How the US and Allied Fiction Factory fools the Public
The paradigmatic example of fiction-factory functioning was the highly effective lie that the U.S. President and UK Prime Minister both gave at a joint press conference on 7 September 2002 alleging that the IAEA had just come out with a “new report” saying that within six months Iraq might have a nuclear weapon. The IAEA immediately — and on three separate occasions — denied it publicly but that denial never reached the public because all U.S.-and-allied ’news’-media kept that denial by the IAEA secret from the public, despite the IAEA’s having publicly denied it. (The IAEA didn’t press the matter any further, because it relies upon cooperation from the U.S. Government and didn’t want to antagonize it.)
This is a paradigmatic example because — unlike information that the U.S. regime claimed was coming from its own intelligence agencies (such as when it cited as its source the CIA, which serves the U.S. Government, not the U.S. public), and are therefore entirely untrustworthy whenever their statements are being made to the public instead of to the Government — the U.S. President (and his UK stooge-Government leader) here were alleging that an agency OUTSIDE OF their Governments was saying that Iraq was possibly just 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon. This had far more credibility than saying it had come from the CIA would have had. That stunning allegation — which the public never got to know that the IAEA itself had actually denied, contradicted, said was false — was the main ‘justification’ to invade Iraq instead of to wait perhaps more than six months for any possible international inspectors to determine even whether or not Iraq had actually resuscitated its program to develop nuclear weapons. The U.S.-and-allied claim that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had restarted it and that the IAEA had just now said in a “new report” could be only six months from producing a bomb, was the main reason used in their international ‘justification’ to invade Iraq “pre-emptively” — BEFORE weapons-inspectors might be able to provide confirmation or not, about the veracity of that 6-month claim. Condoleezza Rice famously said the next day (8 September 2002) “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”. As things turned out, the U.S./UK regime failed to receive from the U.N. General Assembly authorization to invade Iraq but the U.S./UK regime invaded there anyway and consequently committed the international-war crime of “aggressive war” but were never prosecuted for it because the U.S. had refused to become a signatory to (and thus subject to) the International Criminal Court. Whereas the United Kingdom did sign it, the UK has protection from the U.S. and therefore is — like the U.S. itself is — effectively immune from prosecution for international crimes. If the ICC were worth anything (which it isn’t), it would prosecute Tony Blair for Britain’s participation in that war-crime against Iraq, but any such prosecution is impossible. Another reason why it’s impossible is that the ICC only commenced operation on 9 September 2002 and didn’t even have any definition of “aggressive war” until 11 June 2010 when it adopted a definition which is circular (meaningless) because it says that the “‘crime of aggression’ means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression,” and then it cites as examples, only ones which are military or paramilitary physical invasions and none of which are instead subversions, coups, or sanctions that aren’t authorized by the U.N.; and, so, the definition applies only to the types of “aggression” — specifically military types — that the U.S. nowadays rarely even needs, any longer, to use, and the U.S. much prefers now to instead use subversions, coups, or sanctions that aren’t authorized by the U.N., in order to perpetrate its “regime-change” operations (such as against Iran, Venezuela, and Russia) and so to achieve its conquests. Furthermore, one of the qualifiers that the U.N./ICC definition adds is that the definition can’t even possibly apply until “1 January 2017” at the earliest; so, anything that was done earlier cannot be prosecuted as “aggression.” The U.S. Government is aiming ultimately not to improve the U.N. but to replace the U.N. and international law, by instead its own “rules-based international order” and to make those “rules” only by itself but with the coerced consent of its vassal nations, called America’s ‘allies’ but actually its colonies.
In other words: the depth of the lying now, by the U.S. and its ‘allies’, is all the way down, to the deepest root of deception. It goes down to definitions and deceptions about those; such as what does “democracy” even mean? It doesn’t mean what the public are told it means. No colony can be a democracy, because the imperial country controls it — the colony’s residents don’t.
A good contemporary example of this deceit down to its roots is America’s having blown up the two Nord Stream gas pipelines in order to force European countries to use no longer the inexpensive energy (especially the gas and oil that’s pipelined in from Russia instead of that’s far more expensively condensed and shipped from America and from nations that comply with the U.S. regime’s demands). As a result, America, and also Norway (which participated with the U.S. regime in blowing up those pipelines that are co-owned by Russia, Germany, and Netherlands), are profiting enormously from blowing up those pipelines, which had been crucial to the continuance of international economic competitiveness of European industries. In other words: America is now openly at war against all of Europe and not only against Europe’s largest nation in terms both of land in Europe and of population in Europe: Russia. The U.S. regime now clearly wants to cripple its major competitor: Europe. And Norway’s regime helped it to do that by playing a key role in blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines.
The decision-maker in the U.S. Government who made the decision to blow up the Nord Stream pipelines was the chief executive power in that Government, and he is President Joe Biden. The decision-maker in the Norwegian Government who made the decision to help him do it is the chief executive power in that Government, and he is the King, (Norway’s Constitution says “The Executive Power is vested in the King, or in the Queen.” Whereas America’s dictators are its aristocracy, which are its billionaires and the others in the richest ten-thousandth of the population, which donate 57.16% of the money to its political candidates, and get the legislation they want from them, Norway’s dictator is the monarch, who represents Norway’s aristocracy.)
On 6 January 2023, Reuters reported that in supplying Europe with energy, “Norway took over from Russia as the number one supplier, accounting for 33% of the total volume, with Russia supplying 22%”; so, Russia’s loss has mainly been Norway’s gain, but America has also benefitted considerably by greatly increasing its supplies of liquefied natural gas (LNG), fracked and canned in America and then shipped across the Atlantic. On February 13th, Reuters headlined “Europe’s spend on energy crisis nears 800 billion euros” of Governmental subsidies in order that Europeans not freeze to death this winter, and that not too many European businesses which due to those soaring energy-costs have become no longer internationallhy competitive on account of the cut-offs of the far cheaper energy from Russia, will go bankrupt or move to America (where energy now costs far less than it does in Europe and America’s labor laws are also much more favorable to business-owners than in Europe). Soon that 800 billion euros will surpass a trillion euros and the bond-ratings of European countries will take an increasing hit. Europe’s glory days are now all past.
The only way that the U.S. regime has managed to get this far destroying Europe has been by fooling Europeans to think it’s Europe’s friend instead of Europe’s enemy, but if the European people somehow come to recognize what is happening to them and why, then both NATO and the EU itself could break up and some of the European countries might even undergo revolutions in order to overthrow the officials who have been profiting from the U.S. aristocracy’s exploitation (and now destruction) of their countries. Whether America’s aristocracy will carry things that far is, of course, unknown at present.
Regarding the Ukrainian issue and the U.S.-and-allied anti-Russia sanctions that have brought all this about, the misrepresentations that led up to it were reported by me on 4 November 2019 under the headline “How the War in Ukraine Started”, and the key decision-maker there was Barack Obama. But only by hiding from the public that this is so has the U.S. regime been able to get this far in destroying Europe, because if Europeans had known what he was actually doing and why, then Europe wouldn’t now have the leaders that it has today, and the European peoples would all be far better-off than they are today and will become.
If you aren’t reading this article in a mainstream news-medium, that won’t be because it wasn’t submitted to them. Especially, this article was submitted to The Atlantic, Bloomberg, The Globe, Insider, Business Insider, CNN, Foreign Policy, Guardian, The Hill, Independent, N.Y. Post, Newsweek, New York Times, New Yorker, Realclear Politics, SCMP, TIME, Politico, Washington Examiner, Le Monde, USA Today, RT, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, The New Republic, The Nation, and many others. So, if it’s not there, that would be because they didn’t want to make it public. Of course, that might be a confirmation of the truthfulness of what this article is alleging. So, maybe one of those will publish it in order to disprove it. I welcome them to do that, even if this article is counterbalanced there by a contrary one, which says it’s not so.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.