Democracy Shamocracy

Everyone thinks democracy is a good idea. Well at least everyone has a good opinion of their own opinion.

So just about everyone thinks they know what government ought to do, and thinks they ought to have the right to vote, if not on the issues, then at least on the people who will decide the issues.

But who's actually taken the time, amid the daily round of work, family concerns and entertainment, to study the relevant evidence on any major policy issue, thought the thing through and come to a defensible conclusion?

Who among the populace pays sufficiently close attention to political affairs to know what the vitally important policy issues are?

Government deals with many and complex questions. Doing what's best for the nation, if any government ever cared about that, is difficult. In fact it is so difficult that even a totally well-intentioned government may as often as not to get things wrong.

Which means that putting the average citizen in charge of public policy would be about as crazy as putting Hani Hanjour at the controls of a Boeing 757 and expecting him to perform high-speed aerobatics at ground level and at near super-sonic speed — which he did, so the ruling elite and the media they own are insistent that you believe.

So what exactly is this democracy that just about everyone is so enamored of that Americans, Canadians, Europeans, those petty dictators of the Gulf States, and the Saudi autocracy (where women are not allowed to drive and slavery is, or was until quite recently, legal) support endless wars to deliver the same wonderful system of government to the nations of North Africa, the Middle-East and Central Asia?

Well first off, as Mr. Average Joe might say, it gives everyone a say in the government.

How so?

Because everyone can vote for the candidate of their choice, i.e., a democrat or a Republican or some guaranteed third-party loser.

Which is to say, since the major parties when in power are virtually indistinguishable, everyone can have the warmonger and monied-interest-puppet of their own chosing?

So is there anything else that's so great about democracy?

Yes. The rulers have to suck-up to the plebs. Yer know, appear in public, shake thousands of hands, smile a lot.

But is that really sufficient reason for putting around half the GDP at the disposal of a bunch of bought psychopaths whose only concern for the masses is to keep them dumbed down, brainwashed and firmly in their place.

Prof. James Tracy has a good blog post explaining the way in which the media work to discredit independent though by the unacredited members of the populace. Received opinions as dispensed by the media are not open to question. Uppity proletarians who ask questions are dismissed as conspiracy theorists or, even more contemptible, "truthers," as recently demonstrated here (and here, and here, and here) in the case of those who questioned the pathetically incomplete and contradictory mainstream media reporting of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre.

... several years ago Project Censored directors Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff identified and explained the “truth emergency” that is among the greatest threats to civil society and human existence. This crisis is manifest in flawed (or non-existent) investigations into 9/11 and other potential false flag events, fraudulent elections, and illegal wars vis-à-vis a corporate-controlled news media that fail to adequately inform the public on such matters. While neglecting or obscuring inquiry into such events and phenomena major media disparage independent and often uncredentialed researchers as “conspiracy theorists” or, more revealingly, “truthers.”

...as Leibniz observed, reason marks our humanity, suggesting a portion of the soul capable of a priori recognition of truth. With this in mind the modern individual in the mass has been rendered at least partially soulless through her everyday deferral to the powerfully persuasive notion and representation of expertise. However narrowly focused, under the guise of objectivity the institutionally-affiliated journalist, academic, bureaucrat, and corporate spokesperson have in many instances become the portals of reason through which the public is summoned to observe “truth.”

Thus underlying our much vaunted democratic system, is a hidden elite, operating through the news, entertainments, and publishing industries that they own and the politicians whose elections they fund and whom they reward on departure from office, that tell the masses what to think, while deriding those who attempt to think for themselves, and outlawing the most persistent critics of the system as terrorists.

The rulers tell the people what to think and for whom to vote. The people vote as they are told. 

That's not a democracy, it is oligarchy with no respect for, or shared interest with, the mass of humanity. It is a a soft tyranny that employs techniques of mind control and propaganda that greatly surpass those of the old-line dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler. There's nothing crude or blatant about it. Elections are not won with 99% of the vote as under the old Commie regimes. No, its always a tight race between elite-picked candidates without a difference.

Such a form of govenment has many evil consequences. Since the appearance of legitimacy requires only a voting plurality, the propaganda is chiefly directed at the young and innocent and the incorrigibly unteachable, i.e., the stupids, which leaves those with experience and a capacity for analysis and rational judgment essentially side-lined in the political process.

Such contempt for the thoughtful citizen promotes “conspiracy theory.” In turn, conspiracy theories drives much elite paranoia, which in turn generates a determination by the elite to achieve more direct control of thought and speech through domestic spying, promotion of political correctness and, in extreme cases, the designation of opponents as terrorists liable to extermination without due process.

Mass democracy has thus clearly been a mistake. A better system would grant a highly visible role in government to those who now exercise invisible power without responsibility by financing elections, providing after-office payoffs to politicians who have served their real masters, and by other means.

To that end, the Senate, to take the US as an example, might be replaced by a House of Plutocrats, comprising 100 individuals making the largest personal tax payments. Then the Rockefeller's, the Soros's, the Buffet's and the Gates's, and other more dynamic members of the money-making elite, would, assuming that they pay taxes, have to speak for the policies they impose on the nation and justify them in terms of the public interest. 

Reform of the US House of Representatives would be more of a challenge, but a restriction of the voting franchise would be a prerequisite, which might reasonably be based on a tax payment threshold.

Many would howl at the denial of universal suffrage, but in America and every other capitalist society, upward mobility is open, at least theoretically, to everyone. To those born poor, the chance to become a member of the House of Plutocrats always exists. And at least the chance to earn enough to pay tax and thus earn the right to vote, would surely be real enough.

And to safeguard the interests of the masses, voting or otherwise, the Presidency could remain a popular contest, but subject to strict control and complete visibility of campaign finance.

See also: 

Smoking Mirrors: The Gatekeepers and Vipers Among us

The Genocide of the Irish In the Name of the Holocaust

The only great obstacle to the project for global governance is the nation state. Thus it is that the agents of globalization seek the destruction of the nation state as a racial and cultural entity and as a distinct identity. The term applied to the destruction of a nation is genocide. That term was coined by the Jewish legal scholar, Raphael Lemkin. In defining precisely what he meant by the word, he wrote: The crime of wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world ... is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it. It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that. More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong. Today, we see the globalist puppet regimes of Europe deliberately destroying their own peoples through mass immigration of Asians, Africans and Middle Easterners more fertile than the indigenous population, by enforced multiculturalism and by criminalization of the expression of ethnic and cultural nationalism. In this process of global genocide, we see that Jews are most prominent. In Britain, the son of an illegal Jewish immigrant, Ed Miliband, leader of the Labor Party, seeks to define English Nationalism in terms of openness to relentlesse genocidal mass immigration, which has already made the English a minority in their great capital city of London, and which will make Birmingham, England's second city, majority ethnic within a a decade. According to Miliband, the only good Englishman is brainwashed whimp, anxious to see the planet rid of the English race. Most extraordinarily, as recounted in the article excerpted below, in Ireland, the genocidists have a Jewish champion, a staunch supporter of Israel's genocidal war against the indigenous Palestinians, who champions genocide of the Irish in the name of the Holocaust. CS

By Camillus

The Occidental Observer, March 2, 2013: For the past two years Ireland’s immigration policy has been in the hands of Alan Shatter, a Jew and an outspoken partisan of Israel. Alan Shatter, born and bred in Dublin of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, has made it Irish policy to increase Third World immigration to the Emerald Isle. As Minister of Justice, Equality, and Defence, Shatter is exerting his considerable clout to skew the Republic’s Middle East policy, formerly supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel, toward Zionist aims.

Before Shatter, the Irish government had taken steps to reduce non-European immigration, including abolishing automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners in Ireland and drastically reducing the admission of asylum seekers. Since taking office in early 2011, after his Fine Gael party ousted the ruling Fianna Fail amid Ireland’s continuing economic woes, Shatter has busied himself with increasing the numbers of Africans and Asians resident in Ireland.

Immigration to Ireland from outside Europe during 2011 was twice that of the previous year. Last year, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service granted visas to 91 percent of the 88,000 non-Europeans who applied for them (citizens of the twenty-six other member states of the European Union can travel to Ireland without having to obtain a visa). An additional 115,000 migrants from outside Europe were given permission to remain in Ireland in 2012, with India, China, Nigeria, Turkey, and the Philippines among the top six countries of origin. To be sure, the number of permits to non-Europeans to reside in Ireland has declined over the previous two years—but only because Shatter’s ministry has been granting them citizenship, at several times the rate of the preceding years.

Shatter is aggressively promoting new measures to further increase non-European immigration, including making immigration easier for investors and entrepreneurs and their families. More ominously still, he is working industriously to replace existing Irish legislation on foreign immigration, including applications for asylum, with a bill that will, according to Shatter’s stated priorities for the current year, will “radically reform and modernize” Irish immigration law.

Shatter has attempted to veil his immigration policies under the subterfuge of streamlining administrative procedures. After all, while exposed to the same globalist propaganda and pressures as America, the Republic of Ireland is a small and still largely homogeneous nation. It is also a land in which cant about “a nation of immigrants” won’t sell: until only a couple of decades ago, Ireland was a nation of emigrants. And today, Irish unemployment continues to hover at around 15 percent, twice the stated rate in the U.S.

What was Shatter to do? Why play the Holocaust trump card, of course!

Now, Ireland has not been known for its role in World War II anti-Jewish measures. Like most countries at the time, however, including Germany’s fiercest opponents, Ireland was reluctant to accept large numbers of Jewish immigrants.

So, last fall, in a speech in honor of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish businessman who traveled to Hungary at American instigation in 1944 to impede deportation of Jews to German concentration camps, Ireland’s Jewish immigration czar attempted to justify flooding his homeland with Third World immigrants by attacking Ireland’s World War II immigration policy:

There were many who did nothing in the face of the industrialised genocide and the destruction of European Jewish civilisation. Indeed the Irish Government of the day sat on its hands. And even after the death camps were liberated, the Irish Government denied Jews refuge in Ireland.

It won’t surprise TOO readers to learn that, for all his efforts to pass as a champion of universalist ethics (“It is not enough to bear witness. We must also honor our fundamental moral obligation to protect our common humanity against inhumanity.”), Shatter has been anything but a protector of the Palestinians’ humanity. What may surprise is that, in a nation virtually devoid of Jews, and one which has been more supportive of the Palestinians than most Western countries, the extent to which Shatter has been a strident voice in defense of Israel’s ruthless policies, in the Gaza Strip or on the West Bank.

As a member of the Irish legislature, Shatter defended Israel’s brutal 2009 invasion of Gaza. He opposed the “freedom flotillas” organized in 2010 and 2011 to breach the Israeli blockade of the already impoverished Gaza strip, although each of the aid expeditions included a ship from Ireland (although Shatter did a brief turnabout after Israeli commandos killed nine men aboard a ship in the first flotilla). He has opposed visas for members of organizations hostile to Israeli policies, and resoundingly condemned calls for the Irish to boycott performances in Israel as “cultural fascism.”

Read more

William Cobbett - a common man for all seasons

By Archbishop Cranmer

From Brother Ivo:

For much of this week His Grace has been offering sound advice to our brothers and sisters of the Roman Catholic Church to assist them out of some of their current difficulties, but we must not neglect the temporal. There is still a pressing need, and significant work to be done in challenging and reforming the United Kingdom’s political elites.

Brother Ivo loves his paradox, and has long noted that the post-modern search for cultural 'individualism' appears to render folk ever more homogenised. Nevertheless, our political leaders are presently puzzling that at the same time as they are struggling to identify and capture the fabled 'middle ground' of British society, the political climate is drifting away from them towards a degree of independent thinking for which the English once used to once pride themselves. Ukip surges, Carswell analyses, Galloway confounds.

Even so, our cussedness has still not quite reached the point where we routinely ‘spit on the poop deck and call the Pope our father’, as was done in former days.

In celebration of that rugged individualism, Brother Ivo would like to invite His Grace's communicants to mark the 250th anniversary of the birth of William Cobbett today, 9th March, by raising a glass of beer to the memory of a fine example of a prototype individual Englishman.

We might have hoped that our national broadcaster would be planning a suitable marking of this occasion, but this weekend sees the 50th anniversary of Cliff Richard's 'Summer Holiday' topping the charts, so.. you know.. priorities., etc.

The beer is appropriate, because Cobbett was a plain man born in a public house in Farnham, Surrey, to a family of modest means. Without the assistance or protection of the NUT, a private education, or Ofsted, he was nevertheless taught to read over the kitchen table before he began to demonstrate a quintessential story of social advance by a man of patience, hard work and talent.

His CV includes working as a farm labourer, gardener at Kew, legal clerk, soldier, farmer, agrarian innovator, pamphleteer, journalist, author and Member of Parliament for Oldham. His early publishing of parliamentary debate began the enterprise which became the Hansard reports of today.

Plainly, our political class might feel discomforted by such a rich life before politics, so perhaps that is why they may be content that he be left in the shadows lest they be placed in his. Mary Seacole is so much less threatening.

He was a man of his times, defending bull-baiting and slavery, but he also confounded those who suggest that, once on the wrong side of history, those of traditional values must be incapable of compassion. His early brush with notoriety began when he championed soldiers of the Ely militia who were were flogged unjustly by the Hanovarians, and he was imprisoned for treasonous libel as a consequence. Men of principle do not simply posture; they take risks and suffer the consequences. On other occasions his outspoken free thinking had him exiled in France and America.

He was at times both Conservative and Radical. He spoke up for under-paid and abused soldiers, campaigned against the Corn Laws, championed the common labourer, and argued the British case whilst resident in the United States in revolutionary times.

On return, he opposed the Peterloo massacre, supported the Reform Act of 1832, issued some of the earliest warnings against the national debt, refused to bribe voters at a time when this was commonplace, and denounced sinecures and Rotten Boroughs. While imprisoned, he wrote the pamphlet 'Paper into Gold', which was one of the earliest to warn of the dangers of granting government the power to issue paper money.

Notwithstanding being largely self-taught, he was an educator, writing a book on grammar which would greatly improve our public culture of spin if they paid heed to his words: 'Grammar, perfectly understood, enables us not only to express our meaning fully and clearly, but so to express it as to enable us to defy the ingenuity of man to give to our words any other meaning than that which we ourselves intend them to express.'

Read More

The F35: Is Canada's New Warplane a Joke?

The F-35 Guide to Avoiding Radars, Accountants, and Reality

By Joe Saklatvala

 

The Producers tells the story of a theater producer and an accountant who want to create a Broadway flop. They borrow outrageous amounts from investors, knowing that nobody follows the money after a failure. After this pre-ordained disaster, they intended to abscond to Brazil as millionaires. The plan goes terribly wrong when the show turns out to be a surprise hit. Despite a pro-Nazi theme and a terrible cast, it succeeds. How did they get going wrong so wrong? Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon would take no such risks.

Here are the golden rules of making a successful fighter plane, which have been proven repeatedly over the last ninety years (with few exceptions):

1. Fighters must be fast and agile
2. ‘Multi-role’ aircraft seldom are, don’t try
3. You can’t make a fighter out of a bomber (make it a fighter first, then later develop a ground-attack version)
4. Never rely on any unproven concepts as linchpins
5. Don’t start production until the aircraft works

The F-35 has broken all of them.

Has the F-35 been schemed by a joker seeking to highlight the insanity of military procurement? Or maybe somewhere there are two men in Hawaiian shirts packing suitcases? Even without any catchy show tunes, the F-35 is my favorite comedy.  It’s probably less funny to taxpayers around the world, however. (Check how much your country has already invested in the program before you feel too smug.)

Read more

Floridal Atlantic University Prof. Investigates Actors' Role in Sandy Hook Massacre

Prof. James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University is, with others, investigating the role, if any, of actors in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.

Prof. Tracy and associates have found similarities in appearance between some Sandy Hook victims and other persons, believed to be actors, whose images have appeared on the Web.

Thus the hypothesis being investigated is that the Sandy Hook Massacre was a charade and that actors we’re deployed to play key roles in the event, including that of victims and their families.

But if Sandy Hook was a charade, one objective may have been to make fools of conspiracy theorists. In that case, participants with a double could have been used to great effect. Doubles might be virtual entities, monozygotic twins, or just folks who look like someone else.

In the first place, independent investigators would be led to identify certain victims or their relatives as actors whose images had been found on the Web. Later, the resemblances could be dismissed as a mere coincidental similarities between victims and other persons — perhaps professional actors — who it can be conclusively shown to be in no way connected with Sandy Hook.

But Aangirfan has spotted an interesting trail between one of the Web images brought to attention by Prof. Tracy and friends, which seems to connect Robbie Parker, the strangely cheerful just bereaved father of a Sandy Hook victim, and top people very close to the CIA. But is that really Robbie Parker partying with Anne Levitman Greenberg? As the late great journalist Malcolm Muggeridge contended, "the camera always lies."

Postscript

Since the above item was posted, Prof. Tracy has made the following statement.

Memoryholeblog.com and James Tracy are not affiliated with “US Intelligence Information Center.” Nor do they approve of the methods, allegations, findings or conclusions of “Preliminary Investigative Report: Actors Involved with the Sandy Hook Massacre” or “An Independent Investigation Into the Events Surrounding Sandy Hook.” James Tracy sincerely apologizes to readers for any confusion caused by the posting of this article.


See Also:

The Curious Case of Sandy Hook Victim, Rachel D'Avino

Adam Lanza, Ryan Lanza? Curious Image of Unknown Origin

James Fetzer, Conspiracy Theories, and the Defence of the State Against the People

And these links via Aangirfan:

Did Sandy Hook Hire "Phony" Teachers?

Exposed: CNN Guilty of False Reporting:Adam Lanza's Barber Exposed as a Fraud

Why Freedom Was Greater Under the Absolute Monarchy of Elizabeth I, Than Under the Democracy of Barak Obama

The West is at war with the Rest to establish a global system of governance subject to the  clandestine control of the money power.

The only effective resistance to this criminal war of aggression is provided by the independent nation states. All nation states, as independent political entities, are thus targeted for destruction, their natural and human resources to be appropriated in the drive for global empire.

The first nations to fall, were the European states, effectively occupied by the US, despite some French resistance, since the end of World War II.

These nations are now all more or less tightly bound into the globalist system, under the control of globalist plutocracy and their puppet rulers and systems of transnational integration, including NATO, the EU, and the WTO.

Thus destruction of the racial and cultural identities of the European peoples is well advanced and is almost certainly now irreversible, the process being driven by mass immigration, propaganda delivered under the guise of education, and legally enforced political correctness aimed at the demoralization of the indigenous populations and the near criminalization of Christianity, the moral system that dominated Western thought during Europe's age of greatness.

The European settler states are likewise in an advanced stage of disintegration as outpost of European civilization, the European majorities fast fading to powerless and more or less discriminated against minorities throughout the Americas, as in Africa and Australasia.

The Muslim states are now the primary target for assimilation to the global system, those that have proved resistant to internal subversion being subject to direct Western military intervention and the installation of globalist puppet regimes. Meanwhile, no opportunity is lost to incite destructive conflict among the most independent and assertive Asian powers.

Among the brainwashed of the West, the globalist transformation of the world through universal national genocide is largely justified by the spread of the West's supposedly most precious attributes: freedom and democracy. Yet such attributes are mutually exclusive.

Thus, Thomas Jefferson said of democracy:

It is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

 To James Madison, a pure democracy

can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

 Most percipiently, John Adams wrote:

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

So much for the globalist causus belli: mere rubbish to flatter the propaganda-addled masses into believing that those in power somehow, against all the evidence, actually give a damn about what they, the plebs, think.

And, in fact, the thoughts of the masses, stupefied as they are by endless propaganda force-fed as education, political correctness, TV lies, degrading entertainment, and bogus Hollywood history, are not products of independent thought or moral conviction, but only the end product of the process of mental conditioning to which the masses have been subjected.

Election outcomes are determined by the ruling elite through mind-control of the electorate.

The absurdity of confusing the West's so-called democratic forms of a government with some ideal notion of what those forms of government are supposed to be, is nicely expressed by Thomas, Lord Macaulay in his essay on William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, Elizabeth I's chief political adviser throughout her reign.

It has long been the fashion, a fashion introduced by Mr. Hume, to describe the English monarchy in the sixteenth century as an absolute monarchy. And such undoubtedly it appears to a superficial observer. Elizabeth, it is true, often spoke to her parliaments in language as haughty and imperious as that which the Great Turk would use to his divan. She punished with great severity members of the House of Commons who, in her opinion, carried the freedom of debate too far. She assumed the power of legislating by means of proclamations. ...

Such was this government. Yet we know that it was loved by the great body of those who lived under it. We know that, during the fierce contests of the sixteenth century, both the hostile parties spoke of the time of Elizabeth as of a golden age. That great Queen has now been lying two hundred and thirty years in Henry the Seventh’s chapel. Yet her memory is still dear to the hearts of a free people.

The truth seems to be that the government of the Tudors was, with a few occasional deviations, a popular government, under the forms of despotism. At first sight, it may seem that the prerogatives of Elizabeth were not less ample than those of Louis the Fourteenth, and her parliaments were as obsequious as his parliaments, that her warrant had as much authority as his lettre-de-cachet. The extravagance with which her courtiers eulogized her personal and mental charms went beyond the adulation of Boileau and Moliere. Louis would have blushed to receive from those who composed the gorgeous circles of Marli and Versailles such outward marks of servitude as the haughty Britoness exacted of all who approached her. But the authority of Louis rested on the support of his army. The authority of Elizabeth rested solely on the support of her people. Those who say that her power was absolute do not sufficiently consider in what her power consisted. Her power consisted in the willing obedience of her subjects, in their attachment to her person and to her office, in their respect for the old line from which she sprang, in their sense of the general security which they enjoyed under her government. These were the means, and the only means, which she had at her command for carrying her decrees into execution, for resisting foreign enemies, and for crushing domestic treason. There was not a ward in the city, there was not a hundred in any shire in England, which could not have overpowered the handful of armed men who composed her household. If a hostile sovereign threatened invasion, if an ambitious noble raised the standard of revolt, she could have recourse only to the train-bands of her capital and the array of her counties, to the citizens and yeomen of England, commanded by the merchants and esquires of England.

Likewise (to paraphrase Macaulay), it has long been fashionable to describe the Western form of government as democratic and Western society as free, as undoubtedly appears to be the case to a superficial observer. Barak Obama and other Western leaders, it is true, often speak to the public in language as humble and ingratiating as that which an accused person might address to a judge.

 ... Yet we know that such government is not loved by the great body of those who live under it. ...The truth seems to be that the democratic government of the West is with a few occasional deviations, a despotic government, under the forms of democracy. Despite outward marks of servitude to the popular will, the authority of Obama, Cameron, Hollande and their likes rests solely on the support of the police, the army, the security services, and the great bureaucracies of state that consume most of the wealth of the nation, while the hostility of the people is perpetually feared and continuously guarded against, with drones, surveillance cameras, spies, torture, assassination, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorism.

Those who say that the power of Western governments is not absolute do not sufficiently consider in what that power consists. It depends on the legally enforced obedience of subjects to codes of conduct and speech that are antithetical to their fundamental beliefs and interests, the resort to all the standard means of control deployed by tyrants throughout the ages, but greatly enhanced through the application of advanced technology, and a sense of general insecurity induced in the populace through state-sponsored violence against innocent persons. These are the means, and the only means, which "democratic" governments have at their command for carrying their decrees into execution, for destroying the resistance of the people, and for creating hatred for those foreign nations yet to be destroyed.

The Curious Case of Sandy Hook Victim, Rachel D'Avino

Rachel D'Aveno was a teacher's aid slain by Adam Lanza during his rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, so the mainstream news media reported.

She had been employed at Sandy Hook for only one week prior to her death.

Such a short time. Few people at the school would have been aware of her existence.

In fact, did she exist at all?

On his facebook page, a Mike D'Avino has posted photos of his neices, Sarah and Rachel D'Avino.

They look rather alike. In fact, it has been claimed that they are identical.

Monozygotic twins? The media have never mentioned that.

Sister and Mother, Sarah and Mary D'Aveno receive
Presidential Citizens Medal on behalf of their sister
and daughter, Rachel. Image Source.

Reddit Photo Of Slain Sandy Hook Teacher's Empty Seat
At Christmas Dinner Gets Harsh Response. Image source.

This is reminiscent of the claim that Adam Lanza was really Ryan Lanza.

Was Sandy Hook a hoax?

Or is the evidence of a hoax a hoax? Which would mean there was a real massacre made to look like a hoax.

Or was it a hoax massacre, with faked evidence intended to make it appear faked, so anyone questioning the evidence would be led to believe that there was a real coverup of a real massacre?

And the point of it all?

According to Richard Cottrell, former member of the European Parliament and author of Gladio: NATO's dagger at the heart of Europe, the purpose is

to intimidate and manipulate ordinary citizens and convince them that the state which is actually behind the commission of these acts is their ultimate protector.

If that is correct, the the strategy of tension is not merely a weapon used by the United States to keep the peoples of Europe behind their puppet masters, the Blairs and Sarkozys, the Camerons and Rajoys, but also to keep the people of the United States behind their puppet Bush's and Obamas.

The broader goal, in all cases, is the racial and cultureal genocide of the European peoples and all those others who come under the control of the US/NATO alliance, leading to the New World Order: a global system of government serving the dynamic components of the plutocratic elite and exercised through well-rewarded military, intelligence, and police instruments, subject to the political control of wholly-owned political assets.

For an outline of how it works, see: Aangirfan, The CIA Run Italy.

BBC 9/11 Bollocks Triumphs Over Honest Citizen

Forty-nine-year-old Briton, Tony Rooke, refused to pay his TV license fee, proceeds of which fund the BBC, claiming that the BBC lied about 9/11.

Tony Rooke, representing himself at Horsham Magistrates’ Court, said he did not wish to give money to an organization 'funding the practice of terrorism'.

Rooke, who was found guilty of using an unlicensed TV set, said his refusal to pay the license fee was in accordance with Section 15 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, which states that it is an offense to obtain money for purposes of terrorism.

Rooke told the court:

I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the license fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect.

In support of this claim, Rooke said, was the fact that the BBC reported that World Trade Centre Building 7 had fallen 20 minutes in advance of the collapse. (The building could be seen in the background behind BBC television reporter Jane Standley as she reported  live from New York that WTC7 had already collapsed.)

Rooke said: The BBC reported it 20 minutes before it fell. They knew about it beforehand.

Mr. Rooke was granted a conditional discharges, which according to the Daily Mail, is "often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground."

Tony Rooke's supporters outside the Horsham Magistrate's court.

The case has been ignored by Britain's major news organzations, as noted by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky:

With the exception of London’s Daily Mail, the British mainstream media, including The Guardian and the Independent, chose to abstain from coverage or commentary of this historic court case, which points to a criminal process of media disinformation by the BBC.

The BBC chose to “cover up its own coverup.” Not a single word from the BBC to justify or explain or refute their lies, particularly regarding the collapse of WTC building 7 which had been announced by the BBC 20 minutes before the collapse took place, suggesting that the BBC and other media had advanced knowledge of the collapse of a WTC building 7 which was not even struck by an aircraft.

This is one among a string of BBC media fabrications including fake images and video footage.

We will recall that in August 2011, the BBC showed fake video footage of Libyans celebrating “Liberation” in Tripoli’s Green square, following NATO’s humanitarian bombings. Oops. They were waving Indian flags. They are not Libyans but Indians. “We made a mistake”, assuming that the British public would not see the difference.

It is our hope that Tony Brooke’s initiative will encourage people across the United Kingdom to question the legitimacy of the TV Licence fee, which supports an organization involved in outright war propaganda on behalf of the British government.

February 22, 2007: Lost BBC Precognition Tape Found on Internet Archive
On 22nd February 2007, an extensive collection of television broadcast footage covering the 9/11 attacks was discovered on the Internet Archive, and this was reported on 911 Blogger.

One activist then discovered that BBC World had reported the collapse of WTC7 23 mins before it happened and they produced the attached video. ...
Source: U.K. IndyMedia

February 27, 2007: Part of the conspiracy?
Richard Porter, Head of News, BBC World, responded (on a BBC blog site) to reports that, on 9/11, BBC News reported the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 more than 25 minutes in advance of the event. You can see these comments by following this link. (If they are still there, that is.) 

At the end of Mr. Porter's comment there is an invitation to respond, which I accepted. However, instead of posting my comment, the BBC responded to my response with the following notice followed by a bizarre sequence of additional announcements, suggesting extreme panic about public reaction to apparent BBC complicity in hiding the truth about its advance knowledge of an apparent controlled demolition WTC Building 7.

{My comments in response to the BBC's notice and subsequent announcements are in curly brackets} 

Problems with comments
* Host * 18 May 06, 12:51 PM
{Note that this message was actually delivered at around 2030 h PST on February 28, 2007, not on the date or at the time indicated above.}
 
At the minute, we've got a bit of a problem with comments not appearing promptly.
The number of comments you see after each post (and on the right hand side of the main blog page) is the number of comments that should be on each post. But we have some technical problems which slows this process...
{Actually, I saw no numbers, but it doesn't seem as though they meant a whole heck of a lot. Or not so as you could tell from their explanation, anyhow.}
 
Here's why it happens.. (you may have seen this explanation before, on Nick Robinson's blog..)
{Who the Dickens is Nick Robinson?}
 
"The difference is due to the way that the content of the blogs is published. Without going into too much heavy detail, when a blog is updated, certain bits of it are rebuilt and certain bits are automatically changed. These rebuilt sections are then transferred across multiple servers. Sometimes due to the heavy load on bbc.co.uk some of the bits find themselves stuck in a queue waiting to be published. The rebuilt bits can take longer to arrive than the others... and so there is sometimes a disparity between number of comments 'totals' and actual published numbers."
{Phew! I'm glad they didn't go into too much heavy detail.}
 
We are looking into a solution.
{That's great, but just in case the BBC loses my astute comment before they find the solution that they're "looking into," or "certain bits" of it (my comment that is) are "automatically changed" while transferrring "rebuilt sections across multiple servers", causing a "disparity" between what I said and what the BBC might eventually publish, here's what I said, which is pretty much what I've said before. But it seems to make a good point}:
 
The problem for the BBC is this. It cannot explain how it announced the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 in advance of the event without admitting that the collapse was known in advance. But the collapse could only have been known in advance if it was the result of human intervention: that is, if it was a controlled demolition. 

In fact, we know it was a controlled demolition because the building's lease owner, Larry Silverstein, bizarrely stated as much in the PBS documentary "Rebuilding America." 

However, until this point, the fact that it was a controlled demolition has not entered the 9/11 story as recounted by the mass media. Having blundered by pre-announcing the demolition, the BBC in effect demolished the official 9/11 account. But it did so, only for those few people whose attention has been drawn to the BBC blunder by a thousand or so blogs. 

So how does the BBC respond. With some fatuous comments on a blog site. In this way, the story remains out of the mass media and will likely so remain. And if you doubt it, search Google News for WTC7 +BBC and see how many mainstream news sites have covered the story (to date, 2030 h PST, February 28, none).

And this is a most significant fact. Many 9/11 "conspiracy theory debunkers" argue that, if 9/11 had been an "inside job," so many people would have been in the know that it would have been impossible to prevent the truth leaking out.

But here we see that the truth has leaked out, part of it anyway, yet the media won't mention it. So it doesn't count as the truth even though it is known to many people. It doesn't count as the truth because it can only be known to the majority of the people if the corporate media tells them about it. And what we see is that the corporate media, with remarkable discipline, will not mention the subject.

So even when thousands and probably millions of bloggers and their readers know the truth, the truth will never be publicly acknowledged. Thus, the truth will never become a political fact.

March 01, 2007: The MSM: The Dog that Wouldn't Bark
The News 24 "timestamp" footage of the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened was uploaded to Youtube. But although the clip is under 30 seconds in length and clearly constitutes fair use, Google yanked the video after it was prominently featured in our article yesterday.
Source: PrisonPlanet

July 2, 2008: The BBC eventually explains everything: Just a "cock-up" not a conspiracy to conceal evidence
The way the BBC came by advance knowledge of the collapse of WTC7 is clearly vital evidence relating to a the greatest domestic crime in the history of the United States. The claimed disappearance of the BBC's archive tapes proving foreknowledge of the destruction of WTC7 suggests the deliberate destruction of evidence and the obstruction of justice. Forced to respond, the BBC declared: "Oh, it was just that we put the incriminating tape on the wrong shelf. Sorry about that."

POSTCRIPT
So even though Mr. Porter admits to a BBC "cock-up" (weird the expressions the British use), he's actually handled the situation quite deftly. The BBC admitted it "cocked-up" (if one can verbify a cock-up), but it won't go public with the story, as in an announcement on a major news broadcast. And so, the truth, although known, will not be widely known. For whether it is "catapaulting the propaganda" or simply informing the public, it's the mass media that still does the heavy lifting. Yep, it isn't for nothing that Mr. Porter is Head of News at BBC World.

9/11 News the Corpo Media Won't Cover
Search Google News for "WTC7 +BBC" this morning (1000 h PST) and you get one hit.* Search blogs for the same terms and you get 1,186 hits. And that does not cover hundreds maybe thousands of other news-following web sites (such as this one) that also covered the BBC's psychic advance announcement of the demolition of the World Trade Center Tower 7. 

So what's with the corpo. media? Are all their employees castrated as a condition of employment, or what?
 
In any case, this is the real smoking gun. If there was an easy way to dismiss the evidence that the BBC announced the collapse of WTC7 more than 20 minutes before it actually fell, you can be sure that The Globe and Mail, the National Putz, the Guruniard, Murdoch's Times, WaPo, the NYT, the Jerusalem Post and all the other rubbish papers that people so strangely pay good money to read, would obviously have dismissed it.
 
But the story cannot be dismissed, at least not on the basis of the truth, without admitting what is known on other grounds to be the case: namely, that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition, which many people, not just one reporter at the BBC, were informed about before the event. And if that is admitted, then it is clear that for five years the U.S. Government has been lying about WTC7, for the obvious reason that, if it is admitted that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, it makes controlled demolition a more plausible, indeed the most probable, explanation for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
 
The failure of the corpo. media to touch this story, no, let us say the determination of the corpo. media not to touch this story, is enormously revealing for another reason.
 
Many conspiracy theory "debunkers" argue that, if 9/11 had been an "inside job," so many people would have been in the know that it would have been impossible to prevent the truth leaking out.
But here we see that the truth has leaked out, part of it anyway, yet the media won't mention it. So it doesn't count as the truth even though it is known to many people. It doesn't count as the truth because it can only be known to the majority of the people if the corporate media tells them about it. And what we see is that the corporate media, with remarkable discipline, will simply not mention the subject. 
 
So even when thousands and probably millions of bloggers and their readers know the truth, the truth will never be publicly acknowledged. Thus, the truth will never become a political fact.
Which leaves a fascinating question to resolve. How are the media controlled? How do they exercise such discipline?
 
A free subscription to the Canadian Spectator for the fist correct answer. Send your answer, together with a $10.00 contest entry fee too ... 

* That Google search was made in February 2007. Interestingly, if you repeat the search today, Feburary 2013, you get only six hits, four of them in foreign language publications. If you do the blog search today, you'll get over 83,000 hits. So who you gonna trust, the MSM or those lyin' blogs? 

 Other amazing instances of precognition about WTC7
It has now been discovered that CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell. ...
Jones Report

Actually, this isn't so amazing. Larry Silverstein, lease owner of the Trade Towers and Building 7, admitted during the PBS special "Rebuilding America" that they decided to "pull" Buidling 7: "and then we watched the building come down." So of course the collapse of the building was known in advance.
 
The only problem for the U.S. government is that it has been lying about the collapse of Building 7 for five years. And if it admits now that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demo, then the main argument against controlled demolition of WTC1 and WTC2, namely that there was no way the buldings could have been prepped for demolition in advance of 9/11 without anyone knowing about it, collapses like the towers themselves.

BBC: The Bizarro Broadcasting Corporation

9/11 Precognition: Part II
The Amazing Foresight of Jerome Hauer
On September 11, 2001, Jerome Hauer advised the White House to begin taking Cipro, an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax. .... "
Winter Patriot

Accidental precognition at the BBC
If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.... "
Richard Porter of the BBC

BBC 9/11 Rebuttal Rebutted
How the BBC faked audio clips, provided fascinating details about Dylan Avery's laptop, gave a guided tour of Jim Fetzer's basement, and failed to explain how they knew WTC7 was coming down twenty minutes before it happened (see next item), and in general failed to deal with anything remotely relevant to the case for an inside job.
video.google.de/

Sere gute. The Germans really do understand bullshit better than most people. But then they have more experience of its disastrous consequences. 

And needless to say, Google has pulled this informative video.

More fascinating and colorful details about the total corruption of the BBC and its concealment of evidence of treason and crimes against children and humanity over at Aangirfan. 

And this: Jimmy Saville's paedophilia consistent with BBC culture.

 And this: UK man wins court case against BBC for 911 cover up

The End of American Freedom

Your Papers, Citizen: Gun Control and the Changing American Character

By Fred Reed

Fred on Everything: February 19, 2013: A staple of American self-esteem is that we Yanks are brave, free, independent, self-reliant, ruggedly individual, and disinclined to accept abuse from anyone. This was largely true in, say, 1930. People lived, a great many of them, on farms where they planted their own crops, built their own barns, repaired their own trucks, and protected their own property. They were literate but not educated, knew little of the world beyond the local, but in their homes and fields they were supreme.

If they wanted to swim buck nekkid in the creek, they swam buck nekkid. If whistle pigs were eating the corn, the family teenager would get his rifle and solve the problem. Government left them alone.

Even in the early Sixties, in rural King George County, Virginia, where I grew up, it was still mostly true. The country people built their own boats to crab in the Potomac, converted junked car engines to marine, made their own crab pots, planted corn and such, and hunted deer. There was very little contact with the government. One state trooper was the law, and he had precious little to do.

I say the following not as an old codger painting his youth in roseate hues that never were, but as serious sociology: We kids could get up on a summer morning, grab the .22 or .410, put it over our shoulder and go into the country store for ammunition, and no one looked twice. We could go by night to the dump to snap-shoot rats, and no one cared. We could get our fishing poles—I preferred a spinning reel and bait-casting tackle—and fish anywhere we pleased on Machodoc Creek or the Potomac. We could drive unwisely but joyously on winding wooded roads late at night and nobody cared.

Call it “freedom.” We were free, and so were the country folk on their farms and with their crabbing rigs. Because we were free, we felt free. It was a distinct psychology, though we didn’t know it.

Things then changed. The country increasingly urbanized. So much for rugged.

It became ever more a nation of employees. As Walmart and shopping centers and factories moved in, the farmers sold their land to real-estate developers at what they thought mind-boggling prices, and went to work as security guards and truck drivers. Employees are not free. They fear the boss, fear dismissal, and become prisoners of the retirement system. So much for Marlboro Man.

Self-reliance went. Few any longer can fix a car or the plumbing, grow food, hunt, bait a hook or install a new roof. Or defend themselves. To overstate barely, everyone depends on someone else, often the government, for everything. Thus we became the Hive.

Government came like a dust storm of fine choking powder, making its way into everything. You could no longer build a shed without a half-dozen permits and inspections. You couldn’t swim without a lifeguard, couldn’t use your canoe without Coast-Guard approved flotation devices and a card saying that you had taken an approved course in how to canoe. Cops proliferated with speed traps. The government began spying on email, requiring licenses and permits for everything, and deciding what could and could not be taught to one’s children, who one had to associate with, and what one could think about what or, more usually, whom.

With this came feminization. The schools began to value feelings over learning anything. Dodge ball and freeze tag became violence and heartless competition, giving way to cooperative group activities led by a caring adult. The female preference for security over freedom set in like a hard frost. We became afraid of second-hand smoke and swimming pools with a deep end. As women got in touch with their inner totalitarian, we began to outlaw large soft drinks and any word or expression that might offend anyone.

Read more

DEFEATING SINGLE ISSUE POLITICS

By Luke Hiken

Nobody to the left of Karl Rove would consider sending a petition to the Koch brothers to do anything that was in the interest of the people of this country. That’s because everyone realizes that these greedy, vicious dogs restrict their actions to stealing from the poor and causing whatever harm they can to the largest number of people.

Similarly, nobody in his/her right mind would send letters to General Betray-Us, McChrystal or any of the Pentagon power-brokers that define our foreign policy, asking them to stop murdering defenseless civilians around the world. People understand that the self-interested killers who run this country’s war machine are not concerned with what their fellow citizens think of permanent war, torture, or the slaughter of innocent people.

Even gullible Americans understand the principles set forth in the preceding paragraphs. Yet the number of well-intentioned activists who end their political analyses with the slogans: “sign this petition” and send it to Congress; or “write Obama” and tell him you want x, y, or z, is astonishing. Virtually every facebook blurb I read about politics ends with the admonition “we’re not going to take it anymore” and we’re going to write, petition, or beg someone important to change the situation for the better. What in the world are these people thinking?

It should be painfully obvious to everyone that there is little, if any difference between the Republican and Democratic parties -- both are owned by the corporate interests that define our foreign and domestic policies. Obama needed a billion dollars to win re-election. Who would believe that he got it from poor people? He has supported virtually every war the Pentagon asks for; every policy that Wall Street demands; every repressive piece of legislation that the Republicans want, and every anti-immigrant demand that the most racist Arizonian can conjure up. He would allow fracking directly underneath the White House, if an oil company magnate instructed him to do so.

Neither party proposes tax reforms that would shift wealth from the 1% to the masses. Neither party proposes to end our imperialist assaults throughout the world. Neither seeks meaningful change to our imprisonment of ¼ of the convicts on the face of the planet. Neither seeks to prevent the complete destruction of the environment, which is progressing at breakneck speed. You don’t create change by asking slave-owners to give up their property voluntarily.

Fights between the political parties in this country are like arguments between competing NFL football teams. They are meaningless! The teams are all owned and controlled by the same billionaires that make a fortune over these modern day gladiator fights. If you want to change the nature of professional football, you go after the owners, not the players and coaches. Only when the owners suffer will you change the nature of football.

We all belong to groups that espouse the issues of our choice: immigration reform; labor unions, environmental protection, abortion rights, gun control, affordable health care, educational opportunities, gay marriage, co-ops, etc. The lists seem endless. Nonetheless, until the advocates of these various issues/struggles understand the relationship between each of them, and unite around a politics that support ALL of them, they are kidding themselves. Unions now comprise less than 10% of the work force. The reason for this is that for decades they abandoned the rest of the nation to work on and profit from their own isolated causes. Advocates for each of the issues know their own topics from top to bottom. But there is absolutely no thread of consciousness that unites them.

Since the downfall of the "socialist" leaders (Russia, China, VietNam, Cuba, etc.) few in the Left have any vision of what a meaningful alternative to capitalism looks like, and it is impossible to build a counterforce to the Koch brothers without such a vision. The organizational solidarity needed to combat those who control the Congress and both political parties is simply non-existent at this time, and good feeling rhetoric is no alternative.

If we don’t find a way to build a meaningful alternative to the choke hold international capital currently has on the world, our self-serving, isolated struggles can’t succeed, even when we are multi-racial, working class, non-sexist and green.

If Americans can't fight for single payer healthcare that is available to all, and covered by the state, it is scarcely a beginning to fight for better healthcare services at any one hospital. Winning the struggle for same-sex marriage is a hollow victory if the earth around us has become unsustainable and toxic. The need to broaden our perspective and reach beyond our single-issue politics is paramount.

I certainly don't want to throw water on other people's pleasures: some like sports, some like co-ops, some like unions, or immigration struggles, or anti-prison work, etc. When people work on those issues, it's great that they are enjoying themselves, and seeking change. But without an overview that incorporates the ultimate goal of overthrowing capitalism, they each go nowhere.

The fear of authoritarian socialist bureaucracy has immobilized the Left to the extent that only isolated, fragmented movements, unrelated to each other, seem to provide an alternative for activism. To the extent that people see anti-capitalist work as supporting authoritarian, un-democratic bureaucracies, we’ve lost the fight. Democracy requires more than a two-party system owned by the same oligarchs. Elections are being held in every authoritarian kingdom in the world: they are little more than shams to rationalize the uncivilized ownership of capital by the 1%.

Active opposition to rapacious, unregulated capitalism requires an alternative vehicle for democratic control. Single issue politics do not provide that alternative. Douglas Lummis, in his book “Radical Democracy” described the broad spectrum of contexts in which democratic principles prevailed under the most astonishing circumstances. The creativity and substance of his vision need to be adopted and followed by Americans who seek to survive the attacks being waged upon us by the corporate magnates who presently control our lives.

__________________________________
Luke Hiken is an attorney who has engaged in the practice of criminal, military, immigration, and appellate law.

The Progressive Avenues website, www.progressiveavenues.org, is regularly updated in the “What’s Added, What’s New” link on the Home page, at http://www.progressiveavenues.org/Whats_New_Added.html