Sophrosyne Radical: Reflections, provocations & obsecrations from a sapiosexual.

Ignorance and Naiveté in Electoral Enthusiasm – pt. 2

Following up on a previous post, it seemed time for another splash of cold water.



McCain vs. Obama



From kwitsach_hadera:

Global Elite Gather In Washington DC
Published on Tuesday, May 06, 2008.

American Free Press – Jim Tucker

Luminaries at the Trilateral Commission meeting in Washington expressed confidence that they own all three major presidential candidates, who, despite political posturing, will support sovereignty-surrendering measures such as NAFTA and the “North American Union.”

“John has always supported free trade, even while campaigning before union leaders,” said one. “Hil and Barack are pretending to be unhappy about some things, but that’s merely political posturing. They’re solidly in support.”

He was referring to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Mrs. Clinton, they noted, held strategy sessions as first lady on how to get Congress to approve NAFTA “without changes.” As president, they agreed, she would do no more than “dot an i or cross a t.”

Candidate Obama has not denied news reports in Canada that his top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, assured Canadian diplomats that the senator would keep NAFTA intact and his anti-trade talk is just “campaign rhetoric.” [link]


Many Americans might not have heard much about the NAFTA-waffling, but here in Canada it was considered very provocative and media outlets ridiculed Obama’s two-faced rhetoric:

For the Canadians, a key point of concern was Obama’s sharp criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement. DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee “candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign” but reassured Rioux that Obama’s NAFTA-bashing “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” Three weeks later, Canada’s CTV News reported that a “senior member” of Obama’s campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to “not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA.” [link]


Judicial Watch.org lists Obama as one of the top-10 most corrupt politicians in Washington:

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections. It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law. [link]


So what’s the deal with this Rezco BS?

The upcoming federal corruption trial of presidential candidate Barack Obama’s longtime friend and financial supporter is sure to undermine the Illinois senator’s self-promoted, squeaky-clean image of exceptionally high ethical standards and claims of never being influenced by special interests.

In fact, timing couldn’t be worst for the Democratic presidential candidate who has repeatedly downplayed his ties to the renowned Chicago businessman (Antoin Rezko) scheduled to be tried February 25 on federal charges of extortion, influence peddling and conspiracy.

Rezko has been indicted with plotting to squeeze millions of dollars in kickbacks out of investment firms seeking state business and for obtaining $10.5 million from a large company through fraud and swindling a group of investors. Prosecutors also say Rezko provided hefty donations to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions.

No wonder Obama would rather erase his lengthy relationship with Rezko, a longtime loyal supporter. In fact, the senator recently returned $85,000 in contributions. Problem is Obama’s close ties to Rezko have been clearly documented over the years, including the fact that Rezko has basically bankrolled Obama’s political career from the day he first sought public office in 1995.

This week a major newspaper analyzed the powerful Obama-Rezko connection that the presidential candidate and his staff have worked so diligently to minimize, documenting how the indicted businessman, his employees and business associates have fueled Obama’s rapid ascent in Illinois and national politics.

Rezko and his clan have given Obama more than $200,000 in donations and Rezko even hosted a lavish fundraiser at his mansion, featuring an open sushi bar, in 2003 when Obama launched his bid for the U.S. Senate. A few years later the men entered into a controversial real estate deal that Obama later admitted was a regrettable mistake.

The senator paid Rezko for a portion of a lot adjacent to a $1.65 million home he purchased in 2005 for $300,000 below the asking price. The idea, according to Obama, was to create more space between the house and other lot, which happened to be owned by Rezko and his wife. Good friends and neighbors, how cozy.

Yet, Obama continues to pretend that he hardly knows the crooked businessman that has proven to be his most loyal and generous supporter. Somehow, the act itself is what takes away from the senator’s imaginary squeaky clean portrait. [link]


Obama’s mighty cozy with the CFR, those nefarious hegemony-seeking globalists. Wonder why that’s relevant? Try familiarizing yourself with the role the CFR plays in America’s mainstream media.

Obama is NOT anti-War. He’s a boon for mercenaries, and his affiliation with Brzezinski contradicts the misplaced hopeful optimism of liberals:

Let’s call Barack Obama what he is—a sock puppet for the ruling elite. Obama made this plainly obvious recently when he tabbed Zbigniew Brzezinski as his top foreign policy adviser. In addition to his affiliations with the Council on Foreign Relations (as director), the Trilateral Commission, and the National Endowment for Democracy, Brzezinski was the architect of Carter’s Afghanistan policy, that it to say he is responsible for killing thousands of innocents and organizing the Afghan Arabs, later to become “al-Qaeda.” It is said David Rockefeller asked Brzezinski to create the Trilateral Commission and details were hammered out at Rockefeller’s Pocantico Hills estate outside New York City. Rockefeller later introduced the idea to the Bilderberg group in Knokke, Belgium in the spring of 1972. [link]


Obama is not “a step in the right direction” and he will not bring authentic “progress.” Marketing and propaganda aside, Obama’s campaign is vacuous. There are far too many intelligent people in the Obama Cult who should know better.

Additional Rabbit Holes -

  • the_eleven

    I still am gagging over the fact that he has Brzezinski on his staff. I know, let's fix the issues with Al Qaeda and Iran by recruiting the one guy most responsible for causing all the problems in the first place! /dies


    It's really a question in this election of whether you want the country to go to hell quickly, in which case vote Republican, or on a milder downhill slope, in which case voting Democrat is the way to go. Of course, this represents no change from any of the US elections I have participated in, so it's hard for me to get especially worked up about this particular exercise in giving the masses the illusion of power and/or choice.

  • "I still am gagging over the fact that he has Brzezinski on his staff. I know, let's fix the issues with Al Qaeda and Iran by recruiting the one guy most responsible for causing all the problems in the first place! /dies"


    you're gonna have to elaborate on that one.

  • agreed

  • not that i disagree with anything in this post, cause it's all there in the public record, but i have a hard time believing Obama has jumped to the TOP TEN considering he's still a junior congressman.


    I mean yeah, DeLay and Thurmond are gone, but Clinton, Lieberman and McCain are still there, and there's still a lot of folks hitting double-digit terms who have probably done a lot more we just haven't heard about.


    i mean shit we've had a good number of congressmen sent up the river recently for having taken 5 and 6-digit bribes just in the last 5 years.


    I'd want to see the list of who else Judicial Watch looked at before deciding Obama was 'Top 10'. (and again, I believe all national politicians are disgustingly corrupt or they wouldn't be national politicians, so I'm not refuting any of the claims against Obama, just JWs analysis)

  • 100% agreed. There are literally scores of people who should've eclipsed him.


    Namaste.

  • It's one thing to have legitimate claims against a candidate, but it's another thing to go conspiratorial for the sake of.


    Come on, friend: Check your sources!




    About Judicial Watch - Director Bios


    Tom Fitton


    Tom Fitton is the President and Chief Spokesman of Judicial Watch, promoting transparency and integrity in government and in the judiciary in order to create a return to ethics and morality in our Nation’s public life. With over 17 years experience in conservative public policy, Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch President, has helped lead the organization since 1998 and overseen its tremendous growth and success in recent years.


    Fitton is also a political analyst, previously working for America’s Voice and National Empowerment Television. He is a former employee of the International Policy Forum, the Leadership Institute and Accuracy in Media.


    Mr. Fitton is an expert in campaign finance corruption, and has earned a reputation as a top television political analyst during Senator Fred Thompson’s campaign finance hearings in 1997. Fitton also provides strategic guidance and leadership on Judicial Watch’s other efforts to fight government corruption.


    A former talk radio and television host and analyst, he is well known across the country as a national spokesperson for the conservative cause, having appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, C-SPAN and dozens of national talk radio programs. He is regularly quoted in hundreds of newspapers and magazines nationwide.


    Fitton has authored articles such as “Judicial Activism Hurts our Courts,” “What Bill Clinton Knew About bin Laden,” “Following Terrorism’s Money Trail,” “Senate Abandons Judicial Nominees,” “Every Town is a Border Town,” “The Clinton’s War on Gun Rights” and “Jesse Jackson Exposed.”


    Judicial Watch publishes the monthly newsletter, the Verdict, which has a circulation of over 100,000, and runs the cutting-edge Internet sites JudicialWatch.org and CorruptionChroncles.com.


    Under Fitton’s leadership, Judicial Watch was named one of Washington’s top ten most effective government watchdog organizations by The Hill. Fitton has B.A. English from George Washington University.



    !!!


    A BA in English and an expert in campaign finance corruption and legal issues? Really??


    A champion of conservative causes and politics with a fair and balanced Top Ten, I suppose...


    Do you really think this guy's list is accurate and warrants such showcasing??? REALLY?


    OK. Step back for a moment.


    Do not get so wrapped up in polemics and winning arguments that you lose sight of your own ability and will to be reasonable, fair and honest. You're smarter and better than that.

  • I think we can easily agree that Obama shouldn't have been #8 on a list of the most corrupt politicians in America.


    I can also easily agree that some nasty bias goes into any insinuation otherwise.


    The point isn't what number he is on the list, but whether he's legit. I'd say the reasons that got him on the list are worthy of noting.


    Namaste.

  • Fair enough.


    I won't delete my other comment as I did my reply to iacchus, but I was clearly upset when I wrote it, and for that, I apologize.


    I simply felt I could perhaps respectfully disagree with you on this issue without being implicitly branded a fool.


    Hopefully you understand that I, and many Obama supporters, hardly consider him a messiah. He's just a decent choice.


    For some of us, the bar has been so low for so long that the mere prospect of "decent" warrants celebration, even excitement. Forgive us for that. Don't insult us for that.


    It's not enough. We get that. No need to spin it further.


    Among the choices of voting and _____, some choose to vote.


    That in itself is not worthy of insult, nor is it indicative of one's total character or intelligence.


    That's my position. Do you disagree?

  • ID: I simply felt I could perhaps respectfully disagree with you on this issue without being implicitly branded a fool.


    IMO, we're all fools. :)




    ID: Hopefully you understand that I, and many Obama supporters, hardly consider him a messiah.


    Yup! But when you look objectively at the psychology his marketing resonates with, it's clearly messianic. People want a savior, and they'd love to think Obama's the closest they can get to it. That resonates with a lot of well-meaning, intelligent people.




    ID: He's just a decent choice.


    Hrm... I think I'd say he's an unfortunate choice, not decent. He's too much of an establishmentarian to be decent, IMO. The least fetid among a field of poo, perhaps, but a pile of poo nonetheless. And I can't rationally consider poo decent. No matter how much spin you add, a pile of poo is still a pile of poo, IMO.




    ID: For some of us, the bar has been so low for so long that the mere prospect of "decent" warrants celebration, even excitement. Forgive us for that. Don't insult us for that.


    This is the psychology Obama's campaign is designed to resonate with. I forgive the victims of this campaign, because it's quite effective. But should someone want to see through the marketing, the writing is on the wall. I'm certainly not the only one sounding the alarm...




    ID: Among the choices of voting and _____, some choose to vote. That in itself is not worthy of insult, nor is it indicative of one's total character or intelligence.


    Again, this is nothing worthy of condemnation, because they are victims of an insidious indoctrination process that deceives them into thinking their actions have meaning. The system wants people to think voting is relevant just like the system wants people wasting massive amounts of cognitive energy on spectator sports - it keeps them from engaging in meaningful dissent. I think that Chomsky guy says something similar...




    ID: That's my position. Do you disagree?


    There's nothing really to disagree with. I think you might be asking if I find value in the position you've described - i.e., voting for 'decent' poo. I'm not in a position to determine whether or not the position has value for you. I'm in a position to determine whether or not a position has value for me. I can also speculate based on experience and data whether or not the position has a likelihood of effecting legitimate change. So I can say that I think the position is more likely to hold intrinsic value than extrinsic value. Voting seems like a phase to grow out of when we become aware.


    I wish we lived in a civilization where people's vote actually meant something, I really do. :(


    Namaste.

  • Thanks for the last three replies. I've read, thought about and do appreciate them.

  • i'm sorry to say this, because i respect you, your work, and what you try to do.


    however obvious this might be, i cannot understate its importance: you too are human. it does not become you to write and act as though you are above the rest, as if you have an omniscience that the rest of the plebeians and yokels lack.


    this air of condescension and arrogance to your tone and demeanor -- whether you choose to acknowledge it or not -- is toxic. this dismissive quality toward everything that falls outside your own worldview is not only off-putting and undercutting, but counterproductive toward those ends and actors you should be working together with to serve your own and the human community's best interests.


    whatever good points you may very well have can and often do very easily get lost in this cloud of pomposity. refusal to admit fault and limitation, to be more humble, to be less certain, to judge less dualistically, will sink your words and intentions. nobody has the monopoly on truth, rightness, morality, wisdom and approach -- you know this, of course, but it's as though you forget.


    even the wisest men do and say stupid things. nobody is exempt.


    are you entitled to your positions? absolutely. are you entitled to share them? not only entitled, but encouraged.


    however, please do not delude yourself further into thinking you have the right to talk down to those that don't agree with your conclusions, or that you can do so and then remain a respected source of wisdom to them.


    judgments can be insults as well as liabilities. words are loaded guns. choose wisely and practice restraint.


    why? because you just might be wrong someday. why? because you are not privy to all the knowledge in the universe. again, surely you know this, except why do i not see it reflected in your tone? why not try on some humility sometime, some "you know what? maybe i AM wrong. maybe i don't know everything about everything. the possibility has to exist..."?


    because, ever since i've known and read you, you've never shown that face publicly.


    pure information is only one aspect of the entire picture. delivery and manner is key to any overall effective strategy of informing and inspiring people toward progress and action. if that is indeed what you intend to do.


    i ask that you please resist the urge to return a pithy, tempered response ending with "namaste", posing as the Final Word.


    please step down from your somewhat self-exalted position and join the rest of us in a participatory communal dialogue.


    please be selective with your attacks, condemnations and, most of all, your sources.


    my apologies if i've upset you on a personal level. this is not my intention. i merely mean to raise a mirror, because nobody is capable of seeing themselves as others see them. and as you've chosen to take the liberty to shine a beacon of light upon my "ignorant" and "naive" electoral enthusiasm (hopefully you can at least admit yesterday's response was part of the impetus for this and that as such you are at least in part aiming these claims toward me and those like me), then hopefully you won't mind if i take similar liberties.


    i still hold you in high regard, but i urge you to truly consider the above before dismissing it as whatever you find most convenient to characterize it as.

  • UNO


    You raised so many worthy points that I'll take the reply step by step, but I've got VOMUG tonight, so it may be broken up and delayed.




    ID: it does not become you to write and act as though you are above the rest, as if you have an omniscience that the rest of the plebeians and yokels lack.


    Most 'plebeians and yokels' don't have the faintest idea what's going on in themselves, their lives, and the history of the world.


    I don't claim to have an omniscience that others lack. I accept my ignorance and address it, whereas most people just watch TV or occupy themselves with frivolity.




    ID: this air of condescension and arrogance to your tone and demeanor -- whether you choose to acknowledge it or not -- is toxic.


    It does have the remarkable ability to filter out fair-weather 'friends', that's for sure. It's a sad testament that people today are so uncomfortable with judgment. I think we're in a period where judgment and discernment is necessary. It's a necessary component of intelligence, and yet somehow we hate having our actions/selves/beliefs judged by others.




    ID: this dismissive quality toward everything that falls outside your own worldview is not only off-putting and undercutting, but counterproductive toward those ends and actors you should be working together with to serve your own and the human community's best interests.


    We should be working together to serve a greater purpose. We shouldn't be wasting our time with masturbatory rituals like spectator sports, reality television and voting in rigged elections. Those that choose to occupy their time with such activities can only hope for someone else to save us. They take a passive role in the creation of a sustainable future. I wouldn't trivialize this overwhelming proportion of the population, but they won't be the ones to lead us to a better tomorrow.




    ID: whatever good points you may very well have can and often do very easily get lost in this cloud of pomposity.


    I know. I'd be a much more effective brainwasher if I were more subtle in my provocations.




    ID: refusal to admit fault and limitation, to be more humble, to be less certain, to judge less dualistically, will sink your words and intentions. nobody has the monopoly on truth, rightness, morality, wisdom and approach -- you know this, of course, but it's as though you forget.


    All truths are not equal.

  • DOS




    ID: however, please do not delude yourself further into thinking you have the right to talk down to those that don't agree with your conclusions, or that you can do so and then remain a respected source of wisdom to them.


    The ego loves being talked up to and hates being talked down to.




    ID: why? because you just might be wrong someday. why? because you are not privy to all the knowledge in the universe. again, surely you know this, except why do i not see it reflected in your tone? why not try on some humility sometime, some "you know what? maybe i AM wrong. maybe i don't know everything about everything. the possibility has to exist..."?


    I'm wrong every day. Multiple times. You do see it reflected in my tone, which is why a great many of my judgments are made using 'seems/appears/looks/might'. I also litter my comments with 'IMO'. There is certainly a chance that I'm wrong about Obama. I'm not a betting man, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say there's somewhere around a 1:1,000,000,000 chance that I'm wrong about Obama. But that 1% is certainly worthy of mentioning, you're absolutely right. :)




    ID: because, ever since i've known and read you, you've never shown that face publicly.


    Wha? Where you not around during the years I spent writing everything in E-prime?




    ID: pure information is only one aspect of the entire picture. delivery and manner is key to any overall effective strategy of informing and inspiring people toward progress and action. if that is indeed what you intend to do.


    I know. Since I've got this character flaw, I recognize it as a limitation, and realize that I'm much more likely to find a place behind the scenes than I am in front of them... excluding some massive behavioral redirection, anyway.




    ID: please step down from your somewhat self-exalted position and join the rest of us in a participatory communal dialogue.


    Hrm... I kind of thought I was having 'participatory communal dialogue'...




    ID: i merely mean to raise a mirror, because nobody is capable of seeing themselves as others see them.


    Agreed!




    ID: and as you've chosen to take the liberty to shine a beacon of light upon my "ignorant" and "naive" electoral enthusiasm (hopefully you can at least admit yesterday's response was part of the impetus for this and that as such you are at least in part aiming these claims toward me and those like me), then hopefully you won't mind if i take similar liberties.


    Please note this post was part 2, and that the original was posted some time ago...




    ID: i urge you to truly consider the above before dismissing it as whatever you find most convenient to characterize it as.


    I'd be a fool to dismiss what you've said. I've heard similar before. :)


    Namaste.

  • Re: DOS


    just a note on the betting comment. i used to try this all the time with friends, ex friends, psycho nola ravers,etc. I would say to myself and others, "just watch, im predicting this person will turn out to be an asshole.youll see, soon enough they will 'reveal' their true colors!" and then of course, when they would do something shady, hurt me, or someone else, etc. then i would feel vindicated, "ah hah! i knew it! see i predicted it!" guess what? although many of the nola and BR i knew were in fact not worth my time and were indeed sociopathic sadistic fucks, a great many of the others who i "predicted" were just fallible humans. EVERYONE, if you wait around long enough, will do or say something that will offend any person.


    it is the sum total of a person's relations with his fellow humans and his time, of course relative to the other's behavior of his time, that should be judged, imo. this formula is not meant to be exact, btw. nonetheless, is it not this PERSPECTIVE (that term should be read over and over and over again these days) that allows us to look upon, say, Jefferson, or at least his actions, with such reverence. no?

  • Re: DOS


    Agreed! Pre-judging gets us into all sorts of trouble!


    When Obama first came on the scene, during the congressional elections, I was intrigued. I kept an open mind as to whether he might be authentic - until I had accumulated enough evidence to form a conclusion that he strongly appeared to be more style over substance.


    Namaste.

  • Re: DOS


    so what evidence are you judging obama on? recently you are citing more than questionable sources. and just b/c lots of people are acting cultish over someone doesnt mean that there isn't something of substance there. it just means that a lot of people are acting cultish over him. where does his political record NOT match up with his rhetoric? and consulting with zb on foreign policy is not a sin. any fp adviser than anyone consults with can be picked a part. and beside he hasnt appointed anyone to any cabinent post yet. it is entirely possible that he talked with ZB a few times and found his pedantic eastern euro attitude/accent annoying and wants nothing else to do with him... :)


    and furthermore, as i am mentioned before, i hate to break it to you but your incessant fear of CFR is amusing. CFR is not that damn special. neither is zb for that matter.

  • TRES


    so what evidence are you judging obama on?


    In no particular order: nuclear pandering, war mongering, NAFTA and FTA lies, corruption and greed, Rezco, Brzezinski et al, personality cult, fiscal irresponsibility, a weak voting record, etc. His less-than-stellar political career really isn't anything spectacular in comparison with others who are more obviously corrupt, but there's enough evidence to illustrate he's no savior and not worthy of hyping. When we get excited over a corrupt piece of shit, the state of electoral politics has been reduced to the least possible denominator.




    recently you are citing more than questionable sources.


    Well, as we've already covered, Judicial Watch was smoking a lil reefer when they tagged Obama as #8 after less than 3 years of congressional service, but I don't think citing them is inappropriate at all. The point remains clear: he's corrupt. What number he is on a list of corrupt politicians is a matter of semantics.




    and just b/c lots of people are acting cultish over someone doesnt mean that there isn't something of substance there.


    Hrm... Well, have you studied many cults? If you were to compare the Obama campaign to the methods of Jerry Jones, what correspondences might we note? Or Heaven's Gate?


    People in the US want a messiah, and Obama has become a political messiah for many people. Obama's image and campaign (i.e., branding) is specifically marketed to prey off these psychologies.




    where does his political record NOT match up with his rhetoric?


    Education reform, war, trade, environmental reform, corporate reform, Israel and Zionism, race relations, etc. He talks a lot and does little.




    and consulting with zb on foreign policy is not a sin.


    I wouldn't use the word 'sin', but I would certainly say it's very, very telling. Anyone who would select Brzezinski as foreign policy adviser demonstrates conclusively that they are not a friend to humanity. Brzezinski is a fascist pig with bloody hands, but it's not popular among liberals to hold him to any accountability so long as he's in the company of their favoured son. The effects of Brzezinski's policies are conclusive, IMO.




    any fp adviser than anyone consults with can be picked a part. and beside he hasnt appointed anyone to any cabinent post yet. it is entirely possible that he talked with ZB a few times and found his pedantic eastern euro attitude/accent annoying and wants nothing else to do with him...


    I disagree that 'any fp adviser' could be picked apart, and I especially disagree with the connotation that just because other foreign policy advisers have skeletons, Brzezinski's are less relevant.


    It may be that Obama, should he secure the presidency, wouldn't select Brzezinski (or others like him) for any post, but that would require a leap of faith, and stands in contradiction to the evidence.

  • QUATRO




    i hate to break it to you but your incessant fear of CFR is amusing. CFR is not that damn special.


    I expect you'd be exposed to a good bit of CFR propaganda in the course of your studies, but it doesn't seem like you've been studying literature critical of the CFR or it's agenda - which is an agenda in and of itself. The CFR isn't worthy of 'incessant fear', but they are certainly a powerful force operating behind the scenes to further misanthropic global hegemony. Did you watch the vid describing their role in media in the US? Ignoring the CFR's established depopulation agenda?


    If we actually look to statements from CFR members, we get a handle on what they're up to: one, two, three.


    We might also look to the Congressional record, where John Rarick (R-D, Louisiana) stated:


    The Council on Foreign Relations - dedicated to one world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education, and mass communication media-should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. constitution and our free-enterprise system.


    Yet the Nation's "right -to-know-machinery " - the news media - usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members, and their activities. And I find that few university students and graduates have even heard of the Council of Foreign Relations........."The CFR is "THE ESTABLISHMENT! Not only does it have the influence and power in key decision making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one world dictatorship."


    The CFR has also had its hand in education - which ties directly into what Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt discovered about the US education system (see: The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America):


    The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind, that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization.

    Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in further popular education.
    - "American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments", 1944


    I wouldn't say the CFR is the biggest gorilla in the room, but it's certainly no innocuous social club.


    Namaste.

  • How dare you disagree with the Obama supporters!

    Don't you realize that he is bringing people together, as opposed to tearing them apart?


    How could you be so pompous to think you are right?


    You should have faith in the corrupt system that aims to enslave the masses to bring forth a political messiah that will save us all from the corrupt system that aims to enslave the masses.


    It is supreme arrogance to even suggest that people see that the system is incapable of producing a viable candidate.


    Your suggestions that people should look beyond the system to find an alternative to the cycle of oppression is appalling and dangerous.


    You should ignore the blinding truths and show some humility. You could be completely schizophrenic and totally paranoid.


    I am particularly pained by the idea that any positive change might take real work and sacrifice. I find your assumption that a decent and free future for Americans necessitates a painful and unpleasant breakdown in the comforts we currently enjoy poisonous to my attempts to enjoy my current comforts.


    Rather than revisiting my dearly held opinions on messiah Obama, I will attack your internet persona. It is easier to think you are just a conceited asshole than think I might be a deluded fool.


    I sincerely hope you take these words to heart and stop trying to plant seeds of doubt in the hearts of those who have convinced themselves that we can salvage our republic through the mark on a ballot.


    93

  • sorry to butt in, I'm a friend of a friend, and I gotta ask...


    Do you actually believe this is how people who disagree with you think?


    Because that's a pretty sad kind of self-aggrandizement. Or maybe just a deliberate decision to turn off empathy and critical thinking in favor of easy self-congratulation.


    And I kind of get that, I guess: the world is an appalling place, sometimes an easy answer feels good and 'everyone else is stupid' fits the bill really well. Sometimes you need to rage at something without all the messy nuance of reality.


    And I grant you that a lot of people are stupid and we face overwhelming systemic problems. Corruption is rampant and most of the population buys the coverup. It sucks. But if this is your actual analysis and assessment of every voter... well, that's not going to be helpful to anyone, and I'd say least of all you. Is it fun? 'cause if it's fun, run with it. But I'm curious if this is your ranty mode or honest discourse.

  • Re: sorry to butt in, I'm a friend of a friend, and I gotta ask...


    Definitely 'ranty mode', but with a healthy dose of 'honest discourse' mixed in, ala Bill Hicks. ;)


    Namaste.

  • Re: sorry to butt in, I'm a friend of a friend, and I gotta ask...


    My reply to this was strictly for our beloved prince-priest's benefit. We might not always see eye to eye, but we are generally facing in the same direction.

  • Re: sorry to butt in, I'm a friend of a friend, and I gotta ask...


    You're too fucking tall! I'd have to stand on a chair to see eye-to-eye. :P

blog comments powered by Disqus
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes