?

Log in

No account? Create an account
septembre 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
crazy /goth - insane clobs

THE POLITICS OF PREEMPTIVISM - (Part One)

Posted on 2016.04.29 at 16:34
Tags: , , ,
This is Part 4 of my "Bernie-Trump" series. (It has been divided into a part one and a part two, soon to be posted). - All parts, and more, are conveniently listed in the latest technological fashion at: http://liberal-plus.livejournal.com/7435.html - liberal_plus

Unfortunately, I am too late with this post for the April 26 Primaries, in which I so hope Bernie does well, (today is Tuesday). Please note that I am writing another post simultaneously, which rather compliments this one, called, "CORPORATE & CONSUMER CONTROLLAHOLISM", over at o_c_c_u_p_y. Hopefully, I will be able to post this soon. [Ed: It is now 4/27/morning, and Hillary has won 4 states. Should Bernie drop out? No. He should continue to fight like he's going to win, because he still can. I will say why herein, especially at the end of this post, dear reader].

Let me start this post by simply noting that I might have been wrong in my analysis of Bernie's visit with the Pope, during the NY Primary. Or, maybe it didn't go as Bernie had hoped. From what I gather, it was not plastered in the media as a big-time event. Most who covered it, or talked about it, squawked, "WHY is Sanders DOING this - during the Primary?!" (I.e., "Doesn't he know he is always doomed to fail?") Also, the Pope basically gave Bernie a minute or two, just enough to say, "Oh, hi there." He was busy with other things. But, maybe there was more to it.


Of course, the NY Primary was CLOSED, meaning that only Dem partisans could vote - not free and intelligent humans registered as Independents, (or even GOPpers). And, a lot of poor people don't vote, anyway, (see below). I think, perhaps, some poorer, and progressive, Dems, may have been dissuaded from voting from Bernie, maybe after the rough-and-tumble debate in Brooklyn; maybe after Hillary saturating the media, or who knows what. Perhaps they heard Clinton again mimicking Bernie's pro-poor agenda, and figured, "Good enough. She's got more connections. She can get things done. And she's a woman, ergo more likely to care." Of course, a lot of Boomer feminist fundamentalists voted for Hillary. Also, I was hoping more NYC OCCUPY persons would show up and save the day. Maybe they all lived in Connecticut - let's see what happens today. I'll tell you what... Connecticut has been widely coaxed towards Hillary by the whole Sandy Hook event, as luck would have it.

I also wonder this. I wonder if many of the upstate NY middle- and working-class Catholics whom Bernie had hoped to win over may have already been tainted by Trump, and that whole elan. Pro-gun, these upstaters may have been wooed over by pro-Trump Alex Jones, and other rad-right talkers, who are vehemently against Bernie, because he is supposedly a NWO Communist, or maybe also because he is Jewish, and Atheist.1 I don't know. Put in a religious context, the visit may have been seen as pandering. It is too bad that groups are so fractious these days, unable to see the bigger pictures. Nevertheless, I was happy to hear Bernie exclaiming that the 9/11 report, (and Congressional bill), should be released (28 pages unredacted), and addressed.2 / 3

I was wrong about the Pope visit, but I don't think I was wrong about my, "Whack-a-Mole", hypothesis, and so I want to mention it one more time, to clarify:

THE TROUBLE WITH TRUMP:

The status-quo Establishment, (Faux Middle), cannot keep the New Middle down, whether that be represented by Trump, or by Sanders. When Trump is strong in a state, then Bernie tends to falter there, and vice versa. So, when Hillary plays presidential, and trounces Trump, she paradoxically helps Bernie. When she trounces Bernie, she helps Trump. (So, If Hillary wishes to beat Bernie in a primary, especially if it's an open primary, then she would be wise not to stump against Trump. Bernie, on the other hand, should talk about the sharing of some ideas between himself and Trump, while also doing what he can behind the scenes to oppose Trump).

This paradoxical little game occurs because both Trump and Bernie Sanders are eruptions of the same social phenomenon - an anger at the status quo, or establishment elites, who own, (what I call), the "Faux Middle." Both left and right anti-establishment margins and candidates not only share the same anger, but also a thoughtful opposition to failed status quo ideas, policies and politics. Thus, both margins do share many similar ideas, though each may lambast the other. Both margins indeed represent a spearhead of a disambiguating population, who all together conspire as, "the New Middle." Granted, the New Middle has a few years to go before it gets its act together and integrates.

I just wanted to restate all that for clarity, and as a deviant mnemonic device. Now, I want to add a new point. It may not be necessary to do in-depth study and comparison of the rules and permissions of all primaries and caucuses, with their results, in order to confirm this hypothesis. All we need to do is look at what seems already to be a visible correlation. Note that, prior to NY, Bernie had won 8 out of the 9 most recent primaries/caucuses, (or was it 7 out of 8?) Well, what was going on with Donald Trump at the same time? He was in a Trump slump. Other GOP candidates were winning, or were gaining on him. So, we should look back to see if this correlation has existed all the way from the beginning (!) I let you go research that. (I'm more interested in finding out which states have chosen BOTH Trump and Sanders, because those are states I might consider moving to. Illinois is full of crazy people).

[Note the results of the recent Northeast Primaries: Donald Trump won all five - whereas Bernie only won one. Once again: consistent with the hypothesis].

OK, that's all on that subject, except to say that this odd phenomenon which occurs in the primaries/caucuses is not insulated there, but is occurring through society and its opinions, as society reflects upon the images, and lies, that the corporate and alternative media present. (For example, when NPR presents disingenuous favouritism, members of the, "New Middle," may see through it, so that it backfires on NPR).

I know many of you dislike or even loath, detest and revile Donald Trump. Trump is a rough, unpredictable character, harkening, in ways, back to brazen populist, Andrew Jackson, who just got booted to the back of the $20 bill. Both had the same Scottish, reddish hair. There is no doubt that Trump does fight, get angry, and rub people the wrong way. He has a pettiness to his character. I regret it. It sometimes serves him well in shaking up the Establishment. But it can sometimes seem like presidential bullying, when one stands on the other side of it. Often, it is!

This characteristic, or character flaw, partly reflects a petty, cut-throat nastiness amongst the business class, especially the newer billionaires, who made much of their money after the anti-ethical floodgates opened up in Reagan's 80's. As representing the childish pettiness of much of the narcissistic rich, it illuminates the corporate absurdity we are up against... The greed which fights to control us... The refusal to admit that one can be wrong, since profit-hungry corporations are divine Super-Heroes. Success brings more money, and more money buys agreement, and this means that one is always right. It is a religion.

This is as much true for Bill Gates, and George Soros, as it is for Donald Trump. Bill Gates is a consummate controllaholic... And George Soros justifies any means for his rather conflated, "ideals". I do believe that Trump is a true narcissist, just like Bill Clinton, but not a psychopath, like many other of the controllaholic elite. But, as the petty Alex Jones says, "Trump may be an extrovert, but he's a GOOD extrovert." That's how a lot of people feel about him. In populist times, lots of people just want someone who kicks ass. "Maybe that is what it will take!"

Look at the embarrassment inflicted upon the GOP in their attempt to stop him. To that, I say, "Hell, yeah!"

A parallel nastiness runs through the cash-strapped neighbourhoods of the teeming underclass, except that it is all about real life, and death. Unfortunately, many of the poor and working class buy into this religion of meanness, seeing it as a measure of the successful. They imitate the bastard billionaires and politicians, whom are deemed authoritative, right, and enviable. Then, from this cauldron of perpetual stress, it is the nasty neighbours and bullies who are given their way, by communities who have defaulted on morality, or even common sense. TV has a lot to do with it. So does sugar. Etc. Then, it is the gangs and the drug-lords, and corrupt police, who are allowed to rise to the top, and control the hood.

Then, the surrounding neighbourhoods, especially the comfy elites, and businesses, call for more police control, which leads to quotas for $$$, which leads to police abuse of the innocent, especially of minorities. Rebellious chaos only increases. It is all a tragedy of the commons, with the mistake of every-man-for-himself, in a time of rising economic strain. Too easilly, groups can be played off against each other, divided and controlled, to the benefit of the banks, etc., and to the politicians.

Well, it is out of an element of the latter meanness that the middle class tussles, and fights, to make its own money, more legitimately. And it is from this mean middle that the business, professional and billionaire classes arise. So, the mean people who succeed, become again models for the poor. It is sad and disgusting and indicative of the decline of this country. Because: When resources get tight enough, competition does nothing but turn inwards, becoming nothing but a wanton, dependent parasitism. The name of the game become all blood sport, rhetoric, lies, appearance, and the ability merely to stop short one's, "opponent," before he has an ounce of freedom to merely take his next breath. Tit-for-tat becomes actively, habitually M.A.D. PREEMPTIVE "RETALIATION", doing nothing but increasing social dysfunction, and decreasing social wealth.

This decline indicates the social status quo. In politics, the games that are played by both parties, to preempt opportunities for hope, real change, alternate candidates, etc., indicates the inertia, or need, of the FAUX MIDDLE to decline, and be replaced by a more sane, New Middle. And, so, amongst the poor, and amongst the middle, and other classes, there are souls who are wise enough to RESIST all this chaotic dysfunction, stress and decline. And it is to such people that Bernie Sanders appeals.

But, there are also members of the billionaire class who might appeal to many of these people, who wish to thrash out in warranted anger, and register their quashed hopes in a PROTEST VOTE. Though both candidates may attract different sorts of people, in general, they both attract the same phenomenon: the protest vote, the demand for hope, and the rise of some kind of NEW MIDDLE, to replace the madly preemptive, dying status quo FALSE MIDDLE, and all its corporate connections. It is the same VOICE, seeking to be represented by alternate movements, insisting that something be done to fix all the crime they see; the poverty they see; the loss of jobs; the hypocrisy; the lies, etc.

Billionaire, Donald Trump seems to me to be an astute response to much of this cry for change. Unlike Sanders, he is often taking the easy short-cut of playing on people's angers and fears, (which is the other side of the coin of social hope and need). I now believe that Trump is doing this on purpose, in order to win. Yes, he is a mean character, born of the cut-throat real estate industry, and NY/NJ society, but I think he is deeper than that. He is skilled at constructing weaponry to throw against opponents, showing much premeditation. He has had many women in his businesses, despite his caricature as being misogynist. He has supported transgender rights in North Carolina, despite the Alex Jonesians. He shares many of the same positions as Bernie, such as increasing Social Security, and opposing the TPP.

Yes, Trump admits he has been a true elite, giving money simultaneously to both left and right candidates in the past. But I have come to the conclusion that he woke up to the trouble in this country, and in the world economy, and he has decided to really extract himself from this corruption - and to speak out against it instead. That's another thing he shares with Sanders. Neither is being subsidized by corrupt corporations, billionaires, or countries. Too bad that America can't produce, not a "divider" billionaire, nor an "altruistic socialist", but something in the middle, who somehow doesn't need others to fund their campaigns. But this is what we are stuck with. And if we don't try to bring these two margins together, then the corrupt FAUX MIDDLE will never be replaced!

The Trump phenomenon can also be seen as a manifestation of the Baby Boomers going to seed. They are getting old, and death is creeping in. Their great booming bedroom economy is becoming more of a retirement home economy. Their great expectations of either one big happy world of flowers and social agreement, or of making enough money to own a suburb and finally roll SUV's all over those damned hippies, have been cut short by this continuing economic recession, (depression). They have been taking drugs; believing too much TV and political rhetoric; they have stood behind Reagan or Carter, only to be embarrassed by the failures of either; they have lost jobs to bossy young millennials; they are getting senile and cranky; they have dragged most of Generation X along with them into this Slough of Despond, and now they are either still in La La Middle Land, or they are getting behind either the Bully on the Right, or the Love Sage on the Left. More the former than the latter. Bernie more represents, to them, the last relic of impossible hippyism. Plus, he's a commie, and all that.

"The (hippy) Establishment must go!" - Echoes of the 60's... The surfacing of long-unfinished business.

(You should read my personal accounts of insane baby boomers I have been witnessing these days. It only gets worse and worse!)

It is the Millennials who are not so stuck in the past, but look away, TOWARDS THE FUTURE. They do not see what they want to believe, they look for what can be real. Many Baby Boomer blacks, on the other hand, are stuck in the comfortable lies of bygone Clintons.

Be gone, Clintons!

As an indication that Trump is anathema to the rigged system? One the very day that Trump made a victory speech in NY, saying that corrupt corporations, and campaign crud, had to be brought under control, the Koch Brothers announced that they were done financing ANYONE, (especially Trump), on the Right. Instead, they would now focus on the NEXT election. (I have a hunch that Barbara Bush, who has vowed revenge on Trump, may have had some input to the Kochs on this matter).

Then, on the very day that Trump made his Northeast primaries victory speech, and also dissed Hillary, there was obviously-failing Kasich, announcing that he had chosen Carly Fiorina as his running mate, yay. What a crass move by the rigged system, yes? Predictably, the latter non-event was eaten up by the corporate media, and Trump was bumped out of the limelight. How odd. Some have said that Kasich was focusing, himself, on the NEXT election. What a coincidence.

Trump did a great job of putting together past criticisms against my favourite enemy, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and effectively targetted Walker right out of the race. Walker made a dumb speech and, about a day later, the Kochs withdrew all their financial support of him. It was actually at that point that Walker dropped out. Pretty much shows you what puppets these status quo candidates are.

Now, I have to say. There has been a concerted effort to boot Trump out of the race, by both the established right and the established left. (The latter really doesn't make too much sense, because Trump draws votes away from Bernie, to Hillary's advantage. Maybe she has realised that by now). I have been carefully watching this, fairly, to see how and what it was. And it's true. Trump does not deserve all of the blame and labels that have been plastered to him. But, in fact, this is too vast a subject to cover well in this post. However, I will mention the topic of immigration.

"We should ban all Moslems from entering country until our politicians figure out what the hell is going on..."

That's pretty much what he said. I think he was a little naive, in saying, "all Moslems." To ban people based on their religion is wrong, and he knows that by now. However, what he was saying made sense. The fact is that the USA somehow let 9/11 happen, which tore up the country, and left us with an official idiocracy of spying and policing and warring networks, and ultimately stultified the economy, and now people want to let thousands "migrants" in, with insufficient vetting, out of the glibness of their hearts? I mean, can you say, insane?!"

The rogue USA war machine grows ISIS out of Al Qaeda; leaves weapons and vehicles there for them to use, in the vacuum created by Bush's war in Iraq; sets up a false claim that, "Assad uses chemical weapons on his own people!"; then doesn't really bomb ISIS; but creates such instability in drought-stricken Syria that hundreds of thousands of people attempt to leave; then they all try to go to Europe - (not, em, Saudi Arabia or Israel); while The Open Society Foundation entices more in; and terrorist Moslems, both riding this immigration wave and also already in Belgium, bomb Paris, and so forth. Reports of "migrants" raping women are common. European citizens are all up in arms about this. And Americans are just supposed to act like a bunch of smitten hippies, inviting the possibility of this happening here??

The fact is that our government officials, and money-driven politicians, are NOT in control of any such situation, and an influx of Syrians, etc., will not be - and is not being - vetted sufficiently. That's just the fact. If one realises that 9/11 was a planned "inside job", and that this whole mega-situation is a bunch of contrived garbage, then the probability is that when Syrian refugees are let in, so will be terrorists, ready to perform more attacks in this country. It is the same calculated destabilisation that the deranged elites have been concocting across the globe, all to profit their own corporations! It's the same game. I don't know how Americans can be so stupid.

This has nothing to do with the Moslem religion, although Trump has noted that there are many Moslems who have hatred towards the West. So, there need not be restrictions based on religion. However, "until our politicians figure out what the hell is going on," there is nothing wrong with limitting certain classes (or countries) of immigrants. There is nothing that says that anyone has a guaranteed right to immigrate here to begin with. Would you import an entire bad neighbourhood into your own neighbourhood, without first making sure that the gangbangers are not let in as well?

Trump says some spontaneous, sometimes simplistic things. But it is refreshing and hopeful to have someone so honestly fighting against the status quo establishment. Many times, he makes himself an easy target. But I think he has studied Chris Christy’s magic, and how he was brought down, and learnt how to deal with that. Many times, his reactionary rhetoric and blame-placing clouds out his policy positions, certainly enabled by the media, to the point that one wonders how deep his positions actually are. Are they even real? Do they even exist?

But the biggest trouble with Trump is, of course, that he is cutting into the power of the Bernie campaign, especially when his followers diss Bernie. However, I have learnt to accept that both Bernie and Trump are representations of the same general push to make real change, for better or for worse. And, as mean as Trump appears to be, I think he is consciously using meanness towards winning, to make real change; whereas Hillary, who is way deep into the meanness of the failing status quo, is mainly signing promissory notes to the past.

VIOLENCE?:

On a report from the, "Talk Radio News Service", this morning, Bob Neah(sp?) spoke of watching his top Dem associates basically go through the stages of denial, regarding the seemingly impossible candidacy of Bernie Sanders. They gradually went from dismissal, to ridicule, to anger, and then even to violence. This did not surprise me, because when I early posted in support of Bernie in my LJ, and against Hillary, I got blowback. About half a dozen females dropped me, out of the blue, rather than discuss why they supported Hillary. But a couple of them targetted me on side issues before inevitably leaving me.

For example, in her LJ, one began passive-aggressively mocking my own LJ posts questioning vaccines. After a while, an argument broke out, and I was besieged by a swarm of bad-mouthers on other sites, going so far as to accuse me of being abusive towards women. That was just bizarre. And hurtful. But, as a white male, it does not mean that I am a dangerous right-winger, because I discuss the topic of vaccines, being misrepresented as being rabidly anti-vaccines merely because I don't support Hillary(!) The emotional logic could not be refuted - because it was beyond reason!

That's how people have become. We all know how insane fatuous FaceBook has become, with people arguing back and forth, like intoxicated children, over Hillary versus Sanders. These are people too superficial to see any deeper than the left-right paradigm, (or even than their own TV screen or phone gossip), which has now been internalised to WITHIN each party, coming mostly from the Faux Middle establishment(s). They try to shut up their chosen enemies by shouting louder, (or spending more money), or ganging up with other cowards, installing their own versions of "the truth" before their victim has a chance to get his or her boots on.

The same thing has been going on over at LJ's ontd_political. Just watch what happens if one posts something which brings to light an injustice which just happens to come from a minority or a female; or if one sincerely tries to bring together the concerns of the right with the concerns of the left, on, say, GMOs; vaccines (Rbt. Kennedy Jr.); police abuse; liberal racism, or the right-left-alliance itself. I posted early about the probable harm caused by the continuing Fukushima disaster, and received rude comments from self-ordained experts who didn't know a donut from a hole in their head. Just because scientists, and GOVERNMENTS, had not announced completed studies, that meant that I was, "not thinking critically." Clearly, it was those armchair critics who were trusting in shifty authority rather than thinking for themselves, and denying this by blaming others.

So, it is not unknown that some liberals can get pretty aggressive, usually in groups, even against true progressives. And, it is known that, while conservative farmers who merely carry guns are more a help than a harm, it is true that crazy fundamentalist conservatives can get overly aggressive as well. If this is true of mere common folk, then imagine the extremes to which activist liberals and conservatives who are in the upper echelons of their political parties may resort, with all the corporate income at their disposal. Especially in times of economic and social strain, these politicos could, at the very least, pay saboteurs to subvert opponents within or without their status quo base, often provoking violence. Then, the blame is put on the opponents. And this is exactly what happens. Don't be surprised.

Thus, two politicos caused a raucous at a Trump rally, and claimed to be Bernie supporters. "Oh, Bernie, Bernie!" shouted Trump, who went into a little diatribe. But these were not Bernie supporters, in fact. Bernie supporters have the least desire to become violent, I would say. They walk in the spirit of pacifist OCCUPY. No, the report was that these provocateurs were in fact Hillary supporters, backed by George Soros. So, this was about the beginning of the whole Trump = violence issue.

There were many other incidents. A woman claimed that she was assaulted at a Trump rally, but no evidence was found to support this claim. Now, there have been violent protestors outside of a 50,000 Trump rally, (in Costa Mesa?), and my guess is that that group is a collection of provocateurs, and Faux Left/Right protestors. OCCUPY veterans know too well of the reality of provocateurs creating violence, and the police abuse which follows.

People are angry, and that include Trump supporters. Why shouldn't they be, when the establishment GOP is trying to oust him, while he otherwise has the nomination cinched? So, Trump spoke off-cuff, as usual, saying that this rigging of this system could lead to people being violent at the GOP convention. Is that not true? Yes. But, all over the media, this un-PC faux pas was turned against Trump throughout the media, complaining that Trump was, "threatening violence!" It's the same old game of blaming the messenger, (or the victim). The more this head-to-head contraposition continues, there WILL end up being violence, and this will NOT be a disappointment to the bankster elite, who profit by the politics of divide-and-conquer. Direct control is easier than pandering for votes, or selling quality products, or offering good wage jobs. Or respecting people.

SIDETRACKING / SIDELINING:

Back when the OCCUPY movement was at its pinnacle, along came the Trevon Martin issue. It was a senseless killing, by a confused man believing himself allied to a white subdivision which ended up rejecting him. But, there was a lot of sensationalizing or media-critizing this issue, blowing it up to be the central issue of the day. That did not happen by accident. There were forces and money behind the scenes, including social media trolls and provocateurs, which helped turn this issue into the death knell of the OCCUPY movement. Because now, the focus was not on all of the poor, but on racism. Many blacks were led to blame OCCUPY for being, "too white". OCCUPY was said to be ignoring blacks, who have it worse than whites, in general. And so, even while it focused on the larger, global economic picture, OCCUPY was even seen as being inherently racist. What a wound that made upon my heart. Once again, divide-and-conquer identity politics was returning to keep us all down.

And, so, Bernie Sanders has somehow been labelled as being, "too white". And, a lot of this comes from pro-Hillary activists. This charge is completely bogus, because Bernie was long a persistent campaigner for the rights of blacks, and of other minorities. It is complete double-speak, where the truth is turned into lies, and vice versa. It is like Hillary Clinton moving into Brooklyn to capture political points, to eventually get her to the presidency, to then act as though she, not Bernie, was the true "native son" of Brooklyn. So, this smearing affected the future course of Bernie's campaign, in the same way that OCCUPY had been crippled. These are not mere coincidences. These are examples of deliberate strategies enacted by corporate elites with whom the Clintons have long been affiliated.

Bernie Sanders is Jewish, a Social Democrat, and an Atheist. Don't these minority labels count for anything in this brave new world? - (jk)

During the Ferguson, Missouri shooting, there was a silent little inrush of prepared protesters from elsewhere in the country. Many of these were provocateurs, paid by George Soros. (Of course, they were not admitted to be "provocateurs", but were said to be "supporters"). Interestingly, the same sort of thing happened when the turmoil kicked up in Ukraine: Pro-NAZI fighters from France, (etc.), suddenly swarmed into that country. George Soros has, in fact, helped subsidize the taking-over of Ukraine, and has a foundation there to this end. The whole idea is to DESTABILIZE, and therefore allow mega-corporations in to dissolve national boundaries, so to install REGIONAL control.

This is what George Orwell warned of: The creation of large regional bloks, like Oceania and Eurasia, who wage perpetual war, alter perceptions of reality, and control the people. It reflects the centralising of dysfunctional CAPITAL into the hands of fewer and fewer, more powerful groups. This is also what the TIPP is about. And the Trans-Atlantic plan. And NAFTA. And so on. Reduce the global population to the common denominator of low wages, impoverishment, dependency, etc., all to benefit the global upper 1%.

Those Ferguson provocateurs were the beginning of the, "Black Lives Matter," movement. Now, I am not saying that everyone in that movement is a puppet agent of the elites, or that most of them are deluded. Many of their issues are valid. And black lives do need to be highlighted as being targetted more than whites. Black lives matter, as do all lives. But the bigger pictures of overall police dysfunction, and of the global corporate economy, are being missed here.

And, just as there is weirdness going on amongst Baby Boomers, and other categories, these days, there is also weirdness going on amongst some blacks. The latest protest in Madison is over police officers walking into a classroom to arrest a guy who had done graffiti on buildings. He had not responded to police calls for two weeks. So, legally, they went into the class and arrested him there. Now, everyone is up in arms about the unfairness of it all.

And, on NPR, I now hear that Satanists are publically trying to distance themselves from Ted Cruz or John Boner, over the, "Lucifer," comment. This country is going nuts.

OK. The strategy of Black Lives Matter was to disrupt political campaign events to get their message across. It appears that they were the most violent - yes violent - to Bernie Sanders, as he was giving a speech. That was very, very sad to see. In contrast, their vocalisation at a Hillary rally was easilly transformed into some kind of town-hall meeting by Ms. Clinton. As if by magic. What this says to me is that the possibility that pro-Clinton Soros remains behind this group remains plausible. This would be consistent with the two non-pro-Bernie provocateurs at the Trump rally.

One question remains on this: Why would Black Lives Matter level such a stinging assault on Bill Clinton, at his speech, attacking the Clintons for supporting the Crime Bill? Why would they go so far, if they really were secretly pro-Hillary? The answer is simple. I discovered that this was a group other than Black Lives Matters. (I don't know if some candidate was behind it, but those protestors were probably influenced by BLM nevertheless).

Not to make light of the graver issues, many issues of "racism" have gone overboard. Recall the Hillary, "CP", skit, discussed in my previous post. As I said, Hillary Clinton probably did this as move to try to endear her to blacks, as being a kind of insider. An official mensch. Some liberal whites questioned the appropriateness of her remark. I feel I was proved correct when the next such incident came up:

Hillary made a visit to a black radio station, which often plays a song, including the lyric, "I walk around with a pack of hot sauce in my purse."(para) When Hillary was interviewed at the station, she said that she herself walked around with a pack of hot sauce in her purse, making absolutely no reference to the song. She posed as being dead serious. As she did so, she laughed - perhaps like she was again an honourary black - for liking hot sauce. Many people said that this was a racist remark, which she got away with. I don't know so much about that. But I feel that it was used racially, to again try to endear Hillary to blacks, as if she was one of them. Whatever. It's just more of the same strategy. It's just more of the same disingenuousness, which we have seen countless times elsewhere.

Another weird example of "racism" gone wild, as an indication of how the whole labelling mania has been proliferating across the board... A week or two ago, NPR's Diane Rheme(sp?) show was having a discussion on current politics. During the show, it was brought up that someone, (Trump), had made a comment about how Trump will do the job, even if people don't like him. The comment was, "When you have a raccoon in your house, you don't care about what kind of person the exterminator is, you just want that raccoon gone!" Immediately, people were jumping on this comment, calling it extremely racist. To them, the comment was referring to blacks or Moslems. "Racist!" But someone called in later and said that they had listened to the interview and comment, and found that the person had not been referring to any minority, but to the elites.

Recently, Chuck Todd chastised Bernie Sanders for saying that poor people tend not to vote enough. As much as they could, the press aired Todd's complaint that Sanders was thus badmouthing, dismissing or talking down to the poor. How bizarre is this? Once again, a real, true, factual statement is made, this time by Bernie Sanders, and it is twisted into something outrageous. After Bernie has spent his entire career helping and defending the poor, he gets this ridiculous insult thrown at him, in keeping with the preemptive ways of the corporate media. And, it was in keeping with Hillary Clinton's latest talking points, that Sanders is neglectful of the poor. Did I mention that Chuck Todd is pro-Clinton?

This again reminds me of how petty and powerful politicos used divide-and-conquer tactics to sink the OCCUPY movement, once it had grown beyond the expectations of it initial funders. This concerted effort to destabilize and devour benefits the surface polarities between left and right, and sometimes WITHIN THE PARTIES, even as both "Faux Middle" party establishments are beholden to the same elites. The same elites dish out cash to candidates on both sides, sure to win either way. And a study has shown that the payback for these bribing billionaires is real, and huge. Spend millions, make billions.

But even the elites squabble amongst themselves. It is all a mess of controllaholic narcissists and psychopaths, acting like desperate ants beneath a magnifying glass, as the globe spins towards a major extinction event. For the love of money.

I heard another woman on some NPR show, voicing chagrin that a black female, Harriet Tubman, was to be put on the front of the $20 bill. This caller, a black and a female, was angry about this, because MONEY has been used to exploit and suppress blacks and females. Yes, this is true. But I have news for her. Money has always been exploitive, of all groups. Money has been the tool of the same games of control by elites - the same games of divide-and-conquer - the same shell games of deception and injury - that have been hanging us all.

It's what we have all been stuck with. We have all had to use money, and so partly contribute to whatever injustices the more powerful conspiracies were perpetrating elsewhere on the planet, or next door. So. I would just like to see all of this labelling and blame-placing, and self-righteous contrarianism, and sneaky preemptive competition - let it end soon before we all go to blazes in a great flaming ball of chaos and war! Let it end soon, so the poor can catch a breath, because all of it - all of it - it is all a part of the very games which it wants to fight. It is fighting for little more than the limelight.

This afternoon, my lone dissent has been validated by none other than Dr. Cynthia McKinney, the radical progressive activist. McKinney is a black female and, I have thought, probably a great running mate for Bernie Sanders. She's great. Well, McKinney is very disappointed in the many blacks who have been snookered into supporting Hillary Clinton. So, she is speaking out about it. And praising Bernie. On Alex Jones! Is she too late for Sanders? Maybe. A Latino guy - (forgot his name) - was also on, after she had signed off. He basically agreed with McKinney, except to say that Bernie Sanders has already sold out. According to him, Bernie is giving Clinton his email list, and so on. Please, say it isn't so.

The topic has been, "Should Bernie stay in the race, (even though he is destined to lose)?" I think we all agree that the answer is yes, except that he can still win! What do you think? What is the future for Bernie Sanders?

I am having to cut this post in two. I have been disabled all week, with a crazy neighbour who is attacking me at all hours. My life is very difficult. So, I will write and post Part 2 as soon as I can. Please also keep an eye out for an important post coming up at the o_c_c_u_p_y community. Thank you. Please keep up the fight.

Here are the upcoming topics coming up in part two, if the gods permit:
REGARDEZ LES MEDIA:
CLINTON DISQUALIFIED BY HER OWN GRAFT:
COLLUSIONS:
CONSPIRACIES IN GENERAL:
VOTE TAMPERING AND MANIPULATION:
THE FUTURE FOR BERNIE SANDERS:



NOTES:

1 - Nevertheless, Alex Jones has come around to decrying how the Democratic Party establishment has been trying to squeeze out Bernie; and has also actually said that he would prefer Sanders over Hillary(!) - [Oh, the latest news today is that trump is finally reaching out to Sanders! - 4/29/16].


2 - An economic crash is very possible before this year is over. The global oil sector is in dire straits, without a strong alternate fuel sector to step in and replace it, (other than China's solar panel industry). The whole petro-dollar scheme has been around since WWII, long before Kissinger and Nixon. Conspiracies and collusions have circulated around it, sporting rabid Anti-Communism; destabilisation of sovereign states; forced regime-changes; gun, drug and human trafficking; big bank money-laundering and war-machine financing, and the emergence of the pathological National Insecurity State, with all the hypocrisies, deceptions, and incursions upon our rights that that has entailed.

Recently, "rogue" forces representing the USA has been messing with Saudi Arabia, geo-politically, and stealing its gold, stored in Switzerland. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been going rogue, overproducing its oil for desperate profit, damaging the global economy, and threatening to go off the USA petro-dollar, into trade with China in Chinese currency. This will happen, and will be devastating for the USA dollar. More and more countries do not want the USA dollar. (In the meantime, China will be driving up the price of gold/silver a little, to dent the western economy). Once today's dollar bubble finally bursts, the bond and derivatives markets will implode, causing runs, including runs on savings, BAIL-INS, and capital / austerity controls. This is only to be expected, because real world productive output has already been tragically low, despite the dollar and stock market.

In addition, the upper-end real estate market is failing, as elites move out of danger-zone USA, and to the safety of New Zealand, the Cook Islands, and other points south. The overall real estate market is likely to deflate as well. Finally, China is in trouble - and is yet to get worse. Triggered by possible moves by the Fed, the Chinese stock market took a dive last year, which has affected world stocks, and economy. Hundreds of billions of dollars left China despite efforts by that government to stop it. Zero Hedge has recently reported that the People's Bank of China has pumped one trillion dollars into the market. Precipitated by all this, the entire Chinese economy is now slowing, feeding back into the global recession - (or depression, actually).

There is the decline of oil, and the phasing-out of coal, along with a fall in consumption. The USA fracking boom is being dismantled. There is almost no shipping going on across the oceans. There is a teetering global currency war, largely responsible for the current, "strength", of the USA dollar. There has been a flight of jobs and companies to Asia, where increasing population means that wages remain cheap, and where those companies are now losing trade to the USA, etc. Wide-scale lay-offs are coming in China. While USA mega-corp, WalMart, (which put downtowns out of business), announces increased wages for its workers, it closes more stores.

Technology and robotics are moving in to massively displace workers. One out of every four full-time Amazon workers is a robot - that's something like 40,000 robots, so far. Meanwhile, trade deals like the TPP, along with attempts to regionalise national economies, are being formed in order to benefit the big corporations and their families at the top. The greatest problem is that the world is too much in debt. As that fails, attempts at austerity and forced control are imposed - but capital is vanishing nonetheless. The world has been overconfident in its imaginary Future, borrowing on it, and now that future is crumbling. Other, more menacing futures, are raising their ugly heads.

So, an economic collapse is probable. If such should occur long enough before November, this would bode well for Sanders. In June or July, Saudi Arabia will be announcing its move away from the petrodollar, which will seriously impact the stock markets. And the GOP convention is in July, and might be attended by some troubling dissent, if not violence. I don't know when the California Dem Primary is, but a big Bernie win there could also impact the elitocratic economy. (Californians have until May 23 to register - please advance the Bernie vote now!) Anyway, if there is very serious economic trouble, say between June and September, then social forces could move to get Bernie elected. Bernie should stay in the race, if only because of this very real possibility, if not because Hillary and Trump just might self-destruct!

However, serious war is also probable, and this would detract from Bernie's strength, supporting Hawkish Clinton. You may notice that Obama came out with his regular, day-before-Primary pronouncement, (supporting Clinton's association to his status quo administration), which was a message of sending out more troops, to Iraq, I believe. By making war the issue, the status quo maintains control, in substitute for a free economy, which would otherwise send all the bankster crooks to jail.

To continue: By tussling with Saudi Arabia, etc., it appears that the USA forces are deliberately TRYING to dismantle the global USA petro-dollar system, while also working to subvert nations to global control - by corporatist elites. It is a good thing that Bernie wishes to have the 9/11 report see the light of day, and thus incriminate Saudi Arabia. But this may inadvertently just be how things are being planned to be played anyway, eventually. Why? Because they foresee the inevitable. Once global oil trade no longer "backs" the USA dollar, then there is nothing else backing the dollar - no gold, no silver, no commodities, no currencies. The only thing left backing the dollar is blind faith. So, either the dollar will soon collapse, or that blind faith will be forced by the threats and actions of the USA-global military-industrial war machine, (which had been honing its craft all along the previous, tenuous petro-dollar scheme). Global war will only delay, and then intensify, the inevitable collapse.

For more insight into, see http://www.shadowstats.com; http://www.zerohedge.com; http://www.theeconomiccollapseblog.com, http://www.usawatchdog.org; Gerald Cilenti's Trends Research, and The Golden Jackass. [In the first site, John Williams is providing straight evidence that WE HAVE NEVER RECOVERED FROM THE RECESSION OF 2008. I'll post this over at LJ's the_recession, a great community!] (You may be surprised to know that even former Reagan official, David Stockman, and other Republicans, now see the huge mistake made by "Supply-Side, Trickle-Down, Austrian-Chicago School, Friedman, Chile/Argentina/Greece, free-for-all-but-the-middle-class, Economics").


3 - This NOTE is a lot about conspiracies, including a lot about Saudie Arabia. I have decided to post it in PART TWO.

Previous Entry  Next Entry