Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Links, links, links...

The Phallic Crusader
The Phallic Crusader's picture
It's hard to take the author seriously when he asserts that neocon strategy is intrinsically incoherent.  Stupid, yes, bloodthirsty, of course - but one need only read a couple of position papers to get the flavor.

And it's not {solely or even primarily} about oil for the neocons.
Of course, Zbig et al. aren't, strictly speaking, neocons, and it's tough to know just who is calling the shots - there may well be competing factions.  None of them seem to consider making deals and spending $ on alternative energy, space exploration, etc. as being wiser courses.

Of course, americans show no signs of rebelling against their Orwellized Republic - so be always drunken, I guess...

Ramble 10/1

So the solution is to take back the news media and kick out the liberals who have hijacked the truth and made war on reality.

Consider that people make war on reality and produce or buy into degenerate media reflecting their views (the usual media bubbles) because they want to.

More entertainment. 

*Another example, if the eugenicist was not "saving civilization" and ensuring Progress by progressively killing the poor, the weak and the helpless, then what... exactly were they doing?   It would seem that they were establishing their view of themselves as a superior race and elite professionals, naturally selected to kill others based on godlike knowledge. 

It was actually a "cult"ure generally based on the unfalsifiable pseudo-science of Darwinism, the tattered remains of which many people playing pretend about a godlike knowledge of evolution still want to maintain to this day.

Now many want to focus on a pseudo-science currently called "climate change" while simultaneously denying well documented attempts to weaponize the weather by War Inc... and any possible role it may play in so-called "climate change."

For the scientific servants of oligarchs it must be that peasants are to blame again.  Because it couldn't be that the oligarchs in charge of financing are to blame for their national security states running wild and trying to weaponize the weather.  So apparently there are plenty of petrodollars/ponzi/"money" to study the role that peasants play in "climate change" but almost zero to study the role that national security states may be playing when they manipulate the ionosphere, etc.    

Meh... 10/1

....the Zionists and oligarchs (usually the same thing) that own the corporate media tend to view you as a possible Tea Party/Christian nationalist threat.  And they still own and shape most of the corporate media even if its influence is waning. 

It is kind of ironic that your marketing demographic would still be viewed as a possible threat given all the wars that you've been willing to fight in the special interests Zionists and oligarchs, going all the way back to WWI. 

Not sure what more they expect of their patriotic peasants, true believers and assorted "right wing" dupes ready to go to war at the drop of a hat and so forth. 

Anyway, those of us that have no use for yet more wars have already begun forming our own networks and gumming up the works in general.  Sure, we're only delaying the bombing and wars for now.  But at least that's something.  It's more than clueless Democrats and Republicans are usually doing. 

On a side note, there's a problem with any right wing "strategery" of going into mainstream networks owned by Zionists/oligarchs and shaped by their special interests in War Inc. to supposedly "take it back."  But if that is your mentality then you should probably begin with Fox News Inc.  Because it's been allowed to emerge to be your supposedly patriotic market, which means that it's generally approved as kosher by the tribe no matter how much other members of the tribe make fun of it on different networks.  How into Zionism do you have to be in order to be allowed a smidgeon of patriotism of your own in the corporate media?  Apparently, very. 

Just remember that you can't get too patriotic or tribal with respect to your own nation and national interests no matter the marketing in any of the corporate/mainstream networks that are allowed to form.   Same thing with your religion, you have to keep it separate but you can support wars against an "Islamic State" in the interests of a specifically Jewish State where it is rather thoroughly mixed in if you want to.  And it would seem that is what most of you have decided to do or stand back and allow by ignoring reality.  

You have an outlet for all of your nationalism in Faux News, provided it's directed against Islamic peasants or assassinating sixteen year old Muslim kids and so on.  You can destroy Arab nations like Iraq in the name of nation building while simultaneously funding and arming ISIS in Syria (Or whatever the latest group is, personally I miss Al Qaeda/The Toilet.) and then wonder why it seems like you're being directed like some sort of a stupid and ignorant goyim golem to create a war with Muslims in general.  (Provided that they haven't already killed each other based on their religion of war or tribal versions of it.)

It's against your interests as peasants to support more wars. 

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Ramble 9/30

Challenge Zionism and see what happens to the wedge or "culture war" type issues like abortion and gay rights being marketed to values voters while War Inc. churns on in the background. 

What really comes first, the wedge issues used by Rove or the oligarchic power structures that have grown up around Zionism?  Would Joel Rosenberg give up on the religious tribalism and forms of racial supremacy used to justify Zionism in order to support the "culture war" of conservative Christians if he had to choose between actually winning it while doing away with Christian Zionism?  I doubt it. 

Not that Christians are making him choose between "standing with" them and their family values.  They're expected to "stand with Israel" (no matter what), it's never the other way around.  Ironically, many Christians seem fine with being expected to stand with Israel and basically sacrifice their national credit/credibility for the sake of Zionism.   Shrug.

 I'm just saying, in theory if Fay and Rosenberg could be "wedged" apart to the same extent that Americans have been in general (calling each other terrists, etc.)... then which side would Rosenberg choose?  Or if Fay had to give up on her stance on abortion, given that it's being provided for free in Israel* and so on (as seems to be consistent with rabbinic teachings)... then would she and Wade still "stand with Israel" despite their values? 

It seems like they would all give up their supposedly cherished values in order to "stand with Israel" above all.  So what is all this talk about "values voters" and what they can supposedly be expected to support and vote for, really?  What all sides really seem to "value" is winning elections that are pretty much transparently useless at this point, thanks partly to the most transparent administration ever.       

Joel Rosenberg?

Pretty sure this is the same guy that wrote this article:
Joel C. Rosenberg, has a rather nuanced view of the peace process. Rosenberg, the founder of The Joshua Fund — whose operating motto is “Pray for peace, but prepare for war” — maintained on his blog that despite the previous failures at reaching an accord, “we should not write off this possibility [of peace] too quickly.”
    Rosenberg, a Jew who converted to Christianity more than 30 years ago, was a mostly behind-the-scenes figure in the conservative movement until his first novel, The Last Jihad, became a New York Times bestseller. Over the years, he has worked for former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli politician Natan Sharansky, US business magazine magnate Steve Forbes, and right-wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. He is also a former Heritage Foundation staffer.
    Rosenberg appears to believe that if peace deal is concluded, it will not contradict Biblical...
  “Meanwhile,” writes Rosenberg, the Likud Party’s Benjamin Netanyahu, a close ally/friend of U.S. Christian Zionists, “is waiting in the wings, talking tough on Gaza and Iran, saying Olmert should strike hard and fast with ‘disproportionate force’ against Palestinian terrorists.” Netanyahu said that “In a war of attrition the enemy strikes and you react, the enemy strikes harder and you retaliate harder. This gradual increase in violence is the antithesis of deterrence….Deterrence always means using disproportionate force. We need to move from a concept of attrition to one of tough deterrence that will eventually lead to the removal of the Hamas regime, because as long as it exists it will continue arming itself and continue its attacks.”  ....
Rosenberg’s Joshua Fund is organizing a conference slated for April 10 in Jerusalem to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary. According to Rosenberg, the purpose of the conference is “to educate people as to the serious threats facing the Jewish State and their neighbors, mobilize Christians around the world to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and provide
humanitarian relief to the poor and needy and those suffering from war and terrorism.”  Link
  What's the point of him working to inspire "values voters"?  It would seem that an aspect of it is to get Team America to go to war for Israel again.  And that means more veterans coming home and killing themselves and so on.  When is Israel going to bomb ISIS, again?  When will they "stand with America"?   

Not that the Democrats are any better.  In fact, they're arguably worse because their brand of Zionist usually runs in the name of peace, humanism, equality, anti-racism and being "antiwar."  Seriously.  They're anti-racists and anti-war?  Chuck "strangle the Palestinians" Schumer or who? 

Pathetic.  Still waiting on people getting tired of voting for the current collection of hypocrites and criminals, etc.  Perhaps it's best that many Republicans are merely patriotically courageously clueless, sort of like  Rosenberg and Wade.   But what's the excuse for Democrats that run on being anti-nationalist (while supporting the establishment of a racist state), anti-war (while voting for War Inc.) and farting rainbows (gay marriage and abortion, as bankers loot the value out of anything they trickle down on their lemmings anyway)?  

SSM is marketed to Democrats and the clueless single woman vote.  But then it turns out that you don't have a job and your savings have been looted. Duh.

War Inc. and the big businesses of Zion are marketed to "values voters," yet then it turns out that your veterans are killing themselves after coming home to closed open air war memorials and they've been sacrificed for foreign interests.  Again, duh.

But it would seem that this is the way that people want things.  The idea that someone is getting a free rainbow is more important than the fact that they are not.  The idea of heroism and courage and a "band of brothers" is more important than the fact that patriotic nationalists are coming home to become homeless and killing themselves while international bankers are bailed out.  Why is this the way that things are?  Apparently this is the way that people want them to be, as they value the theatrical production of a show (the media, politicians) more than reality (money and power, etc.). 

More entertainment.

Greenspan says Federal Reserve is above law and answers to no one