Obama - Beware Of Elites Bearing Gifts Options

[Fremen Bryan]

from Richard K. Moore

Greetings from California,

The McCain-Palin dragon has been slain. The Heroic Knight has been
crowned and an era of profound hope has descended on the Kingdom. I
know this is true because all my friends tell me so. There can be no
doubt of the immense and genuine popularity of our new President-
elect. Not even JFK inspired as much hope and devotion in his
followers, nor was his following as universal.

So great is this enthusiasm for Obama here that I find I must hold my
tongue in polite company, lest I upset someone by expressing my
reservations. Nonetheless, there are several inconvenient truths that
need to be said. First among these is the observation that Obama is
not a populist. That is, he was not a candidate, like Ron Paul or
Ralph Nader, whose race was a fight against the establishment. Obama
had the full support of the establishment at every step of the way.
Paul Street sums this up well enough:

> But, as The New York Times' editors certainly know, "they" still
> "put in who they want to put in" to no small extent. The
> predominantly white U.S. business and political establishment still
> makes sure that nobody who questions dominant domestic and imperial
> hierarchies and doctrines can make a serious ("viable") run for
> higher office - the presidency, above all. It does this by denying
> adequate campaign funding (absolutely essential to success in an age
> of super-expensive, media-driven campaigns) and favorable media
> treatment (without which a successful campaign is unimaginable at
> the current stage of corporate media consolidation and power) to
> candidates who step beyond the narrow boundaries of elite opinion.
> Thanks to these critical electoral filters and to the legally
> mandated U.S. winner-take- all "two party" system [2], a candidate
> who even remotely questions corporate and imperial power is not
> permitted to make a strong bid for the presidency.
> Barack Obama is no exception to the rule. Anyone who thinks he
> could have risen to power without prior and ongoing ruling class
> approval is living in a dream world.
> ‹ Paul Street, "Barack Obama as a Ruling Class Candidate"
> http://www.zmag. org/znet/ viewArticle/ 19343

Obama was sold to us, not just as a President but as a savior. The
McCain-Palin charade was an important part of the sales campaign: you
can't have an Heroic Knight unless there's a Fearsome Dragon to be
slain. A friend pointed out to me that McCain's campaign was mostly
negative attacks on Obama. Another way to frame that is to say that
the campaign was all about Obama, rather than about issues. The
negative attacks caused just as much bonding between Obama and his
followers as did Obama's inspiring speeches. The negative and the
positive themes were played against one another, in the media, with
all the precision of a symphony.

Phony media circuses are nothing new to Presidential campaigns. With
Obama, we saw a new dimension added, with the help of the Internet. I
speak of the volunteer phenomenon. I was surprised to learn how many
of my friends and acquaintances were active as volunteers in the
campaign. They organized themselves at the grassroots, and they got
their commands from Campaign Central, via email. Not since the heyday
of Est have I seen such wild-eyed enthusiasm among activist
volunteers. Even before I saw news reports that Obama planned to make
political use of his Internet activists from a new White House
Internet office, I heard my friends saying that the 'organization must
go on', that it 'must not die with campaign'. They are eager to remain
part of the bandwagon, to be troopers for Obama, and Obama is prepared
to make use of them.

What we have is basically a personality cult. Obama true-believers are
now bigger than the Fundamentalists, and equally mobilized. But what
is it they are going to be mobilized for? The campaign rhetoric was to
a large extent about 'overcoming divisiveness' , and 'bringing us all
together'. Sounds good, but divisiveness is not among the major
problems facing America. The problems facing us are economic and
environmental collapse, the struggle to hold onto empire, and new
emerging powers on the global scene. Divisiveness was, and remains, a
created issue, a cult-formation device, a device for which McCain and
Palin, and their over-the-top redneck rallies, were a critical
ingredient.

The other main themes of the campaign were 'change' and 'hope'.
Interesting. Change we will get, of one kind or another, that's for
sure. And there are two kinds of hope, that which arises in times of
positive change, and that which arises in times of despair. If you see
light at the end of the tunnel, you feel hope; if the tunnel remains
dark, you rely on hope. Which kind of hope will Obama deliver? His
followers have been led to feel there is light at the end of the
tunnel. I suggest they are destined for disappointment. Hope for
positive change will morph into a reliance on 'hope in Obama'.

As things get worse, we will take comfort that Obama 'understands our
plight', is 'one of us', and is 'doing all he can'. Indeed, we will be
dutifully emailing our representatives, to support this or that Obama
legislation. As to the actual dark tunnel we are entering, here are a
few recent articles that have come my way:

Stephen Lendman, Worse Than The Great Depression?
http://www.counterc urrents.org/ lendman171108. htm

Paul Craig Roberts, The Crisis Has Hardly Begun
http://www.counterc urrents.org/ roberts171108. htm
Economic Crisis Is Beyond The Reach Of Traditional Solutions
http://www.counterc urrents.org/ roberts141108. htm

Michel Chossudovsky, The Great Depression of the 21st Century:
Collapse of the Real Economy
http://www.globalre search.ca/ index.php? context=va& aid=10977://http://www.globalre search.ca/ inde...& aid=10977

I've recently published lots of other articles relevant to these
pivotal times:
http://groups. google.com/ group/newslog/ topics

Our scenario is very much like that preceding the establishment of the
Federal Reserve in 1913. The 'problem' then, as now, is a scary,
engineered 'collapse'. The 'solution', then as now, is the greater
centralization of banking in private hands, now some kind of IMF cum
Central Bank on a global scale. In both cases the promise is to avoid
future collapses, while the reality is increased enslavement to
banking elites. Some background material:
http://jahtruth. net/syst. htm

Richard C. Cook, The G-20 Economic Summit Won¹t Change the "Financial
Crime Scene"
http://www.globalre search.ca/ index.php? context=va& aid=10987://http://www.globalre search.ca/ inde...& aid=10987

Telegraph UK, Gordon Brown calls for new world order to beat recession
http://tinyurl. com/5cqhda
http://jahtruth. net/300.htm

To my way of thinking, the proper response to the financial collapse
would be to place all the big financial institutions under national
receivership. They created the crisis through fraudulent practices,
and baling them out should be the furthest thing from our minds. The
nations of the world can figure out who legitimately owes who what,
figure out some way to settle up, and establish new sounder bases for
currencies. That's what the G-20 could have been doing, but of course
they didn't.
http://jahtruth. net/politics. htm

If anyone still doubts that the banking elites run things from behind
the scenes, the past few months should have opened their eyes. Instead
of a rational response, based on bringing the financial institutions
under control, we have a capitulation to banking interests, symbolized
by the installation of Henry Paulson as US Economic Czar, the same
Paulson who helped engineer the subprime virus while at Goldman Sachs.
The bailout, which has become a global phenomenon, is a crime against
humanity, a betrayal of whatever democratic principles remained in our
societies.
http://jahtruth. net/democra. htm

Humanity is the patient, and capitalism (ie, rule by capitalist
elites) is the disease. The agenda of our leaders, and Obama will be
no exception, is to sacrifice the patient so that the disease may
survive. The agenda will include an expansion of genocide in the third
world, assisted by the biofuel market and runaway food prices, and it
will most likely include a nuclear confrontation with Russia and
perhaps China. As Kissinger says, you can't make an omelette without
breaking eggs. Final consolidation of global power is an omelette
worth many a sacrifice, particularly if you get to eat the omelette
and aren't the one making the sacrifices.

Does all of this stuff sound irrelevant to Obama and the issues of the
campaign? It should, for the campaign and Obama's rhetoric have
nothing to do with the problems we will be facing, and nothing to do
with the agenda Obama brings to the office. The rhetoric was a
conjured illusion, a bit like LBJ promising not to escalate in
Vietnam, or Clinton promising universal health care. The difference
between Obama and those precedents is that Obama has the capacity to
carry his followers with him. Whereas we all felt abandoned and
betrayed by LBJ, Obama has the charisma to carry his flock willingly
into the abyss as he makes 'difficult but necessary' choices.

Part of the architecture of a fascist regime is a mobilized grassroots
following. The motivating characteristics vary with the culture.
Ethnic hatreds and a resurgence of nationalism are not the American
way. Obama shows us the American way, with his organized network of
followers. His skill, and his value to elites, will be his ability to
get us to take our kool-aid voluntarily.

rkm

[Tha Sun Ablaze]

Shut the fuck up.

[Johnny Always]

Hey man - I read a lot of your stuff, good post. If you look at Obama's transition team, and other various members of the administration he's building completely support this POV. I think it's particularly disturbing that some of his top fund raisers are getting positions.

I would humbly suggest to people that are his believers: Obama may be helpful to us, giving him maximum benefit of doubt, hopefully there will be a reduction in snooping, activist infultration, torture, incidents of disapearances, etc. But if people want change to be led by him, the only way to make sure he'll be at least partial assistence from his administration is to be hyper critical to keep him true to his promises.

This isn't directed toward anyone, but if one feels threatended by someone being critical of Obama, and aren't able to dispute points being made, then you may agree with the points but don't want to admit it to yourself. I'm sure we all suffer that in one way or another

The counter-revolution must be led by the citizens, and supported by business and poltical leaders who are on the side of the people with media being a venue for whistle blowers and truth seekers/speakers.

-Always

[Salva Veritate]

Johnny Always, I agree with the entirety of your post, but there's one thing that needs to be cleared up:

This isn't directed toward anyone, but if one feels threatended by someone being critical of Obama, and aren't able to dispute points being made, then you may agree with the points but don't want to admit it to yourself. I'm sure we all suffer that in one way or another

No, this is a common misconception. I and most others here have no problem with criticism of Obama. It's just that this guy just spams the forums with articles he copy/pasted and put no thought into whatsoever. If he wants to make intelligent points then I'm all for a discussion, but all this guy does is post bizarre conspiracy theories about how Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Nazi Zionist Jew who wants to drop bombs on the Los Angeles ghetto and similar gems, and the OCCASIONAL (read: one in 50) sane article. When we ask him to stop spamming and limit his mindless copy/pastes to a few threads, he just screams "STOP CENSORING ME" and keeps spamming topics and posting incredibly lengthy articles to disrupt intelligent discussion. On top of that, he sponsors and encourages violence against all Congressmen, posting all their personal information and home addresses.

Everyone hates this guy and all he does is obstruct intelligent discussion from ever happening.

This post has been edited by Salva Veritate: Nov 19 2008, 12:43 PM

[Salva Veritate]

Please visit the site linked in his signature to see what kind of brilliance he's bringing here.

[Fremen Bryan]

Hey man - I read a lot of your stuff, good post. If you look at Obama's transition team, and other various members of the administration he's building completely support this POV. I think it's particularly disturbing that some of his top fund raisers are getting positions.

I would humbly suggest to people that are his believers: Obama may be helpful to us, giving him maximum benefit of doubt, hopefully there will be a reduction in snooping, activist infultration, torture, incidents of disapearances, etc. But if people want change to be led by him, the only way to make sure he'll be at least partial assistence from his administration is to be hyper critical to keep him true to his promises.

This isn't directed toward anyone, but if one feels threatended by someone being critical of Obama, and aren't able to dispute points being made, then you may agree with the points but don't want to admit it to yourself. I'm sure we all suffer that in one way or another

The counter-revolution must be led by the citizens, and supported by business and poltical leaders who are on the side of the people with media being a venue for whistle blowers and truth seekers/speakers.

-Always

Thank-you.

Agreed.

[Fremen Bryan]

Johnny Always, I agree with the entirety of your post, but there's one thing that needs to be cleared up:

This isn't directed toward anyone, but if one feels threatended by someone being critical of Obama, and aren't able to dispute points being made, then you may agree with the points but don't want to admit it to yourself. I'm sure we all suffer that in one way or another

No, this is a common misconception. I and most others here have no problem with criticism of Obama. It's just that this guy just spams the forums with articles he copy/pasted and put no thought into whatsoever. If he wants to make intelligent points then I'm all for a discussion, but all this guy does is post bizarre conspiracy theories about how Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Nazi Zionist Jew who wants to drop bombs on the Los Angeles ghetto and similar gems, and the OCCASIONAL (read: one in 50) sane article. When we ask him to stop spamming and limit his mindless copy/pastes to a few threads, he just screams "STOP CENSORING ME" and keeps spamming topics and posting incredibly lengthy articles to disrupt intelligent discussion. On top of that, he sponsors and encourages violence against all Congressmen, posting all their personal information and home addresses.

Everyone hates this guy and all he does is obstruct intelligent discussion from ever happening.

I post here because I do want you to read what I post. I am sorry you are lazy and dont like to read much, I however DO read every post before putting it up. Its none of my business what other people think about me, so when you say everybody hates this guy, whatever, I still have a duty to expose Spiritual Wickedness in high places of temporal human power, regardless. If you pay attention I do reply when people say something more intelligent than 'shut the .uck up' over and over - like thats some sort of an intelligent arguement as to why Obama is not a natural born American, or anything else. If you have something to contest, on any topic I have posted, and do it intelligently without name calling or playing the "Fremen Bryan is just crazy, and so ignore anything he says" card, I will reply, because I do stand behind what I believe in.

[Fremen Bryan]

Please visit the site linked in his signature to see what kind of brilliance he's bringing here.

Yes, Please do, I encourage that, thank-you.

[Salva Veritate]

Johnny Always, I agree with the entirety of your post, but there's one thing that needs to be cleared up:

This isn't directed toward anyone, but if one feels threatended by someone being critical of Obama, and aren't able to dispute points being made, then you may agree with the points but don't want to admit it to yourself. I'm sure we all suffer that in one way or another

No, this is a common misconception. I and most others here have no problem with criticism of Obama. It's just that this guy just spams the forums with articles he copy/pasted and put no thought into whatsoever. If he wants to make intelligent points then I'm all for a discussion, but all this guy does is post bizarre conspiracy theories about how Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Nazi Zionist Jew who wants to drop bombs on the Los Angeles ghetto and similar gems, and the OCCASIONAL (read: one in 50) sane article. When we ask him to stop spamming and limit his mindless copy/pastes to a few threads, he just screams "STOP CENSORING ME" and keeps spamming topics and posting incredibly lengthy articles to disrupt intelligent discussion. On top of that, he sponsors and encourages violence against all Congressmen, posting all their personal information and home addresses.

Everyone hates this guy and all he does is obstruct intelligent discussion from ever happening.

I post here because I do want you to read what I post. I am sorry you are lazy and dont like to read much, I however DO read every post before putting it up. Its none of my business what other people think about me, so when you say everybody hates this guy, whatever, I still have a duty to expose Spiritual Wickedness in high places of temporal human power, regardless. If you pay attention I do reply when people say something more intelligent than 'shut the .uck up' over and over - like thats some sort of an intelligent arguement as to why Obama is not a natural born American, or anything else. If you have something to contest, on any topic I have posted, and do it intelligently without name calling or playing the "Fremen Bryan is just crazy, and so ignore anything he says" card, I will reply, because I do stand behind what I believe in.

I'm sorry, you're just really getting on my nerves because you're not listening to me and you expect everyone to listen to you. Look, I'm fine with you putting up an article every once in a while and wanting to discuss it, but it gets on our nerves a lot when you make 10 threads a day dedicated to 10 different articles. Also, I'm fine with you posting articles, but please, PLEASE leave it just as a link instead of copy the entire article, word for word, which really fills up the page and obscures the posts that other people make. It's really annoying. Those are the ONLY two problems I have with your presence here. I don't mind you posting conspiracy theories and I'll be happy to refute them.

So I propose a compromise:

1) Don't post a new thread for every article you feel like. Limit yourself to two or three threads a week, and instead post in other people's threads about what people are talking about.

2) Instead of posting JUST articles, read them and write your own interpretation of the articles as to how it's relevant to an existing discussion. Post a link at the end of your post to the whole article, and not the article itself. If you put a decent amount of effort into crafting every post, that will motivate people to put effort into making intelligent responses. As it stands, the amount of effort you put into copying and pasting an article is about the same amount of effort it takes to say "shut the fuck up", and you shouldn't expect any more. And if you don't stretch the page (which, like I said, hides our posts in a passive-aggressive means to censorship, as it's harder to read our posts when yours dominate the page), there will be no reason for us to tell you to shut the fuck up.

3) If you do those two very simple things, I and most others (can't speak for everyone, unfortunately) will give you and your opinions the respect you deserve.

I don't see the downside in cooperating. We get more room to breathe and speak, and you get respect for your opinions.

[Johnny Always]

Hi Everyone,

I think that's a good compromise. Frement, to be honest, I scan the first paragraph of about 6 or 7 of your articles, and then read 1-2 a week, which I would define as a lot. No offense intended of course, but I agree with Salva Veritate's point, many of your articles are so conspiracy theorist that you can't have a broad enough conversation for it to matter and at times they do seem to condone or otherwise support violence and perhaps lean the wrong direction on some race threads to due to your strict Christian point of view, which I respect but don't always see eye to eye with.


Appologies if I put this in an overly acusartory sounding tone, I mean no disrespect, I too would actually prefer to read two or maybe even three like this one a week and see some replys from you on some of the other threads to get your view on them.

Nice to meet you Mr. Veritate

-j.a.

This post has been edited by Johnny Always: Nov 19 2008, 08:10 PM

[Fremen Bryan]

Okay so I do not have to post os much, but keep in mind there IS alot ot post, regardless of peoples ability to digest it all. I dont like ot just post a link though, but ofr lengthier articles i can do an exceprt. Please read this short article in defense as to why it is important that Politicians not be career politicians and why their addresses SHOULD be a matter of public record:-

http://www.jamesrobertwatson.com/545people.html
The 545 most dangerous people in America
By Charlie Reese, journalist for 49 years and a former columnist of
the Orlando Sentinel, edited by Jim Watson
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100 senators, 435 congressmen, 1 president, and 9 Supreme Court
justices - 545 human beings, out of 300 million of us, are directly,
legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic
problems that plague this country.
• • • You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
• • • You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on
appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
• • • You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
• • • You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
• • • You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered, but private, central bank. I excluded all the special
interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal
authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or
a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer
a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power
to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is
the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that
what they did is not their fault.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot
replace 545 people who stand convicted - by present facts - of
incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic
problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you
fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the
federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they
want to exist.
• • • If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
• • • If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
• • • If the Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq.
• • • If they do not receive social security but are on an elite
retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it
that way.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they
hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and
advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to
regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let
them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical
forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent
them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are
their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own
employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

What you do with this article is up to you, though you appear to have
several choices.
• • 1. You can agree to vote against everyone that is currently in
office, knowing that the process will take several years.
• • 2. You can decide to run for office yourself and agree to do the
job properly.
• • 3. You can sit back and do nothing
• • 4. You can re-elect the current bunch.

[Salva Veritate]

Well, I understand that there's a lot to post about, but this isn't a website that gets 1,000 posts a day, there's just not enough people to act on such a large volume of posts and threads every day. Also, what's wrong with just posting a link? People get mad at you for making them scroll down a lot, so that creates animosity between everyone. I would even venture to posit that people would be more likely to read an article if you provided a 3-5 sentence summary and then a link, since they wouldn't be angry at you and wouldn't be motivated to tell you to shut up. Instead, they'd be more likely to engage in an intelligent discussion, since everything would be a LOT more organized.

This post has been edited by Salva Veritate: Nov 20 2008, 06:01 PM