“How do democracies get turned into dictatorships? The democracies aren’t overthrown; they’re given away… Star Wars was really about the Vietnam War.” - George Lucas, creator of Star Wars
“The (Star Wars) Empire is like America ten years from now.” - George Lucas, 1973
Adjusted for inflation, Star Wars is likely the most popular film series in history. Stories are popular because they communicate themes that resonate with the public. Creator George Lucas communicates that a powerful republic is overcome by false flag deception that devolves all into the most evil dictatorial empire possible.
“Dictatorship” literally means a government from what is dictated/said whenever government “leadership” says so. The US has lost almost all Constitutional rights to the dictates of “leaders” in government. In contrast, a constitutional republic is limited government acting within its constitution.
This is basic high school-level education we all learned, and are demanded to either live or lose.
A ‘false flag’ (and here) is an attack by a government that is blamed upon a political enemy, usually as justification for an offensive War of Aggression. It uses deception to manipulate public opinion to surrender power to “leadership,” to “protect” the public from the created “enemies.”
Rome’s empire expanded by always claiming “defensive” wars from such constant “enemies,” and Washington’s Blog documents 53 admitted false flag attacks in history using this same false narrative.
David Brennan’s brilliant 13-minute video explains the false flag themes in Star Wars:
“So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause.” Star Wars character Padme Amidala
Let’s examine just three of the US historical false flag attacks for its empire. These are from my critical thinking skills assignment for high school social science students, and helpful for anyone to see deception is a usual part of US wars:
- False flag on Mexico to steal the now US Southwest
- False flag on Vietnam after Orwellian rejection of their election
- False flag on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran from fear-mongering
False flag on Mexico to steal the now US Southwest
The idea that the US government can willfully destroy its own constitution is new for most people, but absolutely proved by the facts and repeated time and again in our history. Let me provide a snippet of history with Abraham Lincoln’s first encounter with the destruction of our own Constitution when a US president and the majority of Congress chose to steal land through waging a War of Aggression.
“At first blush, a man is not capable of reporting truth; he must be drenched and saturated with it first.” – Henry David Thoreau, I to myself: an annotated selection from the journal of Henry D. Thoreau, 1837.
Thoreau, like Abraham Lincoln in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, recognized the claimed “reasons” for a “defensive war” against Mexico were obvious lies when inspected.
“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”
And Lincoln in a letter to his law partner:
“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — “I see no probability of the British invading us”; but he will say to you, “Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.””
The US taking Texas as a state was in direct violation of the Adams-Onís Treaty that guaranteed all the land that is now the Southwest US to forever belong to Mexico (signed in 1819 with Spain, and formally transferred to Mexico in 1831). The border was the Sabine River, between modern-day Texas and Louisiana. Lincoln attempted to force President Polk to report to Congress and answer several pointed and brilliantly-worded questions from Lincoln that would prove Polk’s claimed “border dispute” was really 400 miles into agreed-upon land of Mexico.
I invite you to read Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions” for yourself as an example of why Lincoln is considered to be one of the most brilliant writers in all American history.
Thoreau refused to pay his taxes to support the unlawful war, and was jailed. Despite Lincoln having all the facts on his side, because the president, majority of Congress, and majority of the press wanted this war as an expression of the racist “Manifest Destiny,” Lincoln didn’t have the votes to pass the Spot Resolutions. In fact, Lincoln was called “unpatriotic” and “Spotty” in derision by both parties’ “leadership” and the press.
Lincoln became so unpopular from these intentional lies and propaganda that he had no chance for re-election.
A treaty is the “Supreme law of the land” in Article Six of the US Constitution. In this case, when a US president and Congress had the votes to violate a treaty and the Constitution in order to take land and resources, they lied, went to war, and took the land and resources.
The war killed over 50,000 Mexicans and over 5,000 Americans, and is a clear historical precedent for US “leadership” to choose lies, dictatorship, and War of Aggression rather than truth, limited government under the law, and peace.
Although this history of the Mexican-American War is uncontroversially factual and as far as I’m aware undisputed among professional historians, corporate media-published high school textbooks will only state that the causes of war were a “border dispute” and repeat President Polk’s claims that Mexico invaded the US with “American blood shed on American soil.”
This is a massive lie of omission and commission to not communicate at least the preceding few paragraphs.
If your text explained that a US President was the war-mongering liar that Lincoln explained in his speech and documented in the Spot Resolutions, and that Congress voted in criminal complicity to shred a US treaty, lie to the American public about who invaded whom, and be guilty of war-murdering tens of thousands of human beings, would you look at current US wars from the benefit of that accurate history?
This war is vitally important to understand because it sets the precedent of a US president lying, violating clear treaty, and the US stealing resources at the expense of thousands of deaths of US soldiers, and many multiples of those deaths of the people we attacked. Then, as today, the majority of Americans believed their “leaders” in ignorance of the facts, and without media’s coverage of clear voices like Abraham Lincoln’s to explain the facts.
The US invaded Mexico in 1846 despite it being a clear treaty violation and upon clear lies of US President Polk: “American blood shed upon the American soil.” (46) The result of the war was the US taking ~40% of Mexico’s land. Although historians note that freshman member of Congress Abraham Lincoln was/is correct that the president lied and violated a treaty with criminal complicity of Congress, both parties’ and media propaganda allowed the war to move forward without criminal prosecution. The House of Representatives had enough votes to censure the president for, “a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States” (47), but not to impeach.
Btw: I’m unaware of any historian’s rational challenge to this history, despite the lies of omission you’ll read in corporate media textbooks today.
But don’t believe any expert or me; use your critical thinking skills. This is as easy as our baseball rule analogy that when a person knows the rule when a runner is safe or out at first base, there’s no need to ask anyone. If you know that:
- a treaty is defined in Article Six of the US Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land,”
- the US had the Adams-Onís Treaty with Mexico (originally with Spain and formally transferred to Mexico in 1831; map here) in crystal-clear language regarding the areas of the now Southwest US (including Texas with all the “border dispute” lands because the Sabine River between Louisiana and today’s Texas was the agreed border): “The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the territories described by the said line, that is to say: The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories lying west and south of the above-described line; and, in like manner, His Catholic Majesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories east and north of the said line, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, renounces all claim to the said territories forever.”
- Therefore, the US Supreme Law was to forever recognize Texas and the now Southwest as Mexico’s land.
In baseball, you can (and do) say, “I know where first base is. I know when a runner is clearly safe or out at first base.” In this “current event” of life and death from our past, you can and should say, “I know what a treaty means. I know what a border means. I know when the US is 400 miles over the border that was defined in a treaty that they’re obviously into Mexico and not on American soil.” You may even artistically add, “Duh.”
Perhaps this famous quote makes better sense now:
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1.
False flag on Vietnam after Orwellian rejection of their election
The following is conservatively accepted history of the Vietnam War; that is, information in agreement with admissions from our own government reports and unchallenged (as far as I know) by any professional historian. The understanding of this history by those of us who study it does not guarantee that many Americans will recognize the poignant facts. Please feel free to verify. In one paragraph:
After the “War to make the World Safe for Democracy,” Ho Chi Minh’s petition for a democratic Vietnam was denied by the victors of WW1. Vietnam remained under France’s dictatorship for economic and political colonial domination. The US supported Minh during WW2 in his guerilla warfare against Japan, only to deny his petition for Vietnam’s independence at the end of the war. The US paid for up to 80% of France’s military costs to keep Vietnam enslaved by the French. The US supported the cancellation of an election in Vietnam when it became clear that Minh’s socialistic economic plan was more popular than a Western-friendly leader. The Vietnam War exploded with SecDef McNamara’s contrived reporting of the Gulf of Tonkin incident; (25) manipulated intelligence at best (26) in first light, but then manipulated into an outright false-flag attack. The war escalated with unlawful invasions and attacks in Laos and Cambodia, dropping more bombs than from all sides of WW2 combined on a country smaller than California that killed perhaps 10% of their civilian population, ~3.5 million. The government’s stated goal at the time was to “defeat communism” by winning the hearts and minds of civilians while we killed over 1,000 civilian children, women and the elderly daily through high-altitude bombing. The war killed 58,000 Americans, and only ended through massive US demonstrations.
Let’s pause a moment and let these facts penetrate: the US government now admits that the Gulf of Tonkin incident that launched the Vietnam War was a contrived false-flag operation to manipulate public opinion for war. This conclusion seems irrefutable from the documentation, released phone conversations of President Johnson making that admission, and multiple public statements from SecDef McNamara, including the 2003 Academy Award-winning Feature Documentary, The Fog of War (27).
Does this mean exactly what it seems: that US leadership in the office of the president and Congress willfully lied about “self-defense” to begin a war, continued lying as long as they could to continue that war, and now lie by omission to not remind Americans about this history in light of current US wars?
Does the Vietnam War fit a pattern of intentional deceit from US political leadership to propagandize Americans to support wars of choice, and should this explanation be among our first to consider US wars in the present?
And you may have noticed: this history has progressed onto major current events in the lives of your grandparents and parents. Could that same history be occurring in your life of the present?
Welcome to the critical thinking required for engaged and historically-informed citizenry.
If you’re interested, you might want to consider this pattern of US history is similar to ancient Rome. In this brief article, I’ve tried to capture the conclusions of Antiquity’s most noted historians: Polybius, Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus.
Again, while this history is non-controversial in that I’m presenting crucial facts that I’m unaware are contested by professional historians, it’s all probably new to you. You might be coming to a similar conclusion to what my colleagues and I had working with US political and corporate media leadership: the usual practice that information for public consumption are lies of omission; that is, a “Disneyfied” version of events.
“Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you’re stupid. Did you hear that? – Stupid.” – Arthur Sylvester, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, 1965, at a Vietnam press meeting as reported by: Hammond, William M. Reporting Vietnam: Media and Military at War, 1998.
I can also offer this analogy: if you were being tried in a court of law, you would see a prosecuting attorney. This person would wear a nice suit, be well-groomed, and show high levels of education and intelligence. You would, however, fully understand that everything coming out of that person’s mouth and all evidence presented would NOT be for the comprehensive facts to be known, but ONLY those facts and evidence to WIN.
That is, you would know up-front that this well-educated person would engage in a strategy of lies of omission. The attorney would also be tempted to tell lies of commission if the benefits outweighed risks. The reason attorneys work for the win rather than truth is to earn money from clients now and in the future who prefer to win legal decisions. You would understand that the attorney’s motivation to lie was that gaining money for himself was more important than the truth.
And yes, the former occupation of more politicians than any other is, you guessed it: attorney.
Although you understand this in a legal venue, most people do not see it in a political venue (at least not applied to “their” party). That is, politicians are tempted to lie in omission (and commission with managed risk) in order to gain money from large corporations who have a lot to gain or lose with the right laws. This personal gain would be more important than the truth. Under this view, politicians are the attorneys representing corporate interests and the American public are those being “prosecuted” to fund policies favorable to the attorneys’ clients.
I invite you to try this viewpoint on, like a jacket, to see if it fits. If so, keep it. If not, remove it.
False flag on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran from fear-mongering
For complete consideration of unlawful and lie-began wars of the present, read my academic paper, ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ political collapse: Seizing an alternative to OBVIOUS unlawful wars, bankster looting, lying corporate media
The US/UK/Israel “official story” is that current wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.” The Emperor’s New Clothes fact here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific in war law, and US/UK/Israel armed attacks on so many nations in current and past wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.”
Addressing three nations and several wars seems ambitious for one article, and again, these are all simple variations of one method:
- Ignore war law.
- Lie to blame the victim and claim “self-defense.”
- “Officials” and corporate media never state the Emperor’s New Clothes simple and obvious facts of war law and war lies.
Proving unlawful wars with massive deception is easier when the scope is broadened to see the same elements in three cases.
Importantly, a nation can use military, police, and civilians in self-defense from any attack upon the nation. This is similar to the legal definition of “self-defense” for you or I walking down the street: we cannot attack anyone unless either under attack or imminent threat. And, if under attack, we can use any reasonable force in self-defense, including lethal.
Two world wars begat two treaties to end nations’ armed attacks forever. They are crystal-clear in content and context:
- Kellogg-Briand Pact (General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy as official title)
- United Nations Charter.
Both are listed in the US State Department’s annual publication, Treaties in Force (2013 edition pages 466 and 493).
Article Six of the US Constitution defines a treaty as US “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that US policy may only complement an active treaty, and never violate it.
This is important because all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution are sworn to honorably refuse all unlawful war orders; military officers are sworn to arrest those who issue them. Indeed, we suffer criminal dishonor if we obey orders for armed attack when they are not “self-defense,” and family dishonor to so easily reject the legal victory won from all our families’ sacrifices through two world wars.
Treaty 1. Kellogg-Briand: General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy:
The legal term renounce means to surrender access; that is, to remove that which is renounced as lawful option. This active treaty (page 466 “Renunciation of War”), usually referenced as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, states:
The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”
Treaty 2. United Nations Charter:
It’s helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation’s legislature’s consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation’s armed attack.
The preamble of the United Nations includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”
The UN purpose includes: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace…”
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
- All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…
Article 24: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
- The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
- The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.
Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan (or Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Iran [here, here, here], Russia, or claims about ISIS or Khorasans). The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation’s government.
The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.
American Daniel Webster helped create the legal definition of national self-defense in the Caroline Affair as “necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.
In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates.
In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.
Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.
Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu
Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here).