Walpurgis Armageddon Psychology

• Posted on April 29, 2014
• by Clyde Lewis
• in Articles

WALPURGIS:
ARMAGEDDON PSYCHOLOGY

The other day an old friend mine said he wanted to stop by to help my fiancé with her computer. He arrived late and told me that he had some things that he wanted me to see and he didn’t know if I would be interested in looking into what they were. He was very secretive about what he had and I wondered exactly why it was such a secret.
He arrived Sunday night with a milk crate full of papers and pamphlets and said that this is what he wanted me to see. When I glanced down at what was in the milk crate it looked like a bunch of trash.
He told me that he was doing an odd job of cleaning out a home and he found all of these pamphlets and articles that were stapled together. They were dated anywhere from 1963 to 1965.
These documents were more than 50 years old and as I looked them over I realized that what I was looking at were documents and initiate papers of the Rosicrucian order.
On the covers of the various master monographs were the words ‘Illuminati section’ with various degrees noted.
I was curious because I had never seen anything like them and they looked very much like books of lessons and rituals. In fact the pages of these various works had the open salutation, “Greetings to the members of the Esoteric Hierarchy.”
In the first few paragraphs, there was some information that was meant for eight “brethren” who were about to take a journey into Europe. The eight were told to meet with one other member of the brotherhood once they arrived and there they were to exchange information regarding the “future psychology” and the gradualist advent of human transmutation in the midst of crisis.
Most of what I was reading was very esoteric as much of what was written was actually written for someone who has been well-versed in what has been taught in the “mystery schools.” The journey that was to be made by the nine brethren throughout Europe was to discover the spot where a worldwide event is to take place within a generation and a half that will create such a clamor that it will cause both men and women to be drawn to it like a “moth to a flame.”
A flame of illumination so bright that those that wish to get near it will do so at their own peril.
It was not clear as to when this “fire event” was to take place and there were no maps or even locations given, only that it is to be a “fire event” that it will happen within a generation and that people will be compelled to get near it or to go to it like moths to flame.
This fire event will be seen as a bridge to other dimensions and will change the way we as humans see ourselves. This event will most definitely unite the world and the message it sends will send a shockwave through human consciousness. It’s influence will cover vast distances and the world will be aware of this event simultaneously.
There will be human argument over what the event signifies. It will be seen as both dangerous and divine and it will most certainly change the vibration field of human consciousness.
The danger that awaits us with this “fire event” is that mankind will realize its unreason and that man will realize that most of the material things that he has desired or has collected are only a part of his existence and that he has not yet fully adjusted to the artificial world he has created.
It states, “Man is a creature of Nature and he will ignore all of the danger signals in order to satisfy his infatuation and desire for the fire and light of human knowledge and curiosity.”
As I was reading all of this, much of what I was reading seemed so “high brow” for its own good and since I am not well-versed in Masonic word salad I had to stop and ponder what this “fire event” could be.
Somewhere in my head I was thinking that the fire event could be a nuclear explosion, after all, the articles were written in the 1960’s and there was most certainly a preoccupation with fires of a nuclear conflagration.
However, would a nuclear explosion actually draw people to it like a moth to a flame?
“Observing a moth about a candle flame, one is likely to say, what a stupid creature! A mere insect cannot recognize danger.” – Rosicrucian Digest 1965
There must be a reason why mankind would give some sort of silent consent to put itself in the harm’s way. The universal principle of freewill indicates that no entity can impose on will of any other without its consent. However there seems to be an agreement amongst many students of the paranormal that our free will can be breached through trauma based ritualism.
Which leads me to believe that whatever this event is supposed to be, it will be so traumatic that people will be drawn to it, even if it means that they run the risk of dying.
The prediction of this event was first made over 50 years ago and was reported to transpire within a generation and a half.
A generation today because of mortality is anywhere between 20-25 years, In the 1960’s it 35 to 40 years so we can estimate that the fire event that is to change our lives is supposed to happen in the second decade of the 21st century.
In my life, I have always felt that meaningful coincidences happen in my life and that I need to share them. All of what I have been reading in these 50 year old “Illuminati Monographs” is highly coincidental as we approach the times of Walpurgis and Beltane.
Beltane is known as the time of the pagan fire festival. Beltane occurs exactly six months after Halloween or Samhain. It is celebrated May 1st. In parts of Europe, Walpurgisnacht is celebrated each year around April 30th.
As BellaBloodLust.com writes, “In Norse traditions – and many others – this night is the time when the boundary between our world and that of the spirits is a bit shaky.” Walpurgisnacht is considered to be a time for sacrifice, bonfires and to communicate with the spirit world.
It is said that the devil rules during the fiery events of Walpurgis and Beltane. In antiquity the spring fertility ritualism was based in sex magic, blood sacrifice and the rituals that include the use of fire.
Bram Stoker, the author of ‘Dracula’, once said of Walpurgis: “It is the time of year when all evil things of earth and air and water hold revel.”
However, the fire event spoken of in the “Illuminati Monograph” could be many things. Things that don’t have to associate with the high Satanic holiday of Walpurgis.
In the Book of Deuteronomy, it says, “For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.”
In the Book of Hebrews, it states that God is a consuming fire, and in Thessalonians, that those who are evil will burn in the light of the fire produced by the Second Coming of the savior of the world.
The savior, in all instances, returns secretly to earth from the air. He declares that he is here to save his people and commands that fire devour those who wish to thwart his kingdom or his ideology.
This all sounds frightening and it should. It could very well be secret manipulation used to create a trigger that ignites a meme. The majority of the populace is wired to react to symbols and archetypes, and propagandists use this tool for subtle mind control.
The thought of a fire event, the moth to the flame and how we are drawn to the fire even at the risk of our death is very telling of how easily mankind can be manipulated and magically entranced in these times,
On the evening of May 1st, 2011, Barack Obama announced the death of Osama Bin laden he said that “justice was served” – even though Bin Laden had been reported dead years prior.
Coincidentally, it was the day that Adolph Hitler was declared dead after he allegedly committed suicide on April 30th, at 3:30 in the afternoon creating a 333 mystical power number recognized by occultists.
George W. Bush announced on the U.S.S Lincoln on May 1st 2003 that major combat operations in Iraq were over and that America and her allies prevailed. However, the whole “Mission accomplished” ritual was premature and no one really knew why he said what he said. Only that the timing seemed a bit suspect and odd since Saddam Hussein remained in power and the guerrilla warfare increased.
Later on 2005, he mentioned a fiery event that will be ignited in the minds of men.
“By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.” – George W. Bush, Inaugural Speech 2005

Stock Footage President George W. Bush second Inaugural Address January 20, 2005.

It is also interesting to note that on May 1st, 1776 the Bavarian Illuminati was established. As Terry Melanson wrote in his article, ‘May Day and the Posthumous Influence of the Illuminati‘,: “Secret societies do nothing without multiple layers of esoteric meaning; symbolism is of vital importance.”
That is why it is so coincidental that I was able to have in my possession the monographs of a Illuminati order that were published in the 1960’s that speak of the great “fire event.”
The Illuminati has declared that no one is in a position to defeat its invisible hold on the world. Their force may be invisible, but if you look hard enough you can see their actions manifest.
The question that we all should ask during the “nights of fore” just what will be the event that will draw us towards it—even at our own peril?
Slowly we have seen our consciousness disconnect from that which is sacred to our core. The majority of people have become warlike and cynical, neglecting the sacred and preferring that which is profane.
We once believed in the idea of transcendence and now we find ourselves believing in coarse dogma and militant enforcement of such dogmatic programs that have been planted into us in order for the Luciferian philosophies to take hold.
Many people are unaware that their new enlightenment is really a part of the conspiracy of programming all religions and political philosophies with Luciferian dogma. It gives many people that false assumption that in their righteousness they are somehow above everyone and everything and that those who do not share their enlightenment will burn in the fires of hell.
Mysticism while vilified by fundamentalist extremism is the way we may transcend and make contact with the ultimate reality through direct experience and insight. Much of what the new fundamentalism imparts is knowledge without experience and salvation without much effort.
It has been declared that there is no special key to knowledge, no special ritual to be performed and no real reason to rise above in frequency to avoid being manipulated and coerced into the cult dynamic.
And yet politics and religions thrive in this destructive dynamic and they are not immune to making profane sinners into saints and neglecting the meek.
The fire that consumes is a metaphor for the ages, a symbol that must be respected and held with careful hands. I believe that perhaps this so-called “fire event” is simply Promethean.
In Greek mythology, Prometheus is a titan whose name meant “forethought”, and indeed, he was said to have the ability to look into the future. It is said that Prometheus betrayed the other gods by giving the tool of fire to humans. It was also Prometheus that warned that a war was coming and that there would be no victors.
The world anciently saw the fire’s potential and in war it would consume all that played with it. Similar to what we see from the yellowed papers of an Illuminati lodge.
A generation and a half and here we are now with a scorched earth as a possible future.
The event of fire nearing the time of of Walpurgis.

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

By Washington's Blog

Global Research, April 30, 2014

Washington's Blog and Global Research 12 October 2012

Region: Asia

Theme: Culture, Society & History, Militarization and WMD

In-depth Report: Nuclear War

 This article was first published on Washington’s Blog and GR in October 2012

Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.
But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike
Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Moreover (pg. 512):

The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.
***
In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
***
Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.

Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]

British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”
On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”

Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.
For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation…
It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”
As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.
As historian Doug Long notes:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).

Politicians Agreed

Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.
If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.

Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?

If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?
One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:

On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”

However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.
Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:

“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.

Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:

We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).
The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.

The Real Explanation?

History.com notes:

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reported in 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.
Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.
“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”
***
[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.
***
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.
According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.
“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

John Pilger points out:

The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.
***
Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.
***
The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.
***
Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

USA: Bad Jobs Country

hows thum welcome 2 wal~mart motherfuckers jobs ...going America ! 

By Glen Ford

Global Research, April 30, 2014

Black Agenda Report 29 April 2014

Region: USA

Theme: Global Economy, Poverty & Social Inequality

Researchers confirm what desperate workers have sensed: most of the good jobs lost in the Great Recession have been replaced with bad jobs. That’s fine with Wall Street, since “capital’s global plan is to reduce all workers to a state of absolute insecurity, so that they will accept those bad jobs without complaint.”
A new study shows that the U.S. economy has finally produced more jobs than there were before the Great Recession of 2008. The problem is, they’re mostly bad jobs in fast-food restaurants and low-wage retail. The National Employment Law Project found that there are almost two million fewer good paying jobs than there were back in 2008, but also close to two million more jobs in the low-wage sector of the economy – meaning, most of the new jobs have been bad jobs.
Actually, the change in the jobs picture during the Great Recession was just a speeded up version of what capitalism has been producing in the United States for more than 30 years. It is by design. Every time employers have turned the screws on labor, in terms of wages, benefits and jobs security, Wall Street has rewarded those companies. The Lords of Capital have also richly rewarded the politicians from both parties for removing the remaining obstacles to the direct rule of the rich.
Capital’s global plan is to reduce all workers to a state of absolute insecurity, so that they will accept those bad jobs without complaint. That requires the destruction of what we used to call the social safety net – a term that sounds increasingly quaint in the dog-eat-dog environment engineered into the system by Wall Street.
Make no mistake about it: austerity is the common program of both the business parties. That’s why you will hear no countervailing vision from the Democrats, whose message differs from Republicans only in tone, not in substance. Both answer to the Lords of Capital.
Barack Obama, the great actor and political chameleon, pretends to commiserate with his Democratic minority and working class constituents. Like his mentor, Bill Clinton, Obama claims to feel their pain. Yet, he is feverishly working to pass trade treaties that will further establish the legal structures of the global race to the bottom – treaties so blatantly biased towards corporations and against every principle of democracy and national sovereignty, that the language must be kept secret.
However, the main problem for American workers isn’t that Wall Street’s economic and social plans are secret – because, for the most part, they’re not. Big Capital’s intentions have been quite clear for decades. The NAFTA trade treaty has been savaging U.S. factory workers and Mexican peasants for 20 years. The Democrats were in power when the banks were set free to loot and plunder 15 years ago. Every employment study has tracked the steady decline of union membership, which the Democrats have done virtually nothing to reverse. That’s quite understandable since finance capital has steadily increased its campaign contributions to Democrats. None of this has been a secret, and no one should be surprised that, as a result, most new jobs are bad jobs. As far as Wall Street is concerned, that’s good news.
What makes the current era different from the past, is that neither of the business parties even bothers to pretend that it has a plan for a good jobs society. That means the people must put forward their own plan, through their own organizations – and learn to avoid the Democrats, whose job is to nip genuine people’s movements in the bud, so as not to disturb the corporate order.

The Inevitable Demise Of The Mainstream Media

by Michael Thomas
April 27th, 2014
Updated 04/28/2014

When every major Mainstream Media outlet is controlled by the CIA, the entire industry is ultimately doomed.
The days when Meet The Press was considered to be an objective political talk panel are long gone. Even back then when families were tuned in to this contrived Sunday morning program, its true agenda was transparent.  Both sides (every side) of the panel were chosen because they spouted a narrative that was within the realm of political correctness.  Because they could be relied up to stay within certain boundaries, they could  be controlled by those actually controlling the debate like the David Gregorys[1] of the world.

Whatever shows up in the public disourse as it plays out in the MSM is always subject to the most intense forms of censorship … behind the scenes.  Nothing gets projected on the TV (or motion pictures) unless it has gone through many levels of  excruciating scrutiny.  That’s the way it’s always been; that’s the way it will always be, especially as long as the CIA is running the show.
C I A = Central Intelligence Agency = MSM Information Chokepoint
The best and easiest way to monitor and massage and manage all information that is presented to the public via a TV signal is to completely control the gatekeepers who anchor, announce, host and present the news, opinion, etc.  For example, it is common knowledge that the Meet The Press (MTP) moderator is on a very short leash; so too are all the invited guests on their respective leashes.  Whereas virtually everyone knows that David Gregory[2] has never practiced anything close to real journalism, very few know about the CIA masters to whom he really reports.  For that matter, David Gregory may not even know who his CIA handlers are.  Typically, there are several layers of buffer and management between the front line anchors throughout the US media and their CIA overlords who really run the ‘show’ and determine the programming.
Once the CIA determined that David Gregory was no longer useful to them because his credibility has been consistently lower than “dinosaur doodoo in the Mariana Trench“, “The Company” planted stories throughout the MSM that he has been subjected to psychological testing[3].  This is a classic CIA technique that is used to initiate the removal of an asset which has turned into a liability.   In the case of David Gregory, we’re talking about a HUGE liability, since Meet The Press is now not even taken seriously by the most gullible and naive among the viewing public.  Hence, psychological/psychiatric smearing is used since it has always been the quickest way to bring anyone down … fast.
The Mainstream Media is full of CIA cutouts who do the CIA’s bidding both wittingly and unwittingly.
It’s a well known fact in the upper echelons of the corporate media that every major player on all the major news networks is connected directly or indirectly to the CIA.  One simply cannot hold a position of MSM influence and power unless they have been thoroughly vetted by the folks at Langley (CIA Headquarters).  The same goes for all the editors and award-winning writers for all the major newsprint and magazines of any import.  After all, the MSM is the primary instrument by which the flow of both true and false information is modulated throughout the entire society.
A perfect example of this standard operating principle of the MSM is the way both the New York Times and Washington Post are used to originate propaganda against Russia in the current conflict in Ukraine. As the newspapers of record for so many articles that are disseminated throughout the USA, both the NYT and WashPo platforms are regularly utilized to influence public opinion to start wars and create conflict. The truth be told, the NYT has probably started more wars than any other news publication in recorded history.  It is what they do best, and what they were created to do.
Even though there do appear to be dustups between the US Federal Government and the primary propaganda organs of the MSM from time to time, these are actually contrived.  In so doing, they intend to present the appearance of not being connected at the hip.  That’s not to say that there are not genuine differences or animosities between them from time to time.  These are engineered from the top without the knowledge of the journalists who are usually put on notice (usually by way of contempt of court) by the US Federal Government.
That David Gregory never even tried to fake it reflects the true state of affairs throughout the Mainstream Media.

Most of the time there is some serious acting going on in the MSM in order to present the semblance of an objective and truly investigative media.  The Fourth Estate, after all, is looked to as the pillar of truth that holds the other three accountable for both good and ill.  In the case of Gregory, this MO was completely ignored, perhaps in the interest of seeing just how much fake journalism they could get away with.  The American people have been dumbed down for many years now, and it is quite easy to mesmerize them with just about any character who is propped up on the TV screen.

So unconvincing has David Gregory been over the years that he has been scorned by both sides of the political aisle.  Neither right nor left wants to be associated with journalistic efforts that are insults to American intelligence, integrity and sensibilities.  He somehow has managed to offend people of every stripe and persuasion, just by being himself — a CIA construct with no substance whatsoever.  How can a CIA cutout possibly portray the truth when the single purpose of The Company is to present propaganda with a specific purpose.
When such a high profile TV journalist projects the persona of pure propaganda 24/7, the viewers starts to tune out.  Which is precisely why the MTP ratings have steadily eroded over the years.  Certainly NBC must do more than hire a brand consultant to reverse the precipitous downward trend.  The problem goes so much deeper than the handlers at the CIA are willing to admit.  That is a good thing, since their avoidance of the real issues involved will only serve to move more of their traditional audience away from the MSM and over to the alternative news realm.
Conclusion: The Journalistic Demise of David Gregory Augurs the End of the MSM
We have David Gregory to thank for the transformation of the new reporting marketplace.  The many others like him such as Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, George Stephanopoulos, Christiane Annapour, Dom Lemon, Piers Morgan, Fareed Zakaria, Matt Lauer, Andrea Mitchell, Diane Sawyer, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Larry King, etc. are also quite instrumental in waking up the USA electorate.  All of them have contributed to the degeneration of the daily news cycle in ways that will certainly push millions of more people to the internet in search of real news.

Although this process of MSM collapse of confidence has only recently begun, it has picked up steam quite quickly.  With the ever-increasing market share experienced by the alternative news realm, it is only a matter of time before the MSM evening news broadcast and Sunday edition of the New York Times lose their influence over the nation.  The same goes for all the MSM platforms which now routinely serve up plates of propaganda with every broadcast and publication.
State of the Nation 2014
April 26, 2014
StateoftheNation2012.com
Endnotes:

[1]  ‘Meet the Press’ Pundit With Financial Ties to NSA Misleadingly Slams Snowden
[2] NBC’s Gregory Cuts Off GOP Congressman to Spew ObamaCare Propaganda
[3] Why Did NBC Hire a Shrink for ‘Meet the Press’ Host David Gregory?
References:
The CIA and The Media
1973 Church Committee Hearings, on CIA misdeeds, control of media, and the 1984 Iran/Contra Hearings
Recommended Reading:
Whoever Controls The Media Controls The World
Who REALLY Controls The Mainstream Media?
The Weather Channel Comedy Hour: Sponsored By US Department of Weather Propaganda

Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/inevitable-demise-mainstream-media/#ixzz30PX2jH2E

    

What We Can Learn From The Tribulations Of Lindsay Lohan’s Life

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/30/what-we-can-learn-from-the-tribulations-of-lindsay-lohans-life/April 30, 2014 by Jeff Roberts

Lohan, 11 years old.

Over the past 15 years the world has watched Lindsay Lohan transform from a young, hopeful actress to a lost and, as some would say, over-privileged, victim to the Hollywood machine, a vicious world of egos, drugs and disillusionment which has left many unfortunate artists washed up or, even more horribly, dead.

Lohan, 25 years old.

Her struggles as a recovering addict have garnered more worry from the public than anything, as family and friends of the 27 year old starlet have scrambled to try and create for her a trouble-free path to salvation, a path that hasn’t gone untainted in the last year.

After leaving rehab for the 6^th time last summer, Lohan was approached by Oprah to film a candid documentary mini-series for the OWN network which originally aimed to showcase Lohan’s long awaited severance from her problem-stricken lifestyle and her rise to wellness and success. The mini-series turned out to be painful realization for viewers: Lohan is battling a serious illness.

I must admit what originally drew my attention to the show was the hope that I would finally see Lohan’s tragic over-drawn narrative resolve itself. I wasn’t interested in the celebrity gossip, but the doors to Lindsay’s life were being opened so that the world could at last have a fair-minded understanding of her story, and so I took the opportunity to learn. I wanted the happy ending; I believe all beings ultimately want to see these happy endings for one another.

At first I was blown away and irritated by Lohan’s spoiled antics. She was tardy, unprofessional, ungrateful, immature and flat-out rude to the group of people trying to help her succeed in her recovery. The series introduced the viewers to a group of determined people who surrounded Lindsay 24/7 and who wanted nothing more than to help Lindsay create a new, healthy life for herself in New York City. This group included a motivational life coach, a sober coach who came from Lindsay’s rehab center, old friends and an indomitable assistant with enough patience to wait on the entire world, to name a few. They stuck through some of the most agonizing requests from a star I’d ever seen, like organizing the warehouse sized storage facility which housed all of Lindsay’s clothes and personal belongings from Los Angeles, or her refusal to film on days she didn’t want to, breaching the contract the documentary production company had pre-established with Lindsay (*I later discovered Lindsay had a miscarriage during the time when she was refusing to film, a well deserved excuse.) I felt very disappointed in Lindsay, I felt like she was spitting on one of the last opportunities that would be given to her to amend her lifetime of unhealthy choices.

But then I came to a realization about myself and the celebrity culture. I decided to let go of my judgement and frustration surrounding Lindsay’s unsatisfying story. I let go of my need for the happy ending and became just a neutral observer of her life, which provided me with a higher understanding and perspective on the situation.

Lindsay is a broken product of the Hollywood machine and an unstable family life which has been destroyed by money, drugs and the conditions of her early fame. Hey mother is also a recovering alcoholic, her father a Wall Street criminal, both of whom provided a dysfunctional environment for Lindsay and her siblings growing up. Moving away from the normal judgement that we so easily place upon stars, I felt compassion for a girl who, like so many other young artists, was enveloped into a world too fast for her own good. I can only imagine the type of developmental blockages someone faces as a child growing up in the fame culture.

Society feeds this machine every day, buying into advertisements, tabloids and investing and attaching our opinions and judgements to these celebrity lives as if they owe us something. The reverse can also be said about celebrities, that they attach themselves to our attention and constantly expect something from us, because without the latter relationship this world could not exist.

But this relationship that we have with one another is the culprit of the problem of celebrity-fan culture.  We expect, we judge and we blame. These things are easy to do when it comes to ‘rich’ people’s lives. We easily jump to these perspectives and desensitize ourselves from the fact that these people are human beings. When we judge these people’s lives, we are doing nothing to perpetuate the betterment of our world.

Instead, by choosing to observe and understand from the higher perspective, we can learn  from these kinds of circumstances.

In the end, I look at Lindsay not as the celebrity who the world loves to hate and who has been given too many chances, but as a vulnerable girl who has lived out her youthful choices in front of the world. She is fighting an illness that has warped the foundations of her morals and logic, and she has been brave enough to let the world see this. And I have to give it to her, she is trying. She is trying to amend her lifetime of unhealthy choices and self-sabotage. Her life stands as a microcosm of a bigger issue that involves not only the Hollywood machine, but the observers (us) of this machine as well.

From her documentary series “Lindsay” on the OWN network,

“You guys love this shit when I cry.. It’s a really fucked up disease and it’s really scary. I have addictions, but I’m not your typical addict, that’s not who I am. I’m a kind person, I know the difference between right and wrong, and idiotic, I know that… [wiping away tears with a tissue]. I have things that I can do [now] or people who I can surround myself with or not be with, I worked with a shaman and did a cleanse, had a really eye-opening experience of ayahuasca, it was really intense. I saw my whole life in front of me, and I had to let go of things from the past that I was trying to hold onto that were dark in my life. I saw myself being born. And I feel different ever since that… it’s being okay with the wreckage of my past and starting fresh. It was hard in the beginning of this series, it was scary. But now I’m working again, I’m doing good and I don’t want to mess with that. It feels good. The biggest thing I’ve learned from this experience is that I have that fire back in me. I have that aggressiveness I used to have to keep going, to be happy, I’m feeding my soul again. That feels incredible, thank you.”

HIGH ORBITAL SPACE SPECULATIONS, PART TWO: BILL CLINTON AND ET

Posted on April 30, 2014 by Joseph P. Farrell • Filed Under: Cosmic War • http://gizadeathstar.com/2014/04/high-orbital-space-speculations-part-two-bill-clinton-et/

Yesterday I began to outline the historical circumstances around the revelation of the New World and the events surrounding the first voyage of Christopher Columbus as a way of studying how the high elite powers of Europe during the late Renaissance orchestrated that revelation, to see how a similar orchestration of the revelation – or to use the oft-over-worked word, “disclosure” – might be orchestrated. This topic has been the subject of discussion within UFOlogy for quite some time, most recently in Mr. Richard Dolan’s and Mr. Bryce Zabel’s study of the question, A.D.: After Disclosure. Yesterday I observed that the revelation of the New World was an orchestrated, socially engineered event involving four factors:

1. The existence of hidden knowledge, in this case, the knowledge and covert exploitation of the New World for some time prior to Columbus’ 1492 voyage, and the decision to reveal that knowledge when the technological and financial resources were present to fully exploit the New World;
2. The orchestration of that revelation by careful coordination and inclusion of the main political powers of the day: being the political sphere itself(Ferdinand and Isabella’s Spain);
3. The financial powers (represented by the presence of Genoa in the revelation in the form of the Genoese admiral Columbus himself);
4. The sanction of the international cultural-religious complex in the form of the Papacy of Giovanni Cybo(Innocent VIII) himself, who in turn has connections to more hidden international powers (sorry folks, you’ll have to wait for the book!)

Yesterday, we saw how the Vatican appears to be involved in quiet but intensive study of the extra-terrestrial question, and how in some cases it is reflecting the opinions of the Brookings Report, particularly in its implications of the implied assumption of the moral and technological superiority of ET, a meme often encountered in UFOlogy.
With the above context in mind, consider this video of former President Bill Clinton’s appearance on the Jimmy Kimmel show from April 3:
Bill Clinton: An Alien Attack would Unite Us, I INvestigated Area 51
While it is not so strange that such a subject would arise during an entertainment show interviewing a former president – after all, it makes for good laughs and sound bites and plenty of opportunities to roll the laugh track – when one steps back from this and considers the context and timing, it strikes me as rather significant. It occurs in the same month as the Vatican -ET stories, and notably, President Clinton, by no means a stupid man and by every means a carefully calculating one, principally echoed the views of another famous president on the subject of potential “alien invasion,” Ronald Reagan(or, as one reader here put it to me, Ronald Raygun).
While all the laugh tracks are rolling, and Clinton and Kimmel are having their fun, the meme is again reinforced and planted: if you knew there were aliens would you tell us? Yes I would, is the response. Those who are aware of Clinton’s attempts to investigate the issue through his appointee Webster Hubbel in the Justice Department, will recall that Clinton was basically stymied and stonewalled at every turn. Nonetheless, the ET-Independence Day invasion scenario of President Reagan is repeated: it would be a way to unite the world around a common threat.
What is interesting, when one juxtaposes this with the remarks coming out of the Vatican, is that one detects an interesting dialectic at work, the same dialectic found – albeit subtly to be sure – in the Brookings Report, and cleverly reversed. It is this reversal that tends to make me think we may be observing some clever social engineering taking place before our eyes, for in the Brookings Report, it is the religious reaction that is of great concern, the reaction that would view any ET revelation as hostile. This, it would appear, is being handled by the Vatican and its proxies. On the other side of the dialectic, we have the occasional reminder from politicians that there could be potential hostilities.
Let’s turn the clock back a bit. Recall that  in the final years of the Reagan Administration, during meetings between the President and the Soviet Premier, Mr. Gorbachev, there were reports that the two actually discussed the whole ET-invasion-cooperation scenario. What many do not recall is that, at the time, Mr. Gorbachev indicated it was a bit “too early” for such considerations. The standard interpretations of this curious event are simply that the practical Russians thought it absurd, or that, already financially strapped, they were in no position to make any contribution to a system that would break the bank. But there is also another consideration: the statement implies also that there may already be in place secret agreements between various powers on how, and when, such disclosure is to me made. And given the geopolitical situation, commercial opportunities, and so on, that this would involve, it is likely that such agreements would have to be unanimous, and coordinated with an international source of some respect(the papacy once again).
There is another dynamic in the statements of the former President on Kimmel’s show. These are not the types of questions that one would simply spring on a president; they would have had to have been approved, both by him, and, in any potential answer, vetted to make sure that no security arrangements were being violated. In other words, Clinton’s remarks, while accompanied by smiles and laughs and laugh track, are to be taken seriously. And it is not the first time such serious statements were made in the context of laughs and comedies. Consider these statements of former astronaut and then US Senator John Glenn on the popular sitcom, Frasier:

Sen. John Glenn's Amazing UFO Statement On Frasier "COMPLETE FOOTAGE"

Comedy? or actual disclosure? If the latter, it is, like the Kimmel Show, a clever way to do so, by contriving a context where any remarks are considered mere humor.  But again, consider the overall context, three politicians – two Democrats, one Republican – and all three are talking about “War of the Worlds” scenarios, and the former astronaut is doing so on a comedy show. Ronald Reagan did it in contexts considerably more serious: at summit meetings, and at the UN.
So… the political, and the international order represented by the papacy, are talking from more or less the same script, interestingly enough.  So what about the third leg of the stool, the technological and financial?
We’ll have to wait until tomorrow.

War Prophets Profits

• Posted on April 25, 2014 the "only" thing America ...produces anymore !  (that)  & ass pipes ?
• by Clyde Lewis
• in Articles

WAR PROPHETS PROFITS

In the frigid political climate that exists in this country, there seems to be this silent conspiracy of plotting individuals that are more than happy to try and silence those who use the word ‘revolution’. Many of these individuals believe that anyone who uses the word ‘revolution’ obviously sees himself as a ‘revolutionary’ that has a bone to pick with the current administration. The accusations fly over whether or not the so-called “revolutionary” is a card-carrying Tea Party member or a militia sympathizer or – in the case of Cliven Bundy – a falsely-accused, undeserving racist.
However, the truth about so-called revolutionaries is that many of them aren’t really revolutionaries. They are just vocal people who are fed up with the way they are being treated and represented in this country. The majority of Americans feel emptiness or incoherence in their lives.
This is why many Americans think of themselves as inadequate and unable to change the way they are being governed. Our sense of self has been warped and shaped by the media and by political pundits who push their authoritarian and statist views that do nothing to indicate that a productive and beneficial future is on the horizon.
As many as 20 million unarmed American citizens are going to gather in Washington D.C. this spring. Their mission is to try to convince our current leadership to return to constitutional rule.
The gathering is not happening until May 16th, 2014 and already the propaganda machine that maligned the militia that gathered at the Bundy Ranch are already working overtime to report that these American citizens are radical right hate groups and extremist Christians. Once again reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center and other watchdog groups are claiming that white supremacy groups and the KKK will be in attendance and that many other extreme right patriot and hate groups will unite to oust President Obama and top congressional leaders.
It is now being reported that at least 1.8 million militia members have signed up to participate in what is being called ‘Operation: American Spring‘.
Good or bad the response is not just some right wing conspiracy but is a result of statistics that are now demonstrating that Americans are beginning to realize that no matter what political party has influence in Washington, politics as usual is not working and once again we are seeing that the center will just not hold. The American people are increasingly waking up to the fact that nothing ever seems to change in Washington D.C. no matter which political party is in power.
As Michael Snyder writes: “A national Rasmussen Reports survey has found that an all-time high 53 percent of all Americans believe that neither major political party “represents the American people”.”
Recently, Ground Zero aired the “West Wing Dynasty” episode where we successfully demonstrated that confirmation bias and illusion frequency has convinced us to constantly vote for a “dynasty” where the same names but different faces are put into power and do absolutely nothing to improve our lives here in America.
In politics, confirmation bias affects our choice between the two main parties that are offered. It is in the political arena where confirmation bias can distort an active pursuit of facts, especially when political punditry whips up a ton of biased rhetoric. Pundits encourage confirmation bias.
They hope you watch and listen to them not for information but for validation. It does not matter how hateful, cynical, intolerant, or flippant they are, they really don’t have to research anything they say—all they have to do is know what people want to hear to confirm their suspicions and to mold a sense of comfort about their opinions.
It does not matter if the media or pundits in the media tell the truth anymore. The convenient confirmation bias, along with another phenomenon known as frequency illusion, and a bit of predictive programming, will mold and shape the consensus into falling for the same lies over and over, time and time again.
That is the nature of the beast and, no matter what I say, the people will find a reason or an excuse to continue their politics-as-usual even in the face of realizing that nothing seems to be working.
The mainstream narrative that supports the open conspiracy of tyranny has gained its power now because they have learned that in order to hang on to the information monopoly they must demonize those who ask questions.
They purposefully espouse the notion of silencing anyone who questions them and go to great measures to report that any truth movement or conspiracy theorist promotes an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically-based violence or to advance a political, religious view that could abruptly disrupt the social engineering that they create.
Michael Snyder, in a column he wrote for the Economic Collapse blog agrees and wrote in his latest column “12 Numbers Which Prove That Americans Are Sick And Tired Of Politics As Usual” that:
“Over the past several decades, we have sent a Bush, a Clinton, another Bush and an Obama to the White House, but the policies coming out of Washington have remained pretty much the same the entire time.
The mainstream media would have us believe that the Republicans and the Democrats are constantly fighting like cats and dogs, but the truth is that the Republicans want to take us to the same place that the Democrats want to take us – just a little more slowly perhaps. And behind the scenes, Republicans and Democrats have a good time with one another and they are ultimately controlled by the same set of oligarchs. The Americans people are really starting to recognize what a sham our system has become, and the numbers show that they are quite fed up with it.”
Americans are angry now, because they can see how things are not what they seem and those who don’t recognize the cognitive dissonance are those that believe that the dissatisfaction is aimed at their fearless leader Barack Obama.
However, those who are dissatisfied realize that it has taken us decades to be this angry and dissatisfied with our way of living and that promises of ‘hope and change’ ring hollow. The faith we once had in a man that appeared different has now dwindled as he continues to perpetuate the lies and the nightmares brought forth from previous administrations and career politicians in Congress that do not represent the people and turn a blind eye to the corruption that has existed long before Obama appeared on our radar.
The truth is far more harsh now, and while conspiracies or conspiracy theories against the current administration are easy to find, there also needs to be a spotlight pointed at the previous administrations and their continued war profiteering and murderous operations that they continued to fuel even though new data is demonstrating that there was no need to keep the war effort going as long as it did.
A damning report has been released about Benghazi and several other wars that other administrations have been responsible for and it looks as if there were many attempts to abate long-term warfare but the United Stated continued to turn a blind eye to ways to stop the warfare and instead continued the growth of the leviathan military industrial complex. The Daily Mail reports:
“The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.”
The Nobel Peace Prize on Barack Obama’s desk should be so tarnished by now the Secret Service would need a special cleaner to restore it.
Now, going beyond Benghazi, we can see that the war profiteers have been lying to us long before Benghazi and the rhetoric that was being used when our leaders were confronted about their lies.
During the conflict with Iraq, it was reported in the Guardian newspaper that back in 2003 that Saddam Hussein went to great lengths to stave off a war with the United States and the Bush Administration ignored the diplomatic resolutions that were proposed.
“In the few weeks before its fall, Iraq’s Ba’athist regime made a series of increasingly desperate peace offers to Washington, promising to hold elections and even to allow US troops to search for banned weapons. But the advances were all rejected by the Bush administration, according to intermediaries involved in the talks.
As US and British troops massed in the Gulf, Iraqi intelligence sent out a range of compromise feelers through a number of channels in the apparent hope of forestalling the invasion or at least buying time.”
They were ignored.
Moreover, Saddam allegedly offered to leave Iraq. Again from the Daily Mail … and the Washington Post. And the Associated Press:
“Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for $1billion. The extraordinary offer was revealed [November 26,2007] in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President’s Texas ranch. The White House refused to comment on the report… But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted… Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam – who was executed in December last year – could really leave, the President replied: “Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated.” But he added that whatever happened: “We’ll be in Baghdad by the end of March.””
It is also interesting to note that the Bush administration also refused an offer from the Taliban, where officials were willing to deliver Osama Bin laden to a neutral country if the United States halted the bombing of Afghanistan and if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement in the September 11th, 2001 attacks.
The Guardian reported on October 14, 2001:
“Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban “turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.” He added, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty, Afghanistan’s deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US. If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved” and the bombing campaign stopped, “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”, Mr Kabir added.”
And then on October 17, 2001:
“A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night. For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan’s military leadership said.”
I am reporting this because every time anyone reports that Obama and his henchmen John Kerry and John McCain are fanning the flames for war and that they have been irresponsible with deals they have with Al Qaeda and neo-Nazi groups like Svoboda in Ukraine, people tend to think it is political bias that fuels the criticism.
It most certainly isn’t. It is important to point out that the policy of the United States is to ignore the surrenders, offers and compromises of other countries to avoid prolonged wars.
Can we now be honest with ourselves and admit that we are being led into yet another war with Russia and that those responsible are the bankers and the neo-Cons that wish to crush the bones of the revolutionary and drink the blood of the innocent? Isn’t it the policy of our praised leaders to stomp on the people with voices of protest with their jackboots and extrajudicial executions? Is there any conscience left in the American people to demand that our leaders put a stop to the killing off of the weak.
Can we all understand that these little wars are orchestrated by men and women in three-piece suits that only care about fattening their wallets and collecting the loose change that falls from the corpses they kick while they high-five each other?
No wonder we don’t feel good about our leaders. No wonder we feel that there is something wrong in America.
Something is wrong in America.
The leaders that we have elected are all involved with war profiteering and are benefiting from previous administrations and their biting and clutching power grab in the name of terrorism.
It is strategy that is bulletproof, crooked and callous.
American military strategists are already prepared to give it a go again. This time the blueprint is marked ‘World War III’, a quick and profitable murder by remote control.
The drones are ready, the bombers and silos are in launch mode and soon we will have to reacquaint ourselves with the term ‘mutually assured destruction‘.