Is it possible to make any progress as Serfs if we don't confront the truth and nothing but the truth? Maybe it's like in a relationship, if it's based on lies there is no chance at success.
People talking about Bernie Sanders and now Jill Stein as the only "truth tellers" among the candidates and yet they're not REALLY telling the truth. And we're not REALLY discussing the truth. If we were really discussing the truth we'd be discussing what happened on 9/11.
9/11 was a False Flag event. It was the proverbial inside job. It was a well planned attack on the United States by elements of the Deep State, the CIA, the Neocons/Zionists, Israel and Saudi Arabia. It was blatantly predicted by the Neocon/Zionist Project for a New American Century think tank, including some of the very perpetrators, in their call for a "New Pearl Harbor" to galvanize support from the American public for a never ending war OF terror, i.e., to advance the agendas for a New World Order and a Greater Israel.
9/11 is the justification for the Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Global War on Terror wars being waged by the United States. It's the justification for the sub-war on ISIS, a creation of the same insidious elements. It's why we have the Patriot Act and the accompanying assault on our liberties, why we have the Department of Homeland Security which now permeates every aspect of county, state and federal law enforcement and security programs.
9/11 created the War OF Terror which now envelopes the planet. 9/11 literally changed everything.
But it's all based on lies. The official story of 9/11 that is used to justify all this is based on lies.
Does it really matter what Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders say if they don't say 9/11 is a lie?
It's the same with the Federal Reserve System, another Big Lie. And the murder of JFK. And the Gulf of Tonkin incident justifying the Vietnam war. The fake killing of Osama bin Laden. All lies. The list goes on and on. We live our lives under incredible lies.
There are those who will say Jill Stein, Sanders, and their ilk can't talk about 9/11 because they wouldn't be taken seriously, they'd be labeled "truthers", tin foil conspiracy theorists.
That's the problem and that's on us. We won't let ourselves REALLY talk about the truth. We're humans capable of wondrous things and yet we won't allow ourselves to confront our demons.
Or rather, those that rule over us won't allow it.
Maybe until we can change that we cannot progress as a human race. Even worse, like that relationship built on lies, maybe we can't last.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
How the People Could Fund a Real Revolution
"Vermont Sen. Bernard (Bernie) Sanders financed his entire $200 million campaign on small donations and nearly gained the nomination. He showed for the first time in the modern era that a candidate for high office need not sell out to the plutocracy to obtain electoral power."
Ya, well that didn't work did it. 200 million and what's to show for it? Hillary Clinton. Sure, some of the diehards will say Bernie's "revolution" and the money spent laid the groundwork for a political revolution while educating the public about the issues of wealth inequality and economic fairness.
Nah, the public knew damn well. Bernie was just one of the few POLITICIANS who said it, that doesn't mean the public didn't know. People sitting in their apartments eating food bought by food stamps watching the television can see the yachts and the mansions and the extreme gap in wealth in this country and the world. Everybody knows the bankers run the place so that's nothing new. They knew that 100 years ago. 200.
And the only groundwork laid was that straight to the Democratic party.
No, what Bernie Sanders really showed was that if the Serfs wanted to get together and raise enough money to take action OUTSIDE the electoral process, we could do it. Imagine if all those $27 donations went toward a real anti-imperialism effort or a climate change effort or a anti-gangster capitalism effort, or even an effort to implement real democracy in this country. $200 million toward a people's movement would really be something. Instead it's fucking wasted on an election farce.
Kind of reminds me of when The Intercept was born. Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahil and those along with their billionaire benefactor, Pierre Omidyar who pledged $250 million toward the overall project. I remember saying at that time that we could better use that money toward a people's movement to take down the oligarchy. Not another so called alternative news outlet that wasn't really alternative. I've never read that site.
This shows how ingrained the electoral process is in the heads of the Serfs, how it completely overshadows any outside efforts for a popular citizens movement. Now the same people who sent Bernie Sanders their $27 are sending Jill Stein another $27. On and on it goes, where it stops nobody knows.
Hell with that, send it to me. I'll put it in the bank for the Global People's Revolution.
Ya, well that didn't work did it. 200 million and what's to show for it? Hillary Clinton. Sure, some of the diehards will say Bernie's "revolution" and the money spent laid the groundwork for a political revolution while educating the public about the issues of wealth inequality and economic fairness.
Nah, the public knew damn well. Bernie was just one of the few POLITICIANS who said it, that doesn't mean the public didn't know. People sitting in their apartments eating food bought by food stamps watching the television can see the yachts and the mansions and the extreme gap in wealth in this country and the world. Everybody knows the bankers run the place so that's nothing new. They knew that 100 years ago. 200.
And the only groundwork laid was that straight to the Democratic party.
No, what Bernie Sanders really showed was that if the Serfs wanted to get together and raise enough money to take action OUTSIDE the electoral process, we could do it. Imagine if all those $27 donations went toward a real anti-imperialism effort or a climate change effort or a anti-gangster capitalism effort, or even an effort to implement real democracy in this country. $200 million toward a people's movement would really be something. Instead it's fucking wasted on an election farce.
Kind of reminds me of when The Intercept was born. Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahil and those along with their billionaire benefactor, Pierre Omidyar who pledged $250 million toward the overall project. I remember saying at that time that we could better use that money toward a people's movement to take down the oligarchy. Not another so called alternative news outlet that wasn't really alternative. I've never read that site.
This shows how ingrained the electoral process is in the heads of the Serfs, how it completely overshadows any outside efforts for a popular citizens movement. Now the same people who sent Bernie Sanders their $27 are sending Jill Stein another $27. On and on it goes, where it stops nobody knows.
Hell with that, send it to me. I'll put it in the bank for the Global People's Revolution.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
End U.S. Imperialism?
OK, so an election boycott doesn't look like it's possible. Just not enough people to get behind it. It seems like those most capable of pulling it off, i.e., left leaning people, organizations, blogs and alternative media sites, etc., most involved in trying to do "something", are also by and large those most conditioned to the representative system electoral process. Therefore instead of seeking solutions outside the electoral process, which they recognize needs to be done, they continue to focus on the election of politicians because their lifelong conditioning has stamped that into their brains as "democracy".
It's a shame I think. Many progressive leftists (finally) realizing the Democratic party is a corrupt dead-end are now focusing on third parties. They know no other way than to join another team playing the same dead-end game. And that, like the elections themselves, takes away organization, support and money for outside the system actions.
It goes like that over and over, like being lost in a desert and thinking over the next hill there will be an oasis where they can eat and drink. But the oasis never comes.
I remember years ago while we lived under the Bush regime thinking why we couldn't get enough people together to accomplish ONE THING. I thought if we could accomplish just ONE THING, maybe that could snowball into two things, then three things and so on. Kind of like breaking the ice on something then the floodgates open.
What I had in mind at that time was ending U.S. imperialism. Specifically the wars started by the Bush regime in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Neverending Global War OF Terror. I wasn't as focused on U.S. imperialism as a whole at that time, more the Bush wars. There's a helluva lot more to U.S. imperialism than those wars as we've seen since Bush, under Obama, with Russia and China now in the crosshairs.
The thing about U.S. imperialism is that it's so intertwined with the other major problems we Serfs face, including the financial oligarchy, the Trans Pacific Partnership and TTIP, climate change, and of course our very liberty and freedom which has been usurped by the imperialist War OF Terror and the military/police state that now engulfs our lives.
If we could mount a legitimate challenge to U.S. imperialism, we might be able to topple the House of Cards. And that would impact the entire world and possibly humanity itself.
And then there's Hillary Clinton. The primary criticism of Clinton from the left is that she's a warmonger, de facto war criminal, and could very well start WWIII. (Advance WWIII more accurately, we are IN WWIII right now). She is considered by many as dangerous a person there is on the planet at this time and she's going to become President of the United States of Imperialism. (Anything can happen but that's how it looks now).
If we can't stop her from becoming President (which I think we could with an election boycott), why don't we try to stop U.S. imperialism before she gets the keys? Or at least lay the groundwork for a sustained protest against U.S. imperialism starting the day she takes office. We already know what she's about, we know what she's capable of, those on the left (and right) that oppose her and U.S. imperialism should take that on NOW.
Focusing on Jill Stein and the Green Party, which has no chance this election, is taking the easy way out. There should be an All Hands on Deck approach to ending U.S. imperialism now and preventing Hillary Clinton from killing more people in our names.
There's an event from September 23-25 in Washington D.C. called "No War 2016". It's being held at American University. Many speakers, workshops and a culminating protest. Hopefully this can expand and become the primary focus of left activists instead of trying to elect Jill Stein or destroying their morals by voting for Clinton or Trump.
It's a shame I think. Many progressive leftists (finally) realizing the Democratic party is a corrupt dead-end are now focusing on third parties. They know no other way than to join another team playing the same dead-end game. And that, like the elections themselves, takes away organization, support and money for outside the system actions.
It goes like that over and over, like being lost in a desert and thinking over the next hill there will be an oasis where they can eat and drink. But the oasis never comes.
I remember years ago while we lived under the Bush regime thinking why we couldn't get enough people together to accomplish ONE THING. I thought if we could accomplish just ONE THING, maybe that could snowball into two things, then three things and so on. Kind of like breaking the ice on something then the floodgates open.
What I had in mind at that time was ending U.S. imperialism. Specifically the wars started by the Bush regime in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Neverending Global War OF Terror. I wasn't as focused on U.S. imperialism as a whole at that time, more the Bush wars. There's a helluva lot more to U.S. imperialism than those wars as we've seen since Bush, under Obama, with Russia and China now in the crosshairs.
The thing about U.S. imperialism is that it's so intertwined with the other major problems we Serfs face, including the financial oligarchy, the Trans Pacific Partnership and TTIP, climate change, and of course our very liberty and freedom which has been usurped by the imperialist War OF Terror and the military/police state that now engulfs our lives.
If we could mount a legitimate challenge to U.S. imperialism, we might be able to topple the House of Cards. And that would impact the entire world and possibly humanity itself.
And then there's Hillary Clinton. The primary criticism of Clinton from the left is that she's a warmonger, de facto war criminal, and could very well start WWIII. (Advance WWIII more accurately, we are IN WWIII right now). She is considered by many as dangerous a person there is on the planet at this time and she's going to become President of the United States of Imperialism. (Anything can happen but that's how it looks now).
If we can't stop her from becoming President (which I think we could with an election boycott), why don't we try to stop U.S. imperialism before she gets the keys? Or at least lay the groundwork for a sustained protest against U.S. imperialism starting the day she takes office. We already know what she's about, we know what she's capable of, those on the left (and right) that oppose her and U.S. imperialism should take that on NOW.
Focusing on Jill Stein and the Green Party, which has no chance this election, is taking the easy way out. There should be an All Hands on Deck approach to ending U.S. imperialism now and preventing Hillary Clinton from killing more people in our names.
There's an event from September 23-25 in Washington D.C. called "No War 2016". It's being held at American University. Many speakers, workshops and a culminating protest. Hopefully this can expand and become the primary focus of left activists instead of trying to elect Jill Stein or destroying their morals by voting for Clinton or Trump.
Friday, August 12, 2016
Status of the People's Revolution
So where are we at now with the People’s Revolution?
It appears we’re headed absolutely nowhere. Some would disagree but I don’t see it. What I see is the same old shit, different day (SSDD). We have an election happening between Clinton and Trump, of all people, and nothing happening to challenge it. Some are trying to support and advance “third” party representation but that’s not challenging a damn thing. We’re still going to get either Clinton or Trump as President, a republican controlled Congress, democrat controlled Senate, and the oligarchy will roll on. Then after the elections the third parties will go back to their rooms with their tails between their legs.
Is there anything to build on? Not much. All this talk about “Bernie’s revolution” was nothing more than trying to “revitalize” the Democratic party by electing more and better Democrats. On the republican side, it’s even worse. They’ve got Trump and utter confusion.
There have been a few efforts to expand on Bernie’s revolution but those were the same thing, Democratic party oriented talkfests that ended with whimpers. Maybe there will be some payoff for the Democratic party, but so what. That party is part of the oligarchy, the establishment, the opposition in the People's Revolution.
There are some antiwar demonstrations scheduled for September in D.C. that are attracting hundreds. Hundreds.
It’s like going to Vegas and laying a two dollar bet at the craps table, the dealer will say, “no action”.
Like I said, some will disagree but we’ll see that I’m right. There is nothing on the table to challenge the oligarchy.
Is there hope? Sure, there’s always hope, sometimes that’s all we’ve got. But it doesn’t appear likely very soon. Possibly when either Clinton or Trump become President there will be activity to challenge their rule, but it won’t be any different than it was with Boy Bush or War Criminal Obama.
There is just no agreement on what to do to overtake the power. There is no agreement on whether to even challenge the power, which is illustrated by the push for third parties and trying to participate in a political system not designed to provide democracy. There is absolutely no push to challenge this representative political system.
It’s a sad thing. I’ve got grandchildren who will live throughout this century, hopefully. They’ve lived their entire lives so far in a country at war with the world. A country in a fake permanent state of emergency. A country controlled by the rich and governed by the rich. We’re being ruled but very few want to challenge that, most simple want to ignore it or vote for the next rulers.
Maybe that’s just the way humans roll, the way it was and will be. Some say it will have to get far worse before people will rise up and demand change. Maybe. I look at humans in other countries, like Venezuela and Iraq and North Korea, and they sure have it far worse and yet can’t get out of their situations.
Those ruling us have immense power. Power over the institutions, over the government, over our daily lives. We’re fucking ants to them. They can kill a million of us and have zero second thoughts.
I believe we could do something about it. We could if we wanted to. But we don’t want to, not REALLY. Many think they want to, like voting for Jill Stein instead of Hillary Clinton. What’s that going to do? Send a statement? Right, our rulers don’t give a shit about statements.
I’ve been close to giving up the fight against the establishment. It seems so useless. Most people are so fucking brainwashed about this country and its political system they just can’t envision anything different.
Maybe that’s something we could riff from. “Envision something different!”
Ah, that won’t work either. To envision something first you have to have vision. I don’t see the vision.
No, I can't give up. Fuck these people who are waging wars, stealing money and wealth, killing people and causing human hardship for their benefit. We have to stop them because they won't stop. The question is how to organize enough people to challenge the power outside the election system.
It appears we’re headed absolutely nowhere. Some would disagree but I don’t see it. What I see is the same old shit, different day (SSDD). We have an election happening between Clinton and Trump, of all people, and nothing happening to challenge it. Some are trying to support and advance “third” party representation but that’s not challenging a damn thing. We’re still going to get either Clinton or Trump as President, a republican controlled Congress, democrat controlled Senate, and the oligarchy will roll on. Then after the elections the third parties will go back to their rooms with their tails between their legs.
Is there anything to build on? Not much. All this talk about “Bernie’s revolution” was nothing more than trying to “revitalize” the Democratic party by electing more and better Democrats. On the republican side, it’s even worse. They’ve got Trump and utter confusion.
There have been a few efforts to expand on Bernie’s revolution but those were the same thing, Democratic party oriented talkfests that ended with whimpers. Maybe there will be some payoff for the Democratic party, but so what. That party is part of the oligarchy, the establishment, the opposition in the People's Revolution.
There are some antiwar demonstrations scheduled for September in D.C. that are attracting hundreds. Hundreds.
It’s like going to Vegas and laying a two dollar bet at the craps table, the dealer will say, “no action”.
Like I said, some will disagree but we’ll see that I’m right. There is nothing on the table to challenge the oligarchy.
Is there hope? Sure, there’s always hope, sometimes that’s all we’ve got. But it doesn’t appear likely very soon. Possibly when either Clinton or Trump become President there will be activity to challenge their rule, but it won’t be any different than it was with Boy Bush or War Criminal Obama.
There is just no agreement on what to do to overtake the power. There is no agreement on whether to even challenge the power, which is illustrated by the push for third parties and trying to participate in a political system not designed to provide democracy. There is absolutely no push to challenge this representative political system.
It’s a sad thing. I’ve got grandchildren who will live throughout this century, hopefully. They’ve lived their entire lives so far in a country at war with the world. A country in a fake permanent state of emergency. A country controlled by the rich and governed by the rich. We’re being ruled but very few want to challenge that, most simple want to ignore it or vote for the next rulers.
Maybe that’s just the way humans roll, the way it was and will be. Some say it will have to get far worse before people will rise up and demand change. Maybe. I look at humans in other countries, like Venezuela and Iraq and North Korea, and they sure have it far worse and yet can’t get out of their situations.
Those ruling us have immense power. Power over the institutions, over the government, over our daily lives. We’re fucking ants to them. They can kill a million of us and have zero second thoughts.
I believe we could do something about it. We could if we wanted to. But we don’t want to, not REALLY. Many think they want to, like voting for Jill Stein instead of Hillary Clinton. What’s that going to do? Send a statement? Right, our rulers don’t give a shit about statements.
I’ve been close to giving up the fight against the establishment. It seems so useless. Most people are so fucking brainwashed about this country and its political system they just can’t envision anything different.
Maybe that’s something we could riff from. “Envision something different!”
Ah, that won’t work either. To envision something first you have to have vision. I don’t see the vision.
No, I can't give up. Fuck these people who are waging wars, stealing money and wealth, killing people and causing human hardship for their benefit. We have to stop them because they won't stop. The question is how to organize enough people to challenge the power outside the election system.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
North Koreans Livid at Olympic Athlete not Saluting Dear Leader
Just kidding.
This is about America, Land of the Free and Home of the North Korean impersonators.
"U.S. women’s gymnast Gabby Douglas was criticized for not placing her hand over her heart during the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” Tuesday night, and she has since apologized to anyone she may have offended.
Douglas was ripped apart on social media for standing with her hands by her side as the U.S. national anthem played after she and her teammates received their gold medals. She wrote on Twitter that she “never meant any disrespect.”
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/olympics/gabby-douglas-apologizes-in-wake-of-national-anthem-criticism/ar-BBvtBa7?ocid=SL5EDHP
To be fair, some people came to her defense saying they didn't put their hand over their heart either.
Dear Leader chimed in and said that fellow citizens who see this type of behavior should report it immediately to the Department of Homeland Security. We could be dealing with a new type of terrorist, the Star Spangled Banner Terrorists.
Anybody else tired of this nationalistic bullshit?
Anyone at all?
This is about America, Land of the Free and Home of the North Korean impersonators.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/olympics/gabby-douglas-apologizes-in-wake-of-national-anthem-criticism/ar-BBvtBa7?ocid=SL5EDHP
To be fair, some people came to her defense saying they didn't put their hand over their heart either.
Dear Leader chimed in and said that fellow citizens who see this type of behavior should report it immediately to the Department of Homeland Security. We could be dealing with a new type of terrorist, the Star Spangled Banner Terrorists.
Anybody else tired of this nationalistic bullshit?
Anyone at all?
Former Sanders Supporters Cry Foul over Criticism of Trump because it Helps Clinton
Some people on the left, primarily former Sanders supporters, are complaining about others on the left who are criticizing Trump. The primary reason appears to be they feel that is helping Clinton, and they don't want Clinton to win.
Do not help Clinton by criticizing Trump!
Most of these same people may actually vote for Trump, in a stunning display of lesser evilism, because they so want to keep Clinton from becoming President.
It appears true that the corporate media is upping its criticism of Trump and favoring Clinton. That's what the corporate media does, it's all in on the "game". The Zionists controlling the corporate media do so to manipulate and control the narratives the sheeple will focus on.
This comes after many complained that Trump was getting "free advertising" from the corporate media during the primary session. Now its changed.
This is just another facet of lesser evilism. Those complaining believe Clinton is more evil than Trump.
What a wasted and naive stupid game they're playing. In my view, both candidates should be criticized up, down and sideways, and deemed unacceptable to become President of this sad country. So it should not matter whether Trump is criticized or Clinton is criticized as long as the most important point, they both suck, remains the primary focus.
That's not what they're doing. By complaining about criticism of Trump helping Clinton, even if they don't vote for the scumbag Trump, they are in effect siding with Trump as the lesser evil and not ascribing to the fact that both candidates are unacceptable. They might feel that way but their words don't back it up. That would be called cognitive dissonance. Caught up in this political process because that's the way it is without thinking that it doesn't have to be this way.
I don't care when I criticize Trump that I'm helping Clinton because I don't care about either of them. I don't want either of them to be president. So it doesn't matter if I inadvertantly help Clinton with my criticism of Trump or help Trump with my criticism of Clinton. That's on the sheeple who can't see what the fuck is going on.
Those playing this lesser evil game are still going to get evil. That doesn't seem to sink in.
Do not help Clinton by criticizing Trump!
Most of these same people may actually vote for Trump, in a stunning display of lesser evilism, because they so want to keep Clinton from becoming President.
It appears true that the corporate media is upping its criticism of Trump and favoring Clinton. That's what the corporate media does, it's all in on the "game". The Zionists controlling the corporate media do so to manipulate and control the narratives the sheeple will focus on.
This comes after many complained that Trump was getting "free advertising" from the corporate media during the primary session. Now its changed.
This is just another facet of lesser evilism. Those complaining believe Clinton is more evil than Trump.
What a wasted and naive stupid game they're playing. In my view, both candidates should be criticized up, down and sideways, and deemed unacceptable to become President of this sad country. So it should not matter whether Trump is criticized or Clinton is criticized as long as the most important point, they both suck, remains the primary focus.
That's not what they're doing. By complaining about criticism of Trump helping Clinton, even if they don't vote for the scumbag Trump, they are in effect siding with Trump as the lesser evil and not ascribing to the fact that both candidates are unacceptable. They might feel that way but their words don't back it up. That would be called cognitive dissonance. Caught up in this political process because that's the way it is without thinking that it doesn't have to be this way.
I don't care when I criticize Trump that I'm helping Clinton because I don't care about either of them. I don't want either of them to be president. So it doesn't matter if I inadvertantly help Clinton with my criticism of Trump or help Trump with my criticism of Clinton. That's on the sheeple who can't see what the fuck is going on.
Those playing this lesser evil game are still going to get evil. That doesn't seem to sink in.
Racism Definitely is Alive and Well in the United States of Chickenshits
You hear the stories of people telling flight attendants on airplanes that someone who looks "Muslim" makes them nervous because they're sweating or silently praying. Then they get booted off the plane.
Remember George Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin? Now we have Chad Copley of North Carolina killing a young black man named Kouren-Rodney Bernard Thomas because he was "securing his neighborhood". Thomas was simply leaving a party at a house in the neighborhood.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/%e2%80%98george-zimmerman-20%e2%80%99-family-demands-justice-after-white-homeowner-kills-black-man/ar-BBvwmJ7?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=SL5EDHP
Check out this article, "These cops are tired of white people getting freaked out by their black neighbors". All over the country cops are having to deal with white people calling 911 because there's a black person sitting in a car across the street, or a Muslim looking man walking down the block, or a black neighbor acting black.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/06/these-cops-are-tired-of-white-people-getting-freaked-out-by-their-black-neighbors/
White people. There are a lot of racist white people in this country. Racist assholes. Sure, we can blame it on how they're raised, the government divide and conquer tactics, etc. But there's no excuse now man. We went through the sixties over fifty years ago.
Wow, I hadn't really focused on the extent racism still exists in this country. Of course I know it's very prevalent but that article about the cops being tired of white people getting freaked out really hits home. It is everywhere.
I'll have to be blunt here. There are a ton of dumb racist whites assholes out there.
Remember George Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin? Now we have Chad Copley of North Carolina killing a young black man named Kouren-Rodney Bernard Thomas because he was "securing his neighborhood". Thomas was simply leaving a party at a house in the neighborhood.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/%e2%80%98george-zimmerman-20%e2%80%99-family-demands-justice-after-white-homeowner-kills-black-man/ar-BBvwmJ7?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=SL5EDHP
Check out this article, "These cops are tired of white people getting freaked out by their black neighbors". All over the country cops are having to deal with white people calling 911 because there's a black person sitting in a car across the street, or a Muslim looking man walking down the block, or a black neighbor acting black.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/06/these-cops-are-tired-of-white-people-getting-freaked-out-by-their-black-neighbors/
White people. There are a lot of racist white people in this country. Racist assholes. Sure, we can blame it on how they're raised, the government divide and conquer tactics, etc. But there's no excuse now man. We went through the sixties over fifty years ago.
Wow, I hadn't really focused on the extent racism still exists in this country. Of course I know it's very prevalent but that article about the cops being tired of white people getting freaked out really hits home. It is everywhere.
I'll have to be blunt here. There are a ton of dumb racist whites assholes out there.
Scumbag Trump says Obama and Clinton "founded" ISIS
Quick one. I wrote an essay and posted it on the blog Caucus 99 Percent, titled, "Scumbag Trump - Clinton Founded ISIS".
I was quickly labeled a liar and scolded by the C99 partisans for Trump for calling him a scumbag.
The gist of the essay was that I felt Trump wasn't really saying they, Obama and Clinton, actually founded/created ISIS as policy to use it as a regime change proxy army against Assad and Syria (and others) but that their failed policies fighting terrorism were to blame for ISIS' rise.
Of course most of the partisan Trump supporters on C99 disagreed. Trump is the shit you know, a truth teller, an agent against the status quo.
So today there was a lead headline on CNN, "Trump - Obama Absolutely Founded ISIS". Evidently Trump doubled down and said,
"Asked about them on CNBC, he doubled down and said "[Obama] was the founder of ISIS absolutely, the way he removed our troops. ..I call them co-founders."
Notice the kicker, "the way he removed our troops". Clearly he is saying that because Obama supposedly removed "our" troops, i.e., a strategic policy mistake in the War OF Terror according to Scumbag Trump, that led to the rise of ISIS.
He is absolutely not saying that Obama created ISIS to act as a proxy army, one that has been trained, armed, guided and protected while also acting as the latest boogeyman to keep the American sheeple in their beds. If he was it wouldn't be headlined on CNN.
Naturally the partisan Trump supporters on C99 still wouldn't see it that way. They think Trump is the truth teller in this circus we call an election.
Imagine Democrats voting for a republican President and republicans voting for a democratic president. Here we are folks. What are we going to do about it?
I know, nothing.
Anyway, to me it shows that Trump does adhere to the false narratives and lies about the War OF Terror because he's saying ISIS is an enemy that needs to be defeated, just like Obama and Clinton, when actually ISIS is a tool for U.S. imperialism. Trump is not saying that. Couple that with his statements about Muslims, building a fence and all that and it shows that Trump is no different when it comes to U.S. imperialism regarding the War OF Terror, the lie that keeps U.S. imperialism afloat.
The lesser evil voting strategy is alive and well.
I was quickly labeled a liar and scolded by the C99 partisans for Trump for calling him a scumbag.
The gist of the essay was that I felt Trump wasn't really saying they, Obama and Clinton, actually founded/created ISIS as policy to use it as a regime change proxy army against Assad and Syria (and others) but that their failed policies fighting terrorism were to blame for ISIS' rise.
Of course most of the partisan Trump supporters on C99 disagreed. Trump is the shit you know, a truth teller, an agent against the status quo.
So today there was a lead headline on CNN, "Trump - Obama Absolutely Founded ISIS". Evidently Trump doubled down and said,
"Asked about them on CNBC, he doubled down and said "[Obama] was the founder of ISIS absolutely, the way he removed our troops. ..I call them co-founders."
Notice the kicker, "the way he removed our troops". Clearly he is saying that because Obama supposedly removed "our" troops, i.e., a strategic policy mistake in the War OF Terror according to Scumbag Trump, that led to the rise of ISIS.
He is absolutely not saying that Obama created ISIS to act as a proxy army, one that has been trained, armed, guided and protected while also acting as the latest boogeyman to keep the American sheeple in their beds. If he was it wouldn't be headlined on CNN.
Naturally the partisan Trump supporters on C99 still wouldn't see it that way. They think Trump is the truth teller in this circus we call an election.
Imagine Democrats voting for a republican President and republicans voting for a democratic president. Here we are folks. What are we going to do about it?
I know, nothing.
Anyway, to me it shows that Trump does adhere to the false narratives and lies about the War OF Terror because he's saying ISIS is an enemy that needs to be defeated, just like Obama and Clinton, when actually ISIS is a tool for U.S. imperialism. Trump is not saying that. Couple that with his statements about Muslims, building a fence and all that and it shows that Trump is no different when it comes to U.S. imperialism regarding the War OF Terror, the lie that keeps U.S. imperialism afloat.
The lesser evil voting strategy is alive and well.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Hillary Clinton and the United States, a Threat to Humanity
(Note: this is in no way a defense of the scumbag called Trump)
That statement means to portray Trump (I will not say his first name) as someone who might use nuclear weapons inappropriately. The obvious inference is that the President of the Empire has the authority to use nuclear weapons and that Trump can't be trusted to use them but Clinton can. We can trust Hillary Clinton to use nuclear weapons appropriately. The Clinton supporters say, "ya, Hillary will use nuclear weapons appropriately!!" Trump supporters say, "no way, Trump will use nuclear weapons appropriately!!" You idiots.
Put aside the fact that we're dealing with the preeminent warmonger on the planet, along with Obama, and think about what that means.
(Pause while you're thinking)
The United States of the Land of the Sheeple has an official policy of first strike use of nuclear weapons. I've been around awhile, grew up during and participated in the Vietnam war. I worked for the Department of the Army in Europe the five years before the Wall fell. After the Wall fell and the Soviet Union became Russia, the nuclear weapon (Duck and Cover baby) threat we'd lived under the previous forty years faded into the background for most of us. Fast forward to the "New American Century" and the country accusing Russia of being aggressive has been as aggressive as a Roman Empire dog in heat, implementing the policies to boot. Believe it (fuck you Trump), there are many in the military industrial complex, our government, the Pentagon, and the thinktanks and institutes that would jump at the chance at a nuclear war against Russia. And China for that matter. The New World Order awaits.
Of course class, the right answer is there should be no policy to use nuclear weapons, there should be no nuclear weapons at all. To think otherwise is INSANE. I don't know how else to put it to convey that kind of unbelievably inhumane perspective. We've been there, done that, and it is unacceptable for the human race and the planet.
The point isn't who we can trust most with the nuclear codes, the point is we can't allow any president the opportunity to use them. Ever.
War is a Racket. General Smedley Butler, a gift that keeps on giving. You know how people fantasize about going back in time and who would they most like to meet. One of mine would be Smedley. I don't know how we'd get along, but I'd thank him for his valuable contributions to humanity.
War is a Racket, always, every time. Therefore the appropriate use of nuclear weapons is a false choice. There can be no appropriate use of nuclear weapons.
Hillary Clinton is a war criminal, literally. Most people can't quite get a handle on that. Even when its explained what her role was in the Libya and Syria wars, most can't quite grasp the fact that she's a sociopathic murderer without remorse. She, and Obama, should be arrested, charged with crimes against humanity and locked up until they meet their maker. But that's why Kissinger, Albright, Bush, Cheney, etc., are walking around free, the sheeple just don't get it.
James Corbett tells it like it is with Clinton. This woman is dangerous and could very well start a nuclear war. SHE CANNOT be trusted with nuclear weapons. No President can be trusted. The only answer is total abolition of all nuclear weapons on the planet. For We the Sheeple to accept anything less is asinine.
It's not long and contains very incriminating clips of what Clinton is about.
Hillary Clinton Is A Threat To All Of Humanity
The use of nuclear weapons is not being challenged. Hell, U.S. imperialism is not being challenged. Think it can't happen?
"How Close Are We to Nuclear War?"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-close-are-we-to-nuclear-war/5538453
"Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis," she said. "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons,"
Hillary Clinton, Warmonger for President
That statement means to portray Trump (I will not say his first name) as someone who might use nuclear weapons inappropriately. The obvious inference is that the President of the Empire has the authority to use nuclear weapons and that Trump can't be trusted to use them but Clinton can. We can trust Hillary Clinton to use nuclear weapons appropriately. The Clinton supporters say, "ya, Hillary will use nuclear weapons appropriately!!" Trump supporters say, "no way, Trump will use nuclear weapons appropriately!!" You idiots.
Put aside the fact that we're dealing with the preeminent warmonger on the planet, along with Obama, and think about what that means.
(Pause while you're thinking)
The United States of the Land of the Sheeple has an official policy of first strike use of nuclear weapons. I've been around awhile, grew up during and participated in the Vietnam war. I worked for the Department of the Army in Europe the five years before the Wall fell. After the Wall fell and the Soviet Union became Russia, the nuclear weapon (Duck and Cover baby) threat we'd lived under the previous forty years faded into the background for most of us. Fast forward to the "New American Century" and the country accusing Russia of being aggressive has been as aggressive as a Roman Empire dog in heat, implementing the policies to boot. Believe it (fuck you Trump), there are many in the military industrial complex, our government, the Pentagon, and the thinktanks and institutes that would jump at the chance at a nuclear war against Russia. And China for that matter. The New World Order awaits.
Of course class, the right answer is there should be no policy to use nuclear weapons, there should be no nuclear weapons at all. To think otherwise is INSANE. I don't know how else to put it to convey that kind of unbelievably inhumane perspective. We've been there, done that, and it is unacceptable for the human race and the planet.
The point isn't who we can trust most with the nuclear codes, the point is we can't allow any president the opportunity to use them. Ever.
War is a Racket. General Smedley Butler, a gift that keeps on giving. You know how people fantasize about going back in time and who would they most like to meet. One of mine would be Smedley. I don't know how we'd get along, but I'd thank him for his valuable contributions to humanity.
War is a Racket, always, every time. Therefore the appropriate use of nuclear weapons is a false choice. There can be no appropriate use of nuclear weapons.
Hillary Clinton is a war criminal, literally. Most people can't quite get a handle on that. Even when its explained what her role was in the Libya and Syria wars, most can't quite grasp the fact that she's a sociopathic murderer without remorse. She, and Obama, should be arrested, charged with crimes against humanity and locked up until they meet their maker. But that's why Kissinger, Albright, Bush, Cheney, etc., are walking around free, the sheeple just don't get it.
James Corbett tells it like it is with Clinton. This woman is dangerous and could very well start a nuclear war. SHE CANNOT be trusted with nuclear weapons. No President can be trusted. The only answer is total abolition of all nuclear weapons on the planet. For We the Sheeple to accept anything less is asinine.
It's not long and contains very incriminating clips of what Clinton is about.
Hillary Clinton Is A Threat To All Of Humanity
The use of nuclear weapons is not being challenged. Hell, U.S. imperialism is not being challenged. Think it can't happen?
"How Close Are We to Nuclear War?"
"Former Bill Clinton cabinet member Perry perceives a danger that none of this year’s presidential wannabes have paid much if any attention to. The most recent candidate to make nuclear arms a central issue was Congressman Dennis Kucinich in 2008. President Obama has played both sides of the nuclear dilemma: rounding up and securing nuclear materials around the world, but also modernizing and miniaturizing American nuclear weapons to make them more “usable.” These days, no one in leadership – or aspiring to leadership – seems committed to actually making the world any safer from nuclear catastrophe. With rare exceptions like Kucinich, this unquestioned reliance on nuclear weapons is mainstream American military group-think, endlessly echoed in mainstream media, and that’s the way it’s been for decades."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-close-are-we-to-nuclear-war/5538453
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)