We are living at a time when the hidden manipulation wants to morph into daily reality with a global political, economic and military dictatorship. We are now seeing this with the onslaught of surveillance and control that invades every area of our lives and the constant centralisation of power across the world.
Last year in the United States another major expression of the conspiracy has been exposed for those with eyes to see - the utter irrelevance of 'democratic' elections. It is one more prime example of the hidden now becoming manifest ... manifestly obvious.
What a 'choice' Americans faced in 'choosing' (if only) their president. In terms of those with a chance of winning there is no choice, except between masks on the same face.
We have the same mantra at every 'election' about the 'old' politics and the need to break the grip of the 'old establishment'. We need 'outsiders' not absorbed into the web of lobbyists and 'special interests', the [fairy] story goes.
This is vital to manipulating the people into believing they still have a choice between different policies and philosophies and thus they are still 'free'. The key word with regard to this is 'change' - 'We need change'; 'this country wants change'; 'I stand for change'. 'Hope' is another connected theme thrown in for good measure.
In 1992, Bill Clinton, an establishment place-man, swept to office by talking about 'change', 'change', change'. One of his catchphrases 16 years ago was 'courage to change' and he also stood for 'hope'.
This can be a potent weapon in twisting the minds of the populous because most people are not happy with their lives or the state of their country and so 'change' can seem a very good idea. 'Yeah, that's right, we need change'.
But the 'change' always turns out to be very loose indeed. Bill 'Change' Clinton was a close associate of the very ‘father’ George Bush that he was seeking to replace in the White House. And so are all the presidents that have come to power in recent time.
Sure, Bill stood for change alright - changing the personnel at the White House by bussing in the Arkansas establishment to relocate their criminal activities to Pennsylvania Avenue. Nothing changed, except the names of the people who ensured business-as-usual.
So it was with heavy heart and shaking head that people have watched the vacuous stage show of 'rock star' Barack Obama. What does he stand for, he tells us with every breath? 'Change'. He is even quoting the Clinton kid from 1992 with his 'courage to change'.
Strategically placed behind him at almost every rally are the moronic rent-a-crowds waving their banners emblazoned with two words 'Obama - Change'. The entire strategy is based on that one thought with 'nice guy' and 'straight guy' thrown in here and there.
That's it. No substance, no depth, just repeated single words. Political 'debate' in 2008 has plumbed still new depths.
When people first came across Barack Obama people knew nothing about him, but when saw his eyes and his body language and heard his empty rhetoric and carefully-practiced delivery it was clear to that we were dealing with yet another member of the Actors Union. Another Tony Blair, another Bill Clinton, another smarter ‘boy’ George Bush. Obama is not a man we would trust to tell me anything without checking.
The first term Senator for Illinois is playing the 'outsider', the fresh face and fresh mind, who is not connected either to the political past or the lobbyist mafia that controls much of the legislation agreed, or squashed, on Capitol Hill.
That's what he says he stands for, but it's not what it looks like.
His foreign policy advisor and vocal supporter is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, who says that Obama offers 'a new definition of America's role in the world'.
This is the same Brzezinski who created the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973. The Trilateral Commission is dedicated to a world government dictatorship and closely connects with other strands in the web like the Council on Foreign Relations (member: Barack Obama) and the Bilderberg Group.
Brzezinski's foreign 'policy' during the Carter administration, as he has since admitted without regret, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan in December, 1979. The idea, he said, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan to protect the Kabul regime and thus give the rival superpower 'their Vietnam'. Thus, to weaken their rival superpower and the result was a ten-year occupation that cost the lives of an estimated 1.3 million Afghans. Brzezinski's 'freedom fighters' would become known as the 'Mujahideen' and later the Taliban and what is claimed to be 'Al-Qaeda'.
This is the man behind 'anti-war', Barack Obama. Deep breath: he's now advising Barack Obama on foreign policy
The Polish-born Brzezinski's books and public statements have confirmed his belief in the Trilateral Commission's commitment to a world dictatorship. In his book, “Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era”, he described a new society '... that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics - particularly in the area of computers and communication'. He said that 'national sovereignty is no longer a viable concept' and suggested the movement, in stages, 'toward a larger community of the developed nations [world government] ... through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty'.
Brzezinski's son, Mark, was an 'advisor' to the Obama campaign (doing what his father told him) and, in line with the American one-party-state, his other son, Ian, was foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign (doing what his father told him). Brzezinski's daughter, Mika, reported on both the campaign for MSNBC television.
It is like the technique, which some tabloid newspaper reporters apply to get someone to speak with them. They would work in pairs with the first one knocking on the door of some distressed family who didn't want to talk with the media. He would tell them he was from a newspaper he didn't really work for and treat them with aggression and contempt to make them even more upset. He would then leave and his colleague would knock on the door, tell them the real newspaper he was from, and act like Mr. Nice Guy. He would say that he understood completely how upsetting the other man must have been, but 'if you will only speak to me exclusively I will make sure that the other man, nor anyone like him, will bother you again'. They usually agreed and the scam was complete.
Much the same thing is happening with regard to Bush and Obama. The Neoconservative 'Republican' wing of the Illuminati has controlled Bush for the last eight years and led the country into foreign wars and financial chaos (bad guy/problem); now the 'Democratic' wing, led by the infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski, has brought forth the 'saviour', Barack Obama, to lead us into the sunshine with 'hope' and 'change' (good guy/solution).
Obama has been the chosen one for a long time, it seems, and his relationship with Brzezinski almost certainly goes back to the start of the 1980s when he attended the Ivy League, and big-time Columbia University where Brzezinski was head of the Institute for Communist Affairs.
Does anyone really believe that someone, a 'man of the people', would simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the slickest and best-funded presidential campaign in American history? He was chosen long ago by those who wish to enslave the very people that Obama says he wants to 'set free'.
Financer and speculator, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of Brzezinski is the one closely involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati's Council on Foreign Relations and funds the European Council on Foreign Relations. He is the one who was indirectly the mastermind behind the financial crisis of south-east Asia who has immensely profited in the 90’s.
His financial advisors are straight from the Wall Street 'A' list, including Paul Volker (Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group), the head of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987.
Mr. 'Change' has pledged his unquestioning support for Israel to the point of 'pass the sick bag' and his vice-president, Joe Biden, is a vehement Zionist who makes a virtue of saying he will support Israel in all circumstances.
Obama has appointed the arch Zionist Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff and another super Zionist, Denis Ross, to be his Middle East Policy advisor. God help the Palestinians. Ross also served in the Bill Clinton and ’father’ George Bush administrations. Oh, plenty of 'change' there, then.
Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago-born Congressman, is the son of Benjamin M. Emanuel, who was a member of the murderous Jewish terrorist organisation, Irgun, which helped to bomb and terrorise Israel into existence. Emanuel was also appointed by Bill Clinton to the board of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac in 2000 and his tenure coincided with a stream of scandals and financial irregularities. It famously had to be bailed out then by the taxpayer amid the sub-prime mortgage debacle.
Ross is hardly the ideal person to talk independently, and therefore credibly, about how to end the Israel-Palestine conflict and he became the first chairman of the Jerusalem-based 'think tank', the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, which is funded and founded by the Israel Lobbyist Agency.
In fact, the Canadian Jewish News and other Jewish publications have pointed out that Obama 'has made Jewish leaders an early stop at every stage in his political career'. The first foreign policy speech of his candidacy was delivered to the notorious lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is 100% dedicated to securing US policy that suits the interests of Israel.
Obama says 'bring the troops home' and 'diplomacy, not war'. All good stuff and it is a compelling message, if it were genuine. But around him are those, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, who see war and aggression as a means of global expansion and colonisation. Obama himself said he would have no problem bombing Pakistan if it suited American interests:
'If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will'.
That's what Bush said, and did, when he made the 'actionable intelligence' fit the agenda for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact is that Obama is not against war; he is against the invasion of Iraq.
He advocates deploying troops in Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight 'terrorists' and he says of Iran: 'We should take no option, including military action, off the table'. So he is not against war, which appears to be his image for many, he is against one war.
Another Obama claim is that his administration would not be influenced by lobbyists for the corporate cartels and yet he has precisely these people among his campaign advisory team, including Moses Mercado, who has lobbied Congress and the Bush administration on behalf of two private-equity firms, the Blackstone Group and the Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group, which is closely connected to ‘father’ George Bush and has had the Laden family among its clients, paid Mercado $260,000 while the Blackstone Group rewarded his work with $3.7 million.
Among other professional lobbyists (manipulators of policy) on the Obama team is Daniel Shapiro, a foreign policy advisor on the Middle East, who has some of America's biggest corporate names on her client list. These include Anheuser-Busch, Daimler Chrysler, the American Petroleum Institute and Freddie Mac. Shapiro also served on Bill Clinton's National Security Council.
In short, Barack Obama is just another fraud and fake selling a lie - a front man for the same people who have controlled American politics for decades. He doesn't stand for change, nor hope, but for more of the same, sugar-coated as 'the new JFK'.
Whether America would have voted for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or McCain the outcome would be the same because they won't dictate policy - the Shadow People who pulls the strings will. American people there do not elect freely but they chose the candidate given to them.
In truth, they stand for the status quo because that's the position of those who control them. All the rest is fakery.
This nonsense about a 'Kenyan goat-herders son' becoming the most powerful man in the world or Clinton's 'strike for women' is just for effect. They are two come-and-go people, the latest in their line going back centuries, who have only the appearance of power, not the reality of it.
Obama is just more of the same, a big smile with strings attached, and controlled completely by the networks that chose him, trained him, sold him and provided his record funding. To his masters, Obama is just a means to an end and if it suits them to assassinate him to trigger civil war and upheaval in the United States then that is what they will do.
What a shower America is being offered in this election. On both 'sides' they line up their crooks, liars, manipulators and airheads and say 'choose your president'. Never has the 'choice' been so blatantly irrelevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment