The USA’s Doll House: A Vast Tapestry of Lies and Illusions

Edward Curtin
This is an updated and revised version of the full cover-story that appeared in the important publication, garrison: The Journal of History and Deep Politics, Issue 003. Issue 004 is due out this week and I urge readers to purchase it. You will read articles there that you will find no place else, brilliant, eye-opening analyses of issues that the MSM will never touch.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”
Harold Pinter’s Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, 2005

While truth-tellers Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning sit inside jail cells and Edward Snowden lives in exile in Russia, the American people hole up in an illusionary dwelling constructed to reduce them to children afraid of the truth. Or is it the dark?

This is not new; it has been so for a very long time, but it has become a more sophisticated haunted doll’s house, an electronic one with many bells and whistles and images that move faster than the eye can see. We now inhabit a digital technological nightmare controlled by government and corporate forces intent on dominating every aspect of people’s lives.

This is true despite the valiant efforts of dissidents to use the technology for human liberation. The old wooden doll houses, where you needed small fingers to rearrange the furniture, now only need thumbs that can click you into your cell’s fantasy world. So many dwell there in the fabricated reality otherwise known as propaganda. The result is mass hallucination.

In a 1969 interview, Jim Garrison, the District Attorney of New Orleans and the only person to ever bring to trial a case involving the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, said that as a result of the CIA’s murderous coup d’état on behalf of the military-industrial-financial-media-intelligence complex that rules the country to this day, the American people have been subjected to a fabricated reality that has rendered them a nation of passive Eichmanns, who sit in their living rooms, popping pills and watching television as their country’s military machine mows down people by the millions and the announcers tell them all the things they should be afraid of, such as bacteria on cutting boards and Russian spies infiltrating their hair salons.

Garrison said:

The creation of such inanities as acceptable reality and unacceptable reality is necessary for the self-preservation of the super-state against its greatest danger: understanding on the part of the people as to what is really happening.

All factors which contribute to its burgeoning power are exaggerated.
All factors which might reveal its corrosive effect on the nation are concealed.

The result is to place the populace in the position of persons living in a house whose windows no longer reveal the outside but on which murals have been painted.

Some of the murals are frightening and have the effect of reminding the occupants of the outside menaces against which the paternal war machine is protecting them. Other murals are pleasant to remind them how nice things are inside the house.

But to live like this is to live in a doll’s house. If life has one lesson to teach us, it is that to live in illusion is ultimately disastrous.

In the doll’s house into which America gradually has been converted, a great many of our basic assumptions are totally illusory.[1]

Fifty years have disappeared behind us since the eloquent and courageous Garrison (read On the Trail of the Assassins) metaphorically voiced the truth, despite the CIA’s persistent efforts to paint him as an unhinged lunatic through its media mouthpieces.

These days they would probably just lock him up or send him fleeing across borders, as with Assange, Manning, and Snowden.

It is stunning to take a cue from his comment regarding the JFK assassination, when he suggested that one reverse the lone assassin scenario and place it in the U.S.S.R.

No American could possibly believe a tale that a former Russian soldier, trained in English and having served at a top Soviet secret military base, who had defected to the U.S. and then returned home with the help of the K.G.B., could kill the Russian Premier with a defective and shoddy rifle and then be shot to death in police headquarters in Moscow by a K.G.B. connected hit man so there would be no trial and the K.G.B. would go scot-free.

That would be a howler! So too, of course, are the Warren Commission’s fictions about Oswald.

Snowden, Assange, and Manning

If we then update this mental exercise and imagine that Snowden, Assange, and Manning were all Russian, and that they released information about Russian war crimes, political corruption, and a system of total electronic surveillance of the Russian population, and were then jailed or sent fleeing into exile as a result, who in the U.S., liberal, libertarian or conservative, would possibly believe the Russian government’s accusations that these three were criminals.

Nevertheless, Barack Obama, the transparency president, made sure to treat them as such, all the while parading as a “liberal” concerned for freedom of speech and the First Amendment. He made sure that Snowden and Manning were charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, and that Assange was corralled via false Swedish sex charges so he had to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London (a form of jail).

He brought Espionage Act prosecutions against eight people, more than all former presidents combined. He hypocritically pardoned Manning on his way out the door as if this would polish his deluded liberal legacy after making her suffer terribly through seven years of imprisonment.

He set the stage for Trump to re-jail Manning to try to get this most courageous woman to testify against Assange, which she will not do, and for the collaborationist British government to jail Assange in preparation for his extradition to the United States and a show trial. As for Snowden, he has been relegated to invisibility, good for news headlines once and for a movie, but now gone and forgotten.

Obama and Trump, arch political “enemies,” have made sure that those who reveal the sordid acts of the American murderous state are cruelly punished and silenced.

This is how the system works, and for most Americans, it is not happening. It doesn’t matter. They don’t care, just as they don’t care that Obama backed the 2009 coup d’état in Honduras that has resulted in so many deaths at the hands of U.S trained killers, and then Trump ranted about all these “non-white” people fleeing to the U.S. to escape a hell created by the U.S., as it has been doing throughout Latin America for so long.

Who does care about the truth? Has anyone even noticed how the corporate media has disappeared the “news” of all those desperate people clamouring to enter the U.S.A. from Mexico? One day they were there and in the headlines; the next day, gone. It’s called news.

The Sleepwalkers

But even though a majority of Americans have never believed the government’s explanation for JFK’s murder, they nevertheless have insouciantly gone to sleep for half a century in the doll’s house of illusions as the killing and the lies of their own government have increased over the years and any semblance of a democratic and peaceful America has gone extinct.

The fates of courageous whistle-blowers Assange, Manning, and Snowden don’t concern them. The fates of Hondurans don’t concern them. The fates of Syrians don’t concern them. The fates of Iraqis, Afghans, Yemenis, Palestinians don’t concern them. The fates of America’s victims all around the world don’t concern them. Indifference reigns.

Obviously, if you are reading this, you are not one of the sleepwalkers and are awake to the parade of endless lies and illusions and do care. But you are in a minority.

That is not the case for most Americans. When approximately 129 million people cast their votes for Donald Trump and HilIary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, you know idiocy reigns and nothing has been learned. Ditto for the votes for Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al. You can keep counting back. It is an ugly fact and sad to say.

Such a repetition compulsion is a sign of a deep sickness, and it will no doubt be repeated in the 2020 election. The systemic illusion must be preserved at all costs and the warfare state supported in its killing. It is the American way.

It is true that average Americans have not built the doll’s house; that is the handiwork of the vast interconnected and far-reaching propaganda arms of the U.S. government and their media accomplices. But that does not render them innocent for accepting decades of fabricated reality for so-called peace of mind by believing that a totally corrupt system works.

The will to believe is very powerful, as is the propaganda.

The lesson that Garrison spoke of has been lost on far too many people, even on those who occasionally leave the doll house for a walk, but who only go slightly down the path for fear of seeing too much reality and connecting too many dots. There is plain ignorance, then there is culpable ignorance, to which I shall return.

Denying Existential Freedom

One of the first things an authoritarian governing elite must do is to convince people that they are not free. This has been going on for at least forty years, ever since the Church Committee’s revelations about the CIA in the mid-seventies, including its mind-control program, MKULTRA. Everyone was appalled at the epiphany, so a different tactic was added.

Say those programs have been ended when in fact they were continued under other even deeper secret programs, and just have “experts” – social, psychological, and biological “scientists” – repeat ad infinitum that there is no longer any mind control since we now know there is no mind; it is an illusion, and it all comes down to the brain.

Biology is destiny, except in culturally diversionary ways in which freedom to choose is extolled – e.g. the latest fashions, gender identity, the best hairstyle, etc. Create and lavishly fund programs for the study of the brain, while supporting and promoting a vast expansion of pharmaceutical drugs to control people.

Do this in the name of helping people with their emotional and behavioral problems that are rooted in their biology and are beyond their control. And create criteria to convince people that they are sick and that their distress has nothing to do with the coup d’état that has rendered them “citizens” of a police state.

We have been interminably told that our lives revolve around our brains (our bodies) and that the answers to our problems lie with more brain research, drugs, genetic testing, etc. It is not coincidental that the U. S. government declared the 1990s the decade of brain research, followed up with 2000-2010 as the decade of the behavior project, and our present decade being devoted to mapping the brain and artificial intelligence, organized by the Office of Science and Technology Project and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). How convenient! George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, Trump — what a difference! But this is science and the welfare of the world. Science for idiots.

Drip by drip, here and there, in the pattern of the best propaganda, as the French sociologist Jacques Ellul says – “for propaganda is not the touch of the magic wand. It is based on slow, constant impregnation. It creates conviction and compliance through imperceptible influences that are effective only by continuous repetition”[2] – articles, books, media reports have reiterated that people are “determined” by biological, genetic, social, and psychological forces over which they have no control.

To assert that people are free in the Sartrean sense (en soir, condemned to freedom, or free will) has come to be seen as the belief of a delusional fool living in the past, a bad philosopher, an anti-scientist, a poorly informed religionist, one nostalgic for existential cafes, Gauloises, and black berets.

One who doesn’t grasp the truth since he doesn’t read the New York Times or watch CBS television. One who believes in nutty conspiracy theories.

The conventional propaganda – I almost said wisdom – created through decades-long media and academic repetition, is that we are not free.

Let me repeat: we are not free. We are not free.

Investigator reporter John Rappoport has consistently exposed the propaganda involved in the creation and expansion of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) with its pseudo-scientific falsehoods and collusion between psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry. As he correctly notes, the CIA’s MKULTRA mind-control program has morphed into modern psychiatry, both with the same objectives of disabling and controlling people by convincing them that they are not free and are in need of a chemical brain bath.[

Robert Kennedy assassin hospitalized after prison stabbing.”[4]

RFK assassin, RFK assassin, RFK assassin … all the media said the same thing, which they have been doing for fifty-two years. Their persistency endures despite all the facts that refute their disinformation and show that Senator Kennedy, who was on his way to becoming president, was murdered, like his brother John, by forces of the national security state.

Sartre and Bad Faith

Lying and dissembling are ubiquitous. Being deceived by the media liars is mirrored in people’s personal lives.

People lie and want to be deceived. They choose to play dumb, to avoid a confrontation with truth. They want to be nice (Latin, nescire, not to know, to be ignorant) and to be liked. They want to tuck themselves into a safe social and cultural framework where they imagine they will be safe. They like the doll’s house. They choose to live in what Jean Paul Sartre called bad faith (mauvaise foi).

In Existential Psychoanalysis he put it thus:

In bad faith it is from myself that I am hiding the truth. But with this ‘lie’ to myself, the one to whom the lie is told and the one who lies are one and the same person, which means that I must know in my capacity as deceiver the truth which is hidden from me in my capacity as the one deceived.

Such bad faith allows people to fabricate a second act of bad faith: that they are not responsible for their ignorance of the truths behind the government’s and corporate media’s lies and propaganda, even as the shades of the prison house ominously close around us and the world edges toward global death that could arrive in an instant with nuclear war or limp along for years of increasing suffering.

Those of us who write about the U.S. led demented wars and provocations around the world and the complementary death of democracy at home are constantly flabbergasted and discouraged by the willed ignorance of so many Americans.

For while the mainstream media does the bidding of the power elite, there is ample alternative news and analyses available on the internet from fine journalists and writers committed to truth, not propaganda. There is actually far too much truth available, which poses another problem.

But it doesn’t take a genius to learn how to research important issues and to learn how to distinguish between bogus and genuine information. It takes a bit of effort, and, more importantly, the desire to compare multiple, opposing viewpoints and untangle the webs the Web weaves.

We are awash in information (and disinformation) and both good and bad reporting, but it is still available to the caring inquirer.

The problem is the will to know. But why? Why the refusal to investigate and question; why the indifference? Stupidity? Okay, there is that. Ignorance? That too. Willful ignorance, ditto. Laziness, indeed. Careerism and ideology? For certain.

Upton Sinclair put it mildly when he said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on not understanding it.” Difficult? No, it’s almost impossible.

But then there are many very intelligent people who have nothing to lose and yet adamantly refuse to entertain alternative possibilities to the reigning orthodoxies that have them in their grip.

As do many others, I know many such people who will yes me to death and then never fully research issues. They will remain in limbo or else wink to themselves that what may be true couldn’t be true. They close down.

This is a great dilemma and frustration faced by those who seek to convince people to take an active part in understanding what is really going on in the world today, especially as the United States wages war across the globe, threatens Russia, China, and Iran, among many others, and expands and modernizes its nuclear weapons capabilities.

As for Assange, Manning, and Snowden, their plight matters not a whit.

In fact, they have been rendered invisible inside the doll’s house, except as the murals on the windows flashback their images as threats to the occupants, Russian monsters out to eat them up.

As the great poet Constantine Cavafy wrote long ago in his poem “Waiting for the Barbarians” and they never come: “Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians? Those people were a kind of solution.”

Then again, for people like U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, who knows the Russian barbarians have and will come again, life must be terrifying as he tries so manfully to bar the gates. The Russians have been the American solution in this fairy tale for so long that it’s hard for many Americans to believe another story.

The Two-Headed Monster

On the one hand, there is the massive propaganda apparatus operated by American intelligence agencies in conjunction with their media partners.

On the other, there is the human predilection for untruth and illusions, the sad need to be comforted and to submit to greater “authority,” gratefully to accept the myths proffered by one’s masters. This tendency applies not just to the common people, but even more so to the intellectual classes, who act as though they are immune.

Erich Fromm, writing about Germans and Hitler, but by extension people everywhere, termed this the need to “escape from freedom,” since freedom conjures up fears of vertiginous aloneness and the need to decide, which in turn evokes the fear of death.[5] There are also many kinds of little deaths that precede the final one: social, career, money, familiar, etc., that are used to keep people in the doll’s house.

Fifty years ago, the CIA coined the term “conspiracy theory” as a weapon to be used to dismiss the truths expressed by critics of its murder of President Kennedy, and those of Malcolm X, MLK, and RFK. All the media echoed the CIA line.

While they still use the term to dismiss and denounce, their control of the mainstream media is so complete today that every evil government action is immediately seconded, whether it be the lies about the attacks of September 11, 2001, the wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iran, etc., the coups disguised as color revolutions in Ukraine, Venezuela, Bolivia, Hong Kong, the downing of the Malaysian jetliner there, drone murders, the Iranian “threat,” the looting of the American people by the elites, alleged sarin gas attacks in Syria, the anti-Russia bashing and the Russia-gate farce, the “criminals” Assange, Manning, Snowden – everything.

The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Fox News, the Washington Post, CNN, NPR, etc. – all are stenographers for the deep state.

So much of the ongoing propaganda travels under the banner of “the war on terror,” which is, of course, an outgrowth of the attacks of September 11, 2001, appropriately named and constantly reinforced as 9/11 in a wonderful example of linguistic mind-control: a constant emergency reminder to engender anxiety, depression, panic, and confusion, four of the symptoms that lead the DSM “experts” and their followers to diagnose and drug individuals.

The term 9/11 was first used in the New York Times on September 12, 2001 by Bill Keller, the future Times’ editor and Iraq war cheerleader. Just a fortuitous coincidence, of course.

Jacques Ellul on Propaganda

Jacques Ellul has argued convincingly that modern propaganda in a technological mass society is more complicated than the state and media lying and deceiving the population.

He argues that propaganda meets certain needs of modern people and therefore the process of deceit is reciprocal. The modern person feels lost, powerless, and empty.

Ellul says, “He realizes that he depends on decisions over which he has no control, and that realization drives him to despair.” But he can’t live in despair; desires that life be meaningful; and wants to feel he lives in a world that makes sense.

He wants to participate and have opinions that suggest he grasps the flow of events. He doesn’t so much want information, but value judgments and preconceived positions that provide him with a framework for living. Ellul wrote the following in 1965 in his classic book Propaganda:

The majority prefers expressing stupidities to not expressing any opinion: this gives them the feeling of participation. For they need simple thoughts, elementary explanations, a ‘key’ that will permit them to take a position, and even readymade opinions….The man who keeps himself informed needs a framework….the more complicated the problems are, the more simple the explanations must be; the more fragmented the canvas, the simpler the pattern; the more difficult the question, the more all-embracing the solution; the more menacing the reduction of his own worth, the greater the need for boosting his ego. All this propaganda – and only propaganda – can give him.[6]

Another way of saying this is that people want to be provided with myths to direct them to the “truth.” But such so-called truth has been preconceived within the overarching myth provided by propaganda, and while it satisfies people’s emotional need for coherence, it also allows them to think of themselves as free individuals arriving at their own conclusions, which is a basic function of good propaganda.

In today’s mass technological society, it is essential that people be convinced that they are free-thinking individuals acting in good faith. Then they can feel good about themselves as they lie and act in bad faith.

Culpable Ignorance

It is widely accepted that political leaders and the mass media lie and dissemble regularly, which, of course, they do. That is their job in an oligarchy. Today we are subjected to almost total, unrelenting media and government propaganda.

Depending on their political leanings, people direct their anger toward politicians of parties they oppose and media they believe slant their coverage to favor the opposition.

Trump is a liar. No, Obama is a liar. And Hillary Clinton. No, Fox News. Ridiculous! – it’s CNN or NBC.

And so on and so forth in this theater of the absurd that plays out within a megaplex of mainstream media propaganda, where there are many shows but one producer, whose overall aim is to engineer the consent of all who enter, while setting the different audiences against each other. It is a very successful charade that evokes name-calling from all quarters.

In other words, for many people their opponents lie, as do other people, but not them. This is as true in personal as well as public life. Here the personal and the political converge, despite protestations to the contrary. Dedication to truth is very rare.

But there is another issue with propaganda that complicates the picture further. People of varying political persuasions can agree that propaganda is widespread. Many people on the left, and some on the right, would agree with Lisa Pease’s statement in her book on the RFK assassination, A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, that “the way the CIA took over America in the 1960s is the story of our time.”[7]

That is also what Garrison thought when he spoke of the doll’s house.

If that is so, then today’s propaganda is anchored in the events of the 1960s, specifically the infamous government assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, and RFK, the truth of which the CIA has worked so hard to conceal. In the fifty or so years since, a vast amount of new information has made it explicitly clear that these murders were carried out by elements within the U.S. government, and were done so to silence the voices of four charismatic leaders who were opposed to the American war machine and the continuation of the Cold War.

To turn away from this truth and to ignore its implications can only be described as an act of bad faith and culpable ignorance, or worse. But that is exactly what many prominent leftists have done. Then to compound the problem, they have done the same with the attacks of September 11, 2001.

One cannot help thinking of what the CIA official Cord Meyer called these people in the 1950s: “the compatible left.” He felt that effective CIA propaganda, beside the need for fascist-minded types such as Allen Dulles and James Jesus Angleton, depended on “courting” leftists and liberal into its orbit. For so many of the compatible left, those making a lot of money posing as opponents of the ruling elites but often taking the money of the super-rich, the JFK assassination and the truth of September 11, 2001 are inconsequential, never to be broached, as if they never happened, except as the authorities say they did. By ignoring these most in-your-face events with their eyes wide shut, a coterie of influential leftists has done the work of Orwell’s crime-stop and has effectively succeeded in situating current events in an ahistorical and therefore misleading context that abets U.S. propaganda. They truncate the full story to present a narrative that distorts the truth.

Without drawing a bold line connecting the dots from November 22, 1963 up to the present, a critique of the murderous forces ruling the United States is impossible.

Among the most notable of such failures are Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Howard Zinn, and Chris Hedges, men idolized by many liberals and leftists. And there are many others who have been deeply influenced by Chomsky, Cockburn, and Zinn and follow in their footsteps.

Their motivations remain a mystery, but there is no doubt their refusals have contributed to the increased power of those who control the doll’s house. To know better and do as they have is surely culpable ignorance.

From Bad to Worse

Ask yourself: Has the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks, increased or decreased in the past half century? Who is winning the battle, the people or the ruling elites?

The answer is obvious.

It matters not at all whether the president has been Trump or Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, Barack Obama or George H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter.

The power of the national security state has grown under them all and everyone is left to moan and groan and wonder why. All the while the doll’s house has become more and more sophisticated and powerful with the growth of electronic media and cell phone usage.

The new Cold War now being waged against Russia and China is a bi-partisan affair, as is the confidence game played by the secret government intended to create a fractured consciousness in the population.

This fragmentation of consciousness prevents people from grasping the present from within because so many suffer from digital dementia as their attention hops from input to output in a never-ending flow of mediated, disembodied data.

Trump and his followers on one side of the coin; liberal Democrats on the other. The latter, whose bibles are the New York Times, NPR, The Washington Post, Democracy Now, The Guardian, etc. – can only see propaganda when they can attribute it to Trump or the Russians. The former see everything as a liberal conspiracy to take down Trump.

The liberals have embraced a new McCarthyism and allied themselves with the deep-state forces that they were once allegedly appalled by, including Republicans. Their embrace of the formerly despised war-monger John Bolton in the impeachment trial of Trump is a laughable case in point, if it weren’t so depraved and slimy.

It surely isn’t the bloodthirsty policies of the Trump administration or his bloviating personality, for these liberals allied themselves with Obama’s anti-Russian rhetoric, his support for the U.S. orchestrated neo-fascist Ukrainian coup, his destruction of Libya, his wars of aggression across the Middle East, his war on terror, his trillion-dollar nuclear weapons modernization, his enjoyment of drone killing, his support for the coup in Honduras, his embrace of the CIA and his CIA Director John Brennan, his prosecution of whistle-blowers, etc.

The same media that served the CIA so admirably over the decades became the liberals’ paragons of truth. It’s enough to make your head spin, which is the point.

Spin left, spin right, spin all around, because we have possessed your mind in this spectacular image game where seeming antinomies are the constancy of the same through difference, all the presidents coined by the same manufacturer who knows that coin-flipping serves to entertain the audience eager for hope and change.

This is how the political system works to prevent change. It is why little has changed for the better over half a century and the American empire has expanded.

While it may be true that there are signs that this American hegemony is coming to an end (I am not convinced), I would not underestimate the power of the U.S. propaganda apparatus to keep people docile and deluded in the doll’s house, despite the valiant efforts of independent truth-tellers.

How, for example, is it possible for so many people to see such a stark difference between the despicable Trump and the pleasant Obama? They are both puppets dancing to their masters’ tunes – the same masters.

They both front for the empire.

In his excellent book, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State, Jeremy Kuzmarov assiduously documents Obama’s crimes, including his CIA background.[8]

As Glen Ford, of Black Agenda Report, says in the first sentence of his forward, “Barack Obama may go down in presidential history as the most effective-and deceptive-imperialist of them all.” Read the book if you want all the details. They form an overwhelming indictment of the con artist and war criminal that is irrefutable.

But will those who worship at the altar of Barack Obama read it? Of course not.

Just as those deluded ones who voted for the reality television flim-flam man Trump will ignore all the accumulating evidence that they’ve been had and are living under a president who is Obama’s disguised doppelganger, carrying out the orders of his national security state bosses. This, too, is well documented, and no doubt another writer will arise in the years to come to put it between a book’s covers.

Yet even Jeremy Kuzmarov fails to see the link between the JFK assassination and Obama’s shilling for the warfare state. His few references to Kennedy are all negative, suggesting he either is unaware of what Kennedy was doing in the last year of his life and why he was murdered by the CIA, or something else. He seems to follow Noam Chomsky, a Kennedy hater, in this regard.

I point out this slight flaw in an excellent book because it is symptomatic of certain people on the left who refuse to complete the circle.

If, as Kuzmarov, argues, Obama was CIA from the start and that explains his extraordinarily close relationship with the CIA’s John Brennan, an architect, among many things, of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program, and that Obama told CIA Director Panetta that the CIA would “get everything it wanted,” and the CIA killed JFK, well, something’s amiss, an enormous gap in the analysis of our current condition.

The doll’s house is a mind game of extraordinary proportions, orchestrated by the perverted power elites that run the show and ably abetted by their partners in the corporate mass media, even some in the alternative press who mean well but are confused, or are disinformation agents in the business of sowing confusion together with their mainstream Operation Mockingbird partners. It is a spectacle of open secrecy, in which the CIA has effectively suckered everyone into a game of to-and-fro in which only they win.

Our only hope for change is to try and educate as many people as possible about the linkages between events that started with the CIA coup d’état in Dallas on November 22, 1963, continued through the killings of Malcolm X, MLK, RFK and on through so much else up to September 11, 2001, and have brought us to the deeply depressing situation we now find ourselves in where truthtellers like Julian Assange, Chelsey Manning, and Edward Snowden are criminalized, while the real perpetrators of terrible evils roam free.

Yes, we must educate but also agitate for the release of this courageous trio. Their freedom is ours; their imprisonment is ours, whether we know it or not. The walls are closing in.

Lisa Pease is so right: “The way the CIA took over America in the 1960s is the story of our time, and too few recognize this. We can’t fix a problem we can’t even acknowledge exists.”

If we don’t follow her advice, we will be toyed with like dolls for a long time to come. There will be no one else to blame.

[1] Interview with Jim Garrison, District Attorney of Parish of Orleans, Louisiana, May 27, 1969 at https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/garrison-interview-05-27-1969-trans.pdf

[2] Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, Jacques Ellul, Vintage Books, 1973, pp. 17-18

[3] https//blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/11/cia-mind-control-morphed-into-psychiatry/

[4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sirhan-sirhan-stabbed-robert-f-kennedy-assassin-hospitalized-after-prison-stabbing-2019-08-31/

[5] Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm, Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1941

[6] Ellul, op cit., p. 140

[7] A Lie Too Big To Fail, Lisa Pease, Feral House, 2018, pp.500-501

[8] Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State, Jeremy Kuzmarov, Clarity Press, 2019

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Welcome to the Truman Show.


1. William Blum does a more than adequate run down of American Exceptionalism:

2.American Exceptionalism, the illusion, has been known to large swathes of the American community.

3. And how American politics may have been changed forever if this man was still alive and saved us all from Hillary Clinton.

4.Comedians like George Carlin, have always pulled back the curtain on the illusion. Jimmy Dore is leading the way……..dare you look?


The murder of MJK should always be mentioned when the murders of Malcolm X, JFK, MLK, RFK are discussed. The deep state could not add the murder of Edward Kennedy, so they murdered MJK and framed Edward. His choice was between defending himself and appearing crazy or begging for forgiveness for his failings.

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

Don’t forget John Lennon, who the Rightwing psychopaths hated with a fury.

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill

I have read quite bit around this view to admit that the waters are very murky around the Chappaquidick story. In due course, Hollywood got in on the act and did a hatchet job on Ted which rather confirms (for me) that there is more to the story than we are led to believe.

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill

I have just remembered my father’s deep disappointment, as if to say that here was our last best hope gone. I have the same reaction now whenever I read who is the latest recipient of the JFK “Profiles in Courage” award, awarded by Caroline Kennedy.; past recipients include GHW Bush no less. How is it possible that Caroline Kennedy can ‘act’ in such a way – but perhaps she has no choice? I keep nominating Tulsi Gabbard or James Douglass but somehow they never get a mention…


The presence of the congenital conartists, psychopaths, in the bamboozling described above needs to be examined. Today i would say that the triad of the NSA, FBI and the fusion centers (at least the one affiliated with the NYPD) are essentially run by human adelpho parasites/psychopaths. (They know who i am and have made numerous assassination attempts.) https://pathwhisperer.info

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

‘Even paranoiacs have real enemies’.


Ah, well. Who’s my target audience? Psychotic scared rabbits, who have to believe they live in a world safe for scared rabbits, or, my fellow researchers/writers who need to protect themselves and in particular recognize and believe the first few attacks?

Hugh O’Neill
Hugh O’Neill

Perhaps if Edward Curtin had referred instead to the works of William Pepper, then your sense of integrity might be less affronted.

Eric Zuesse

Though the literary style of this article is effective, the author here displays unreliable methodology and argument. I agree with the author’s basic [point but cannot accept his argumentation and ‘evidence’ in it, which are low quality. For example:

“Many people on the left, and some on the right, would agree with Lisa Pease’s statement in her book on the RFK assassination, A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, that “the way the CIA took over America in the 1960s is the story of our time.”[7]”

That links to this book: https://www.amazon.com/Lie-Too-Big-Fail-Assassination/dp/1627310703?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-ffnt-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1627310703

Here is the opening of the reader-review that was the most-clicked as being “helpful” in evaluating that book:

75 customer reviews

Top Reviews
George Bailey
3.0 out of 5 stars Read with caution
January 12, 2019
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
My two cents, so far:

I have been looking forward to the release of this book because I have been a fan of Lisa Pease’s work for many years. However, while just browsing around the book before I read it from start to finish, I have come across two inexplicable errors. She has Jesse Unruh sitting in the back seat of the patrol car with Sirhan when he was transported to Rampart station (pg 23). Among all the LAPD files, FBI files, Grand Jury and trial testimony, and the numerous books and articles written about this event, I have not seen one account which puts Jesse Unruh in the back seat. This is not a trivial error. The details of the transport of Sirhan from the Ambassador Hotel to Rampart station were important enough to warrant the prosecution calling three witnesses at trial to cover it.

She also repeatedly relies upon the statements of alleged witness, Marcus McBroom. It can be easily demonstrated that McBroom is a liar, having made repeated false statements. If McBroom’s statements were true, then he would be a very important witness, so it is essential for anyone doing in-depth research on this event to check out McBroom’s claims. If one does that, it becomes clear McBroom is not being truthful.

*** EDIT 01/19/19: I will eventually post some thoughts in a comment to this review about the author’s treatment of Marcus McBroom (see comment 36). This is a serious error that raises questions about her investigative process. It incorporates flawed analysis, poor judgment, and at the very least, a biased presentation of the evidence, if not a deliberate attempt to deceive readers. Marcus McBroom is a liar, he is not credible, period. I challenge anyone to make a case to the contrary – it cannot be done. The case Lisa Pease tries to make has internal contradictions which she either ignores or cannot see, and omissions which could only have been deliberate. That being the case, one has to ask where else has she made such errors in this book? *** End of EDIT

*** EDIT 01/16/19: A third error I want to point out is the author has Kennedy’s “unofficial bodyguard” waiting “stage right” as Kennedy finishes speaking to the crowd in the Embassy ballroom. I know of no evidence to support that assertion. All of the trial testimony I have seen and at least two broadcast news cameras have the bodyguard, Bill Barry, stage left. Since Lisa Pease is a writer of screenplays, I must assume she knows the meaning of “stage left” and “stage right” and uses those terms carefully to make it clear to which side of the stage she refers. Since there was a last minute change of plan regarding where Senator Kennedy would go after finishing his speech, and this change led him directly to the assassin (ambush), it is basic investigative practice to ascertain the details of who made the change and why, and where were Kennedy’s security people before and after. Again, in my view this is an important detail. *** End of EDIT

*** EDIT 1/27/19: Unfortunately, the more I read, the more problems I find in this book. Lisa Pease relies heavily on eyewitness interviews and testimony to support her narrative. The eyewitness evidence in this case is difficult to sort out because there is a lot of it and it is rife with problems. In many cases, interrogators did an inadequate job of asking questions needed to clarify important details. There is also considerable contradictory testimony among witnesses, even some who were in the same place at the same time. Many witnesses’ stories changed over time, and there is substantial evidence that witnesses’ accounts were influenced by other witnesses and media reports. I am finding that Lisa Pease has provided misleading representations of some eyewitness accounts by including testimony that fits her agenda and leaving out that which does not. I am going to have to put the details in the comments to this thread otherwise this review is going to get way too long (if it isn’t already). Witnesses, George Green and Booker Griffin, are two more examples of the author’s deliberate attempt to deceive her readers. (See comments 37 and 38) *** End of EDIT

How does Lisa Pease research the RFK assassination for decades and make such errors? For me, this creates the problem of no longer being able to trust Lisa. I am now going to have to vet everything in this book that I have not already researched in detail. …

Hugh O’Neill
Hugh O’Neill

Eric. Whilst George Bailey may be able to find fault with elements of Lisa Pease’s argument, I would suggest that such nit picking over minutiae has an ulterior motive. Both you and Mr. Bailey claim you agree with the main contention that the assassination of RFK was not as it was claimed by the state apparatus. That surely should be sufficient motive for you to demand the release of Sirhan. However, we all know that won’t happen, because that might be an admission that he was just another Patsy, and that The assassination of RFK was preemptive Coup d’état. Mr. Bailey should spend more time with his big rabbit friend Harvey.

Eric Zuesse

No, Bailey didn’t do ‘nit picking’, and your reasoning throughout is poor. My reader-comment included just the opening of Bailey’s destruction of Pease’s credibility, honesty and logic. You miss the entire point and then you fail even to look at his review to see the rest of it. I never refer (other than critically) to a source that isn’t trustworthy, and I also never link to an article that does. I appreciate and respect Edward Curtin’s skillful use of metaphors and of certain other literary devices, and I almost invariably agree with his articles on their basis viewpoints, but if I linked in my articles to sources such as that, I would be ashamed, because a nonfiction writer’s fundamental obligation to the audience is to provide only trustworthy sources and links to same for the reader to check out on that person’s own.

As regards your “That surely should be sufficient motive for you to demand the release of Sirhan,” I again say no, because I maintain public silence on all matters regarding which I do not yet know sufficiently solid and conclusive evidence to state a position. What I am objecting to in Curtin’s article here is that the methodology is shoddy, and I certainly wouldn’t want to do the same sort of thing myself. However, I can at least say this: I do not trust the U.S. Government’s verdicts or public positions on any assassinations or anything that has international implications. The U.S. Government ever since 26 July 1945 has been a veritable lying machine controlled by its Deep State, no authentic democracy. Consequently, I love some of the literary devices in Curtin’s article presenting the same general viewpoint that I hold. If I cited as sources everything that agrees with me, my articles would be trashy, as almost all are. The problem with articles such as that is that they can preach effectively only to the choir of same-0believers, and cannot persuade intelligent readers to join the choir. I don’t care how many fools there are out there — I am not trying to persuade them; I am no propagandist, not even if propaganda is the only thing that publishers publish. If I won’t maintain my integrity, what is left? Whatever it is, I don’t want it.

Hugh O’Neill
Hugh O’Neill

Eric. Let’s suppose that Bailey is legit, and that he has categorically proved that Pease is a fantasist, liar and has invented evidence to slander and accuse of murder most foul those paragons of morality, the CIA and FBI. Where does this all lead to? Were we foolish to imagine that RFK was not just the hapless victim of a random act of violence and that we should just get over it?
Suppose Edward Curtin had instead referred to the works of Sirhan’s Attorney, William Pepper? Pepper is no fantasist and has a reasonable grasp of legal procedure and what constitutes evidence.
I am no lawyer, but surely all the defence has to show is that the prosecution of Sirhan was shonky? I would reserve the nit picking of evidence Until such time as the CIA is the accused. You can indulge your sense of integrity then.

Eric Zuesse

I am all in favor of re-doing the ‘justice’ on all of those assassinations, and more, but I am not in favor of assertions as to precisely whom the perpetrators were or weren’t. It WASN’T “justice.” Justice needs to be done. I am inclined to think that some of America’s top leaders should be assigned the top guilt in those matters. But maybe none were, in any. (I would be shocked if the latter were the case.)

Eric Zuesse

You want these matters re-tried. So do I. Obviously, Curtin does. That is not the issue here.


The U.S. Government ever since 26 July 1945 has been a veritable lying machine controlled by its Deep State, no authentic democracy.

That’s the Potsdam Declaration day drawn up by Truman, Churchill and Stalin. The last invaded Japan 2 weeks after.
President Truman championed civil rights in the US and in its military plus retired poor: not the fingerprints of a Deep State puppet president.

Wasn’t the US take over ~ one and a half decade later on?

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

Truman was a puppet of the Zionassties who bankrolled him.

harry stotle
harry stotle

‘How does Lisa Pease research the RFK assassination for decades and make such errors?’ – as you acknowledge yourself, Eric, the thrust of Edward Curtin’s article transcends this level of minutiae.
The anomalies you raise may be an important factor when assessing the credibility of the Kennedy book but add little to understanding how or why certain realities are created so as to manipulate the public mood.

I’ve just finished the Netflix doc’ ‘Who killed Malcolm X’.

One of themes explored in the film is the importance Malcolm X attached to black communities unlearning the false consciousness imposed on them at school, in the workplace, by the police force and of course by the media and political class.
As an aside there was no serious attempt to investigate his assassination while two innocent men lost 20 years of their lives in prison.

Isn’t this what the Dolls House is really about: mass duping of the public for nefarious economic ends by an elite that holds a vice like grip on power – the aftermath of Kennedy and Malcolm X’s death are just two examples of how this corrupt apparatus works?

Edward Curtin

I am far from “ashamed” by my “low quality” argument, as you call it, nor by my reference to Lisa Pease’s excellent book, A Lie Too Big to Fail. What I find particularly strange with your criticism, Eric, is that in an article of 6,000 words I mention Pease’s book twice in passing but you find a need to trash my logic, argument, and “unreliable methodology.” I thought it was just academics who misuse that word methodology to criticize others. It does have that ring of seriousness, though, erroneously serious. Let me assure you I don’t use “methodology,” so it can’t be “unreliable.” Perhaps you meant my method or logic.

Lisa Pease has ably defended herself against the criticisms made by the anonymous George Bailey of it’s a wonderful life fictional fame (see the comments with the amazon review). Good researchers love anonymous sources, don’t they. I hope I didn’t reference any in my article. Our mysterious reviewer George Bailey says it “is not a trivial error” that Pease mistakenly puts Jesse Unruh in the back seat of the LA Police car with Sirhan Sirhan rather the the front seat. Really? Not trivial? That’s funny. He accuses Pease of a “deliberate attempt to deceive her readers.” He uses the old rhetorical trick of opening with “I have been a fan of Lisa Pease’s for many years, and then he slams her. Oh, Mr. Bailey, suddenly you have become a disgruntled anonymous fan. It’s a not so wonderful life for disenchanted lovers, iis it? How shall I reference your quote at the end of my comment here? *Anonymous reviewer …..and erstwhile fan of Lisa Pease from, Bedford Falls – not a joke (check this on amazon)* Who’s putting on whom?

Pease has admitted a few mistakes in a book of over 500 pages. Such mistakes are quite normal. Her overall point is rock solid, however, and that is what Bailey and you, Eric, are disparaging for reasons only the two of you know, just as you are doing with my article. I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on my typo in the spelling of en soi as en soir. I’m sorry if you were deceived. It wasn’t deliberate.

Eric Zuesse

It is because I fervently want all of the 1960s assassinations to be be totally retried that I was disappointed to see any questionable source cited for supporting this view. Your central allegations, however, are the ones that directly relate to the title of your article. I also 100% agree with that. However, yet again, I see only speculative “support” being cited to back it up. I have no respect for professional philosophers, nor for psychoanalysts. The only things that can be cited in support of any theory are empirical findings and this includes proven demonstrable and unquestionable historical facts, such as would reasonably be accepted by a criminal court as having been proven to have occurred. Other than that, there is no sound legal-forensic case regarding the history of the matter nor of the interpretation of it to be found in your article. I would LOVE to be able to say that not only do I agree with the theory you present but I accept each and every factual allegation and item of evidence that you have presented to back it up. I started out reading your engagingly written presentation hoping to be persuaded by it but ended up wondering “Is that the caliber of ‘evidence’ he’s building this case upon?” and concluding “Yes, sadly, it is.” I quickly became very disappointed.

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill

Eric. We are now almost 52 years from the assassination of RFK. Much of the crucial evidence you claim to desire has been lost (deliberately destroyed) and key witnesses have died. Your passion for justice might sound more convincing if you could categorically provide witnesses and testimony as to your concerns somewhat closer to the time of the incident. When precisely did you see the Damascene light and suspect that not was all as it was claimed to be? St. Peter is taking notes in his big book…

Eric Zuesse

You are correct. But I didn’t say it would have to be presented in a court of law. It could be done outside that, but not like this:
I propose that historians of one of those assassinations — each one having a different theory of the case on it — would select a widely respected prosecutor to investigate all the previously established evidence on it; and, then, a different widely respected prosecutor and widely respected criminal defense-attorney would be selected and widely respected appropriate judge selected, in order to assemble a trial adhering to U.S. laws, and the whole process being filmed by a cracker-jack director, in order to produce a documentary, funded as a movie to be presented as a profit-making venture, but with volunteer contributions by associated nonprofits; that is, by nonprofits in the related areas of interest. Probably the JFK assassination would be the one to start with, especially because it was the most-clearly mega-historic.

This would be of interest to historians, and to all who are concerned about geostrategy of the past 60 years, as well as to political scientists who write about the American system of government during that period of time. But it would be funded by the commercial interest that the public would have in the entire enterprise.

If Hollywood is too corrupt to be interested in doing this, then maybe Oliver Stone might have contacts outside the U.S. who might. I don’t know how to contact him.

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill

Eric. In one sense, I love your idea and I am sure Oliver Stone would embrace it if he thought it might make any difference. He was vilified for his film JFK in which he re-played the Jim Garrison court case, which film made a huge difference and prompted new laws of disclosure, all of which the CIA simply ignores. The CIA are not just the Unspeakable, they are the Untouchables – in the Elliot Ness sense (moral lepers would be another meaning). For a “widely respected” journalist, you come across here as being touchingly naive:
“…a widely respected prosecutor to investigate all the previously established evidence on it; and, then, a different widely respected prosecutor and widely respected criminal defense-attorney would be selected and widely respected appropriate judge selected…”
Gimme a break. Wasn’t it the fact that the “widely respected” Earl Warren was named the eponymous Warren Commission precisely to give it the veneer of “integrity” whilst the whole show was run by the “widely-respected” – but recently sacked for treachery – one Allen Dulles, that pipe-smoking, avuncular old mass murderer.
However, there is no such thing as an original idea. Once upon a long time ago, didn’t the old BBC stage a re-trial of Lee Harvey Oswald and found him innocent. One doubts whether the BBC could ever be so honest ever again; Aunty Ben was caught with her knickers down when she reported the collapse of the “Salomon Brothers Building” (WTC7) about 25 minutes too early. The BBC also aired a series entitled “The men who killed Kennedy” and astonishingly, a documentary entitled “Dead in the Water” about the attempted sinking of the USS Liberty. Now it is they who are “dead in the water” their knickers gone for a burton, after their part played in the blaming of Assad for the CW attack on Douma and their toxic attacks on the disgruntled former employees (aka “Whistle Blowers”) of the OPCW.
Eric, you either believe in fairies, or you are being more than a tad disingenuous. Fool or knave? But who am I to judge? Nothing is incorruptible, and you have probably already been got at, in which case you have my deepest sympathy. Even Jesus asked for the chalice to pass his lips.

Eric Zuesse

Hugh, Earl Warren was not appointed by independent outside historians. He was appointed by JFK’s successor LBJ on the advice of his selected AG Nicholas Katzenbach who wrote to his boss “The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large.” Neither Katzenbach nor LBJ was independent of the matter, nor historian, nor outside the Government. Your suggestion that what I have proposed is at all similar to what the Warren Commission was, is laughable. I didn’t read further in your comment.

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill

Eric. You do me too much honour by engaging in the correspondence because I am a complete nobody. Although I have a Master’s degree in (Nautical) History, I am not beholden to any academic institute, nor publication, nor hidden agenda. I am that pesky voice in the wilderness.
We actually agree 100% on the fundamental point i.e. the corruption of the Warren Commission. We have more that unites us than divides us. We can both agree that the Establishment had clearly decided to find LHO the lone nut assassin. From that alone, we have sufficient proof to satisfy all the angels, saints and scholars that the framing of LHO as Patsy was planned long before the assassination and the cover-up continues to this day. Because of 57 years of criminal concealment, we can easily infer a ‘modus operandi’ with which to connect the assassinations of MLK and RFK (throw in Patrice Lumumba and Dag Hammarskjold for good measure?).
But I have to ask, what would be the frigging point of a docu-drama panel of widely-respected historians (all easily controlled) to reach a verdict? If they say “Guilty” it would be ignored. If they say “Innocent” it will be dismissed. Pointless distraction from the crimes happening before our very eyes!
If you really meant what you would like me to believe (though God knows why) then one possible avenue to pursue would be the indictment and prosecution of the 3 authors of the ‘academic’ paper “Catastrophic Terrorism”. Can you not see that “widely-respected” historian and academic, Philip Zelikow was micro-manager of the so-called “9/11 Commission”- another Allen Dulles i.e. the fox in charge of the investigation of the murder of the chickens. Once Zelikow squeals, he brings the rest tumbling down (in my fantasy world).
Finally, was not Arthur Schlesinger a widely-respected historian? What about other “widely-respected” historians like Dallek, Beschloss, Brinkley, Goodwin, Caro, Kinzer etc. (My apologies to hordes unmentioned).


I am a complete nobody.

Can we have a few more of your kind here please?

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill

Very kind of you, A. Perhaps the Meek shall inherit the Earth, what’s left of it? The motto for Nobodies:
“Nemo me impune lacessit”. Or, “J’Accuse”.

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

Were you getting lonely?

Hugh O’Neill
Hugh O’Neill

Yes, until Ed himself joined in, then Harry. Eric has done a runner now, feeling either exposed or outnumbered.


“Oliver Stone might have contacts outside the U.S. who might. I don’t know how to contact him.” Try IMDbPro→Agent, etc.

Joseph Olson

“Breathtaking: Solving Nuclear 9/11” > “Exposing NIST Jenga Game” > VeteransToday(.)com > finally, WTC vaporized declassified, arrest the REAL terrorists


Great article and you’re right about most of it…it’s been planned much longer than many realize. One may look to America the Beautiful to see that….For Amber waves of Grain. Amber means electron in Greek! America, America God shed His grace on the. What’s the definition of shed again? To rid oneself of temporarily or permanently as superfluous or unwanted. It all started back in the garden of Eden. The fruit Adam and Eve ate from was the tree of knowledge of good & evil. Central Intelligence Agency, ran by the Pentagon. Look into Project Paperclip when we brought the evil Nazi scientists in our own military and stacked the roster with a whose who of lucifarian satanists and you may start to get it. Normally wikipedia pages are whitewashed. Look at Jack Parson, Manhattan Project and one of the key people in creation of NASA, friends with Scientology founder, L Ron Hubbard, and you will see that they’re all satan worshipers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_(rocket_engineer)#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_the_Babalon_Working:_1945.E2.80.9346 Aliens are demons. Both are real. The virus ravaging the world now is a bioweapon that has HIV components. We’ll learn, likely later in the play, that the virus and vaccine have alien DNA. WHO and the governments of the world already have the agreements in place to bring about world government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYkeAZwN2N8 There is no stopping it either, not only is what to come from the Antichrist, but its also judgement sent from God! Many of you will roll your eyes, that’s also from God. It’s all in the Bible and what was described in the book of Revelations has already started…debatable of where we’re at. In any event, the world as we have known it is over. And YES, it was all an illusion- exept MOST IMPORTANTLY- our own SINS, our choices, words, how we treat other people, etc.


JFK threatened to make peace with Khrushchev, something that would be fatal for the Atlantic Anglo military – industrial complex. His assassination was an experiment by the CIA to see if they could get away with a domestic coup d’etat. Turned out to be easy-peasy.
For their official job they could even fail many times: no clue about the Chinese delivery of an atom bomb design plus plutonium to Pakistan in 1982, the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 or the September 11 2001 attack in the US without being cut back or replaced. 9/11 became their easy launchpad to make the takeover “official” and permanent: the new department of Deep State (Homeland) security. The Senate, Congress, Judiciary and MSM rolled over like nine pins.
The US run from Fairfax county + Lower Manhattan over Washington D.C.

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

JFK threatened Israel if they continued their A-bomb production. He was keen on ending the control of the US economy by the cabal of private banks (nearly all Jewish controlled) misleadingly called the ‘Federal’ Reserve. He was sure asking for the Kidon treatment, and Israel much preferred LBJ, a total stooge, as his reaction to the USS Liberty atrocity showed.


The notion exists and has been ushered countless times before and Pink Floyd had it in a song, too:

‘The better it gets – the better it gets.’ Riding the Gravy Train. And how it happens quite so often in my brain, an alternative version offers itself with timely accuracy. It is also what Your writing inspires, of course, but for various reasons there. The first one is, that one can look at all my posts over the years and find out that I have repeatedly pointed to this beautiful 800 pound Silver Back Girl in the Tiny House of the American Psyche. But then again, I am also a ‘Space Farmress, Huntress and Gathress’ and consider what happens as that what happens on a exponentially larger perspective.

With the hope not to repeat myself in any way, I like to say that Your article is proof for a new natural law, that can be observed easily once one is introduced to it. Like the car that You just bought is parked at every freaking corner.

‘The Worse it Gets – The Better the Writing’

Reading Your article thus proves that we are in the deepest shit one could ever imagine.

Having noted – due to its veracity over the years – similar, or idential patterns and currents in the psyche of people in general and americans specifically, I would like to respond to the content of Your most laudable essay in detail – but would create an equally long comment, which I do not have the audacity to put on fellow commenters and readers alike.

But it could certainly be of interest to You and all other wide open minded Minds to continue this discussion of utmost importance – a discussion that is constantly interrupted by neo-con psychopaths and the ‘realities/distractions’ they create.

But the discussion must not cease. It must be had wherever, anywhere and everywhere.

¡Viva la Filosofía!


Typos shmypos. “…or identical patterns…”

And I forgot the point.

Getting shafted and exploited to Death without recourse created the Blues.

Similarily, the writing of Edward Curtin is like the Blues of the political and psychological abuse by the religious fascists. Since ‘Blues’ is already taken, maybe a new term can be created that relates to the written Blues without the music. Which gives me an idea…

Thank You for this marvelous Gem!

Doctor K
Doctor K

There was a coup in Hong Kong?

Certainly in the recent local elections the overwhelming majority voted for pro-democracy candidates.
Is that what you mean?

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

‘Pro-democracy’? What the heck is that, under neo-liberal capitalism? The UK? Ha-de-ha-ha!


Yes, how to change people’s minds, or at least to get them to consider alternatives.

Unfortunately, discussion hardly ever changes minds. Direct personal experience is usually what is needed. A mother can tell her child a hundred times not to touch the stove, but it doesn’t work as well as a blistered finger.

“All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.” – Mao Tse tung

austrian peter

I agree with all that you say and spend my retirement years talking truth to power. When will the great masses wake up and understand how they are being abused? I have written a book about all this and I write an article each week from the point of view of UK for my American readers:


The best way to deal with the US is to ignore them. They are just so dumb and full of themselves.

Look at what Pompeo said in Kazakhstan:
“We fully support Kazakhstan’s freedom to choose to do business with whichever country it wants, but I am confident that countries get the best outcomes when they partner with American companies,” he said. “You get fair deals. You get job creation. You get transparency in contracts. You get companies that care about the environment and you get an unsurpassed commitment to quality work.”

Why did he go to Kazakhstan, people can contact the American firms direct! Maybe it was on his bucket list.

Transparency in contracts is a lie, a big fat Pompeo lie. I see it in Australia every day, contracts with US software companies are screwing us and they are ‘commercial in confidence’ – no transparency at all!!!

Richard Le Sarc
Richard Le Sarc

I spoke with a local vigneron some few years ago. He was pulling a lot of his white grape vines to replace them with red. Because the Chinese prefer red. Apropos of nothing he observed that dealing with the Chinese, in exporting, was great, because their word was their bond. Americans, on the other hand, were nightmares, untrustworthy and duplicitous in most cases, always seeking to put one over on the locals. I guess he was just an ‘anti-American’.


“Apropos of nothing he observed that dealing with the Chinese, in exporting, was great, because their word was their bond.”

The other way around, importing, I found the same thing many decades ago when buying large quantities of unique hi-tech product (specific components needed to support our own output). Then I ‘retired’ to become an individual, small-to-very-small order customer of sellers on sites like AliExpress and others, reliant on such electronic malls to help sort out problems of misdescription, malfunction, poor-to-nonexistent quality, the advertising and sale of nonexistent product to secure cashflow between payment and refund, etc. Talk about my status change being an eye opener. Eye opener isn’t the word. My advice: if you’re an individual ‘consumer’ who wants or needs to buy Chinese product direct, wait until it shows up on Amazon.


“The best way to deal with the US is to ignore them”
But they won’t ignore you .. It looks as if they are in the process of producing a surveillance drone for every person on the planet. Certainly an armed one, for some quarters.
Even if they are not dispatching a physical drone to hover near every person’s window, there is already a virtual drone in everyone’s face in the form of a mobile phone.
Still, the concept of ignoring them is a valid argument and is a very strong one. In fact, it is an obligation for every sane person to boycott all American products and services, starting with the entertainment junk.


I don’t have a cellphone. I have never had a cellphone. Everyone is free to do the same.


An impractical or ineffectual suggestion is actually carrying watet for the surveillers/slavers.


It reminds me very much of FaceBook, which I almost never use, except to check up on some of my relatives living abroad.
If the subject matter is the weather, cute animals, mainstream versions of so-called news, etc., I can happily relax in the knowledge that I have a pretty sizeable clutch of “friends” who will share such material with me.
But if I talk about nine-eleven and the war-mongering associated with it, the number of those friends drops to two…
Reason enough to get out of FaceBook. Those people don’t want to know me at all.

Neil MacLeod
Neil MacLeod

As education is primarily preconditioning for propaganda, those most educated are most easily propagandized. – Jacques Ellul

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill

An extract from the above Jim Garrison quote:
“All factors which contribute to its burgeoning power are exaggerated.
All factors which might reveal its corrosive effect on the nation are concealed.”

The phrasing reminds me of the KFK speech to the editors (April 20th 1961) a couple of days after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-society-of-newspaper-editors-19610420 .JFK’s descriptions of Communist subversion could be equally levelled against US Foreign policy and the covert activities of the CIA. One has to wonder if there was a subliminal connection being drawn, because at the time of speaking, JFK was only too well aware of the CIA’s treachery. He must have understood that the CIA fully intended the invasion to fail (hence all the leaks to the press) so that the US Forces would be deployed en masse (they were indeed primed ready to go). However, the CIA/Hollywood version as deployed in the plain awful film “The Good Shepherd” has it that it was Angleton’s son who had spilled the beans in pillow talk to his African (Commie) fiancee whom the Angleton character later has thrown from an aircraft. (Who writes this bollocks?)

There are certain movie stars who seem to be CIA Choice actors: De Niro and Tom Hanks always ring “Disinformation” alarm bells for me. Matt Damon is another. Whether this is knowingly on these actors’ parts or more likely, they are the way the CIA wishes to see itself portrayed. I suppose one ought to throw George Clooney into this camp, but I don’t watch too many movies to make a fair guess. In the finally analysis, the CIA fully understands and exploits the the frail of the Human Condition. Nothing is incorruptible, and corruption is their raison d’être – corruption of all that is good, honest, fair, decent and just. Let’s hear it one more time from old fatso: ‘We lie, we cheat, we steal”. A rare moment of truth, though far too modest because it barely scratches the surface of their Black Arts.

A. Scott Buch

“. . . this spectacular image game where seeming antinomies are the constancy of the same through difference. . .” Brilliant!

Could we say the technical term for this method of disinforming is called Schismogenesis?


Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill

As always, Ed Curtin makes us stop long enough to reflect on the absurdity of the official accounts from the murder of JFK to the false flag of 9/11. (There is a myriad of unimaginable crimes and lies before between and after, but these 2 events are the stand-outs in my life time, and the moments when we could have glimpsed just how naked the emperor is. Perhaps that glimpse of naked evil is too traumatic for some, but look we must.
I wholeheartedly agree with Ed’s contempt and condemnation of scums and shills like Chomsky (and some commenters here below) who try and paint JFK as being just as bad as any other POTUS and thus undeserving of our grief. I imagine that there were many such dissemblers around Golgotha.
On further reflection of the many lessons implicit from the JFK assassination, was the collusion and foreknowledge of the overwhelming majority fo the Establishment e.g. the deputy AG Katzenbach who helped organise the Warren Commission in order to ‘prove’ that Oswald was a lone Communist – to dispel the suspicion of a Coup d’Etat. The election of Oswald as the Pasty was designed so that he could be used as a cases belli for war with Cuba and/or Russia. You have to admit, these guys were amazing opportunists and could play any tune on their Mighty Wurlitzer.
JFK had to resort constantly to covert communications to negotiate with other heads of state because the State Dept decided Foreign Policy, just as John Foster Dulles did for Eisenhower, and his brother Allen running the CIA. That such unelected psychopaths had such power shows how utterly corrupt the system which had allowed that to happen. (And yes, perhaps it was ever thus).
Why do many of us still grieve the loss of JFK? Because he wanted the same as the overwhelming majority of people on this Earth, and fought for it despite knowing the risks he ran.
But even in our grief, we can take some comfort from the fact that he stood up to his generals and denied them their opportunity to bomb Russia into the Stone Age. As long as we can keep the memory of JFK, then there is hope. If the CIA shills and scum bury JFK, then hope will have suffered a mortal blow. It is up to us to keep the immortal flame burning. It is better to light a candle, than to curse the darkness.
To Ed, keep lighting those candles.


“I wholeheartedly agree with Ed’s contempt and condemnation of scums and shills like Chomsky (and some commenters here below) who try and paint JFK as being just as bad as any other POTUS and thus undeserving of our grief.”

Why would you choose to attack with such denigration somebody who holds a different, but considered and supported, opinion from you (as distinct from somebody who voices a different opinion from you using misinformation, fabrication, etc. to support it)?

A Summary of Chomsky’s Attitude

Assuming that his thoughts about the JFK assassination have been reported accurately, Chomsky’s attitude appears to be as follows:

He is aware that the assassination was almost certainly the result of a conspiracy of some sort, and not the work of a lone nut.

The assassination had no clear political consequences. In particular, there was no significant change in official US policy in important areas, such as Vietnam and Cuba.

The absence of a significant change in policy between the Kennedy and Johnson administrations demonstrates that any JFK assassination conspiracy did not originate at a high level of the US government.

While the killing of President Kennedy was regrettable, it was no more or less tragic than any other murder.

People who identify themselves as left–wing, and who are disposed to question the current distribution of power, could occupy their time more productively than by trying to work out who really killed President Kennedy.

Excessive interest in a relatively trivial event is irrational.

Further information on Chomsky’s public statements leading to the above summary at the link above, including the postword:

It ought to be clear to anyone who has read this article that what Chomsky is against is the idea that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy that originated at a high level within the US government. This is absolutely not the same thing as a belief in the Warren Commission’s poorly supported lone–nut hypothesis. For more about this crucial and widely misunderstood distinction, see The Political Context of the JFK Assassination [Emphasis added].

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill

Evening R. I must be brief. Chomsky is no fool, but an expert dissembler. His opinion is not sincere but is a calculated act of deception and as such he intentionally muddies the waters. In my books, that makes him an accessory to the crime.
Do I need to show you why his logic is utterly flawed and does not pass the smell test?
First: there was no change in foreign policy re Cuba or Vietnam. Which planet is he (or you) living on? JFK was pushing hard to get out of Vietnam and NSAM 263 proves this point – but don’t take my word: check Prouty. NSAM 273 was the complete overthrow of 263, written by one who clearly had foreknowledge of JFK’s imminent demise.
If Oswald did not act alone, then he had to have accomplices ergo a “Conspiracy”. Whoever acted with Oswald was of zero concern to the FBI or CIA ergo they were part of it. That the very offices of State, Pentagon, CIA, FBI, Justice, MSM etc. could all act to conceal their murder of the elected POTUS proves that the criminal cover-up continues to this day.
And Chomsky thinks this is not significant? Who cares who murdered JFK? I bloody do.


“I must be brief.”


“JFK was pushing hard to get out of Vietnam and NSAM 263 proves this point – but don’t take my word: check Prouty. NSAM 273 was the complete overthrow of 263, written by one who clearly had foreknowledge of JFK’s imminent demise.”

Brief back:

NSAM 263: JFK was cautiously hedging his bets. You interpret NSAM 273 as being written with foreknowledge of Kennedy’s assasination. Many others don’t. Prouty has some conclusions on both that are no more valid than Chomsky’s. Throughout 1963, (prior to 22 November) Kennedy made several public statements confirming that withdrawing was not an option, winning “against Communism” was an overriding priority (citations would take more time). I have no dog in the fight so stop outlining a prejudgement, start making a case.

“Chomsky is no fool, but an expert dissembler. His opinion is not sincere but is a calculated act of deception and as such he intentionally muddies the waters. In my books, that makes him an accessory to the crime.”

If you are proven correct it would, as it remains an unproven assertion it is simply calumny.

Hugh O’Neill
Hugh O’Neill

R. You have no dog in the fight. I shall refrain from suggesting you are Chomsky’s female canine.
JFK had visited VietNam in the early 1950s and fully understood that it was an anti-colonial struggle which the French would lose. He had a strong record In the Seanate as a lone voice standing up for post colonial independence in Algeria, Indonesia, Congo etc. and thus he ran contrary to the Dulles gangsters.
When he reached the WH, he realised he was surrounded by Imperialists, especially in the Pentagon, still smarting over the “Loss of China” and annoyed that they were not allowed to use nukes in Korea. JFK sought out Gen. MacArthur for advice, which strengthened his case for withdrawal. If JFK made public statements at variance to his private beliefs, one can only imagine he was playing a political game to confound his domestic enemies.
JFK’s Peace Speech of June 2nd 1963 put on record that he could coexist with Communism, so that rather deflates you’re feeble argument.
Ergo, j’accuse both you and Chomsky of being dissemblers. Calumny indeed. If the cap fits, wear it.


“R. You have no dog in the fight. I shall refrain from suggesting you are Chomsky’s female canine.”

Just caught up with this as I tend not to return to pages that have fallen off the right-hand end of the top row list of articles on the front page. Sorry, nobody’s bitch. Chomsky gives his reasons, you give yours. As he hasn’t addressed yours directly there are only yours to consider.

“JFK had visited VietNam in the early 1950s and fully understood that it was an anti-colonial struggle which the French would lose.”

So a French loss was some sort of political conditional in his thinking. OK.

“He had a strong record In the Seanate as a lone voice standing up for post colonial independence in Algeria, Indonesia, Congo etc. and thus he ran contrary to the Dulles gangsters.” OK.

“When he reached the WH, he realised he was surrounded by Imperialists, especially in the Pentagon…”

A critical thinker and a strong voice in the Senate for a well defined stance runs for and gets himself elected to the Presidency only then to discover that the White House bureaucracy and the Pentagon is stuffed with ruthless persons of a quite opposite viewpoint? What are you saying? That Aung San Suu Kyi is Kennedy’s posthumous bitch? Yeh right.

“If JFK made public statements at variance to his private beliefs,”

How variant would they have to be? Outright variant? Slightly variant? Somewhat variant? Carefully calculated enough to leave the most contentious points until later (c.f. the UN and Oslo stances on Jerusalem, where that age-old, often unvocalized, political strategy is made verbally explicit)?

‘one can only imagine”‘

Which ‘one’? I.F. Stone? Or some close-enough-for-jazz one, with all his three neurons in a carnival row?

“he was playing a political game to confound his domestic enemies.”

Wot? Our Jack?

So which would you prefer? “Chomsky 1, O’Neill 1” or “Chomsky 0, O’Neill 0”?

“Ergo, j’accuse both you and Chomsky of being dissemblers. Calumny indeed. If the cap fits, wear it.”

Pompous, reflexive (nod to Chomsky) ad pratenum.

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill

Rob, in my haste to respond, I had not read the 2nd link which contains the text below:

“If Kennedy had been perceived as a class traitor, he would have been replaced peacefully. The fact that he was killed shows that any domestic conspirators must have come from some way below the top of the internal power structure”.

Sorry, pal. That statement is complete and utter tosh! If you find that convincing, then I cannot help you.


Chomsky is an evil two faced govt-controlled-dissident-by-choice. His dissent is narrow and without consequence.


by vocation, you mean.


I, a Canadian, remember clearly: sitting in an Ottawa class room at the age of 7 listening to the intercom and the Principal as he explained in a trembling voice that the President of the United States, our neighbor, had been shot dead.
At that young, impressionable, conscious and aware age I was terrified for the first time. More terrified than the first time a machine gun was stuck in my face on Parliament Hill.
The days and years stretched out in my mind from then till today knowing all along what transpired then and now. Some call it blowback. Some call it six ways to Sunday.
Reading ‘None Dare Call it Conspiracy’ 10 yrs later did not make it any easier to carry this memory I have of the first man of power to speak to truth. JFK was imperfect, as we all are, but he saw the fragility of peace and the fraility of mans morals as clear, or clearer, than any before or since. He did his part as well as any and enjoys his restful sleep far more than we enjoy ours.
The living do, and shall, envy the dead.
Is Trump perfect? No! But, he is alive, aware, conscious, and, not corrupt. The fall of America will be far further than the fall of Rome unless each American recants their worship of the almighty US Dollar and the fictions of Santa Claus.
No matter whose name you preach in it is time …
Time to grow up USA!
Remember, the love of money is THE root of all evil.

Gerda Halvorsen
Gerda Halvorsen

Exceptional essay, Edward. It took a lot of my stray thoughts and made sense out of them!