Listen to a reading of this article:

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre came very close to committing the cardinal sin of referring to a US-aligned nation as a “regime” on Monday.

In the official White House transcript of Jean-Pierre’s interaction with a reporter inquiring about Biden’s upcoming meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the press secretary’s comment reads as follows:

“Of course, he will be — they will discuss energy with the Saudi government.”

However, if you watch a video clip highlighted on Twitter by Kawsachun News’ Camila Escalante, you’ll notice Jean-Pierre gets tripped up before the word “government”, with a more accurate transcribing reading something like, “Of course, he will be — they will discuss energy with the Saudi re— uhh, err, government.”

Which is hilarious, because for imperial spinmeisters the word “regime” is traditionally reserved for governments which are not aligned with the US empire, because it suggests that they are undemocratic and authoritarian. The theocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia is most certainly authoritarian and is the exact opposite of democratic, but because it is aligned with the interests of Washington that pejorative label is typically avoided at the upper echelons of imperial narrative management.

Whether or not a government will be affixed with this label has far less to do with its level of oppressiveness than with whether or not it cooperates with imperial agendas. In a 2018 article titled “A ‘Regime’ Is a Government at Odds With the US Empire,” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s Gregory Shupak explained:

The function of “regime” is to construct the ideological scaffolding for the United States and its partners to attack whatever country has a government described in this manner. According to the mainstream media, the democratically elected government of Nicaragua is a “regime” (Washington Post7/11/18). Cuba also has a “regime” (Washington Post7/25/18). Iraq and Libya used to have “regimes”—before the United States implemented “regime change.” North Korea most definitely has one (New York Times7/26/18), as do China (Washington Post8/3/18) and Russia (Wall Street Journal7/15/18).


When, for the media, does a government become a “regime”? The answer, broadly speaking: A country’s political leaders are likely to be called a “regime” when they do not follow US dictates, and are less likely to be categorized as such if they cooperate with the empire.

Washington’s economic and military partner Saudi Arabia is described as having a “regime” far less often than is Syria, despite its rather “regime”-like qualities: Its unelected government represses dissidents, including advocates for women and its Shia minority, and carries out executions at an extraordinary clipincluding of people accused of adultery, apostasy and witchcraft. Saudi Arabia crushed an uprising in neighboring Bahrain in 2011, and with its US and UK partners, is carrying out an almost apocalyptic war in Yemen.

When the imperial spin machine wants to legitimize a government, it calls it a government. When it wants to delegitimize a government, it calls it a regime.

It’s an effective propaganda technique because in school Americans are not taught about the US “regime”, they’re taught about their government. British schoolchildren aren’t taught about the UK “regime”, they are taught about their government. You never hear about the “Canadian regime” or the “Australian regime”. When you use a completely different word for the governing body of a nation, it sets it apart from the concept of government you are familiar with in your mind. It makes the government sound alien, like something that doesn’t belong. Maybe something that needs to be removed.

When the empire wants to topple a government, their first step is to psychologically uncouple it from the nation and its people in the eyes of the western world by consistently using labels that make it look like an alien, occupying force. It’s not Venezuela’s government: it’s the Maduro Regime™️.

Oh no! A regime? How did that regime get in where Venezuela’s government ought to be? Watch out Venezuelans, you’ve got a regime on your back! Don’t worry, we’ll come and rescue you from it!

Do you see how it works? If you can make a nation’s government look like an illegitimate invading force instead of the governing body which arose from that nation’s internal dynamics, you legitimize any attempt to “defend” that nation from that force. Up to and including staging coups, arming oppositional militias, airstrikes, sanctions, or full-scale ground invasions.

Which, because it generally cooperates with the US empire, the Biden administration has no interest in doing to Saudi Arabia. Whenever you see a mass media spin piece conducting apologia for the US government’s coziness with Gulf state tyrants, like the recent article in The Atlantic titled “Biden Is Right About Saudi Arabia,” you will see the word “regime” appear exactly zero times.

We saw these ridiculous mental contortions illustrated in particularly hilarious fashion in 2017 when Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart Jones was asked at a press conference to square the Trump administration’s hand-wringing about the quality of Iranian democracy with its friendliness toward Saudi Arabia. Jones famously paused a full 20 seconds before he could even answer:

You can understand how all this bullshit would be difficult for a rookie press secretary to keep track of. You can be sure that the previous press secretary Jen Psaki would have sailed smoothly from the word “Saudi” to the word “government” without the faintest flicker of conscience, like the cold-blooded reptile she is.

While we’re on the subject, how gross is it that presidential administrations all have their own PR spinmeisters? That’s all a White House press secretary is, you know: someone who works for the White House whose actual job is to manipulate and deceive the public about all the depraved actions of the president.

It is necessary for them to do this because all US presidents must necessarily engage in nefarious behavior as managers of a tyrannical globe-spanning empire, and it is necessary to continuously manipulate and deceive the public about these actions because otherwise they would put a stop to them.

The US government must continuously subvert the will of the people in this way in order to successfully inflict the necessary violence and oppression for maintaining a global empire.

One might even go so far as calling it a regime.


My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my American husband Tim Foley.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2



Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

23 responses to “Biden’s New Press Secretary Almost Calls Saudis A ‘Regime’”

  1. Thanks for setting me straight. I’ve been ranting about what the Biden regime is doing in Ukraine lately. I stand corrected.

  2. “Jen Psaki would have sailed smoothly from the word “Saudi” to the word “government” without the faintest flicker of conscience, like the cold-blooded reptile she is.”
    I’m retired and on a fixed income, but If I ever hit it big I will be a supporter lol.

  3. The White House press secretary is a gay golliwog. Which is nothing against gays. Or golliwogs. But the White House press secretary is actually a gay golliwog. And, just to tie this in, would in fact be stoned to death by the Saudi regime she’s covering for.

  4. Isto sem falar que ele citou GUAIDÓ como presidente do Brasil reconhecido pelo governo dos EUA como tal…

  5. Bravo for digging out that Stuart Jones gem which tells us more than ten thousand words about the delusion these guys live in.
    I don’t think they’re even lying most of the time. They’re fed propaganda, they don’t question it because it’s not career-friendly, they forward it verbatim to the media and then they read in the media just what they said, which confirms, period.
    Then a journalist asks: “You dissed Ted Bundy during a joint press conference with John Wayne Gacy. What do you think is the difference between these two serial killers?”
    Of course you try to answer honestly as you’ve been taught but that’s so far out of the box, you blank hopelessly. So you dig into the satchel of one size fits all fallacies you’ve been trained to use in Q&A drills but even there, nothing fits. Your last recourse is key words: you’ve got to come up with a sentence having Iran and terrorism in the same breath, no matter in what order or if it makes any sense at all and with a bit of luck, the look-out will send a lifebuoy your way before you drown. Which he will, even if he has to use the excuse that you’ve got an important meeting with leaders of other planets like former president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker.
    Actually, if you want to split hairs, Juncker didn’t say that he had to leave because he had a meeting with leaders of other planets. He said he’d had meetings with leaders of other planets and they were worried about Brexit.
    Which is of course a lot more plausible. Got away with it too! No follow-up. Some UFO freaks wrote “See? Juncker acknowledges there are extra-terrestrials!” and Bob’s your uncle.
    Chutzpah is the secret. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. Gotta have nerves of steel though, which Stuart Jones obviously didn’t have. Probably too honest…
    The record so far remains with Donald Rumsfeld’s “things we know, things we don’t know, things we know we don’t know and things we don’t know we don’t know”.
    As Nixon once replied to a question by Bob Haldeman, “Ask Rumsfeld, he’s a ruthless little bastard.”
    That’s the kind of dudes governments need so badly…

    1. Pascal, numerous so-called journalists repeated the falsehood that Ken Livingstone said Hitler was a Zionist, and each and every single one of them KNEW that it was a falsehood, as did their editors of course. And they ALL conspired in the anti-semitism black op smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and the left-wing membership of the Labour Party – ie Jeremy’s supporters – ‘transforming’ him, and them, into anti-semites. And they didn’t give a toss about causing alarm and consternation in the Jewish population in their quest to sabotage his chances of winning a general election. They knew that most people had heard of him (prior to him contesting the leadership and then becoming leader), but they knew that only people on the left were aware that he was a life-long anti- racist and, as such, they would see the smears for what they were, but they knew that most people DIDN’T know that he was.
      They duped and deceived millions of people and, as such, subverted democracy, and did so knowingly. And needless to say, they all knew that Ken was alluding to an historical fact – ie The Haavara Agreement – when he said that Hitler was supporting Zionism, and they succeeded in smearing and demonising him precisely because they knew that very few people had ever heard of the agreement.

      1. Even two years later (when he resigned from the Labour Party) a Guardian columnist was still repeating the falsehood that Ken said Hitler was a Zionist. And she doubles down on the falsehood by saying that KL has ‘repeatedly insisted’ that Hitler was a Zionist. You have to register to get access to full articles, so here’s what she said:

        Ken Livingstone is not enormously sorry. That much seems evident from his resignation statement, a classic of the “If anyone was offended by my perfectly reasonable behaviour, then … ” genre. Even now he can’t seem to grasp why repeatedly insisting that Hitler was a Zionist was so damaging to his party and to his own reputation. What a waste of a once formidable political talent. For, whatever you make of his ideas, he was an outstanding communicator of them – one of the most naturally gifted politicians I’ve ever interviewed.

      2. Just to give the background of how things unfolded for any readers who are unaware of the sequence of events: Ken said what he said about Hitler in a radio interview that morning, and then some three hours later, when he arrived at the studios to appear on the Daily Politics, he was verbally attacked by Labour MP John Mann at the entrance to the studios, and then shortly afterwards appeared on the programme (which went out live), and then John Mann came on – albeit in a separate studio at the studios – and laid in to Ken again, and John Mann initiated the falsehood that Ken had said (in the radio interview earlier that morning) that Hitler was a Zionist, and even when Ken responded that he DIDN’T say that, John Mann AGAIN claimed that he did. And not only was John Mann pretending that what Ken said earlier that morning was highly offensive, but Andrew Neil and the other presenter ALSO joined in falsely and fraudulently lambasting him. Here’s a video clip of that part of the programme (4 mins 37 secs):
        Needless to say, all three of them knew that Ken was alluding to the Haavara Agreement. Ken – in the video clip – says how it would take BBC researchers ‘two hours’ to confirm that what he said was true….. Well it took me about TWO minutes to do a search re ‘hitler was supporting zionism’ and learn about The Haavara Agreement. Literally!

  6. Glenn Greenwald posted the following article a couple of days ago:
    Joe Biden’s Submissive — and Highly Revealing — Embrace of Saudi Despots
    Biden’s immediate abandonment of his 2020 vow to turn the Saudis into “pariahs,” and his increasing support for the regime, shows the core deceit of U.S. propaganda.

  7. It’s funny AND Freudian!

  8. Acting Under Secretary Jones was in trouble there, and I’m not talking the lengthy pause in the beginning. He finished his non-answer by pointed out that Iran has an electorate, and that unintended admission seemed to puzzle him, like holy fucking oops, I’ve just set myself up for the mother-of-all follow up questions.
    But thankfully everyone stayed on script, and Jonesy was quickly hustled off the stage before any bold and aggressive truth-seeking jounalists could bark at him, “Mr. Secretary! Are you stating for the record that Iran is a democracy!?”

  9. Maybe I’m feeling cynical today, but thanks Cait for explaining the use of regime to the few people who already understand it. My mother-in-law, a smart, elderly lady with a graduate degree in chemistry, gets defensive when I question how the things she says are the same things said by the TV. She believes that she has original thoughts that just coincide. She used to oppose my regime being married to her daughter, but failed to topple it.

  10. Russia:
    Health care? Yes.
    Gun Control? Yes.
    Death penalty? No.
    All leaders are related to each other? No.

    Saudi Arabia:
    Health care? No.
    Gun Control? No.
    Death penalty? Yes.
    All leaders are related to each other? Yes.

    Health care? No.
    Gun Control? No.
    Death penalty? Yes.
    All leaders are related to each other? Yes.

    Birds of a feather flock together…

  11. Maybe KSA is about to cross over to the other side

  12. Ha!

    The American oligarchic regime is having trouble segregating its language games from its decision process.

    The Empire is becoming demented through its infiltration by its aging demented rulers.

  13. George Cornell Avatar
    George Cornell

    George Carlinesque. Can there be higher praise on the use of language? Nice one Caitlin.

  14. Pointing the finger, cameras, megaphone, social media is not enough. It is equalized among people fearing about losing money, jobs, influence. I like the lesson learned by this kid, Aaron Mate – “The lesson I’m drawing from this is that if we expose and respond to characters like Paul Mason trying to censor us, we’re going to be accused of “bullying” and then censored”.
    That’s precisely how MSM editor’s and owners deal with criticism, resistance, opposition.
    Take a look at what Israel does on Middle East and now take a look at Russia and Ukraine conflict. Take a look at the Yemeni slaughter perpetrated by Saudis.
    We are powerless in the big geopolitical game where fortunes are shifting hands and countries sovereign are exchanged at the Wall Street table. It is a war of billionaires fighting for resources and power who needs the State’s structure to accomplish whatever they need.
    Mark my words. It is just a warm up happening in Ukraine.
    The next winter will be the first tough winter in a long sequence.

  15. The “Biden” regime just can’t get good help these days.
    Hell, they can’t even keep the help they have, and it’s nothing to write home about.
    Note this:
    The mainstream narrative should therefore be reversed: the stock market did not collapse (in March 2020) because lockdowns had to be imposed; rather, lockdowns had to be imposed because financial markets were collapsing. With lockdowns came the suspension of business transactions, which drained the demand for credit and stopped the contagion. In other words, restructuring the financial architecture through extraordinary monetary policy was contingent on the economy’s engine being turned off. Had the enormous mass of liquidity pumped into the financial sector reached transactions on the ground, a monetary tsunami with catastrophic consequences would have been unleashed.
    As claimed by economist Ellen Brown, it was “another bailout”, but this time “under cover of a virus.” Similarly, John Titus and Catherine Austin Fitts noted that the Covid-19 “magic wand” allowed the Fed to execute BlackRock’s “going direct” plan, literally: it carried out an unprecedented purchase of government bonds, while, on an infinitesimally smaller scale, also issuing government backed ‘COVID loans’ to businesses. In brief, only an induced economic coma would provide the Fed with the room to defuse the time-bomb ticking away in the financial sector.

    1. The Fed reminds me of someone chased by a bear on a diving board over the Grand Canyon. So far, he has managed to build extensions every time the bear is about to pounce and he thinks he’ll probably be able to make it all the way to safety on the other side. However, Roadrunner vs Wile E. Coyote by world-class economist Chuck Jones, shows us that it’s generally when Coyote stops deluding himself and realizes that he’s only supported by thin air that he falls into the canyon. If the Fed ever stops deluding themselves about their $30 trillion in the red Ponzi scheme, they’re toast…

      1. Ponzi scheme is illegal – so that only the Fed be allowed to use it.

    2. I don’t believe the COVID quarantines were imposed in March 2020 because of an impending market collapse. In fact, Wall Street investment banks were experiencing a liquidity crisis much earlier and the COVID epidemic simply provided safe cover for the Fed to make more free money available to the big banks. Check out ‘Wall Street on Parade’ for continuing well-documented daily coverage of Wall Street’s shenanigans. Here, for example, is a good example of what was happening in January 2020:

      1. “(2) the Fed’s balance sheet is already over $4 trillion; is it prepared to double or triple that to keep the stock market roaring?”
        Yup! It is now at $9 trillion and… spending:

  16. US definitely has a regime, because we cannot change the course of US foreign or domestic affairs via elections. Even Elon Musk can’t.

Leave a Reply