Controls on the House and Senate are pervasive – they are on leashes, and kept from bolting by threats and bribes. NSA does not keep tabs on people for nothing, and long before there was an NSA, there was Hoover and the FBI with a dossier on everyone in DC. Even if that were not the case, they don’t get campaign money, open or secret, unless they play ball.

So the question we should be asking is why a small band of house members are being allowed to shut down 22% of the government. It’s either misdirection or distraction, or both. To what end? I say Obama is in cloaking mode again, positioning to attack social programs. But that’s speculation based on his past behavior, and I even contradict myself, as I don’t believe he’s anything more than a sock puppet. But merely substitute “the executive” for Obama, and I fall better into line with myself.

Others say something far more reaching is at play, the fact that we’ve been in recession/depression for his entire presidency. But I don’t see how removal of the stimulus of government spending does anything more than exacerbate that situation. It would mean that they want to exacerbate it, and that is puzzling.

Surely there’s more than I see. Please enlighten me!

The passages below were written by Carroll Quigley in a much-maligned and misinterpreted book published in 1966 about the period 1922-30, Tragedy and Hope. They could have easily been written in our post-Glass-Steagall era:

It [financial capitalism] invested capital not because it desired to increase the output of goods or services but because it desired to float issues (frequently excess issues) of securities on this productive basis. It built railroads in order to sell securities, not in order to transport goods; it constructed great steel corporations to sell securities, not in order to make steel, and so on. But, incidentally, it greatly increased the transport of goods, the output of steel, and the production of other goods. By the middle of the stage of financial capitalism, however, the organization of financial capitalism had evolved to a highly sophisticated level of security promotion and speculation which did not require any productive investment as a basis. Corporations were built upon corporations in the form of holding companies, so that securities were issued in huge quantities, bringing profitable fees and commissions to financial capitalists without any increase in economic production whatever. Indeed, these financial capitalists discovered that they could not only make killings out of the issuing of such securities, they could also make killings out of the bankruptcy of such corporations, through the fees and commissions of reorganization. A very pleasant cycle of flotation, bankruptcy, flotation, bankruptcy began to be practiced by these financial capitalists. The more excessive the flotation, the greater the profits, and the more imminent the bankruptcy. The more frequent the bankruptcy, the greater the profits of reorganization and the sooner the opportunity of another excessive flotation with its accompanying profits. This excessive stage reached its highest peak only in the United States. In Europe it was achieved only in isolated cases. (p336)

A few paragraphs later, he describes an obvious side-effect to corporate structure in an era where we need to raise huge amounts of concentrated capital to achieve large project:

The efforts of financiers to separate ownership from control were aided by the great capital demands of modern industry. Such demands for capital made necessary the corporation form of business organization. This inevitably brings together the capital owned by a large number of persons to create an enterprise controlled by a small number of persons. The financiers did all they could to make the former number as large as possible and the latter number as small as possible. The former was achieved by stock splitting, issuing securities of low par value, and by high-pressure security salesmanship. The latter was achieved by plural-voting stock, nonvoting stock, pyramiding of holding companies, election of directors by cooptation, and similar techniques. The result of this was that larger and larger aggregates of wealth fell into the control of smaller and smaller groups of men. (p337)

It stands to reason that such a structure should not be granted “personhood.” It’s an invitation to tyranny.

Lizard, a good writer and smart man, offers up the following in a piece on treatment of homeless people and victims of natural disasters in our brave new world:

Establishing that this meme is crank terrain is standard operating procedure when it comes to any subject covered by Alex Jones and the other circus animals that populate conspiracy culture…

It’s a good piece, and I have no quarrel with him, including the small bit at the opening that I cite above. I am just using that as a gateway to the world he speaks of, as I have traveled it, and even understand it. If you have confidence in your intellectual abilities and a reserve of solid judgment to be able to examine evidence without being subject to the group mind, such a journey can be useful.

In Orwell’s 1984, Winston Smith manages to break free of the total information control system, a remarkable accomplishment. Searching for answers, looking for escape, he finds O’Brien, supposedly the leader of an organized resistance group. In the end he learns that O’Brien’s job was to monitor people like Smith and his lover Julia, and to offer them hope. He then crushed that hope, and they were reintegrated into the system. It is a most unhappy ending.

Orwell’s dystopia is set in England, and is well-known throughout the world. Here in the US it is widely circulated, even taught in schools. A casual survey of those who have read it would probably yield general notion that the book is about Stalinism. On the right, the word “Ingsoc” clues them to its real purpose: to warn of the dangers of socialism, even as Orwell bluntly stated that he was a socialist.

The book is about totalitarianism. It don’t see a hint of ideology in it, but emphasize “total.” Alex Jones is one of our many O’Brien’s, guarding the perimeters of the village. If you are smart enough to work your way out of the normal system of TV, education and movies, Jones will take you to another dead-end. “Total” means just that – escape from one prison leads to another. “Prison Planet” is highly apropos.

I find Jones unpleasant and untrustworthy. But I understand those who do like him and wish them well on their journey. Jones is but one stop on the road to freedom. His type of work is called a “limited hangout,” that is much of what he says might be true, but never enough to be truly enlightening. Any who openly associate with him are branded with his vile nature and anger, his raspy voice and instant certainty on all matters. That’s Lizard’s reaction above, and the intended effect of Alex Jones. He’s like a FEMA camp, a haven but also a place for quarantine, multi-purposed.

Please do move on. Eventually you’ll find yourself among people of your own kind. They don’t hammer you with information or try to organize you for a cause. They are the few who truly understand the meaning of “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the spirit.” They take solace in one another, and explore life in all of its intricacy. It’s a self-guided journey. Truly public-spirited people do not tell you what to think. They only advise that you exercise your cranium.

In the meantime, our only true “mission” is to help those in our very small circles as we can – friends, family and acquaintances, and to receive their help and solace as well.

By fearing whom I trust I find my way
To truth; by trusting wholly I betray
The trust of wisdom; better far is doubt
Which brings the false into the light of day.
Abdallah al-Ma’arri (973-1057)

I get flack from some quarters regarding state of mind, as in “he’s a little off-center,” getting old,” “on a tangent” … and a “conspiracy theorist” as the suggestion goes. It’s a little difficult to explain, and a problem – if I were crazy, I would be the last to know it.
Continue reading “Doubt, you silly fools. Doubt!” →

The pictures below the fold are from a post from last week, and have stayed in my mind. They are of Mohammad Atta, one of the great criminal conspirators of the new century. He was the one, we were told, who led the 19 hijackers to their meeting with big buildings.
Continue reading “Get over it …” →

[Note: Presented throughout are images of evil demons presented to us by our government, offset by photos of those people in reality – quite harmless.]

One of the hardest things to grasp regarding 9/11 is people’s attitude about it. I’m just coming around to having some understanding of it, and it wasn’t 9/11 that helped me along.

The mystery is this: A rational person cannot look at the evidence for the official story of that day and do anything but laugh. It’s absurd.
Continue reading “Facing our inner demons” →

I have not debased myself by publicly doubting the official 9/11 story for some time now. It’s time for a progress report. Here’s what I have learned in the subsequent months since I ‘came out.’

• The “Truth” movement is itself a PSYOP. Those who planned the events of that day were also smart enough to plan a cover-up, and the Truth Movement is part of it.
• Leaders of that movement include “gatekeepers,” among them Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who has led people down the blind alley of “controlled demolition.”
• Another is Stephen Jones, the former BYU physics professor whose particular blind alley is nano-thermites.
  Continue reading “9/11 update” →

Most of us are equipped with defense mechanisms, a part of our central nervous system that picks up subtle clues and signals in the behavior of others and warns us of danger. Women are highly adept in detecting even the most subtle of hints from men as they scheme to find ways to mate with them. Men are not quite so subtle in that game, but are indeed adept in other matters of survival.

I have had reactions to a few people in my time that I would categorize as “a wave of revulsion.” It could be mere flight or fright, but since I am only dealing with images of certain people on a TV screen, actual flight is not an issue. One such memorable moment was in January of 1990. The US had invaded Panama, and the Secretary of Defense, Richard Cheney, was giving a press conference. As I watched him, the hair on my neck stood up, my senses went on the defensive, and I felt revulsion. This was an evil man.
Continue reading “The shiver” →

To: Commissioner Roger Goodell, National Football League:

Take the Joe Flacco signage off my Mile High Stadium! Get it out of my Mile High City! Broncos Nation will not endure this detestable and audacious act. Who in their right mind thought we would just let this fly? We stand united against your unbearable Joe Flacco signage.

There’s also a petition circulating to ask the Colorado delegation to vote against authorization of the Syrian attack. (Just kidding.)

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, according the James Douglass, a back channel of communication facilitated by Norman Cousins and Pope John XXIII between Kennedy and Khrushchev allowed the two leaders to bypass their war hawks and work out a peace agreement. We can only hope that such a process is underway today, although the U.S. cannot be reduced to one leader, but rather a powerful clique possessing real power while Obama’s is merely apparent. How such a back channel can be facilitated when there is group consensus on this side without the ability of one designated leader to override it … it does not seem possible.

Russia, while of course having the same deep state powers as the US, does appear to have a masterful statesman at the helm. The following statements by Vladimir Putin would normally pass behind the scenes in back channels, but instead are made openly. This indicates to me that the US is not negotiating, but is rather intent on aggressive war, the ultimate crime in international affairs (according to the Nuremberg Tribunal). The whole of the Syrian situation, just as the “provocation” that allowed Germany to invade Poland in 1939, is a contrived fiction.

Here’s Putin, quoted at RT, my reliable news source:

“We believe that at the very least we should wait for the results of the UN inspection commission in Syria,” Putin said, adding that so far there is no information about what chemical agent exactly was used in the attack in Damascus’ suburbs and who did it.

“I’ve already said I find it absolutely ridiculous that [Syrian] government’s armed forces, which today are actually on an offense mission and in some regions have already encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that the Syrian army has used prohibited chemical weapons.”

“They know all too well that this could become a cause for sanctions and even for a military operation against them. That’s stupid and illogical.”

“We proceed from the assumption that if anyone has information that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian regular army, then such proof must be presented to the UN Security Council and the UN inspectors,” Putin said, stressing that the proof must be “convincing” and not based on “rumors” or any sort of “eavesdropped intelligence data,” conversations etc.

“Even in the US there are experts who question the reliability of the facts presented by the administration. These experts do not exclude the possibility that the Syrian opposition has conducted a pre-planned provocation in order to give their sponsors a reason for military intervention.”

Putin says he “does not exclude” that Russia may agree with a military operation if it is proved that the Syrian government is behind the attack, however he emphasized that in accordance with international law a decision of the UN Security Council is needed for that.

“All other reasons and means that excuse using military force against an independent sovereign state are unacceptable and cannot be classified otherwise but as an aggression.

The impetus for US aggression can be found in Putin’s words that the “so-called” rebels are being surrounded and finished off. That is what precipitated this crisis – failure of covert aggression requires overt aggression in its place.
______________
PS: In my view, though the “red line” was held in reserve as the ultimate tripwire, the event that triggered this (probable) false-flag event was the removal of Morsi from power in Egypt. The so-called rebels were losing, and the US called on Morsi to intervene on their behalf. The day he announced that decision, June 15, was his last day in office. Without a reliable proxy force to rescue to terrorist and death squads, the US has to resort to its own military.