapon….

“Austin is so strong, the defense minister in Russia says “I don’t like being threatened.” Austin says, “Mr. Minister, I am the leader of the most powerful military in the history of the world, I don’t make threats."

As marvelous as it was and as tough and forceful as he claims Lloyd Austin is (how gay is that to say about another heterosexual man), I wonder why he didn’t even list it as a source? Because it was never said? I checked all his sources; it is nowhere. I would’ve accepted anything, “sources and methods”, “sources familiar with…” anything! But nothing?! This is like, the biggest moment in the book and it’s completely fabricated. I first heard of this book based on that quote. That’s the point of him saying it, old Bob knows his readers. Washed up, still believe in Russiagate and WMD’s in Iraq, hell probably still believe “Juicy” Smollett no way they’d check a source.

By the way, thank God nobody said that. It is the most unbelievably stupid and irresponsible, thing to say ever. YOU ARE THREATENING THE REST OF THE WORLD BY SAYING THIS!!! He is speaking to Russia’s 2nd in command, he’s speaking to the only other country with the capabilities to end the fucking human race, and because they heard through the grapevine that Russia might use nukes, so we proceed to beat and bluster at him, dear God, no way. The United States population is 4.25% of the human race. Washington is a hundredth of that, the rest of the planet don’t want to be in danger due to the egos of a hundredth of the population. Even if it’s true that he was considering it, and I’m sure he was, who the fuck does anyone in our State Department think they are, we have no moral high ground to stand on.

More From Bobby’s Book of Propaganda…

“Zelensky just doesn’t get it.” I think he does, Zelensky is quoted as saying to Kamala Harris when she’s warning that it looks like, according to intelligence, Russia is going to invade, the passage, from chapter 25 in the book is:

Zelensky was all denial. Harris sounded more and more like a prosecutor. They went back and forth. Zelensky reiterated that he took seriously the situation on his borders. “We do clearly understand what is going on,” Zelensky said. “This is our land, and the only thing we want is to have peace, bring the peace back to our country.” End the fighting in eastern Ukraine.

I wonder if this quote is misused, Bob likes to do that, I wonder if what he’s actually meaning, is yea, we are not dumb, we know exactly what is going on, this is our land not yours and WE WANT PEACE! He says, “We do clearly understand what is going on,” Zelensky said. “This is our land, and the only thing we want is to have peace, bring the peace back to our country.” If that is true, that he knows clearly what is going on, this was not a friendly interaction like is portrayed by Bob. Zelensky won his election, 70-30, an actor/comedian, on peace.

So, Who is Bob Woodward, Really?

If I were a betting man, I’d bet that he got this kind of access due to his deep state ties. This book is what could best be described as a Limited Hangout, where you get a side of the story that’s not yet out there, but leaves out just enough that it doesn’t damage their reputation or they leave key points out that protect the actual truth from coming to light. There’s stories in this book that has been litigated, fact checked, and debunked as false. Just pure war propaganda; You might ask, “why would he do that? Bob Woodward? The guy from Watergate?” Yes. Even Watergate has become something to be debated in recent years. Let me just lay out some undisputed acts:

1. Bob Woodward, one year before becoming the great Watergate journalist, was a Navy Intelligence Officer, working in Nixon’s White House.

2. It was his first year as a journalist and he was given the biggest story in journalism history. He was from an unrelated field.

3. His #1 source for the Watergate story was the #2 guy at the FBI

4. At the time, Richard Nixon received the most votes of any president in history, he won the popular vote in 49 out of 50 states.

5. When he resigned, Gerald Ford, his Vice of course took his place and Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commission the commission that investigated the JFK assassination. Here’s a few factors on this provided by History.com

   1. The Warren Commission was led by the Director of the CIA who JFK had fired 6 months before his death, Allen Dulles.

   2. The Commission came to the conclusion based on their “evidence” that Oswald fired one bullet. The bullet that struck Kennedy in the back and exited through his throat. Given the lack of damage to the presidential limousine consistent with it having been struck by a high-velocity bullet, and the fact that Texas Governor John Connally was wounded and was seated on a jumper seat 1 1/2 feet in front of and slightly to the left of the president, the Commission concluded they were likely struck by the same bullet.

      

   3. Gerald Ford secretly provided information on the Commission to the FBI. While serving as a leading member of the Warren Commission, future U.S. President Gerald Ford also acted as an inside informant for J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. After Ford’s death in 2006, a cache of declassified documents revealed that Ford, then a U.S. congressman, had approached FBI Assistant Director Cartha DeLoach and offered to confidentially keep the Bureau informed on the Commission’s deliberations.

   4. Earl Warren suppressed key evidence from the Commission. As a close friend of the Kennedy’s, he denied the Commission the ability to see the autopsy for fears of it being too disturbing. He blocked them from interviewing witnesses in Mexico who knew Oswald before the assassination, there’s been book’s written on this since, some people believe it might have changed the entire outcome of this investigation, and he tried to block an interview with Jackie Kennedy for fear of invading her privacy. I mean, members of the Commission already killed her husband, now they want to talk to her about it???

   5. The FBI and CIA intentionally misled the Commission. Both agencies had been monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald for months prior to the murder. Oswald had once even left a threatening note for an FBI agent at the Bureau’s office in Dallas. Fearful of catching blame for not preventing the assassination, the FBI later destroyed the note and even removed the agent’s name from a typewritten transcript of Oswald’s address book provided to the Warren Commission. Congressman Hale Boggs would later say that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover “lied his eyes out” to the Commission’s investigators.

   6. Evidence also suggests that the CIA had Oswald under surveillance when he made a trip to Mexico in September 1963 and visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies, but the agency repeatedly denied any connection to the alleged shooter. The CIA also neglected to inform the Commission about its many covert operations in Cuba—including several schemes to assassinate Fidel Castro—even though those revelations might have helped shape the investigation.

   7. A second government investigation came to a different conclusion after the public release of the Zapruder film. The U.S. House of Representatives formed the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations and reopened the investigation on the president’s murder. In 1979, the HSCA stated that acoustic evidence from a Dallas police officer’s radio showed it was likely that two shooters had fired on Kennedy’s limousine, and it concluded that the assassination “probably” involved a conspiracy.

6. The Democrat Speaker of the House, Carl Albert, said they would not confirm anyone but Ford to be Nixon’s new Vice after his first Vice, Spiro Agnew, was sent to prison for Tax Evasion.

7. Of the seven individuals indicted and later convicted of the planning and execution of the June 17, 1972, Watergate break-in, six had been employed by the CIA and the other was a former FBI agent.

I know I drifted pretty far away from who Bob Woodward is, but it seems he was very much involved in as Tucker Carlson put it on the JRE, “A deep state coup…”

Many of Bob’s books were written before the current age that we now live in. Back when the truth was much harder to come by. Bob Woodward has had, since the 90’s, this access to the White House, or the appearance of it at least, and although I’ve not read them all, I have wondered, what is he trading for this kind of access to the White House? I think I get it now, he’s trading integrity, the truth, not the truth they want you to know, but the actual truth. The right to say something! He’s a writer that parrots the establishment narrative, how much does that have to suck, never saying anything you actually feel. That’s like neutering a male porn star. Consider this, the “big headline-grabbing-controversy” of this book was Trump sending supplies like testing kits and masks to Putin during COVID, although it sounds like he wanted strong, forceful man Lloyd Austin’s I’m-so-tough quote to be it, it just wasn’t. Because he writes War books for bitches! That’s not a misogynist statement either, what I mean is people like Christopher Hayes and Rachel Maddow, Stephen Colbert and Sean Hannity.

BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID THIS GUY WAS HITLER????

Something that Bob accidently brings to light in this book is this narrative that if Putin takes Ukraine, next he’s coming for Poland and then who knows? Maybe he’ll go after England next! Is complete and utter bullshit, it’s always been bullshit and not even Bob Woodward could tell this story without destroying that narrative. If what he’s saying is true, and I’m not saying the whole book is lies, there’s definitely some truth in it, during the covid years, Putin was isolated and digging through the historical archives, which would explain his hour-long-rant to Tucker Carlson about the history of Russia & Ukraine, (you know, “if you don’t mind I will only take 30 seconds or one minute to give you a short reference to history”, ONE HOUR LATER…) and he found justification for Ukraine being a part of Russia, basically justification to invade Ukraine and take it by force, so the idea that we should actually fear that Putin has started a war of conquest just like Hitler did is total bullshit. He had to find justification, after years of exclaiming his fear of losing Ukraine to NATO, he justified it by finding records that led him to believe Ukraine was supposed to be part of Russia. He’s not Hitler, the fucking guy wanted paperwork to justify his invasion. I’d like to see what history Hitler used to justify the Holocaust, it’d have to be a doozy. From chapter 8:

Other people learned Irish step dancing in quarantine, Jake Sullivan joked, but Putin went deep into Russian history.

Sullivan had heard that during a phone call between Putin and German chancellor Angela Merkel, Putin said you wouldn’t believe the stuff that I’ve been finding in the Russian archives.

It was clear to Merkel that Putin had spent a lot of his time in isolation just digging around in the archives, taking things out, studying ancient maps. Taking Ukraine had become kind of a fever dream during his Covid isolation. But the fever didn’t pass. It didn’t break.

He also wrote an article for the Kremlin website, pronouncing his findings. It’s almost exactly what he said to Tucker in his rant, the article was probably his script for the interview. It’s called “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“, and if it’s the reason he invaded, it’s fucking crazy, but it’s not Hitler, and it doesn’t lead you to believe he’s coming for the rest of the world next.

Boris “The DODO Bird” Johnson

Boris Johnson, Fmr. Prime Minister of the UK, confronted Putin via phone call after Biden and the US State Dept. presented the intelligence they had received which was leading them to believe Russia would invade Ukraine. Most of the people it was presented at the G20 meeting was skeptical of it, Boris couldn’t wait to confront Putin with it. He’s so “brilliant” he probably scared Putin into going through with the invasion!

In a phone call, Johnson confronted Putin.

“You have no reason to invade Ukraine,” Johnson said. “There is no way Ukraine would be joining NATO anytime soon.”

“Boris,” Putin said, “what do you mean by anytime soon? When is that? Next month?”

“No,” Johnson said, “look, I mean, the reality is Ukraine is not going to join in the foreseeable future.”

Johnson believed that Putin knew that. It was nonsense, Johnson felt, this was Putin’s paranoia about NATO.

But it wasn’t paranoia, this was the plan all along.

This war is about money, right Lindsey Graham? See video below…

By the way, same Boris Johnson:

“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.

And Here’s More from Lindsey Graham

Woodwar portrays Lindsay Graham as Trump’s campaign adviser, which can’t be true because Lindsey is a loser and a war hawk. By the way, remember he’s not trying to be funny, it just comes off that way.

In late January, Trump had started to throw around the idea of making another run for the presidency.

“You know Jack Nicklaus was pretty famous for letting people collapse and just hanging around,” Trump mused to Senator Lindsey Graham over lunch at Mar-a-Lago, referring to the legendary American golfer. Trump said that should be his strategy with Biden. “When Nicklaus was behind in a tournament, he’d always say, well, what are you going to do? I’m just going to hang around and see what happens. That’s how he won the Masters in ’86. You know, you have two good holes and people start beginning to fall apart.

“Well,” Trump said, “I’m just going to be hanging around!”

Just imagine his voice and think of him saying this:

One weekend after the invasion, Republican senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was at Mar-a-Lago, to play golf and have dinner with Trump.

“Going to Mar-a-Lago is a little bit like going to North Korea,” Graham said. “Everybody stands up and claps every time Trump comes in. So, I come in behind him and I get a standing ovation!” Graham said.

He assumed it was for his comments about Putin. “I’ve been saying get rid of Putin. If you have to kill him, kill him,” he said.

In a March 4 interview on Fox News, Graham had declared that Russians should assassinate President Putin. He followed it with a post on social media: “The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country—and the world—a great service,” Graham said.

The comments caused a brief firestorm. White House press secretary Jen Psaki was quick to clarify this was “not the position of the United States government.”

Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov hit back by suggesting Graham was insane. “Unfortunately, in such an extremely tense atmosphere, there is a hysterical escalation of Russophobia. These days, not everyone manages to maintain sobriety, I would even say sanity, and many lose their mind.” Graham downplayed his comments to others at Mar-a-Lago.

Unfortunately, I’m sure this was all actual quotes. It sounds like Graham talks about killing Putin for the same reasons that I started playing guitar in high school!

During dinner that evening Trump and Graham talked about the threat of Putin using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

“We can’t let him get away with that,” Trump said. “We’ve got a bigger military. We’ve got deadly submarines. I would have submarines going up and down the coast of Russia saying we’re watching you.

“Why can’t we get involved?” Trump asked Graham. “Why do we let the planes fly?” Graham realized Trump was wondering about why the U.S. hadn’t set up a no-fly zone to stop Russian planes from entering Ukraine’s airspace.

And here he is calling for our soldiers to go die while he brags about it on Fox News.

Zelensky was pleading for Biden to “close the skies.” Biden had repeatedly refused. He did not want a situation where U.S. or NATO forces would have to take out Russian planes. That could too quickly escalate into World War III.

“Everybody felt the Russians would roll through Ukraine in about a week and do some kind of peace deal and that’d be that” Graham said. “Well, the Ukrainians are fighting like tigers. Zelensky has become the Churchill of his time, and the Russians are in a world of hurt. They actually could lose this. They could actually lose this military engagement if we could do better in the air.”

The next morning, Graham played nine holes with Trump, who was now golfing five times a week. Some of the caddies came up and asked for a photo. Not with Trump, but with Graham.

“The caddies want to get rid of Putin too,” Graham joked to Trump. But the former president was no longer paying attention. He was fixated on the caddies, as if suddenly realizing being tough with Putin was popular.

Here’s a funny one, remember that Lindsey is the source here. “He was fixated on the caddies?” Nobody was fixated on the caddies but Lindsey Graham’s gay ass. Also, not a soul in America thinks more of anyone because they were tough on Putin! What a dumbass, Lindsey Graham thing to say! Whether they continued it after the election is a different story, but since 2000 the anti-war guy always wins!

“While in certain ways yesterday’s election was somewhat disappointing,” Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, “from my personal standpoint it was a very big victory—219 WINS and 16 Losses in the General—Who has ever done better than that?” But the result was generally viewed as a referendum on Trump.

“You’ve got a problem with moderate women,” Lindsey Graham told the former president. “The people that think the earth is flat and we didn’t go to the moon, you’ve got them. Let that go.”

Trump needed to move on from re-litigating 2020 and get back to a focus on real policy issues and on making 2024 a referendum on Biden, Graham believed.

Your argument, Graham said to Trump, should be:

“When I was in charge, we had a secure border and look what’s happened. When I was in charge, you could fill up your tank without having to mortgage your house. When I was in charge, Russia and China were in a box. When I was in charge, Iran was weak. When I was in charge, the Taliban didn’t have Afghanistan,” Graham said. “On and on and on. “Mr. President, it’s not enough to criticize Biden, it’s also you’ve got to say: I can fix this.

“Nobody gives a shit about the 2020 election,” Graham said.

Because if there’s advice anyone should trust on Moderate Woman, it’s a closeted homosexual who’s never been married, never had a girlfriend, or a public boyfriend and only loves war! Yes, Lindsey, I’m listening…

Senator Lindsey Graham blamed Mar-a-Lago for Trump’s inability to put the results of 2020 behind him.

“It’s just, it’s the culture,” Graham told colleagues. “It’s the attitude down in Mar-a-Lago of all the people that go. You know, all the people he hangs around with down there. They constantly feed this narrative. “He keeps talking about Arizona,” Graham said, where an audit was still underway. “You know, he lost Arizona because he beat on John McCain and just went too far.” The late senator John McCain of Arizona had been a prisoner of war in Vietnam and Republican nominee for president in the 2008 election.

“He thinks he lost because of all these bizarre conspiracies,” Graham said. “He didn’t.”

“Biden won fair and square,” Graham added. “Trump doesn’t like to hear that.”

Graham was focused on the 2022 political races where Republicans needed to put their best candidates forward to take back the House and Senate majorities.

“There are very few Republicans that can get out of the whirlwind of dealing with Trump to think ahead,” Graham said. “Wishing Donald Trump away is not a viable strategy. Donald Trump’s not going away. There are millions of people in the Republican Party who believe in him, and the goal is to try to take the magic he has with our base and make it ‘Trump Plus.’

“Once you get in a general election if you repeat some of the things that the president’s saying, you don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell,” Graham said. “Some of our candidates are going to have to break from Trump on certain issues to get the ‘plus’ part.”

Graham rejected the notion that Trump was a wound that could not heal in the Republican Party.

“Trump represents a real part of the American family,” Graham said. “It’s not a wound. It’s part of who we are.”

He would be upset over Trump’s opinion of John McCain, you know who wouldn’t be? Families of the people he murdered in Syria, Iraq, Russia, Ukraine, and South America. Also Lindsey Graham:

And Lindsey, ONE MORE TIME FOR THE KILL—

You know, the guy who said, “Such as having rotating first ladies” when asked about being the first single man in office if he won in 2016. He also said this when talking to Daily Mail:

If you don’t want to watch it, he says, “My sister could be my First Lady.”

Says no one ever in history!

SNAKE ISLAND PROPAGANDA—Fog of War, Stated as FACT!

In chapter twenty-seven the invasion begins. Toward the end of the chapter the Snake Island story is mentioned very briefly, in a way that would lead you to believe the propaganda reported at the time was true. The book lays it out like this:

Early in the war, at Snake Island, a tiny Ukrainian outpost on the Black Sea, two Russian warships ordered the 13 Ukrainian border guards stationed there to surrender. One guard picked up the transmitter and responded, “Russian warship, go fuck yourself.” Russia captured Snake Island, but the defiance of the Ukrainians was played on media outlets all over the world, becoming a symbol of Ukrainian resistance.

The problem with leaving out facts about this story was believed to be exactly as originally reported at the time. Zelensky made a digital appearance, straight-to-camera, claiming they were killed, giving all of their names 1 by 1, and saying that they would the “posthumous title of ‘Hero of Ukraine’.” Soon after it turned out that they were alive and well and would be returned safely to their families and you could say, “How do we know? Isn’t this Putin propaganda?” and you could be right except as of May 31st, a bunch made it home via a prisoner exchange, but Bob’s purposeful vagueness and Zelensky’s propaganda would lead you to believe they were killed. So, we have Russian Propaganda VS Ukranian Propaganda, either way, it’s all propaganda, placed there to mislead you. In this case it was the Ukrainians disseminating and adding to the fog of war.

“THE QUOTE ON PAGE 88 IS BULLSHIT” BOB, Courtesy of Scott Horton of ANTIWAR.COM

Thanks to in his post-election, pre-publication appearance on Part of the Problem with Dave Smith and in a letter to Bob that he also posted publicly on Antiwar.com and the Libertarian Institute website.

“Third countries”—meaning, the United States—“have no right to express their position on the issue of NATO enlargement and are playing with fire,” Lavrov warned. “I am convinced that they cannot be unaware of this.”

Real quote:

“Those who mechanically repeat the points made in Bucharest and insist that ‘third countries’ have no right to express their position on the issue of NATO enlargement are playing with fire. I am convinced that they cannot be unaware of this.”

That quote was from a statement made by Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, at the OSCE Ministerial Council on December 2nd of 2021. The entire statement is addressing worries of military confrontation with the west being felt in Russia. This military alliance conference, the OSCE, was created as an alliance including the West and Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, something like a partnership for peace, but not the Partnership for Peace. In this quote, what Sergey is actually saying is, if they think third countries (Neighboring countries such as Russia) have no right to be upset by the decisions made at Bucharest in 2008 (Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO over the following years). They're playing with fire (they’re fucking crazy). We’re convinced they know this is an escalation.

The change of the quote by Woodward completely changes the meaning to, the third country (is the United States) and has no right to express their opinion about NATO enlargement (stupidly ignoring that NATO is a US military alliance, created by the US to protect Europe after WW2, to help protect Europe while they are weak from fighting the World War). The way he’s able to make this translation is because NATO has what they call the open door policy, which states that if a country wants to join NATO it’s no ones business except for that country and NATO. Sergey is saying, screw your policy, of course it’s our business, they are the buffer country between two Great Powers. So, that whole section was bullshit. More chipping away of Woodward’s credibility…

Now for the “Limited Hangout” I Couldn't Wait to Talk About…

Page 90-91:

At the official dinner that evening, the 57 foreign ministers and secretaries of state sat at one of the biggest dining tables Blinken had ever seen. He was seated next to Ukraine’s foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba and directly across from him was Lavrov.

Lavrov lost no time launching into a diatribe about the origins of 2014, claiming there had been a coup perpetrated by the United States and others in Ukraine that caused the rightly elected president Viktor Yanukovych to be deposed.

Having lived through that period himself, Blinken felt he had to correct Lavrov as he attempted once again to replace history with the Putin preferred narrative.

“That’s not what happened,” Blinken interjected, “and you know it and everyone at this table knows it.”

Blinken went through the litany of what actually had happened in 2014.

Lavrov, unfazed, raised the Minsk process.

Blinken interjected again, “Sergey, we can talk about the Minsk process. “Here”—Blinken held a piece of paper in his hand. “Here are the requirements that Russia had under the Minsk process.

“Immediate and full cease-fire in particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine and its strict fulfillment as of 00.00 midnight (Kyiv time) on Feb. 15, 2015.

“You didn’t do it,” Blinken said. “Withdrawal of all heavy weapons.

“You didn’t do it,” Blinken said. “Allow OSCE monitoring.

Share

Subscribe now

This is the most infuriating piece of propaganda in the book. Leaving out one of the most important details in this conflict is fucking crazy. He tees it up, and then totally skips it. In a book surrounded by strange sources, and unverifiable quotes, then magically when it gets to the inconvenient part, nothing. What the fuck! Anyone who reads through this is looking for the whole story, which is why I read it. He could’ve at least given the establishment lie. If you’ve read or listened to anything from Scott Horton, or Antiwar.com, or Confessions of an Economic Hitman, or the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, you know what he’s referring to, and yes, Blinken, we all lived through this.

I am going to have another article accompanying this post (released later on) that will explain how Democracy-influencing NGO’s like Open Society (George Soros) and the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) overtly overthrow governments as opposed to covertly as used to be handled by the CIA. I had it it here, but it was stretching this piece way too far, it might be too long already, we’ll see. I was at 8,000 words and only halfway through the Soros Foundation.

Jennifer Briney, someone who’s work I cite quite often, has been doing exhaustive work for over a decade with her podcast Congressional Dish, where she actually reads the bills that Congress passes—something they don’t even do—while doing her investigations for an episode she stumbled upon the 2014 Euro-Maidan Coup that was being carried out on the Yanukovych regime in Ukraine, this is what actually happened, that Blinken, the War Criminal, and Woodward, pawn for the powerful, wants completely memory-holed:

Pretty soon after the horrible Russian invasion in 2022, I learned of this story about the western overthrow of the Yanukovych Gov’t. If you didn’t watch the video or are hearing impaired, here’s a “quick” overview:

• According to George Friedman of Stratfor: The World’s Leading Geopolitical Intelligence Platform, this was the “Most blatant coup in History”.

• The EU was trying to bring Ukraine into their umbrella of influence through an Association Agreement.

• Yanukovych as Carl Gershman, then head of the National Endowment for Democracy wrote in the Washington Post, was attempting to make reforms necessary to follow-through with the deal.

• To push the deal more in their favor the US issued an International Warrant for Yanukovych's patron oligarch Dmitriy Firtash and had him arrested in Austria until Yanukovych was ready to sign the deal.

• But the deal with the EU started to get worse and worse for the Ukrainian side, and Putin sweetened the deal:

  • The Europeans insisted on a severe austerity regime, freezing government salaries and pensions, an end to subsidies for heavy industry in Ukraine’s East, and huge hikes in utility rates.

  • The EU and IMF were being chintzy about loaning them enough money to remain solvent.

  • The EU demanded the release of his political rival from the 2004 Orange Revolution (Backed by the same people as Euromaidan), the “Gas Princess”, billionaire Yulia Tymoshenko.

• The Kremlin worried that this new deal, since Ukraine and Russia have a trade agreement, would flood the Russian market with cheaper finished goods from Europe and undermine their own trade and industrial capacity. The architects of the EU deal imagined the harm done to the Russian economy would force Putin from office.

• Putin makes an offer of $15 billion in aid and half price on Russian gas or take the EU deal and your trade pact with Russia is canceled. Publicly he said he didn’t mind if Ukraine took the deal, but behind the scenes was different. Putin had already started restricting trade as a show of what was coming, and it became clear that if Yanukovych signed with the EU the Ukrainian economy would crumble.

• When Yanukovych backed out of the EU deal, the Obama administration, with people like Victoria Nuland (Satan Herself) and John McCain (who’s waiting in hell for her to join him) organized street demonstrations that evolved into one of the most technologically advanced and PR-driven regime change operations in history, known to the world as Maidan, EuroMaidan, or the Revolution of Dignity, etc.

• What Scott Horton in Provoked, describes as a Street Putsch, protestors, some who wanted the EU to join with Ukraine so they could escape the terribly poor country, and some who were paid by pro-democracy NGO’s such as the NED, NDI, and IRI, took to the streets against Yanukovych.

• Victoria Nuland was passing out cookies to the protestors, John McCain was on stage with Tyahnybok, and Yatsenyuk, and Chris Murphy was…does anyone even know who Chris Murphy is???

• A phone call was leaked between Geoffrey Pyatt—US-Ambassador to Ukraine—and Victoria Nuland—Deputy Secretary of State under Hillary Clinton—that although idiots in the comments will claim it means something else; the call was clear, they were planning Ukraine’s government for whoever was going to be at the top.

• February of 2014, the protests forced Yanukovych into exile in Moscow.

• Then late that same month, the Russians responded by invading Crimea.

That Mr. Blinken, and Mr. Woodward is what happened in 2014. God protect us all from the danger these idiots keep putting us in.

With ALL that Being Said, this was Just the Ukraine Half of the Book…Part 2: War in GAZA Coming Soon…

I think I’ll end with this, I don’t have any problem with Bob Woodward. I think I get it now, some people are Woodward and Bernstein guys, I’m more of a Matt Taibbi and Sy Hersh type. I found an article in the NYT comparing Woodward to Hersh, and it struck me as true:

The fraternity of investigative reporters, who make a point of not talking on the record about each other, consider Mr. Woodward as a man with access in high places, with both the insight and blinkers that entails. They tend to see Mr. Hersh as pursuing those in the operational heart of the intelligence agencies who feel things are going wrong. Jeff Stein, a Washington writer who has covered intelligence issues, said, ''Woodward covers the administration, and Sy covers the back alleys.''

This makes sense, that’s why every book by Woodward is based solely on access to the White House, he can’t go too far, he’ll lose his access and end up like Seymour Hersh and Matt Taibbi, on Substack, with me. Go figure. This is where I’m starting because I don’t know where else to go, this is where they ended up because they had nowhere else to go. What a world. Thank you for reading.

Editor-in-Chief