This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

General Stanley McChrystal

I noticed that "The Pat Tillman Conspiracy Theory" got a sudden boost of Google Analytics traffic. That's due to General Stanley McChrystal being in the news. Allegedly, McChrystal played a role in the coverup of Pat Tillman's assassination/"accident". Summarizing that post, I'm not sure that Pat Tillman was assassinated. It looks suspicious. It's practically impossible to prove.

One rule of State espionage is "The guy who publicly gets blamed didn't organize it." If McCrystal is publicly mentioned as guilty of organizing the coverup, then he probably isn't the one who organized the murder.

Did State parasites benefit from Pat Tillman's murder? Yes. Pat Tillman would have been a credible high-profile antiwar critic after his term was over. Are some State parasites psychopathic enough to do it? Yes. Did they actually do it on purpose? It's almost impossible to prove.

McCrystal is accused of making public statements critical of the war in Afghanistan. What's wrong with that? Are the generals really so delusional that they think everything is going smoothly?

Why is it wrong to tell your boss "Hey! Your plan is stupid!"? This illustrates an important point of State evil.

What can McCrystal do if he's unfairly fired? Is he going to start his own competing Army? The State has a monopoly. There's no accountability if State bureaucrats do a lousy job.

State-backed monopolies lack market accountability. State bureaucracies are organized as a hierarchy. In a hierarchy, the incentive is to weed out independent thinkers. If all the other generals say "Yes, Mr. President! Great plan!", and McCrystal says "What an idiot!", then he stands out, even if he's right. The President has the power to fire any general, making it a bad career move to disagree with him.

"It's wrong to publicly criticize your boss" is a policy that might work for a privately owned for-profit business receiving no State subsidies. When the business is the State, public criticism should be encouraged. "It's OK for the President to fire subordinates who disagree with him." makes sense only if the State is a for-profit business owned by the President.

A State monopoly actively weeds out independent thinkers. When most of the generals give the President great ****jobs, then anyone who refuses seems like "not a team player".

State parasites actively discourage dissent. Criticizing the President and Congress is like criticizing the Pope. The Pope and the President must provide an illusion of infallibility. State parasites actively control information that is fed to the media. When someone like McCrystal deviates from the script, he must be publicly humiliated.

Look at the photo of McCrystal in this article and the other articles mentioning him. All of them are photos that make him look bad. He's frowning. He isn't looking directly at the camera. It's a non-airbrushed photo. By selecting an unfavorable picture, that's an evil fnord saying "This guy is a scumbag!"

There's a concentrated mainstream media effort to make McCrystal seem like the bad guy. I conclude that he must be someone standing up against State evil.

Again, notice that McCrystal gave a public apology. Why doesn't he say "No! I'm not apologizing! This war really is one big cluster****!" His military career is over anyway, so why not have some balls and tell the truth. This is an important part of the State brainwashing ritual. The truth-teller must publicly apologize before being fired.

The President probably held out false hope "You might keep your job if you publicly apologize!", and then fired him anyway. By criticizing the President and then backing down with an apology, McCrystal seems like a wimp. State parasites have no marketable skills, making McCrystal eager to hang onto his job at all costs.

It isn't necessary to send McCrystal to a death camp. Publicly shaming him is sufficient. The mainstream media won't accurately portray his point of view.

The State censorship rules are not written, but almost everyone knows them. State insiders must be continually on guard, lest they be fired for saying a forbidden truth. It's like there's a huge conspiracy watching your every word, ready to shame you and ruin your career if you slip up. Other generals are eager to blame McCrystal, so they can advance their own careers! If McCrystal gets fired, someone else gets promoted to replace him!

McCrystal probably knew he was getting scapegoated anyway, giving him the freedom to make public criticism. Afghanistan really is a disaster. It isn't the President's fault. It isn't Congress' fault. It's McCrystal's fault. Fire McCrystal and replace him with another figurehead. Problem solved!

Whenever I see a State insider like McCrystal publicly shamed, my reaction is "What part of the forbidden truth did he accidentally say?" McCrystal's forbidden statements were "The war isn't going so well! The President and Congress are out of touch with reality!"


Anonymous said...

Why would McChrystal make statements that he made? He is an experienced bureaucrat and he surely knew what consequences of his actions would be. Why?

fritz said...

I have inside word of what actually happened...It appears that McCrystal is a very calculating general. Knowing that he was placed in a no win situation he committed political suicide.

The rules of engagement and military operational dictates created an environment McCrystal felt would end in failure. So instead of going down as a general who couldn't win, he chose on purpose to be asked to resign.

The guy is not stupid, he spoke for a reason which had a desired intent.


Anonymous said...

I read in the Evening Standard that Sir Richard Dannatt (UK army) was given a job at the Tower of London after leaving the Army for making comments about the preparation for the aftermath of the war not being as good as they could have been.

The newspaper said this was a punishment because a man of his standing should have been given a far more real job, a peerage and maybe a job in the new Conservative government.

So he got a non-job instead of a real job, because he spoke out when he was a General.

In the USA a general is publicly fired (or made to resign), but in the UK you just get a lesser job than you should have done.

FSK said...

In the USA, ex-generals tend to get high-paying jobs as salesmen for military contractors. It's a "quid pro quo" for giving them pork contracts while a general. McChrystal may have been similarly shamed.

Anonymous said...

The real enemies of the US and UK people are the government.

The government acts in the interest of big business and the banks and is not for the people.

The US army needs to "man up" and tell the government to p*** off.

Shouldn't the army actually PROTECT THE PEOPLE? That is what they really should be for.

Should the army protect peoples' houses from being foreclosed and taken by the bankers?

The US army soldiers have more in common with the Iraqi and Afghan people, than the corrupt bankers that move between Goldman Sucks and government.

Robin Smith said...

As soon as I saw the General diss the government I knew he was genuine intuitively.

All others before wait for their golden handshake and then say it. Cowards. This one did it while on the job. A courageous man.

On the other hand, from first hand experience, corporations offer a dissenter a contract to say nothing about the inside corruption, quid pro quo, a large payoff. Subject to huge litigation if the contract is broken. Maybe this was the case for the general ?

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at