Reminder: Neocons ADMIT They Will Lie Us Into War
Now that mustachioed super-villain John Bolton is in the driver’s seat of America’s foreign policy, an old video of the arch-neocon admitting he would lie to the public to achieve his goals is making the rounds once again.
Go ahead and watch it for yourself.
Here’s the money quote for those who missed it: “If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it.”
The example Bolton gives to flesh out his point is relatively uncontroversial. “I don’t think we’re often faced with that difficulty, but would I lie about where the D-Day invasion was going to take place to deceive the Germans, you’d better believe it.”
But is that where the principle of knowingly lying to the public in the name of “national security” begins and ends? Not revealing the dates and locations of planned military operations? Or do you think that someone like John Bolton and his neocon friends just might use this idea of lying a little bit more liberally to achieve their goals?
In fact, we don’t even have to wonder about this point, nor should we be shocked in the least that a neocon like Bolton—who is now openly lusting after regime change in Iran and Venezuela—would profess his allegiance to the “noble lie.” All it takes is a little examination of the historical roots of the neocons to see that this has always been their openly admitted policy.
So what is the “noble lie” and what does it have to do with the founding father of the neocon movement? Find out in this week’s edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber.
For full access to the subscriber newsletter, and to support this website, please become a member.
For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE.
This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.
Filed in: Newsletter
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
James Corbett says:
“…The corollary of this observation is that if the public does not fall for the noble lie, then the would-be elite won’t be able to implement their agenda.
So now we have another question to ask ourselves: If a new “catastrophic and catalyzing event†happened tomorrow, and if it were immediately blamed on Iran or Venezuela or Russia or China or any of the neocons’ other bogeymen, would the public blindly support the government in a headlong rush to war or would they question what they were being told?”
I am not so sure. We have a whole new, populous generation since 9/11, and they seem naïve.
As an aside, I still enjoy James’ writing style. It is easy to follow.
Plus, he comes up with some great inks of the pen, (e.g “Here’s the money quote” or “this tragic tale of terror and tyranny”.)
James I don’t think the link “For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE.” is functioning as it was intended?
Have the words ‘national security’ always been abused
the way they are today or is this a relatively new phenomenon?
They certainly have since 9/11 around the world, with the U.S. undoubtedly being the worst culprit.
But what about prior to 9/11?
When exactly did this abuse become in vogue?
Because each and every time I hear that bogus excuse used to cover everything from foreign invasions, ‘preemptive’ strikes, trade tariffs, civilian arrests, gun law restrictions etc. I get sick to my stomach.
So now we have another question to ask ourselves: If a new “catastrophic and catalyzing event†happened tomorrow, and if it were immediately blamed on Iran or Venezuela or Russia or China or any of the neocons’ other bogeymen, would the public blindly support the government in a headlong rush to war or would they question what they were being told?
James I think the “catastrophic and catalyzing event†excuse has already been successfully used and is now ‘history’, as they say.
It achieved its goal, which is very much alive and well today.
The public around the world buying into the ‘national security’ bogus excuse
is proof of this.
It is my opinion that another “catastrophic and catalyzing event†is not required for something as simple as regime change in another country by the U.S.
All that’s required is the invocation of the ‘national security’ wild card and bingo, the naive public will nod their heads in approval.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.â€
Quote is attributed to Goebbels but might actually be a lie.
http://bytwerk.com/gpa/falsenaziquotations.htm
Interesting technocracy related podcast – The Truth About Autonomy – explains why we’re not even close to developing Level 5 autonomy in car driving and why robotic surgery is still not safe.
https://hbr.org/podcast/2019/05/the-truth-about-autonomy
Thanks James and thanks for the podcast link Ukdavec, cheers
Worthwhile article on US/China relationship and the breakdown of such
https://www.mi2partners.com/uschina-when-love-breaks-down
Very well written and thought-provoking. Thanks, James.