‘Hate Speech’ and ‘History’ (the era of the scare quotes)

CHAPTER SEVEN

They say in my country that the Dark Lord can govern the storms in the Mountains of Shadow that stand upon the borders of Mordor. He has strange powers and many allies.

                                                                                                                            J.R.R. Tolkein

The nonfiction book by Bob Woodward I was reading and which slightly exacerbated my terminal loneliness and nudged me further towards the brink was called Veil, The Secret Wars of the CIA. I was seeking a better handle on the CIA’s antics in Central America back in the 1980s, which is the time frame of my reinvented screen story about The Meaning of Life. [I was writing the screen adaptation of Cosmic Banditos for John Cusack’s company.]

Not only did I not get a better handle on the CIA’s antics in Central America back in the 1980s, or anything else, but my reading of Veil resulted in a rush of insight of the negative variety, a dispiriting one. Woodward’s book is so packed with lies by omission and outright lies, plus blatant perception management, that it’s safe to say that the book itself is a lie. See, I already knew a bit about the 1980s, having been around then (including in Central America) and having paid attention to what was going on while doing so. In fact, all one need to have done during the 1980s – aside from being around – would have been to be conscious, i.e., not comatose, to realize that Woodward’s book, his nonfiction book, is a lie. One example: Endings. Important, right? Woodward sees fit to end Veil, The Secret Wars of the CIA with a lie on every level you can lie in a nonfiction book. He ends it with a chapter describing a personal visit with CIA director William Casey on his deathbed (from the brain tumor).

About two sentences into this, I knew Woodward had made up the scene. Remember that when it comes to making up stuff, I know whereof I speak – the old one, you can’t bullshit a bullshitter comes to mind. (Others have opined the same regarding that scene, based on looking into dates and hospital records and the like.)

But I could have forgiven that lie, which was only about facts, i.e., Woodward’s deathbed visit to Casey having never happened. I’ve lied about facts myself. Sometimes it’s okay, sometimes not. What Woodward does, however, in the deathbed scene he made up, is to lie in subtext as well — in what is really going on — which kind of lying is a sin, for the commission of which writers will rot in Writer Hell.

Here’s the scene: Casey, on his deathbed, admits to having known about the diversion of Iran arms sales funds to the contras. The subtext here is that Casey didn’t have anything to do with the diversion. He knew about it.

Technically, Woodward wasn’t outright lying. But what he left out of his fucking narrative is that Casey knew about the diversion because he had been instrumental in planning and executing it.

A whopper of a lie by omission, no?

Another thing Woodward left out of his fucking narrative about the CIA in the 1980s involves drug trafficking by the contras. Casey and his protégé, Oliver North, didn’t just know about contra drug trafficking, they were likewise directly involved in the okaying of it,  the running of it, plus the cover-up. (In 1989, Oliver North was barred entry into Costa Rica for being a known drug trafficker.) In Veil, Woodward doesn’t even mention the contras and drug trafficking, let alone that Casey and North knew about it, let alone that they were directly involved in the okaying, running, and subsequent cover-up.* Since the contra war in Nicaragua was one of the secret wars of the CIA of the title of Woodward’s book, one would think that the CIA’s involvement in drug trafficking to finance that war would bear mention, no?

Since other journalists from that time knew about all this, how did Bob Woodward miss it? The answer is that he didn’t miss it. He just left it out of his fucking narrative, for reasons related to Woodward having turned into a shitball motherfucker toady of the powers that be.

Of Bob Woodward’s nonfiction books since All the President’s Men, at the time of my brink-hovering I had only read Veil, The Secret Wars of the CIA. Out of (morbid) curiosity I went on to read two of his subsequent books. In The Commanders, purported to be the definitive history of the U.S. military’s overthrow of Manuel Noriega, Woodward devotes one sentence to U.S. history with the Panamanian dictator. Here it is, the one sentence:

Although he once had been one of the CIA’s key Latin American assets, the administration now viewed (Noriega) as an outlaw and an enemy of U.S. interests.

In his definitive history, Bob Woodward justifies the invasion of another country by telling us… nothing whatsoever…

Do you think maybe Woodward left out some stuff about Noriega’s

* There’s a surf break in northern Costa Rica called Ollie’s Point, so named because it’s near a clandestine landing strip North’s cohorts used to run cocaine into the United States. Point being: If the ragamuffin surfers who named the break knew about North’s smuggling activities, why didn’t this legendary journalist?

337

relationship to the CIA in his fucking narrative? I mean aside from not even mentioning the CIA’s collusion with Noriega on drug trafficking (likewise to fund the contras) and aside from not even mentioning the list of treaties and international laws solemnly signed by the United States that were broken by the invasion. Nor does he mention that the unilateral aggression of invading another country without “imminent threat” (or any threat) is the same crime for which Nazis were executed at Nuremburg. Noriega being an “outlaw” (a drug trafficker) was fine and dandy as long as some of the drug money made its way to the illegal war the CIA was supporting, but when the dictator quit cooperating, colluding with the CIA in big-time criminal activities, he was now an “enemy of U.S. interests” and his country was fair game for invasion.

But my favorite lie by omission, one near and dear to my heart, comes in Woodward’s Plan of Attack – his definitive history of our conflict with Saddam Hussein. Woodward does better, wordage-wise, in this one, devoting one whole page (out of 450) to U.S. history with “The Beast of Baghdad.” A little problem, though: In his one page history Woodward skips from the 1970s to the 1990s, leaving out the 1980s. Not a word about the decade of the 1980s. Right: The decade during which the U.S. and The Beast of Baghdad were close allies and the U.S., under Reagan then Bush I, was actively and knowingly aiding and abetting The Beast of Baghdad in his crimes against humanity.

Thing is, Bob Woodward himself classifies his books, his nonfiction books, as being “somewhere between the news and the history books.”

Let’s take him on his word on that.

See if you concur: People who provide a democratic society (like what the United States is purported to be) with news (meaning journalists) should maybe question what the shitball motherfuckers in power tell them about their antics. Same goes for the writers of history books, which mold the minds of our children. [I know: My naivety is showing here. Keep in mind that I wrote this 15 or so years ago.]

Bob Woodward does not question anything the shitball motherfuckers tell him. Woodward just parrots their lies and perception management as facts. Bob Woodward’s books, his nonfiction books, which are something “between the news and the history books,” are lies.

That I had this rush of insight about the journalist who in the 1970s questioned everything and in so doing uncovered the truth, then followed the truth wherever it led, even to the toppling of a president, and who was a hero of mine, and who was now the personification of why Orwell was an optimist and hence of why the world is so fucked-up, slightly exacerbated my terminal loneliness.*

#

There’s some spectacular irony in the above, right there in the last paragraph, the bit about how Woodward questioned everything back in the 1970s, and how he was a hero of mine.

My niche a few days ago. My rig lower-middle.

Truth is [and which truth I didn’t know back in the 2000s], even back in the Watergate days Woodward was a deep-cover agent of the PTB. He came right out of Naval Intelligence (the ONI) and ‘somehow’ (the era of the scare quote) landed on a desk at the Washington Post, which is as much a PTB institution as the New York Times. See, the whole Watergate ‘scandal’ (ditto) was itself a psyop, meant to topple Dick Nixon, who had gotten out-of-hand-uppity. By the way, there never was a ‘Deep Throat’; they needed a plot device to keep the story rolling and the underground garage meetings sure worked, didn’t they? 

But, as Woodward himself says, his deceit is ‘somewhere between the news and the history books.’ Keep this in mind.

#

But we were talking about ‘history,’ right? What it, the word, means, and so forth. That there’s no mention of truth or reality or even nonfiction in our official definition of the word.  

As some of you will have noticed, and as I’ve already more or less mentioned, I’m writing this on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which is the subject of my YT-deleted video. So let’s deal with this… event… as it will be portrayed in ‘history.’ 

Most of the folks reading this know that the ‘official story’ of 9/11 is a crock of shit, so I’ll not dwell on the basics of what really happened on that day, except as it relates to ‘history,’ i.e., how the events of that day will be perceived in the future. By ‘future’ I mean years from now, say, ten years or more, but especially in the generational sense: What will your kids’ kids ‘learn’ about that day. And their kids. 

Here is where the deletion of my video is relevant, for it is an example of the erasure of history in the true Orwellian sense. If you haven’t yet done so, I ask you to view the piece now; it really does sum up the problem and on more than one level.

Have you viewed it? Good. I’m hoping that Part One tells you that the news video of Flight 175 was/is bogus. Fabricated. It’s impossible to overstate the importance of this one aspect of what really happened (as opposed to what ‘history’ will tell your kids’ kids).

Long shutter speed, camera movement, the woods at noon, the light ‘terrible.’

What the fabricated imagery means is this: The media was — at the top levels and technical levels — at the heart of the deception. (Many mid-level media personnel, including the newscasters, were useful idiots in the deceit.) I repeat: From the planning to the operation itself, the 9/11 deception was a media deception more than anything else.

Do you see why this must be true, based on the media footage (as seen in my ‘hate speech’ video)? I hope so. (If in comments you are going to disagree, make sure you are specific — referring to the video — about how I am wrong.)

And do you see how my friend’s complete switcheroo on what happened that day is relevant today, on the 20th ‘anniversary’ of the event? 

His switcheroo is ‘history.’ 

I’ve been giving a good look at the controlled opposition on Youtube and elsewhere, the so-called ‘radical right’/Trump supporters/etc., and found that their assumption re 9/11 is that ‘Osama bin Laden did it’, which is nothing short of absurd. (They also believe Obama had bin Laden killed in 2011, when it was on the news that he (bin Laden) died a decade before, in December of 2001.)

Mark Dice, the conservative funny-man, who does street interviews to show how dumb American’s are, poses his questions with the assumption that bin Laden did 9/11. He ridicules ‘liberals’ who aren’t outraged at Arabs.

This is ‘conservative truth.’ The ‘opposition.’ 

This is ‘history,’ especially for your kids’ kids. They will know no better.

Orwell was an optimist. 

Allan

Speaking of the erasure of history, recall that my comments on Rand and Ron Paul’s channels asking how it could be that a year and a half ago I published all the info on the Wuhan lab/gain of function/ U of N. Carolina/etc., and they are only talking about it now… recall that my comments were taken down within minutes. 

By the way, this post will cost me at least several subscribers, probably more. Says it all. Truly, why do I bother?

Addendum (9/12/21): This should have been much more detailed but…. I didn’t see the point. Easiest way to sum up the difference between ‘history’ and How It Really Went is to point out that there were no airliners and hence no hijackings. Oh, and damaging a building near the top cannot, by the laws of physics, cause the whole structure to disintegrate. In ten years, none of this information will exist anywhere, not in writing.