?

Log in

No account? Create an account
août 2017   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
OK. It's starting to get too easy to see through this crap. At the very same time that France is fast intensifying it's war on MANUFACTURED terriblism in MALI - behind which is the NATO/USA ALLIE, Al QQeaedda*, (a USA/NATO, i.e., Central Banks, manufactured enemy) - there is suddenly this crazy protest of French right-wingers, (a la Koch-paid TeaBaggers and their DUPES), against introduced "socialist" policies allowing gays to marry and to adopt children. OMG - the OUTRAGE is all the RAGE!!! It is also another manufactured media issue to take time and attention away from the military movements into MALI. Can you say, "SAME AS GUN CONTROL ISSUE IN USA?! SAME AS FISCAL CLIFF? SAME AS LONG-RUNNING ABORTION ISSUE, WHICH THE GOP COULD HAVE RESOLVED YEARS AGO?!?!?!" FOR GOD'S SAKE WHEN WITH THIS EVIL END?!?!?! It's another fucking cover-up of the eyes of the public - in this case, the FRENCH public. And now, my whole hope for "Socialist" Hollande as being apart from this global corporatist conniving, I am discouraged. Whether he was a plant from the start, or he has been influenced by NATO or by Obama/Clinton, thinking they know what's best - FOR THE FUCKING BANKERS - the idea that he is a Socialist only now means that he is allowing himself to be played as a convenient PAWN. For one thing, he very mysteriously backed Germany's demands for Austerity on Greece - totally out of character. (Reminds me of Obama saying he opposed USA/ Europe austerity, yet always allowing another inch and mile to be taken by the bank-backed GOP, looking to cut and privatise social programmes). For another thing, Hollande's opponant in France's recent presidential election was DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN. Strauss-Kahn, an actual Socialist who headed the IMF, was, DECIDEDLY AND CLEARLY, set up to fail by the NYC prostitution charges brought against him. When that happened, HOLLANDE became a SHOE-IN for the office. So, folks, here we have a load of crap. It's time we acknowledge it, on a global scale.

I do have a somewhat more "forgiving" interpretation, as to why the so-called NWO might be running these perpetual resource-military scams, but that's not for now. And I do favour Obama's recent nominees - but this continues to get out of control, and if ever there was a need for real Executive Actions, it would be NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! Sick of it!!!!!!!!

* - (mis-spelling deliberate)

Comments:


bobby1933
bobby1933 at 2013-01-13 23:06 (UTC) (Lien)
My only problem with your interpretation of political economic matters is: How do you get one of the wealthy to be willing to be the sacrificial lamb for this right-wing conspiracy? How do you get somebody like bin Laden to take on the role of TERRORIST MENACE, and to use his religion as an excuse (which means that he risks hell in the afterlife as well as murder in this one). With the exception of Little Buffet (sorry i can't remember Warren's son's name) and a few Hollywood types and Left=Wing intellectuals whose true intentions can never be determined, i can't believe that any of the wealthy would be able to control their personal greed long enough to make a sacrifice for the cause of GROSS GLUT, MISERY FOR THE POOR, AND GLOBAL ROASTING.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2013-01-14 01:36 (UTC) (Lien)
It isn't a right-wing conspiracy. It is a collusion of vested interests serving the wealthy, where key members or groups on the right as well as on the left partake in corporate or covert/government strategies to fulfill the interests. Many one the right and on the left also serve this natural collusion through direct responsibility to their authorities, campaign donors or fancied constituents. And many, many more serve their interests simply by fighting amongst themselves, right versus left, which is very easilly manipulated, with money, via corporate media channels, habit, political structures, etc. We serve these interests simply by buying products and reinforcing the corporate status quo, or ignorantly accepting the, "lesser of two evils" logic, every time we consider voting.

Things are plainly rigged to favour the rich, there is no doubt. That is the direction of capitalism, and that is the insistence of corrupt capitalism. When resources deplete, or virtual scarcity is imposed to maximise profit, (e.g., oil products), or due to the aging of "standard-value-grids", etc., it becomes an ULTIMATUM that corrupt capitalism preserve the status quo, rather than to switch easilly to new investments, futures, and groups to gain wealth. Those productive yet non-status-quo groups that manage to attract new capital are very often put out of business or taken over. In the same way, honest or true spirits amongst us are the most dangerous, all because of a warped need to impose "bullyism" - blame the victim, etc., to keep the masses ignorantly abiding.

As far as soliciting the likes of B-Laddden? This area could require lots of posts or study, since we don't have the info, do we? But if it seems a stretch that a member of the Saauudi Royal Family, whom "we" have manipulated through decades since the early involvement of the UK/BP, and who is complicit with the status quo aims and interests of the rich and the global bankers, even as 1/3 of the members of that family go off selfishly in contrarian escapades, as would be expected of rich bastards, then I don't see where you are coming from.

The rich do not settle for having lots of money. Out of 7 BILLION people, they have "deftly adepted" themselves to the top through knowledge of corruption and manipulation and networking. Their personal desires are not identical to the personal desires of we who wish to live a simple happy life. And, with my understanding of psychology, I KNOW how this can happen. They are accused of having an amoral or "Luciferian" religion by Alex Jones, but this is a simplification. But, needless to say, when you rise into the stratosphere, up is down and left is right - you make your way by kissing ass and feeding the public BIG LIES. The desire is not to have wealth, but to constantly make more and more wealth, to gin more and more power, for its own sake - EXACTLY AS WOULD BE EXPECTED OF A ZOMBOT WORKING FOR A SYSTEM OF DYSFUNCTIONAL CAPITALISATION.

I have never gone deeply into how B-LLaadden has been a willing stooge for this system, precisely because this is an area of conspiracy theory that immediately closes further already closed minds. It is completely possible that 9////...###11 was an inside job, masterminded by Zionists in collusion with the Dulles wing of the see-eye-aya, as well as some members of the Saudi Royal Family, which shared strong interests with the Bush's. But I don't need, so much, to spend my time documenting these hypotheses, because there are plenty of conspiracy theorists already doing that - many incorrectly. But I AM NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST - I AM A HYPOTHESIST.

Every person has the right to intelligently free-associate, for that is the essence of freedom. Free will is the essence of existence, even if it may be interpreted as delusion. But if you have any more questions about how the likes of B-Laddeennn might be recruited as a willing straw man, please be specific. Please don't immediately assume he was a religious fundamentalist. Info I have seen strongly suggests that he was a self-interested playboy snot, willing to wheel and deal. And, after all, what fundamentalist doesn't ultimately turn out to be this kind of character ha ha!?
bobby1933
bobby1933 at 2013-01-14 03:19 (UTC) (Lien)
Either way bin Laden was a curiousity. A multi-millionaire who showed bravery in the defense of Afghanistan and became the leader of a terrorist organization. Perhaps that is not surprising since some people seem to rise to the top of whatever they are involved in. But there are not that many very wealthy people. They are not called the one-percent for nothing. And they do not have many friends and acquaintances who are not themselves very wealthy. The idea that bin Laden and (say) Cheney did not know each other is just not credible. I think if i were bin Laden, i would have said to Cheney: Hey man, why don't you take the risks. It would have far more impact if you were to become a TERR0RIST MENACE and with your heart, you can't have that many good years left in you anyway.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2013-01-14 03:47 (UTC) (Lien)
all-kkaiida was created by the USA / see-eye-aye to fight Russia in Afghanistan. that is now conventional wisdom. apparently, it was also commandeered later by profiteers and strategists associated with the latter, and soon became a convenient straw man to justify more illegal wars into other countries. B-Laden was associated with the latter.

the stats on how much of the world's wealth the "1%" hold are overwhelming and available online. their money, which is capital got from the sweat of labour, and now invested perversely and predominantly into the financial sector, and the war economy, holds almost endless sway and promise to millions and millions and MILLIONS of people.

bin-laden did not necessarilly belong to a terriblist organisation. that was the script we were give to read. we believed it. by doing so, we enabled the vacuuming away of much of our wealth into the pockets of the global permanent war economy, including war, oil and bank contractors.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2013-01-14 03:53 (UTC) (Lien)
btw - yes, i believe you are quite correct in seeing Cheney's involvement. he was VERY involved. but even people such as he or Rumsfeld, on the left or on the right, are not those fully doing the devil's bidding - they are politicial functionaries, who have essentially and literally sold away their hearts to an ideology of American exceptionalism or Libertarianism - or WHATEVER - which conveniently serves the interests of those even more powerful, nicely and quitely tucked away from public view and harm.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2013-01-14 01:37 (UTC) (Lien)

part 2

I hope I have at least touched on some of your doubts, but I don't really know. You benefit from me being of clear enough mind to answer, somewhat, or somewhat not, after a bit of wine and sleep.

Of course, as you know, there is so much more to hese things. That remains for my journal to post. Should I have the time in my failing life. Seriously. Bad times may be coming for me. But please believe me, I try to post what I have found to be true. Why else would I waste my precious time. I am not among your enemies.
bobby1933
bobby1933 at 2013-01-14 03:22 (UTC) (Lien)

among my enemies?

Certainly not! Why would you consider such a thing.
Besides. i have sworn to love my enemies.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2013-01-14 03:37 (UTC) (Lien)

Re: among my enemies?

i have this "problem" of considering EVERYTHING, ha ha! - sorry if it was not applicable

take care
Previous Entry  Next Entry