The Kings of the Earth

“their evil intentions will be exposed...”

Proverbs 29:2
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.

Ephesians 5:13
But their evil intentions will be exposed when the light shines on them.

Luke 12:2
For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
 
Isahah 2:12,15,17,19
For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low . . . And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall. And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

Proverbs 16:18
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Revelation 6:15-17
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Iron Man 3 — A Tutorial on the Orchestrated War of Terror

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” — Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906

This last weekend, I went to see Iron Man 3 with my family. It was the first time in a number of months that I went forth into the Hollywood cinematic mind control propaganda matrix. Although I enjoyed time with my family, as I always do, I secretly plugged myself back into the debased Babylonian entertainment system for the purpose of observing what new abominations the enemy is currently promulgating into the minds of men.

What I witnessed before me, in all of its twists and turns, was a transparent spot-on portrayal of the modern-day playbook of tyrants: the Hagelian Dialectic. It is explained in detail here.

The universal threefold interpretive method of control, the Hagelian Dialectic, is a technique as old as politics itself, but its more modern concept was given new life by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). It is the principle of bringing about change in a three-step process: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.

From Nero fiddling while Rome burned, erecting upon its ashes the glorious Domus Aurea to honor himself; to Adolf Hitler fire-bombing his own Reichstag parliament building to blame it on his political enemies as a pretext to go to war with them; to the Bush/Cheney/Blair organization blaming the 9/11 attacks on an elusive Muslim cleric as a pretext to illegally invade Iraq and Afghanistan, the dialectic is always the same. When the people are kept in fear, liberty is always traded for security. Benjamin Franklin prophetically warned that, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Contrarily, the security state that is erected around the people always only benefits the orchestrators of the Thesis.

From Webster's Dictionary: "an interpretive method, originally used to relate specific entities or events to the absolute idea, in which an assertable proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by its apparent contradiction (antithesis), and both reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis). Also called Hegelian triad."

The first step (thesis) is to create a problem. The second step (antithesis) is to generate opposition to the problem. Ex: fear, panic and hysteria. The third step (synthesis) is to offer the solution to the problem created by step one: A change which would have been impossible to impose upon the people without the proper psychological conditioning achieved in stages one and two.

The Mandarin character in Iron Man 3 is the face of terror. His is the face the viewer associates with the acts of terrorism he takes claim to. There is no need to look beyond him for the culprit of the mayhem, as he is the stereotypical "lone-nut" who takes all the blame. No need to look past what we can see. That would be conspiracy-theorizing.

As George W. Bush remarked on November 10, 2001 of anyone who questioned the "official narrative" of 9/11, those who made any critical analysis of the evidentiary contradictions and asked questions of the discrepancies contained in the 9/11 Commission Report, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

To that, famed writer Gore Vidal responded to Bush with, "Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth."

Bush also declared of his fabricated axis of evil, "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists."

“Madness is to hold an erroneous perception and argue perfectly from it.” — Voltaire

As the Iron Man script progressed, movie-goers were introduced to an idea they may never have even considered, that the "bin-Laden" character is merely a front man of the true behind-the-scenes orchestrator of terror. The Mandarin is actually an actor, a patsy for the real terrorist: Aldrich Killian, who is an agent of the military-industrial complex.
 

Talk about an "Ah-hah" moment for the generally dumbed-down movie-going public! Could this be a catalyst of awakening for a significant number of sleeping people? I can only hope and pray so.

Back to the objective of applying the Hegelian Dialectic: it is designed primarily for the concealed change agents — in seeking to dismantle social and political structures by which free men govern themselves — ancient landmarks erected at great cost in blood and treasure. The dialectic is to emasculate sovereign states, merge nations under universal government, centralize economic powers, and control the world's people and resources. Have you read the ten planks of the communist manifesto and the 45 stated communist goals read into the congressional record in 1963?

Frederick Douglass said it best, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." That is where steps one and two come into play.

It is widely understood that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the children's novel written by L. Frank Baum, was admittedly a work of political satire, a snapshot of the political and economic power structure of America. Oz was filled with rich allegorical and metaphorical imagery that was an historical primer on the issues that dominated the political climate of Baum's day in the 1890's. These revelations were lost on the uninformed, however, but the most striking allegory was The Wizard himself, who represented the president of the United States, whose power is ultimately illusory. The Wizard, like everybody else, was just trying to survive and was really subservient to the power of the Wicked Witch of the East (a stand-in for the Wall Street financiers, eastern elite businessmen, and Washington politicians) and of the West (western industrialists, bankers, and the railroads).

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

James Madison made it perfectly clear, “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.”

It is not about war; it is not about global warming; it is not about racism; it is not about guns; it is not about abortion rights or homosexual rights or recession . . . it's about Marxist Revolution. It's about CONTROL.

Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama's Chief of Staff from 2009-2010, candidly divulged the administration's true nature and intent of the problem-reaction-solution dialectic to a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives in November of 2008, letting America know that opportunities are never lost on the president and his regime: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." See the video of his comment here.

George H.W. Bush explained the dialectic for the adept in his September 11, 1991 speech before a joint session of Congress: “A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. Out of these troubled times, our objective—a new world order—can emerge. Today, that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we have known.” I don't need to point out that this was spoken 10 years to the day before the attacks of September 11, 2001.

“There is a need for a new world order,” Henry Kissinger told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose in 2007, “I think that at the end of this administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order – because people looking in the abyss, even in the Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, ordered expectations must return under a different system.”

David Rockefeller said in September 23, 1994, "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long — We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it," said James Warburg, CFR member and son of Paul Warburg of the so-named banking dynasty and "father" of the Federal Reserve system. "The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
 
Media analyst Julian Darius' May 6, 2013 op-ed article, 'Why Iron Man 3 is the Best Iron Man Film to Date', published by the Sequart Research & Literacy Organization, observed these glaring revelations about the film:

Iron Man, the Mandarin, and the Military-Industrial Complex

Iron Man 3 boils down to two plots: the main plot, involving the Mandarin, and the subplot, involving Tony Stark’s reconciliation with the Iron Man part of his identity.

The main plot is bound up in the military-industrial complex and the War on Terror. In the comics, the Mandarin was originally a Fu Manchu figure, which we now recognize as a racist stereotype. The movie recasts the Mandarin as a bin Laden figure, who issues videos threatening the world after what he claims are terrorist attacks. Played by Ben Kingsley, who sports a large beard, the Mandarin is of ambiguous ethnicity. He’s accompanied by some Asian assistants and vaguely Asian iconography, but he also borrows heavily from images of Arab terrorists. All of this could be easily mishandled, in racially insensitive ways. But as it turns out (in a twist that at least superficially recalls the one at the end of Batman Begins), the Mandarin is actually a British drug-addicted actor. He’s a patsy for the real villain: Aldrich Killian, who’s part of the military-industrial complex.

Remember how some used to idly speculate that bin Laden was a U.S. plant? He could be used to justify wars, and he could release videos in time to swing elections (as a bin Laden video helped do in 2004). Of course, the idea that bin Laden was filming on an American soundstage was absurd and offensive — as well as an illustration that asking “who benefits?” is not the same thing as actual analysis. The Bush administration certainly was conspiratorial (manufacturing intelligence, intimidating “allies,” etc.), but it wasn’t nearly this smart. Still, it’s a powerful idea — and one that makes a lot more sense with a defense company as the culprit, since it’s the one with profit motive.

It’s here that Iron Man 3 offers a view of the world — and the War on Terror — that’s not only actually responsible but a major improvement over the previous two films.

The War on Terror is big business. It’s led to a tremendous increase in government. (No, not in social services, despite what you’ve heard. In intelligence and in military spending.) But it’s led to an even larger increase in defense contracts, not only for weapons systems but for rudimentary things like transportation, translators, and services like food and laundry — things that the U.S. military used to do for itself. It’s not too much to say that the Iraq War was a massive corporate charity event, with virtually everything sub-contracted out to private companies, often in no-bid contracts. Several companies routinely and illegally overbilled the Pentagon, and that’s not even considering the absurd prices they legally charged for things like laundry services. There are reports of independent contractors driving vehicles around Iraq with nothing in them, because they were paid by the mile. And then when those contractors got into combat, U.S. soldiers had to go out — and die — rescuing them. This was Iraq, and it’s so absurd and horrific that it puts anything in Apocalypse Now to shame.

It’s this — the military-industrial complex — that’s the real villain of Iron Man 3. It’s this that Killian represents.

Killian also understands the power of a Satanic figurehead — like bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein, or Manuel Noriega before him — to inspire fear. The Mandarin serves Killian’s purpose brilliantly. He can take credit for accidental explosions, caused by the Extremis process, which thus come to be understood as terrorist attacks instead of corporate accidents. Killian’s master plan is to assassinate the president, thereby having a sympathetic vice-president installed. Obviously, after the assassination of a U.S. president, the U.S. would throw money at everything military on a scale even surpassing the irrational fervor in the wake of 9/11. Companies like AIM would have it made.

And in this, we can see that the film understands the role fear plays in such military overreactions.

Continuing:

Just as the official story of 9/11 goes: that 19 men who didn't even know how to drive cars managed to somehow hijack 4 commercial airliners simultaneously, achieved intricate maneuvers which defied operational limits, crashed them into buildings in the most protected airspace in the United States under the command of an elusive cleric living in a cave in Afghanistan via a laptop and a walkie-talkie, against the systematic shutdown and failure of a $40 billion strategic defense system that has been in place since World War II . . . shall I go on?

Nor did the Mandarin have the technology, infrastructure, financial capitol and intelligence capabilities to carry out strategic bombings and hack into all the world's cable television systems simultaneously, cutting into mainstream news feeds, to proclaim his attacks to a global audience.

Someone else was carrying out the Mandarin bombings.

Someone far more intelligent, sophisticated, cunning and capable.

The real killer is Aldrich Killian, and his motivations, as they’re initially explained, are promising. He’s developing Maya Hansen’s technology, and ramping-up the War on Terror will “create supply and demand” for his latest product, a drug he’s selling to Pepper Pots as an intellectual enhancement, but that really promises to regrow the limbs of amputees.

His bombs aren’t actually bombs at all: they’re combat veterans who lost limbs, and who have been rendered unstable by high doses of Killian’s drug.

Although it’s not clear whether Killian’s motivations are profit-oriented, or merely for revenge, it is clear that his motivations are not benign, nor benevolent. Neither are the motivations of the "research" of the military-industrial complex for the security of a free State and a free people.

Killian tells Pepper that he’s spent ”years dodging the president’s ban on ‘immoral’ biotech research,” to develop Maya’s technology.

To expand the arm of the military-industrial complex is the real aim of AIM, as it is with most (if not all) government and military research.

Writing for The Huffington Post in his article 'What's the Meaning of Iron Man 3?', William Bradley writes:

"Iron Man 3 provides popcorn with a twist. A big political twist. Its threatening uber-terrorist Other, the very theatrical Mandarin, is a fake. A front, for a military-industrial complex player with an agenda to cover up trouble with his glitchy tech, create a lot more chaos in the world, and take advantage of that chaos for profit."

"...you can look at the Mandarin and say, ah-hah, false flag attacks by a part of the military-industrial complex. Killian's corporate think tank, AIM (Advanced Idea Mechanics), is funded by the military and the "Extremis" biotech he is developing turns vets into dangerous weapons."

At its foundation, Iron Man 3 suggests that the War on Terror is chasing the wrong guy; that the threat of violence by terrorist actors may be real, but the War on Terror is an invention that both terrorists and the terrorized participate in.

In another eye-opening societal parallel, Tony Stark's counterpart, Colonel James Rhodes, has been subject to a re-branding in this film. “War Machine was a little too aggressive,” Rhodes explains to Tony over beers. “This sends a better message.” And he recognizes that the use of him to hunt down the Mandarin is in part a response to the general security state erected in response to the New York attacks in The Avengers. “It’s Iron Patriot now."

"GO USA!" As liberty dies to thunderous applause.


In Conclusion:

When we independent investigators, researchers, geopolitical analysts — and those of us who justifiably question authority — question preposterous official narratives which defy all well-established data collection and investigative practices, and point out who actually stands to gain in the wake of key events, we're not talking about the postman, the low-level FBI agents or federal workers. We're talking about criminal clandestine globalist elements that are using and exploiting the government for their own purposes and agendas. We're talking about the "shadow government" that John F. Kennedy warned us about; the "technological elite" and the "military-industrial complex" that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about; the "Insiders" who Gary Allen warned us about in his landmark book, 'None Dare Call It Conspiracy'. The people who are on the inside — those powers-that-be who truly call the shots in this and other nations.

They represent a very small percentage of the ruling authority, have tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to play with, and command the most powerful military-industrial complex enforcement system of tyranny in the world.

Interestingly enough, the term "shadow government" didn't get widespread media publicity until after 9/11.

It's a conspiracy theory that Iran has weapons of mass destruction that could pose a threat to the United States, especially when the U.S. has proliferated over 500 WMD's. It's an even more profound conspiracy that the accusations of WMD's are hailing from the same ruling class who are merely reviving their 1970's, 80's, and 90's terror playbooks of deception, while focusing investigations only on low-IQ mind-controlled patsies as a cover. The very same people who lied about secret Soviet submarine WMD technology during the Cold War: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kissinger and the Bush family, somehow managed to garner the same support when telling the exact same lies about Iraq.

And now we collectively fall for it again in support of yet another conflict, this time with Syria and their alleged use of chemical weapons, of which we have plenty, but they do not have the infrastructure to produce. Also with North Korea. All saber-rattling aside, they don't have the means to produce bicycles domestically, but somehow, magically, they have developed and produced a stockpile of weapons that can harness the power of the atom?

It's the same story every time, perpetrated by the same people. Problem-reaction-solution, to rebuild the state of fear for engaging yet another sovereign nation in pursuit of more control over the people and natural resources.
 
Mainstream pop culture — at least — is now openly questioning the assumptions of the War on Terror. Irregardless of the motives behind exposing the tool of tyrants, their Hegelian Dialectic playbook, the narrative is moving forward. The discussion about fabricated terror as a means of government control is out in the open.

Lets all get on board the train of questioning the never-ending "War of Terror", and pointing out the main suspect, who has been caught over and over and over again, orchestrating terror and taking advantage of chaos for profit. Take heed that you be not deceived.

Truth is the first casualty of war.

We're definitely not in Kansas anymore.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18:4)

I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.

Mike Vanderboegh, who broke Fast & Furious: "Defy the King!"

In a rousing speech which is sure to inspire pro-gun rights advocates across the nation — and enrage those who choose to infringe upon the Second Amendment — Mike Vanderboegh took to the Connecticut State Capital yesterday. Speaking at the Connecticut Citizens Defense League’s Second Amendment rally, Vanderboegh — one of the men who broke the Fast & Furious debacle, declared “civil war is starring us in the face.”

Drawing parallels between the American Revolution and current infringements on the U.S. Constitution, Vanderboegh asked the enthusiastic crowd, “Where does it all stop? When we are all disarmed slaves?” Urging “armed civil disobedience,” the 3-Percenter recounted events that led to the ‘shot heard ‘round the world,’ and the American colonists who actively opposed British forces.

Equating President Obama to King George III, Vanderboegh went on to implore the pro-gun crowd: “Defy! Resist! Evade! Smuggle!”

I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.

Boston Under Siege by the State, Not by a 19-year-old Suspect

 
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (Proverbs 29:2)


WATERTOWN, MA — On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storm-trooping people's homes and performing illegal searches and seizures.

Thousands of law-abiding citizens' unalienable rights were infringed upon, an entire town held under siege, by one 19-year-old man who was suspected of terror. I submit that the real terror was inflicted by the gestapo-like tactics of the federalized law enforcement, the armed enforcers of tyranny.

While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.

Guilty until proven innocent.

This was part of a larger operation that involved a total lock-down of the suburban neighbor to Boston. Roads were barricaded and vehicle traffic was prohibited. A No-Fly Zone was declared over the town. People were "ordered" to stay indoors. Businesses were told not to open. In defiance of Posse Comitatus, armed National Guard soldiers helped with the lock-down, and were photographed checking IDs of pedestrians on the streets. "Papers, please." All the while, militarized police were performing these disgusting house-to-house searches.

Most disturbingly of all, were the systematic house-to-house raids performed throughout the town. SWAT teams swept the streets, raiding citizens' homes one at a time. Homeowners would answer the door to officers with guns drawn and would be told to immediately exit the property with their hands up. Everyone from the homes would be "rescued" (forcibly removed) and searched as they came out of their homes, men, women and children, often barefoot and half-dressed.

Police would then enter the property and begin their illegal searches.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted as a response to the abuse by the government of the writ of assistance as a type of general search warrant guarding AGAINST unreasonable searches and seizures, clearly reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No American can ever again say  that, "it can't happen here."

It IS happening. Why? Because we have traded our Liberty for Security. We have given over our personal responsibility and entrusted our self-preservation and self-reliance to reprobate minds.

"Suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds. ... Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." — Patrick Henry

I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.

“The Battlefield is the United States of America”

by Simon Black
April 24, 2013
George Town, Penang, Malaysia

When you’ve got a guy like Senator John McCain who says “The battlefield is the United States of America,” it tells you that almost nothing is safe in the Land of the Free.

Whatever remains of civil liberties is going to feel the full brunt of the state’s boot heel.
 
They’re already regulating some of the most fundamental aspects of life, from how we are allowed to educate our children to what we can / cannot put in our bodies to the very nature of money.

People are forced to hold their savings in insolvent banks backed by insolvent insurance funds backed by insolvent governments. And those insolvent governments have demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to directly confiscate accounts.

Retirement funds have proven to be an easy, tempting target. A number of countries including Argentina, Ireland, and Hungary have appropriated private pensions. Even the US government temporarily dipped into federal employee pensions.

Western governments are making every possible effort to take over the Internet. Despite every previous attempt (SOPA, PIPA, etc.) failing due to public outcry, they keep trying and trying (ACTA, CISPA, etc.).

They’re raising taxes, creating new ones (including Maryland’s new ‘rain tax’), imposing capital controls, racking up debt, and rapidly devaluing their currencies.

It all reeks of desperation, and...

It’s all so obvious. At least, for anyone paying attention.

Unfortunately it’s easy to lose sight of the truth. After all, how can there be any economic problems when the stock market is at an ‘all-time high’ and Nobel Prize winning pseudo-scientists tell us that debt levels don’t matter?

Truth is, these enormous challenges shouldn’t be ignored. The entire global financial system is sitting on a bed of dynamite. Central bankers are dousing the pile with gasoline while politicians are standing around smoking.

The potential for epic disaster cannot be understated.

This is not to say that the world is coming to an end. Far from it. History is quite generous with past examples of once-great civilizations that collapsed under the weight of their own hubristic debt.

Things didn’t end. They changed. Simple. And that’s what’s happening now in a textbook fashion.

Governments in trouble almost ALWAYS resort to the same destructive tactics.

When things are clearly on the decline, rather than INCREASING freedom and opportunity, they try to control EVERYTHING.

We’re already seeing the early stages of this with competitive devaluation, basic capital controls, and bank withdrawal limits.

These will soon give way to wider capital controls, increased border controls, wage and price controls, asset confiscation, and more.

It only delays the inevitable. The more they control, the more rapid the deterioration becomes. Again, this isn’t some sensationalist prediction; it is the very common historical trend.

The other thing that history shows us, however, is that there are always a handful of people who see the writing on the wall and take action. And that action has almost universally involved looking abroad and diversifying internationally.

This is a time-tested strategy that was once available only to the wealthy landed class. But with modern air transport, digital communication, and global competition, solutions are now available to just about anyone.

I’ll be honest with you – moving one’s assets, business, and even family overseas isn’t easy. These are complicated topics with numerous tax, financial, and professional implications. So go carefully and rationally.

But when structured properly, history shows that a well-informed offshore strategy can have a generational impact should chaos ensue.

And, should nothing ever go wrong in the world, you won’t be worse off for it.

Originally published here.
 
I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.

The New Babbleon

by Butler Shaffer
April 24, 2013

Originally published here at LewRockwell.com

"Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
~ George Orwell

Events in Boston this past week are a reminder of the failures of intelligence that have infected this country in recent years. I am not referring to the inadequacy of government agencies that have been given hundreds of billions of dollars, and have usurped police-state powers, to discover and prevent violent attacks upon Americans. So-called "intelligence" agencies have – like such other government programs as schools, police, health-care – demonstrated a systemic incapacity to perform their work, for which their pleas for more money and more authority are met by a public failure to learn from Einstein’s oft-quoted observation:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

No, the shortcoming of intelligence to which I refer is to be found in the minds of most Americans who long ago rejected the burden of living with a highly-energized, focused awareness not only of themselves, but of the world in which they live. To let others bear this responsibility – particularly those who will insist upon extended power over them – reflects what Walter Kaufmann defined as "decidophobia," the fear of making decisions for oneself. It is this transfer of existential energy from individuals to those eager to exercise power over others, that sustains political systems. I have long thought that the motto "In God We Trust" should be replaced on government currency by the more apt phrase:

"Ignorance Is Bliss."

Otherwise intelligent people – far more capable of making life-enhancing decisions for themselves than can any cadre of well-intentioned philosopher kings, PhD recipients, social workers, or think-tank "experts" – abandon their lives to institutional authorities and their media/academic propagandizers. Such voices do more than simply answer questions that people have; they define the range of questions it is considered appropriate to ask. It is this process that created "politically-correct" thinking.

In recent weeks we have been subjected to an overabundance of insincerity coming largely from politicians. The murder of twenty small children at a school in Connecticut, followed by the recent bombing at the Boston Marathon, has produced genuine sadness among millions of ordinary people who empathize with those suffering from such brutal behavior. Such feelings, alas, did not translate into comparable sentiments on behalf of the twenty-one children massacred at Waco in 1993 by government forces; the tens of thousands of victims of American bombings in the Middle East; nor cries of righteous indignation for the prosecution of government officials responsible for such heinous crimes.

The Machiavellian sentiments of President Obama’s former chief of staff – and now Chicago mayor – Rahm Emanuel, remind members of the political establishment to "never let a serious crisis go to waste." One after another, politicians descended upon Boston in an opportunistic frenzy designed to reinforce the vertically-structured model upon which political systems are based; systems that had failed miserably to provide their promised protection.

The state is comprised of such a network of lies and contradictions, that it is unreasonable for us to expect truth to come from the mouths of its politicians and other officials. Indeed, one could almost take any statement uttered by such scoundrels, reverse its meaning, and arrive at the truth of what policies are being promoted. I am reminded of the phrase, popular in England, that:

"One should not accept something as true until it has been officially denied."

So it was with President Obama going to Boston to express moral outrage over the bombing deaths at the marathon, even as his administration continues to bomb equally innocent men, women, and children in Afghanistan and wherever else his warring appetites take him. The tens of thousands of persons killed or maimed by American attacks don’t seem to rise to any discernible level of concern either to him or to the others who came to speak.

Perhaps the most unfocused babbling came from former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who faithfully gurgled the party line that terrorists want to destroy our way of life as free people. There was no break in his non-stop jabbering occasioned by the utter contradiction between his words and the reality taking place in Boston. He assured his listeners that Americans will go about their daily lives as they always have, a statement made during martial law imposed on Boston; with businesses, schools, and transportation facilities closed, and people ordered to stay within their homes; with tank-like vehicles prowling residential neighborhoods and police officers going house-to-house harassing residents. Perhaps this man had in mind that the Bostonian police-state is now part of the American tradition to which we shall all respond with our unquestioning obedience!

This erstwhile solon did pause to remind one-and-all that Boston was the birthplace of "freedom" in America, a thought difficult to reconcile with the mob mentality exhibited on television by so many of its residents. What lover of individual liberty does not harken to the likes of Sam Adams, John Hancock, Josiah Warren, Paul Revere, and Lysander Spooner; voices long since drowned out by such modern Tories as the Kennedys, George H.W. Bush, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, and, of course, Scott Brown.

Who did plan for and carry out these vicious killings and maimings in Boston? This is a question that will doubtless be shoved to the back-burner in political and media babblings. Those who still cling to such antiquated "technicalities" as due process of law, trial by jury, and (gasp!) clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing, will continue to be frustrated by such modern practitioners of Red Queen jurisprudence as Attorney General Eric Holder, who has informed us that "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process." It is enough that someone, somewhere, comes to a decision as to guilt or innocence and – as the untried prisoners at Guantanamo have learned – without being inconvenienced by attorneys, who will insist upon such niceties as examining evidence and witnesses.

The modern standards for "due process" are now in the hands of Madame Defarge and Judge Roy Bean. So many Bostonians have articulated the premise "verdict first, trial later," joining with government officials and their media cheerleaders to declare the two accused brothers "guilty" without the necessity of any formal trial system. These young men began as "suspects," and their status quickly morphed into "criminals," "scumbags," and any other handy epithets.

"Truth is the first casualty of war." 

It has long been said that "truth is the first casualty of war," a proposition that has metastasized its way throughout all aspects of state action. "Truth" is now negotiable, and a lie will serve as an adequate substitute as long as a sufficient number of people believe it. Facts that stand in the way of ends sought by the state must be repressed and shoved down the memory-hole. Those who raise questions that do not fit within the official script will be labeled "paranoid conspiracy advocates," making it easy for the normally-neurotic to take comfort in their ignorance.

No decent person can defend these murderous acts, any more than they can the bombing deaths carried out by the United States in such places as Afghanistan and Iraq. But though guilt of wrongdoing by bombing victims in the Middle East matters little to most Americans, it would be nice if guilt on the part of the Boston accused could be established with more certainty than the fiat pronouncements of politicians and media hacks.

In ferreting out the perpetrators of these recent atrocities, it would do well to begin with the question handed down to us by ancient Romans, but is considered improper by well-conditioned minds: cui bono (i.e., who benefited?). Sound reasoning would demand such an inquiry in order to arrive at possible motives for the crimes. This does not mean that those who stood to benefit were, in fact, the wrongdoers; only that it sets up more focused questions to ask. 

Who benefited? 

The federal government and, particularly, the FBI has been involved in many "sting" operations in which its agents have lured unsuspecting victims into criminal – including "terrorist" – acts in order to arrest them. A variant on what has long been known as "provocateuring," FBI agents have provided fake weapons and explosives and, on some occasions, have driven the sting victim to the scene of his intended crime. In a 2012 New York Times article, it was reported that:

"Of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in sting operations."

Did the FBI – or any other government agency – help to engineer this attack in Boston? Obviously, I do not know, but I do know how to ask relevant questions, and this is one upon which intelligent minds should insist. One of the experienced marathon runners, Alastair Stevenson, reported that, at the start of this marathon, "there were people on the roof looking down onto the Village at the start. There were dogs with their handlers going around sniffing for explosives, and we were told on a loud announcement that we shouldn’t be concerned and that it was just a drill." Stevenson added that he had never experienced anything like this in previous marathons in which he ran.

Why were such exercises being undertaken, and why did they fail to prevent the very harm they were presumably set up to address? Were the bomb blasts part of the "drill?" Were the bombs part of a "sting" operation that went awry and inadvertently exploded? Or, were the accused young men acting wholly on their own? Their mother has stated that her older son "was controlled by the FBI, like for three, five years. . . . They were controlling every step of him."

Our understanding of what caused these terrible crimes in Boston will depend upon the quality – and the range – of the questions brought to the inquiry. No doubt another whitewash "investigation" will be undertaken by a "blue-ribbon" committee chosen by the political establishment. This committee will, like its predecessors, do its appointed job of calming the public herd and urging an extension of government authority to police an already overly-policed populace. But independent journalists, along with men and women who use the Internet and other technologies to communicate their searches for truth, may find out more than we have thus far learned from babbling politicians and make-believe journalists.


Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938, Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival, and Boundaries of Order. His latest book is The Wizards of Ozymandias.
I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.

Fiddling While Boston Burns — President Signed S. 716 While We Were Distracted

S. 716 was pushed through the Senate by Harry Reid, approved by the House and signed by the President on April 15th, 2013, as America was distracted by the Boston Marathon bombing. All over the span of two working days.

And the media gave Harry Reid, the president and the rest of the Congress another pass as our attention was diverted.

Read the bill to find out what's in it after it was passed and is now a law:

S.716 — To modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms. (Considered and Passed Senate – CPS)

 
S 716 CPS

113th CONGRESS  1st Session  S. 716 To modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES  April 11, 2013 Mr. REID introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

Read the entire text of the bill >>

Statement by the Press Secretary on S. 716

On Monday, April 15, 2013, the President signed into law:

S. 716, which eliminates the requirement in the STOCK Act to make available on official websites the financial disclosure forms of employees of the executive and legislative branches other than the President, the Vice President, Members of and candidates for Congress, and several specified Presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed officers; and delays until January 1, 2014, the date by which systems must be developed that enable public access to financial disclosure forms of covered individuals.

Consider the absolute hypocrisy of Senator Harry Reid. He pushes forth a bill eliminating the required financial disclosure forms, yet here he is during the 2012 election, calling for transparency regarding Mitt Romney's tax returns:

Also, regarding President Obama's propensity for failed promises and hypocrisy, here is a flashback: on January 21, 2009 the president promised, "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

It is clear that our federal government is above the law — their law. They write the laws for the rest of us, which they are exempt from. People cannot be free in a country with a two-tiered justice system; with no checks and balances, no deterrents or accountability.

It is times like these when you truly have to ask yourself:

"Who benefits?"

In ancient Greece, the Senate would ask among themselves, "Cui bono" ("to whose benefit?", literally "as a benefit to whom?"), also rendered as cui prodest, a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be.

Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a scapegoat, for example.

The Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, in his speech Pro Roscio Amerino, section 84, attributed the expression cui bono to the Roman consul and censor Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla:

L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat 'cui bono' fuisset.

"The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, 'To whose benefit?'"

Nero fiddled while Rome burned, then built upon its ashes the glorious Domus Aurea to honor himself.

Adolf Hitler fire-bombed his own Reichstag parliament building one week before general elections in 1933, then blamed it on his political enemies as a pretext to go to war with them.

The US government falsely accused Spain in 1898 of blowing up the USS Maine, in order to generate support from the American people for the Spanish-American War, sparking the famous slogan, "Remember the Maine - to hell with Spain."

Over 1,100 pages of de-classified Vietnam-era transcripts revealed that senators knew the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a staged act of false flag terror promulgated to enter the war in Vietnam.

In 1962, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism on American soil, AGAINST American citizens, called Operation Northwoods. The head of every branch of the US armed forces gave written approval to sink US Navy ships, shoot down hijacked American planes, and gun-down and bomb civilians on the streets of Washington, D.C. and Miami as a pretext to invade Cuba.

Who benefits? When you answer this question, you have your culprit.


I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.