Wolf Blitzer of CNN – the news station of record, certainly in the United States, and probably the world (certainly the most ubiquitous one) – calmly and nonchalantly asking Senator Rand Paul in 2016 if Paul considers halting the assistance of the U.S. executive branch (without any Congressional involvement) and American munitions makers to Saudi Arabia to conduct its bombing of Yemen at the time, and which created a humanitarian catastrophe and major refugee crisis in Yemen, to be more important than the money and American jobs that would be lost at the plants of the munitions makers if Paul were to get his way and the assistance to S.A. were ended.
A completely repellent and morally vacant question, and one that, in the way it was asked, and the major platform on which it was asked, normalizes the perspective, makes it sound like a reasonable, counter-balancing concern. To restate the question less prettily; ‘Is it wise or practical that we stop raining down mayhem & death on all these largely innocent people in that foreign land,’ – and in support of a known completely authoritarian state which we should not be allied within the first place – ‘is your moral concern, Senator Paul, more important than the loss of income to the munitions makers and the loss of American jobs if those munitions don’t get made and used?’
The query of a remorseless person of no empathy, a sociopath, perhaps. Or, possibly, just a vacuous shill doing what he was likely instructed to do: Pit Paul’s appeal to conscience (and to the demands of the Constitution that Congress is the entity delegated with war making authority, not the Executive Branch) against the financial interests of Americans, thus making Rand’s hill to climb a steeper one. Or both (to do that job a person would likely need a stunted conscience, I would assume).
People should get bombed so Americans can make profits and have jobs? That’s a real question? We should talk and argue and debate about the subtleties and nuances of that? Blitzer surely did his part, his job, to make that calculus appear legitimate and rational to anyone hearing it.
Just peak scumbaggery. His own and his betters. Amazing that Paul did not call him on the obscenity of the question. To be governed by such people and the system that puts them in place is unacceptable, to put it blandly. I don’t consent to any of it. No one should.
This gentleman routinely and plainly describes the situation, tendencies and dynamics of human society in a way I completely agree with. Were all those that have the capacity to do so to flip the switch and view things more realistically and as fully as is possible, down to core, behind the scenes aspects, and understand that nothing will or can be ever remediated as society is currently ordered, by design, then the theoretical possibility for a change for the better would exist. So I believe.
In this Encore episode I bring back an episode that lays out a way to provide a paradigm shift that makes all the difference. If people could just see what the govt really is then so many…
I follow a board on Facebook that exists to post and comment on photos of abandoned buildings and various other discarded things around the State of Illinois (where I was raised). The photos therein, besides being poignant, interesting, fun, and often beautiful, also tell a tale, are evidence of a profound societal unraveling, one that’s been underway for a long time, decades, and which is part of an even bigger picture still. These rural ghost dwellings & the places where they exist – they are all over the country, from sea to shining sea – are unwinding, decaying, collapsing and departing, and will not be replaced or even inhabited much longer, being and having been long and largely neglected, impoverished and rapidly idiocratized (the word is apt, I’m afraid) and so made completely and irretrievably non-viable, at least as currently configured, and that’s not an accident. The concurrent shattering, and now rapid, degradation and chaos of many cities is a partner phenomenon, guided by the same hands, just populated and experienced by people that mostly vote differently and watch different news channels.
I’m writing this here to share there, so that what I’ve written has a primary, stable place to exist and remain should the admins of the abandoned places FB group board choose not allow it on the board, being very much on-topic, but off-point. I hope it will be allowed on the board (please leave a comment if you came here via FB, thanks), as I find that people fascinated by ghost things to also be, for whatever reasons and quite often, curious & generally thoughtful (this author excluded, of course 😉), so, thinking my odds of reaching some open minds improved by this tendency, even on Facebook, and having been on that board awhile now, I thought I would share a non-mincing gentleman discussing plainly his experience and perspective of driving recently through some ghost places and dying towns in Texas (while obviously not a person of the Left, the man you will hear, ‘Legalman’ – he has many insightful webcasts – is not a Republican, conservative, or Trump fan, and expresses his critique and contempt of the Right often in his many webcasts).
Some blunt, stark talk (he’s not missing his calling as a flowery diplomat), which will surely offend delicate ears and minds, but he’s correct and truthful, or rather, sincere, as his assessment could be proven incorrect by the passage of time (though I doubt it will be), or so he seems to me. Way beyond Red vs. Blue, certainly, a vantage point that thoughtful people ought move beyond as immediately as possible now, if they haven’t already (I would guess a lot of the ghost things people might already have, or would be inclined to, as a fascination with that subject seems to be a thinker’s or a poet’s ‘tell’, as they say in poker, however shallow, callous and contentious the tone of social media exchanges often are elsewhere).
Much has been written about why these places and their inhabitants are like they now are; the slow decay from vibrant & vital farming communities and factory towns into shrinking backwaters of poverty, crime, drugs, grotesque ill-health and idleness. What is obvious and verifiable to any mindful traveler or reader is that, to a significant degree, this a guided and intended trajectory, and one aspect of that trajectory is the future closing-off of the countryside and wilderness, of most rural and remote areas, the relatively near future now, partly by rendering them and the people that live in them not viable, economically, physically, intellectually, mentally and logistically, leading to a die-off of the sick, incompetent & old, and an exodus of the young and able, and eventually, once vacated to a sufficient point, deeming such areas as restricted for human use (just a very broad and ultimate use of eminent domain). It’s a longstanding agenda that’s been laid out in great detail by the U.N. and furthered and complemented more recently by the World Economic Forum with its plan, The Great Reset (of which the c19 social phenomenon plays a major catalyzing role; as will threats and claims of whatever disease, going forward), and is now, finally, coming noticeably to pass, and there are no tin-foil hats involved, only people that don’t mind acknowledging the stated and the obvious, as creepy as it is.
I thought that worth noting on a board where, without mentioning causes, they track and note and lament the physical progress of that trajectory, and the general, major physical unraveling of the very different world many visiting the board were born into, so different a place that it’s hard to imagine it occupied not long ago the same space we live in now.
In this AH episode I discuss the complete collapse of a part of the country I drove through. The mutants have taken over. Nothing will be working soon in this zone. If you like The Quash…
John Pilger interviews ex CIA Chief Duane McClarridge Segment from the documentary War On Democracy
It’s the viewing of exchanges like this, and there are so many of them now to see, which make it increasingly amazing to me that people continue to care about the public spectacle theatre that happens in front of the curtain, think that it matters, expend energy analyzing and arguing vitriolically about it. Trump v. Biden, for one example. Neither should have become President or even have had the chance to hold the office, and they aren’t in charge, anyway.
The unelected and unaccountable people behind the curtain at the back of the house run the show, the world, and do so at the behest and on behalf of those that own the theatre. What those two entities, the real managers, like Clarridge, and the owners, do matters greatly, and makes hypocrites of us all. At the very least we can definitively say the foreign policy of the United States (of any western nation) has nothing at all to do with making the world ‘safe for democracy’, seeing as how it undermines democratic processes routinely, relentlessly, and by design.
That policy and the entities that carry it out exist to defend, preserve and expand the interests of the ownership class. All discussions not factoring in that and other bedrock, fundamental aspects of human society and governance just enable the continuance of the harm and hypocrisy indefinitely.
This exchange describes how the world really works. One very important aspect, at least. Powerful people and entities do what they want, and make it look like or call it something else, or make it invisible. Should that reality ever get accepted by the majority, and be the thing gets addressed and discussed above all else, then the basis for positive and permanent change in human society will become a genuine potential, but not until then, or so I believe.
Besides that which is objectively verifiable and inarguable, another gauge that I rely on more often when assessing information that’s not as yet clear cut, and perhaps may never be, is the tone and demeanor of those conveying it. Incivility, for one example, is an easy tell for insincerity, lying, bad intent, and abuse of power when the incivility is coupled with a position of wanting or attempting to compel others to do or not do something and has the force of the state to back up that compulsion.
While not uncivil, it is difficult to watch the coward of a man in this video attempt to equivocate his self-serving and catastrophic position, and which he only even feebly does, knowing how indefensible it is. He can barely look at the woman, and makes little attempt to prevent her frequent interruptions, knowing he hasn’t a leg to stand on. This is the very definition of ‘regulatory capture’ (as in, Wall Street owns the SEC; Monsanto owns the FDA, EPA, etc.), and his is the face of a corrupted and cowed bureaucrat. He is not protecting the general welfare, which is ostensibly his job. Dr. Hill is, rather, protecting his job and serving a different purpose.
So, for anyone with an open mind that’s been wondering if Ivermectin is or would have actually been helpful during the situation of the last two years (which is all better now – for the moment – with the European war come to replace it as the crisis of the moment), here’s your answer. There are many studies saying that IVM works, but those are countered by other studies, and fact-checkers, and late-night comedians, and mostly, by the agencies and people that guide the mainstream, approved narrative of the past two years. Most people don’t have the time or the inclination to weed through and weigh all that out.
Anyone has enough time to watch this, however, and watching it one realizes that the claims that Ivermectin works were always true, had to be, as this exchange makes obvious (and that being true, then, the injections were never candidates for emergency use authorization, since with IVM there was always an effective remedy available, so the justification for the EUA was never valid, the same or hydroxychloroquine). One of these people is lying, dodging, showing no integrity. It’s not Dr. Lawrie. She’s on firm ground and she knows it. It’s a humiliating thing to watch, actually. Dr. Hill is embarassingly weak, and people surely died needlessly because of it.
I believe this dynamic informs everything non-trivial that happens in the public sphere, and is the consequential part of why I don’t support centralized power. It always gets captured, and so far cannot be prevented from being so. People like this man and their positions always come to authority over others, or are allowed to, or are specifically installed into such stations, recruited into the service of those with genuine power. His position is weak, wrong and super harmful. It also has had the official backing of states worldwide, the mainstream scientific and medical communities, and major corporate news media.
That is the problem underlying everything, every issue of importance. The details and the particular situations and issues change; that paradigm never does, but it needs to now. It used to be a murkier thing, but it’s become pretty clear at this point, at least for anyone willing to acknowledge that which is standing right in front of them.
Recent Comments