When confronted with the distinctly out-of-proportion levels of violent crimes committed by African-Americans against white Americans, the contemporary Major Media exhibits a behavior pattern most notably represented by the late J. Edgar Hoover when addressing the issue of “the Mafia”: “There is no Mafia.” For the Major Media there is no evidence of such statistical criminal anomaly. For them, it does not exist except in the heads of beings lost in the darkness of hate. It is only marketing “jazz” propagated by “far-out” white extremists attempting to work out some half-baked plan.
Local urban media tends to follow precisely the lead of the Major Media, for the twin reasons of corporate pressure to align and the individual dreams of local media stars to “hit the big time” (and the big bucks) with the Major Media.
In typically patronizing mentoring, the political Establishment and the Major Media proclaim that the African American “community” within the American (indeed, world) “family” has been victimized by “systemic racism” inherent in the United States experiment in government. As this system was the product of Anglo-Saxons and Scot-Irish mostly (correctly viewed), then it followed that African Americans have been, and are, victims of out-of-proportion levels of crimes, committed by white Americans.
Since most Americans want to do what they have been told is “right,” there is widespread masochism among white Americans, as they attempt to “right a wrong.” By the way, who is doing the “telling?”
This line of destructive propaganda flows from Freemasonic and Marxist leaders in the U.S. government, media, education and religious institutions. Why? It is preparation for overtly setting aside “atavistic nationalism” for the sort of global government which ancient observers named as “Babylon,” “Egypt” and “Anti-Christ."
In other words, this revolutionary leadership believes that the American experiment in government has failed; it’s time for a “make-over.”
That is why they have eyes and see not.
- Current Mood:mindfully idle
- Current Music:What's Cooking?
On October 22, 2015 CNN provided glimpses of the lengthy session before a congressional committee investigating the role of Hillary Clinton in the “terrorist” attack on the United States embassy in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others. This program was hosted by Anderson Cooper. He inquired of various guests what their opinions were in regard to her response to questions and in regard to the committee members’ questions and the overall atmosphere at the meeting.
Most of the opinions expressed admiration for Mrs. Clinton’s handling of numerous, often hostile questions, and they appeared to be generally at one that the session lasted too long and verged on brutal at times.
Among the five observers were David Gergen and Carl Bernstein. Mr. Gergen has appeared on major media programs on many occasions over the years. He has invariably been described as “an adviser to six presidents,” even though he was not holding an appointed position in the vast majority of prior administrations. Was he that effective – or was he courier?
When Carl Bernstein was asked for his view, the pudgy, wealthy author and former reporter for The Washington Post during its apex under Katherine Meyer Graham, saw fit to compare the committee focusing on Benghazi as [Joseph] McCarthy-like in its approach to Hillary Clinton.
This observation was seconded by other members of the panel.
What was curious about the Bernstein comparison of the Senate Un-American Activities Committee, chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy, with the House Benghazi Committee, chaired by Congressman Trey Gowdy, was that the fall of the U.S.S.R. allowed Western scholars to investigate many of the previously unavailable documents, which provided overwhelming confirmation that many of the government officials scrutinized by Sen. McCarthy’s committee were in fact Soviet agents. They had infiltrated various government agencies, especially DOD and State. Even the Supreme Court witnessed the infiltration of a Marxist traitor in the person of Justice Felix Frankfurter. Mr. Frankfurter was a mentor of Philip Graham, publisher of The Washington Post and husband of Katherine Meyer Graham, who was the daughter of Eugene Meyer, who bought the newspaper in or about 1930.
The others on Anderson Cooper’s panel, such as David Gergen, seemed to share this Bernstein insight.
Besides the inconvenient fact that Senator Joseph McCarthy was largely correct – and might be excused for his hostility to traitors by all but communist fellow travelers, Bernstein’s comparison suggested a sub rosa element. He may have been implying or signaling that the Benghazi Committee was threatening to become a “Jewish witch-hunt” or a threat to Israel’s security.
Since Jews had become well aware that the vast majority of anti-communist movements were thinly disguised anti-Semitic attacks, they apparently organized a counter-attack on the concept of an “Un-American” activity generally and Senator Joseph McCarthy particularly. I don’t believe there exists evidence proving that Senator McCarthy was anti-Semitic. He has been described as kind-hearted by nature. However, to be anti-communist was the same as being anti-Semitic in the eyes of many - and especially in the eyes of leftist Jews.
I now look for a general counter-attack against “unsophisticated, narrow-minded, xenophobic” Republican partisans. I expect that the Benghazi Committee hearing(s) will be framed as a “witch-hunt” and as “infamous.” I expect that “experts” will begin to suggest that these kinds of hearings will hurt the security of Israel.
Since the strength of the “Tea Party” Republicans is founded upon millions of “Zionist” Christians blindly, ardently expressing undying love for Israel and the Jews – often with the same ardent enthusiasm that the ancestors of many of them expressed for “Southern rights,” the suggestion that the Benghazi Committee would not hurt Hillary – it would hurt Israel – would annihilate any further attacks on Hillary on this issue by Republicans.
- Current Mood:Nightowl
- Current Music:Who Are You
The inner most portion, or layer, of the brain has been styled the Crocodilian layer by some early researchers on the human brain. It supposedly controlled the two fundamental expressions engendered when confronted by a threat: Fight or Flee. By extrapolation I surmise that it is that part of the self that sees things in an “either-or” pattern. For the human brain there must be a deep satisfaction in seeing the world in such a simple way.
Over the years, I’ve noticed how Jews seemed to see other people in this way. A person was either a “friend of Jews” or he was “anti-Semitic” or “enemy of Jews.” Since Jews are typically suspicious of anyone not known to be either “a friend” or “an enemy,” Jews are probably inclined to give them a temporary designation of “not known yet to be an enemy.” For Jews “being persecuted” is an important condition to maintain, as it provides them with leverage to quash unwanted analysis and/or investigation into their history, their present condition, and the trend of the future largely shaped by their hands.
It has been stated by an influential rabbi that any negative commentary against the Jews, even if true and factual, was anti-Semitic because its purpose was to make Jews look bad. Why else would the negative comment about Jews be made? He asked.
Needless to say, in regard to Jewry being a “loyal opposition” translates “enemy” in the citadels of Jewish power. This citadel of Jews has become immense. It is the forbidding castle overlooking the village. One could mention that at least three members of the present Supreme Court are Jews. One could mention that every head of the Federal Reserve Board since Mr. Volcker has been a Jew. One could mention that two out the first three heads of Homeland Security have been Jews. The first one was not but was a “Zionist Christian” and was mentored by the second, Michael Chertoff. In his administration Billy Jeff Clinton appointed nearly 52% of his high appointive position to Jews. During the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, all the top five spots were held by Jews, and all the important commissariats were between 30-80% Jews. Throughout the Soviet Union’s communist existence, the influence of Jews remained high – 30-40% - in key party positions. Further, many influential Soviet leaders, such as Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev, were married to Jews. The United States presently entertains similar statistics indicative of Jewish power in America.
National curiosities now exist in America. The late Armand Hammer was considered an excellent example of capitalism in action. However, his father co-founded the Communist Party in America. Armand Hammer was styled the “Capitalist Prince” by Soviet officials who dealt in trade matters. “Prince” has a peculiarly Jewish meaning, besides its standard one. He mentored the Albert Gore, Sr. family in Tennessee, helping “The Gray Fox” become a Tennessee U.S. senator. He also helped them financially. Albert Gore, Jr. was also helped politically, and he, too, eventually became a U.S. senator and was on a presidential ticket for the Democrats, after serving as Vice President in the Clinton Administration. Junior Gore’s daughter married the great grandson of Jacob Schiff, whose ancestral family shared a duplex with Meyer Amschel Bauer (Rothschild) and whose family stayed connected to the Rothschild family dynasty. When Jacob Schiff migrated to America, he joined the Kuhn Loeb merchant banking house, along with fellow German banking family scion, Felix Warburg. Warburg was the brother of Paul Warburg, leading founding father of the Federal Reserve System central bank in America, whose Manhattan Bank was merged with John D. Rockefeller’s Chase Bank to form Chase Manhattan Bank. Jacob Schiff was a primary financial adviser to Standard Oil Trust.
Parenthetically, while watching a documentary on Vladimir Lenin on the History Channel, the death of Lenin was included. A video of his funeral was shown. One of the end pole bearers for Vladimir Lenin was Jacob Schiff. I’ve seen pictures of Schiff in past research, and there could be no doubt that it was Jacob Schiff, who had an easily identifiable face. The wealthy clothes of the financier stood out. Hence, the Jewish foe of Capitalism and the Jewish incarnation of finance once again were united in common purpose. Once again? Jacob Schiff’s son, or nephew, stated that he had given $20 million in gold to Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky to help buy the Russian Revolution unto successful conclusion. [John D. Rockefeller was said to have given Leon Trotsky $10,000 in cash at his departure from N.Y.C.]
Parenthetically, since about 3 pennies at the turn of the 20th Century had about the same purchasing power as a 1990 dollar, the gifts of Schiff and Rockefeller were astonishing and generous, respectively.
From this one can glean that although Jews may belong to different schools of thought and vie with one another on that basis, against the other people of the world Jews tend to be surprisingly together. They are most comfortable with other Jews. They do not like outside interference. They are hostile to pointed criticisms. They may be the original inventors of the “enemies list.”
Binjamin Netanyahu stated that he didn’t worry about America because 80% of Americans supported him. I belong to the 20%. If there is a Jewish “enemies list,” I reckon that I’m on it. It is my fate to be dominated by the Neocortex, while the powerful Jews are dominated by the Archicortex. C’est la vie!
- Current Mood:Revolutionary
- Current Music:Internationale
“Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”
“By way of deception” [Mossad motto, alluding to the advice on strategy suggested by a Jewish sage]
America’s leadership contains circles that have been and are typically deceitful. They also seem to be well-integrated with both the British and the Israelis. They have set up innumerable organizations – often bearing titles suggestive of a global policy interest – to produce essays and orators to propagandize their perspective on major issues. Sometimes an issue they “push” may seem marginal, but they have always thought several steps ahead so that one can be certain that the seemingly marginal issue will tie importantly to a major issue in the future.
The major media, which has been owned or influenced by these same “masters of deceit,” frequently features one of their propagandists on “op ed” pages or their correlative on the major television networks. Crucial positions such as “managing editor” have almost always been in their hands so they have been able to filter out unwanted information that might confuse their readers or viewers.
Incidentally, the term “masters of deceit” was employed as the title of a book by F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover. I believe that it was published in the ‘50s and dealt with the nefarious doings of communist agents, especially the U.S.S.R.’s, in America. Ironically, his book came out just prior to the big push to do a political make-over of the constitution and government of the United States of America without visible deconstruction. The structure need not be radically changed, if the words that constructed it are slyly changed by interpretation. Thus, the United States of America became a Marxist country by means of the suggestions of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, whose political strategy envisioned a transformation of the culture of a society, leading to a transformation of the society itself, rather than a bloody revolution and coerced imposition of Marxist-Leninist doctrines.
Parenthetically, if a nation state controls its wealth, the leadership of that nation – in effect – control its wealth. It would be normal to enjoy plenty in any society. While the ordinary workers may not have access to it, that fact would not preclude the leaders, who always do have access, from discreetly enjoying it. Such was the case in the U.S.S.R where the Marxist-Leninist leadership maintained stores filled with plenty, including luxury items, while the proletariat stores were notoriously bare of items.
All of this has been entered here as a supporting structure to my point about the deceitful American leadership circles.
Although these circles have conspired to create “events of terror” on a regular basis at least since the ‘80s, as can be witnessed by the Murrah building explosion in Oklahoma City, OK, the Ruby Ridge assault in Idaho, and the Waco holocaust, none of their previous nefarious deeds would matched their 9/11 attack.
The fact that all of the above were heavy-handed, senseless acts of carnage and were also characterized as acts of official cover-up suggest an ulterior motivation, which itself suggests they originated among theorists employed by the Resident Evil presently ruling America.
Not very many people in America have really thought too much about the label attached to the catastrophic attack on the World Trade Center’s twin towers. It was quickly labeled “9/11.” If one were to add these two numbers, then one would have the sum “20.” If one were to translate the sum “20” into Roman Latin, then one would have the sum “XX.” What is “XX?” It is the figurative form of “double cross.”
Most American know what the expression “double cross” means or suggests. But how many Americans know that intelligence groups have actually used the term “XX” to thinly disguise a disinformation stratagem? Would American ruling circles do the same?
Consider the British Double-Cross System, or XX System, used during World War 2 (“II”). According to Wikipedia it was an anti-espionage and deception operation of the British Security Service, usually referred to by its cover title MI5. It was used very effectively against the Nazi regime in Germany. It was overseen by the Twenty Committee, which was under the chairmanship of John Cecil Masterman. It was a name clearly chosen for its droll alternate meaning, which more rawly stated its purpose and modus operandi.
I propose and do believe that the choice of “9/11” both for calendar date of attack and for popular appellation was done by a powerful, secretive ruling circle in the United States, assisted by their propagandists in the academic-intellectual-creative complex, and that this group at once understood and relished its terror event’s disguised “XX” meaning. I further believe that both the British and Israeli intelligence service(s) were aware of the planned “9/11” event and were involved to some unknown extent.
The full future ramifications of the “9/11” attacks will be manifested in the sweet bye-n-bye.
- Current Mood:Light Bearing
- Current Music:Light My fire
Around March 21 there was a report over the radio of my car that a student at George Washington University [“GWU”] had gotten in trouble with the university’s administration because he was alleged to have placed a swastika on the “notice board” of his dormitory. The GWU administration viewed this action as being a “hate crime.”
Parenthetically, about a year or two ago a female student had alleged that someone had drawn a swastika on her dorm room door (or a similar action). She was a Jew. GWU has a substantial number of Jewish students. This spurred much talk of anti-Semitism having somehow gotten into GWU and infecting some of the student body, or similar ruminations. Then GWU officials announced that the young woman student, who had apparently been the victim of an anti-Semitic act, had in fact committed the act herself. This the officials discovered upon looking at video from a security camera on the student’s floor. Apparently, the student had not noticed or had not considered the security camera when deciding to create the anti-Semitic incident. The “devil is in the details,” ‘tis said.
Why would a Jewish GWU student do such a thing? My guess is that, since Jews talk among themselves about the need for the world to understand that Jews are still persecuted and live on the razor’s edge of revived pogroms – perhaps even Holocaust II, the sequel, and to underline why it is so important to blindly support Israel, individual Jews have been impelled to commit anti-Semitic acts against themselves and against other Jews and Jewish facilities. They hope to get across the message that “even though we have been incredibly successful, we are threatened, hated and in danger of imminent persecution.”
Having said this, let’s consider the probabilities relative to the young man mentioned at the outset as being identified by a radio report as allegedly somehow involved with the recent swastika incident. Then I’d like to inquire why GWU even considers itself a “university.”
The young man in question was and is a Jewish student at GWU. Officials state that he was responsible for putting the swastika on the dormitory bulletin board, or notice board. According to a subsequent radio report, the student allegedly agreed that he put the swastika on the bulletin board. GWU authorities have stated that the swastika notice was a “hate crime,” as the swastika was an emblem of hate. The student defended himself by stating that the symbol he put on the board was not a swastika but was an ancient Indian symbol for peace. [Note: the swastika, svastika, or manji has been in use for at least 5000 years and had an auspicious symbology in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism. It is a variation of the cross symbol.]
For the observer the matter appeared to be a struggle between a disingenuous student and an ignorant university officialdom.
As the GWU officials adamantly maintained that the emblem was a “hate crime” swastika symbol, one may validly infer that it appeared in a form indistinguishable from the swastika symbol used by the Hitler regime in Germany. If that happened to be a correct inference, then I believe that this young Jewish student was probably motivated by the same mode of thinking that impelled the Jewish female student a few years earlier. He wanted to create an anti-Semitic incident to generate sympathy for Jews and Israel. His exposure was probably due to another security camera video.
Once the student had been identified, he had no recourse but to use his wits to generate a pretext for doing an act which otherwise would be decidedly counterproductive to its initial purpose of generating sympathy. Utilizing the slogan “the best defense is a good offense,” the student chimed in with “it was a peace symbol” which he meant to share. Street-wise people say that to survive, “you gotta do what you gotta do.”
As far as I know, the GWU officials haven’t backed down about the swastika, but I’d guess that they will let the matter “blow over,” rather than expel or otherwise harshly punish a Jewish student doing something “dumb” but not truly anti-social.
Speaking of dumb, why do the GWU officials become so upset at the appearance of a swastika? In an era where you can burn or defecate on the American national flag in the name of free speech and not hear a “peep” from the academic towers of learning - or do the same to a standard cross, why do GWU officials go ballistic at the sight of the swastika? Jews themselves have popularized the swastika more than Adolf Hitler by their relentless WW2 movies, which typically demonize the Nazis. What with rock-n-roll bands blasting away at satanic themes, over time what seemed wicked suddenly became “kool.”
GWU officials need generous financial gifts to pad their endowment fund. Wealthy Jews would be a very natural source for contributions. Since GWU has a very healthy percentage of Jewish students, they have every expectation of getting help from rich Jews. Could they expect the desired financial gifts if Jews wondered if GWU was becoming infected with anti-Semitism? As the Sages might say, “G_d forbid!”
All of this is perfectly understandable, but why do the call themselves a “university” of learning? Why not be honest? GWU is a university that patterns itself off accepted kosher doctrines.
- Current Mood:Investigative
- Current Music:Suspicion
I often hear news first, rather than see it. I spend much of my day driving. For that reason I tune in the “weather & traffic” station of my choice, which also carries news summaries, sports and the inevitable gaggle of experts and commentators. The station would probably be characterized by people who make it their business to label news outlets as “liberal.”
A couple of days ago, they featured in a sort of “breaking news” style the shootings in Kansas on or about a couple of Jewish facilities. According to the news report, two or three people had been shot and at least two were killed. One was reported to be a boy and the other an older man. The shooter had been apprehended alive and taken into custody by authorities.
The radio station report was presented in such a way as to emphasize the “Jewish” facilities, suggesting that the people who were shot were Jewish. Further, the shooter was identified as one Frazier Glenn Miller, who was identified as a known anti-Semite. He had also, according to this report, an alias, “Frazier Glenn Cross, Jr.” According to the radio report, he had a long association with the KKK.
Most of the news information about the shooter had been provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center [“SPLC”], originally founded by Mr. Morris Seligman Dees, Jr. and Joe Levin. Its first president was Julian Bond. Mr. Dees had previously operated a mail-order business in Alabama which he had been able to sell to a Chicago group for a surprisingly generous price. The funds gained in this sale provided the funds for Mr. Dees to finance the creation of the SPLC. Mr. Dees is Jewish in origins.
Parenthetically, the SPLC has operated a secular intelligence, spying and – some say – a “dirty tricks” operation in the guise of a benevolent organization. It works closely with the FBI, Homeland Security, and other federal organizations to record, store, analyze and publish information on “hate crimes.” The major media usually report the findings of the SPLC. “Hate crimes” have typically been crimes against Jews, African Americans, homosexuals, Latinos, et al, perpetrated by “white people.”
For the above reasons I was not surprised that the radio station reports emphasized buzzwords and phrases such as “hate,” “anti-Semitic,””racist,” et cetera. Also, the sites of the shooting were emphasized. The name reported on the radio of the shooter was repeated, along with mention of the aka “Cross.” They had the SPLC data taken from their large collection of dossiers to identify the shooter more fully.
One felt to shake one’s head at the insane violence.
However, since there were follow-up reports also provided by the radio station of record over the next 36 hours, I began to notice some differences in texture. The people killed were not identified as Jews. Emphasis on the Jewish facility continued along with lamentations about the period in which the killings occurred. Denunciations about “hate” were voiced often.
Then there a report that clearly suggested that the victims weren’t Jewish. Since my initial assumption from the news was that the shooter hated Jews and had gone to the Jewish facilities to specifically kill Jews, I thought of the dread irony he unleashed. While not wishing any injury to Jews, I could not help thinking, ”What an idiot! He wanted kill Jews and, in fact, killed non-Jews.”
With this mood in my mind, I renewed my own analysis of the situation and motivation which created it.
The shooter was 73 years old. Was it possible that he had heard “bad news” from a doctor that made him desperate to accomplish such a horrible deed? Did he want to make “a statement” to America and the world?
I knew from my own experience that many Jews bear the last name “Miller.” Was it possible that Frazier Glenn Miller was himself Jewish in origins? I had read some years back of a man named “Collins” who headed a Neo-Nazi outfit near Chicago, Illinois. He was exposed as a Jew. There have been other such singularities.
To offer some support to my allegations about the name “Miller,” I googled the term “Rabbi Miller” and easily copied a few examples from what must undoubtedly be a large pool of such names. Consider:
1. Rabbi Mark J. Miller – Associate Rabbi. Rabbi Mark J. Miller grew up in Colorado
3. Rabbi Avigdor Miller
4. Rabbi Jason Miller, West Bloomfield Township, Michigan
6. RABBI Tamara Miller
9. Rabbi Yitzhak Miller is an experienced rabbi of the Reform Jewish movement
10. Rabbi Shmuel Miller, founder of Midrasho Shel Shem.
As you can see, the name “Miller” is a common Jewish name. The shooter may or may not be a Jew. However, no one ever suggested that the shooter was a Jew. Presumably, reliance on the SPLC is absolute at the level of federal police organizations and the major media.
Why would a Jew perpetrate such a horrible act against Jews?
Only weeks before this shooting in Kansas, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith [“ADL”] had been warning Jewish congregations and organizations to be on alert for possible violence. Therefore, within the Jewish community there must have been heightened awareness of danger.
Organizations such as the SPLC and ADL have been alleged to have infiltrated “far-rightwing” organizations, aka, “extremist” organizations for many years. Their value to FBI and other federal police/intelligence organizations was born of this sort of work. Could Frazier Glenn Miller be such an undercover spy? Was that why he used the name “Cross?” There are still Jews who hate the “man on the cross” and might use his name in spite.
With these speculations in mind consider Frazier Glenn Miller. He must be brave if he infiltrated such a notoriously dangerous group as the KKK. If he also learned from his doctor that he had only a few months to live, then he might have been moved to that state of mind where violence is easily entertained. If a Jew, he would not be interested in hurting Jews. He would, however, given the nature of the ADL and the SPLC, have felt “his people” were threatened by an anti-Semitic world.
Therefore, he may have decided to kill the “enemies” of Jews, while at the same time reinforcing the image of the persecuted Jews. He would go to a Jewish facility where non-Jews were known to be, and his dread beau geste for his people would also be a kind of “swan song” for a man already dying. He would kill – but not Jews. He would die as a vile man. The KKK organization he joined would reap the enmity for his deed.
To paraphrase Lord Byron: Truth is stranger than fiction.
I saw today where the shooter had been born “Frazier Glenn Cross, Jr.” Yet, given the initial information reported on the radio, no one even thought to look more broadly at this violence. That is odd, as it was centered in a realm of “false flags” and misinformation meant to achieve an approved consensus.
- Current Mood:pundit
- Current Music:What's Going Down?
- Current Mood:proletarian
- Current Music:Steel-Driving Man
Caveat: My blog creation has been actively interfered with by hackers - probably hired by a government agency - to thwart and stifle my efforts at expressing myself well. When you cannot defeat an argument, you try to make it invisible or impaired. I don't believe that it is reasonable to assert that the Syrian regime has used toxic gas on its citizens nor on the rebels which they have been fighting. In the first instance they have been winning the fight against their opponents, using conventional weapons. In the second instance, they have an interest in not drawing the United States into the conflict on the side of their enemies. In the third instance they have war-materiel support from Russia which might well end if they used toxic gas at this point in the conflict. Why risk it? Further, the fairly standard Anglo-American psywar gambits are being manifested. Reports of atrocities against women and children have been recently spun. Illegal, immoral weaponry have been reported by intelligence operatives. These weapons have been depicted as a threat to America and the world. On a high probability “evidence” has been planted by Anglo-American and Israeli intelligence agents, as was done in WW II. Furthermore, the American intelligence agencies – both DoD and CIA – have the ability to synthesize credible audio through captured sound waves that have been captured to computer, analyzed and reproduced. Computers in the NSA and DoD “darkoperations” can “talk” to anyone in any language from orbiting satellites and remote land locations using electromagnetic waves aimed at the electromagnetic field unique to each human. Simple consideration of the special effects capabilities of Hollywood filmmakers should cause any American to pause. It is well to recall the words of Irish poet William Butler Yeats: “Politicians are easy men, they tell their lies by rote; Journalists make up their own and grab you by the throat.”
I don't believe that it is reasonable to assert that the Syrian regime has used toxic gas on its citizens nor on the rebels which they have been fighting. In the first instance they have been winning the fight against their opponents, using conventional weapons. In the second instance, they have an interest in not drawing the United States into the conflict on the side of their enemies. In the third instance they have war-materiel support from Russia which might well end if they used toxic gas at this point in the conflict. Why risk it?
Further, the fairly standard Anglo-American psywar gambits are being manifested. Reports of atrocities against women and children have been recently spun. Illegal, immoral weaponry have been reported by intelligence operatives. These weapons have been depicted as a threat to America and the world. On a high probability “evidence” has been planted by Anglo-American and Israeli intelligence agents, as was done in WW II.
Furthermore, the American intelligence agencies – both DoD and CIA – have the ability to synthesize credible audio through captured sound waves that have been captured to computer, analyzed and reproduced. Computers in the NSA and DoD “darkoperations” can “talk” to anyone in any language from orbiting satellites and remote land locations using electromagnetic waves aimed at the electromagnetic field unique to each human.
Simple consideration of the special effects capabilities of Hollywood filmmakers should cause any American to pause.
It is well to recall the words of Irish poet William Butler Yeats:
“Politicians are easy men, they tell their lies by rote;
Journalists make up their own and grab you by the throat.”
- Current Mood:Short of breath
- Current Music:Help! I Need Somebody!
- Current Mood:Historically correct
- Current Music:Suspicion
Especially during President Obama's 2nd term of office, he seemed to affirm a special concern for the American middle class. He almost seemed to carve out a political position of “patron” of the American middle class. Was – and is – this credible? Was he employing special terminology, as good lawyers often do? Has he become a student of derashic sages?
Given Barack Obama’s long years of nursing at the dugs of devotees of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin and subsequently imbibing from the enriched milk of Antonio Gramsci, could he have flip-flopped his sympathies from the proletariat/workers/downtrodden classes to the American middle class? I don’t think that is likely.
For Marxists the bourgeoisie was always a stage of economic development that must yield in the name of progress to people’s equality. The bourgeoisie was like an outer rampart that had to be scaled so that the social imperative could confront and defeat capitalism itself. The French term “bourgeoisie” can be translated to mean “middle class.”
If President Obama was a Marxist, he would certainly oppose the middle class. Since he has been associated with Marxism and socialism in several important ways, such as parents, relatives, friends, mentors, and organizations, his adherence to its tenets would seem firmly set. One cannot help but to believe that his heart remained with the community of poor and “exploited” and not with a category composed of wannabe exploiters.
The fact that middle class folks didn’t see themselves as exploiters was irrelevant. How President Obama viewed them was the issue.
I am certain that the American middle class is dissolving. The only place that they can go is down. With the capitalists no longer in a position of playing the middle class off against the masses of underemployed, the stage will be set for the great battle of capitalists and their machinery vs. the exploited masses. Hence, it may play out in a MATRIX-like story.
The American middle class is hopelessly positioned in a usury economy of debt-mongering. Capitalist banks routinely inflate-deflate the credit they have issued, while perversely blaming the middle class for not saving enough and at the same time not spending enough. Only the American middle class has found virtue in this system: 1) they have been pleased to “pull in their belts” and 2) they have gotten a renewal of pride in showing “how tough they were as they got their ass kicked.”
Their preachers have never inveighed against usury. They have never advised them that a “beggar one’s neighbor” approach won’t appear so appealing when one became “the neighbor.”
The slow grounding up of the middle class provided food for the restless masses slowly turning to the revolution as a flower to the sun. Was it not reasonable that President Obama’s concern for the American middle class was, in fact, similar to Dr. Kevorkian’s concern for the living doomed?
Regardless of the huffing and puffing of conservative spokespeople, an Obama-esque change will and must come to America due to the very central contradictions that have been built into the system. Allowing private banks (and even corporations) to create the great bulk of the national money supply defied all the “checks and balances” carefully introduced into the organic law of the land by the Founding Fathers. By the early 20th Century risk capital, created out of thin air, increasingly powered the economy. Periodic collapses had become certain. Iconic areas of the modern American system, according to conservative/Republican thinking, such as international central banks, free trade, and mobile (underpaid) work force, provoked terminal illness in Uncle Sam.
The idea of the interconnectivity of a global economy diminished national concerns as “parochial,” while simultaneously severing the relationship of American citizens to the controlling strings of power. The U. S. citizens were advised to “think globally and act locally.” However, their thinking had become almost entirely based on hearsay and dubious video footage. Hence, they could not possibly cogently “act globally” (assuming their elected representatives actually represented their views), forcing them in the end to leave matters to unelected “experts.”
Bigness defied representative government. It encouraged not citizen rule but syndicate rule.
President Obama presumably hopes that after the death of Uncle Sam, he may be revitalized as Comrade Sam. Then he can take his politically correct seat at the table with the other syndicate hoodlums. The era of the dictatorship of the people of the world community will be at hand. Each American can proudly boast, “And I helped!” However, they will have no influence on significant future decisions. Nevertheless, they may take pride in helping select who will play on the All-Star team in local sport.
- Current Location:Somewhere in the Promised Land
- Current Mood:Mouse that marks
- Current Music:Buddy, Can You Spare A Dime?