The final year of president lightworker o’clusterf_ck is going to be one for the ages.
A dizzying combination of
1. laundry list of how the oppressed subjects have failed him
2. the first tiny inklings from rebel “journalists” that maybe just maybe everything about him is a lie and he’s an affirmative action hire
3. unconstitutional governing on a scale stalin only dreamed of
4. the lapdog media doubling down to maintain the lie ie their “narrative” – as they always do
5. terrorist attacks
6. “syrian” “refugees” bringing the Sweden / UK style rape and violence epidemic to the heartland
7. mysterious deaths around the clinton crime family – it’s what they do – for example wouldn’t want to be a private secrethttp://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=360758ary, email manager or financial arranger for the witch or her vile daughter
8. the nadir of American potency in foreign policy – the Popeye “I can’t stands no more!” moment is coming for the freeborn American people.
9. ISIS triumphant
10. Trump assassination attempt. He’s bucked the status quo and he isn’t quitting – the status quo will buck him back in exactly the same way JFK and RFK were hit – CIA, LBJ, Malcolm Wallace; Thane Eugene Cesar for RFK, etc. I still think the most likely patsy for the hit is Bergdahl or someone like him. Bergdahl is a “returned defector program” alumnus and they are usually the ones used.
Once upon a time there was this country. It was the greatest country in recorded history. Like ancient Rome, it became a republic when it defeated its own king and threw him out of its land, never to return. This incredible country vowed that there would never again suffer a tyrant, let alone an usurper or a king. Some of this country’s states even had state mottos to this effect.
I keep wondering lately, whatever happened to that awe inspiring place. When I see or hear barry soetoro, I keep imagining what would have happened to such a grifter had he and those behind him ever tried to steal control of that amazing powerhouse nation.
Socialists like Barry Soetoro and Julia Gillard know that they’re empty of values, achievements, intelligence and education. What they double down on instead is the classic narcissist psycho’s elitism and sneering.
There’s yet another damning “stupid voters” video. Megyn Kelly was all over it Tuesday night, exposing the defiantly silent White House’s and others’ former financial and emotional love for and dependence on the MIT economist’s work.
Sunday afternoon, P.J. Gladnick at NewsBusters gave an October 2013 video where Gruber told an audience that “lack of transparency” largely explained Obamacare’s 2010 passage — because of “the stupidity of the American voter” — long overdue exposure.
The video has since gone viral — except in the establishment press, where a search on Gruber’s last name at 11:55 PM ET Tuesday evening at the Associated Press’s national web site still returned nothing relevant.
Tonight, there’s more. Megyn Kelly opened her show by exposing the new video, and the Obama administration’s breathtakingly hypocritical attempt to distance itself from one of the co-architects of their “signature achievement” (HT Josh Feldman at Mediaiate and Fast News at YouTube:
Transcript (bolds are mine; stay with this to the end for the facts Kelly exposed in the final minute):
MEGYN KELLY: Breaking tonight, a scandal over what looks like an intentional effort to mislead voters explodes, with new video of a key White House advisor underscoring just how stupid he thinks Americans are.Welcome to the Kelly file, everyone. I’m Megyn Kelly.
In the last 24 hours, a scandal involving a key White House advisor has blown up. And now we are waiting for some sort of on the record explanation from the administration.
It started when video surfaced yesterday (as noted earlier, it really “surfaced” Sunday afternoon — Ed.) of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the key architects of Obamacare. Speaking at a healthcare forum last year, describing on camera the effort to hoodwink what he called “stupid American voters.”
JONATHAN GRUBER (Oct. 2013): This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure that CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If scores the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay? So it was written to do that.
In terms of risk-rated subsidies, you get a law which said healthy people are going to pay in, it made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Ok? Just like the cal – people transparent – lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to getting this thing to pass.
And you know, it’s the second-best argument. Look, I wish Mark was right, that you could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not. So it’s kind of like his reporter story. You know, there are things I wish I could change, but I’d rather have this law than not.
KELLY: That caught fire. And today, Mr. Gruber, who declined our invitation to explain his remarks here on the Kelly File, went on a little watched daytime broadcast on MSNBC to say his remarks were “spontaneous” and, “careless”?
GRUBER (earlier today on MSNBC): The comments in the video were made at an academic conference. I was speaking, speaking off-the-cuff, and I basically spoke inappropriately, and uh, I regret having made those comments.
KELLY: It was off the cuff. He didn’t mean it. But now tonight, more video has surfaced, showing that this was not the first time Mr. Gruber called the American people “stupid” in an off-the-cuff remark. In this next clip, from, also last year, Mr. Gruber explains how Democrats played with the language of the Obama care law, so that it achieved their goals by, again, fooling the stupid public.
GRUBER (Oct. 4, 2013): (mostly unintelligible until the end — Ed.) … The American voters are too stupid to understand the difference.
KELLY: “Too stupid to understand.”
Hours ago, the White House distancing itself from Mr. Gruber by refusing to give any on the record response to his comments.
But that wasn’t the White House attitude when it was selling the healthcare law. In fact, the White House could not get enough of Jonathan Gruber. By 2010, the administration had paid Mr. Gruber nearly $400,000 for his “expertise.” The White House dedicated a web page to his healthcare analysis. White house visitor logs reportedly show senior officials, there at the White House, had a dozen meetings with healthcare advisors, including Gruber. And one of those meetings with Mr. Gruber was personally chaired by the President in the Oval Office.
And here’s how one top Democrat described Gruber at the time:
MAX BAUCUS (then-Senator from Montana, in Dec. 2009): The Congressional Budget Office and Professor Gruber are both credible and unbiased sources. We’re not bought and sold by the insurance industry.
KELLY: Boy, they loved him. They loved him back then.
Kelly wasn’t through. In a second video seen at Mediate, she went after her guest, a Democratic pollster who should have known better than to try to defend the indefensible in front of Fox’s street-smart siren.
Here is most of the transcript of that video’s first two minutes:
KELLY: Joining me tonight, Bernard Whitman, a Democratic pollster and President and CEO of Whitman Insights Strategies. This is not the first time Mr. Gruber has been, professor, has been caught misleading us. He said in January that Obamacare was never meant to save money, don’t worry about that. But before it was passed, he said it was a deficit reducer, that it’s a cost effective step towards healthcare problems. He said once before that if you’re A state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. Then when the states decided not to set up exchanges and they go on HealthCare.gov and they want their tax credits anyway, he said “Hey go ahead, you can have them! Forget all that stuff I said before.”
Now he comes out and says, all that stuff we said about taxes, that’s BS. And this other stuff that’s all BS. We had to do it, because we had to get this law passed, and sorry.
BERNARD WHITMAN: You know what it proves. It proves is that Gruber may be a decent policy expert with respect to healthcare but that he’s a political idiot. That’s what it proves, and the fact is the Affordable Care Act has brought down the deficit by over $100 billion (no it hasn’t — Ed.) …
KELLY: Speak to the substance of this. But what he was saying in the first clip, the long one, he said “We had to write it in a way where they didn’t score it as taxes. That would’ve been a problem. He said that the system is set up to hide its true nature, which is wealth redistribution. He was saying, if we said explicitly that we were going to make the young and healthy people pay, and that the old healthy people, it would not have passed. So we had to lie.
Even though Kelly continued to conduct herself admirably, the video’s final two minutes are virtually unwatchable, as Whitman tries to claim that everyone knew what they were getting with Obamacare when the law was passed, that the Supreme Court has in essence ended any and all debate, and that the new law is accomplishing wonderful things — and too bad, so sad about those deceptions.
Right, Bernard. The fact is that no one knew what they were getting with the new law, which is why Nancy Pelosi said that Democrats had to pass the bill before the rest of us could find out what was in it. And Obama, of course, lied repeatedly, saying that Americans could keep their existing plans and providers … “period.”
Is it really possible that the establishment press, and especially the White House press corps, can continue to pretend that Gruber’s damning, insufferably arrogant tales of unprecedented deception don’t exist, and don’t matter?
What was being shown on television was no longer the standard coverage of a normal political campaign, but rather a propaganda exercise within the framework of a CIA covert operation.
The controlled corporate media wanted Obama nominated by accolade, by acclamation, by the mob of swarming adolescents. He was being offered not a public office but a crown — better yet, an apotheosis. For the media whores, the reign of the new Messiah was beginning.
Just as the decade from 2004 (Ukraine colour revolution) to 2014 (Ukraine plutocrat coup) has destroyed Ukraine, we are entitled to ask what the color revolution in America led by barry soetor aka Obama will lead to. 2008 is the equivalent in America of 2004 in the Ukraine (and one can look at the other fake revolutions that CIA has carried out via sponsors and proxies after thorough training in its secret schools).
That barry soetoro is a classic sheep dipped fake is beyond any question. It’s in the same category of documented fact as so many other things the lapdog media ignore. That isn’t the subject of this thesis. This thesis is directing attention at what the pattern of color revolutions is intended to achieve.
In 1985, a social scientist, Gene Sharp, published a study commissioned by NATO on Making Europe Unconquerable. He pointed out that ultimately a government only exists because people agree to obey it. The USSR could never control Western Europe if people refused to obey Communist governments.
A few years later, in 1989, Sharp was tasked by the CIA with conducting the practical application of his theoretical research in China. The United States wanted to topple Deng Xiaoping in favor of Zhao Ziyang. The intention was to stage a coup with a veneer of legitimacy by organizing street protests, in much the same way as the CIA had given a popular facade to the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh by hiring Tehran demonstrators (Operation Ajax, 1953). The difference here is that Gene Sharp had to rely on a mix of pro-Zhao and pro-US youth to make the coup look like a revolution. But Deng had Sharp arrested in Tiananmen Square and expelled from the country. The coup failed, but not before the CIA spurred the youth groups into a vain attack to discredit Deng through the crackdown that followed. The failure of the operation was attributed to the difficulties of mobilizing young activists in the desired direction.
Ever since the work of French sociologist Gustave Le Bon in the late nineteenth century, we know that adults behave like children when they are in the throes of collective emotion. They become susceptible, even if for just a critical fleeting moment, to the suggestions of a leader-of-men who for them embodies a father figure. In 1990, Sharp got close to Colonel Reuven Gal, then chief psychologist of the Israeli Army (he later became deputy national security adviser to Ariel Sharon and now runs operations designed to manipulate young Israeli non-Jews). Combining the discoveries of Le Bon and Sigmund Freud, Gal reached the conclusion that it was also possible to exploit the “Oedipus complex” in adolescents and steer a crowd of young people to oppose a head of state, as a symbolic father figure.
On this basis, Sharp and Gal set up training programs for young activists with the objective of organizing coups. After a few successes in Russia and the Baltics, it was in 1998 that Gene Sharp perfected the method of “color revolutions” with the overthrow of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.
After President Hugo Chavez foiled a coup in Venezuela on the basis of one of my investigations revealing the role and method of Gene Sharp, the latter suspended the activities of the Albert Einstein Institute which served as a cover and went on to create new structures (CANVAS in Belgrade, the Academy of Change in London, Vienna and Doha). We saw them at work the world over, especially in Lebanon (Cedar Revolution), Iran (Green Revolution), Tunisia (Jasmine Revolution) and Egypt (Lotus Revolution). The principle is simple: exacerbate all underlying frustrations, blame the political apparatus for all the problems, manipulate the youth according to the Freudian “patricidal” scenario, organize a coup, and then propagandize that the government was brought down by the “street.”
This article was first published October 11,2011.
In 1983, the strategy of overthrowing inconvenient governments and calling it “democracy promotion” was born.
Through the creation of a series of quasi-private “foundations”, such as Albert Einstein Institute (AEI), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House and later the International Center for Non-Violent Conflict (ICNC), Washington began to filter funding and strategic aid to political parties and groups abroad that promoted US agenda in nations with insubordinate governments.
Behind all these “foundations” and “institutes” is the US Agency for Inter- national Development (USAID), the financial branch of the Department of State. Today, USAID has become a critical part of the security, intelligence and defense axis in Washington. In 2009, the Interagency Counterinsurgency Initiative became official doctrine in the US. Now, USAID is the principal entity that promotes the economic and strategic interests of the US across the globe as part of counterinsurgency operations. Its departments dedicated to transition initiatives, reconstruction, conflict management, economic development, governance and democracy are the main venues through which millions of dollars are filtered from Washington to political parties, NGOs, student organizations and movements that promote US agenda worldwide. Wherever a coup d’etat, a colored revolution or a regime change favorable to US interests occurs, USAID and its flow of dollars is there.
How Does a Colored Revolution Work?
The recipe is always the same. Student and youth movements lead the way with a fresh face, attracting others to join in as though it were the fashion, the cool thing to do. There’s always a logo, a color, a marketing strategy. In Serbia, the group OTPOR, which led the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic, hit the streets with t-shirts, posters and flags boasting a fist in black and white, their symbol of resistance. In Ukraine, the logo remained the same, but the color changed to orange. In Georgia, it was a rose-colored fist, and in Venezuela, instead of the closed fist, the hands are open, in black and white, to add a little variety.
Colored revolutions always occur in a nation with strategic, natural resources: gas, oil, military bases and geopolitical interests. And they also always take place in countries with socialist-leaning, anti-imperialist governments. The movements promoted by US agencies in those countries are generally anti-communist, anti-socialist, pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist.
Protests and destabilization actions are always planned around an electoral campaign and process, to raise tensions and questions of potential fraud, and to discredit the elections in the case of a loss for the opposition, which is generally the case. The same agencies are always present, funding, training and advising: USAID, NED, IRI, NDI, Freedom House, AEI and ICNC. The latter two pride themselves on the expert training and capacitation of youth movements to encourage “non violent” change.
The strategy seeks to debilitate and disorganize the pillars of State power, neutralizing security forces and creating a sensation of chaos and instability. Colonel Robert Helvey, one of the founders of this strategy and a director at AEI, explained that the objective is not to destroy the armed forces and police, but rather “convert them” — convince them to leave the present government and “make them understand that there is a place for them in the government of tomorrow”. Youth are used to try and debilitate security forces and make it more difficult for them to engage in repression during public protests. Srdja Popovic, founder of OTPOR, revealed that Helvey taught them “. . . how to select people in the system, such as police officers, and send them the message that we are all victims, them and us, because it’s not the job of a police officer to arrest a 13-year old protestor, for example. . . .”
It’s a well-planned strategy directed towards the security forces, public officials and the public in general, with a psychological warfare component and a street presence that give the impression of a nation on the verge of popular insurrection.
One very important strand of the color revolution process, and one that establishes the true nature and meaning of an earlier tragedy, is the similarity between the soft weapon experimentation in Jonestown and the modern “Obama” phenomenon.
Occasionally, anit-Obama activists have identified a disturbing similarity between “drinking the kool aid” and the sinister mind control mobilised on behalf of barry soetoro- his framing in pictures complete with halo, the lapdog media’s perennial coverups for him, the Stalinist myth of his intellect, and the total obliteration of his past.
Most opponents of his regime don’t understand that it is NOT “his” regime. He is a marxist puppet, raised from obscurity to be the public face of the left hand of the intelligence agency control system. But the left-right dichotomy is itself a nonsense of course. Whether it’s the homey small town values veneer used by Nixon and Reagan or the liberal feel good yippie vibes of “Obama”, what is being seen is incremental irreversible change, begun by the wholesale embrace of Mao’s Little Red Book in the Pentagon of the 1950s. This marxist hand of the control system is in opposition to the reactionary forces of the white anglo-saxon establishment that controlled America until the 1950s, after which forced power sharing between the metastasizing israeli network and the old guard melded a new power elite, in much the same way merchant classes have always forced their way in to the ranks of aristocracies- and with the traditional dreadful results.
The American color revolution is going to achieve fundamental change, irreversible change, to America. Just as in all the other countries where a color revolution has occurred.
|OBAMA, THE POSTMODERN COUP — MAKING OF A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE|
|Introduction: Obama: a CIA People Power Coup, U.S.A, 2008
Youth, youth, springtime of beauty.
The need for this book became evident to me between Sunday January 6 and Monday January 7, 2008, that is to say, during the interval between this year’s January 3 Iowa caucus and the January 8 New Hampshire primary. From my vantage point in Washington, I was in communication with a group of friends who were making a programmatic intervention into the New Hampshire political and media circus around the idea of a five-year compulsory freeze on foreclosures of primary residences, farms, hospitals, public utilities, transportation companies, and factories. These friends were holding a press conference in Manchester, while actively buttonholing and lobbying the staffs of the various presidential campaigns then active in New Hampshire, urging them to adopt and support the five-year ban on foreclosures as the centerpiece of their own approach for dealing with the current George Bush economic depression. At the same time, I was in frequent contact with my old friend Franco Macchi, who has for many decades maintained an unparalleled overview of the world strategic situation, supplemented by extensive on-the-ground experience in Central Europe, in the Balkans, and in regard to Russia.
My friends in New Hampshire told me of the stunned disorientation, demoralization, and drift among members of the Hillary Clinton campaign as it straggled in from New Hampshire on Friday, January 4 and attempted to pivot into the urgent tasks of the New Hampshire primary. My friends learned that the internal polling of the Clinton campaign in Iowa had indicated that Hillary was on her way to winning the caucuses, and that this erroneous finding had been aggressively asserted by the marplot Mark Penn down to the moment when it was overwhelmed by caucus returns showing that Senator Clinton had in fact been defeated not just by Obama, but by Senator Edwards as well. As the weekend progressed, I supplemented these reports by monitoring CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News Channel. It quickly became evident that all the networks were in the grip of the most intense outburst of media hysteria observed since the aftermath of September 11, 2001. The target of their vituperation was Mrs. Clinton, whom they demanded must immediately cease her campaign and drop out of contention for the presidency. Hour by hour, Mrs. Clinton was submerged by a rising tide of the vilest verbal abuse. The object of their adulation was the leptic figure of a certain Barack Obama, a little-known Senator from Illinois with no known accomplishments or loyalties who was beginning to make a reputation for himself as a mob orator. For Obama, the television commentators were forecasting immediate transfiguration, ascension, and apotheosis. For Senator Edwards, the strongest economic populist in the Democratic field, the media had only indifference and oblivion.
I had tried to get Congressman Kucinich to address issues of 9/11 truth, as well as the colossal scandal of the rogue B-52, which had flown from North Dakota to Louisiana at the end of August with six nuclear cruise missiles on board, outside of the normal legal channels of the U.S. Air Force. Congressman Kucinich and Senator Gravel had been unable or unwilling to address the issue of the rogue B-52 in a series of Democratic candidates’ debates carried on nationwide cable television, with the national press present and paying attention. I had gone from attempting to push Kucinich into some kind of meaningful action related to emerging events on the Iran war front, to attempting to push Edwards, at least on paper the best economic populist left in the race, into a more aggressive stance on stopping foreclosures as a prelude to other New Deal measures to address the economic crisis, which was becoming acute towards the end of 2007.
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI AND OBAMA
At the same time, I was talking to Franco Macchi about what appeared to us to be the most dangerous foreign policy tendency common to the Democratic candidates, namely their tendency to adopt a line of militant confrontation with Russia and with Russian President Vladimir Putin in particular. In this context, my friend drew my attention to the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski, the notorious Dr. Strangelove hawk and warmonger of the Cold War and an inveterate Russia hater, had a few months before openly assumed a position of dominance inside the Obama campaign by accepting the role of Obama’s chief foreign policy adviser. Brzezinski, of course, had long been infamous for his demonic role in the tragic foreign policy betrayals of the Carter administration between 1977 and 1981. A quick check revealed that Zbigniew Brzezinski and his son Mark Brzezinski were shaping Obama’s entire public profile along the lines suggested by Zbigniew’s most recent books. Zbig’s daughter, Mika Brzezinski, was churning out the Obama line every morning on MSNBC. A pattern was emerging. However, I still believed that Sen. Clinton was the flagship candidate of the Wall Street finance establishment. That notion was about to be violently swept aside by emerging events.
By midday of Monday, January 7, the media pressure for Mrs. Clinton to terminate her campaign and abort the entire multi-month primary process of the Democratic Party had reached grotesque dimensions. The television networks were reporting public opinion polls that indicated that Obama was on his way to crushing Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards in an epic landslide in the New Hampshire primary scheduled for the following day, thus rendering their continuance in the campaign a futile gesture. At the same time, the networks were also filling their screens with the images of the large crowds waiting outside Obama’s campaign rallies all over New Hampshire. The corporate media were hyping Obama’s slogans of “hope” and of “change we can believe in.” The most obscene media swoon of recent decades was reaching the point of paroxysm. Given the realities of the U.S. oligarchical system as I had studied them in connection with the events of September 11, 2001, it was clear that one of the great intelligence community mobilizations of the decade was in progress. What was being shown on television was no longer the standard coverage of a normal political campaign, but rather a propaganda exercise within the framework of a CIA covert operation.
The controlled corporate media wanted Obama nominated by accolade, by acclamation, by the mob of swarming adolescents. He was being offered not a public office but a crown — better yet, an apotheosis. For the media whores, the reign of the new Messiah was beginning.
POSTMODERN COUP D’ETAT A LA KIEV 2004
A coup d’etat, in short, was in progress. But it was not the coup d’etat of the Greek colonels, nor of Pinochet in Chile. It was not a right-wing coup at all, and it was not violent — at least, not initially. This was a coup d’etat with leftist and progressive overtones, carried out not by a junta of elderly reactionary generals, but rather by a slick young demagogue of the center-left who advanced surrounded by swarms of youthful and enthusiastic devotees. It resembled nothing so much as the so-called Orange Revolution which had taken place in Kiev, in the Ukraine, in the late fall and early winter of 2004. That Orange Revolution, as informed observers knew very well, had been the result of a cynical destabilization of Ukraine by U.S. and British intelligence — especially by the National Endowment for Democracy, the various Soros foundations, Gene Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution, and other entities that we may refer to for the sake of brevity and clarity as the privatized or quasi-governmental left wing of the U.S. intelligence community or left CIA in the post-1982 era of President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333.
The 2004 Orange Revolution was not a unique event, but had been preceded by similar exercises in destabilization and subversion, especially in the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet spaces. These have included the successful so-called Bulldozer Revolution in Belgrade, Serbia in 2000, and the Roses revolution in Tiflis, Georgia in 2003. There had been an attempt at a Cedars Revolution in Lebanon in 2006, but it had been blocked by the organized mass mobilization capacity of Hezbollah. Another attempted coup in Belarus in 2001 had also been defeated by that nation’s government.
All of these coups had several features in common. They were always built around a telegenic demagogue. They always featured fake public opinion polling, often combined with outright vote fraud. They required huge sums of money and abundant supplies of narcotics to fuel them. They featured large mobs, composed especially of politically naive and suggestible young people, who would demonstrate and camp out in public squares to support the demands of the coup. They presupposed a significant control over television, radio, key Internet sites, and other media, which were used to project and portray the youthful mob of swarming adolescents as the authentic expression of the will of the whole people. They all arrived after a period of suffocating repression, which they opportunistically exploited to introduce a new order which was not much better, and which generally became radically worse, than the pre-coup status quo. They had trademarks, logos, slogans, and jingles straight from Madison Avenue: “It’s enough!” chanted one. “He’s finished!” screamed another. One was called Resistance. One was Orange. One was a red, red rose. Obama’s color was blue, no doubt to reflect his cool detachment from the partisan fray. Another had the green of the cedar tree. All of them somehow ended up by installing into power NATO agents and greedy kleptocrats in the service of banks located in Wall Street and the City of London.
POSTMODERN FASCISM: THE SHOCK OF RECOGNITION, JANUARY 7, 2008
All of these thoughts came together in my mind as I viewed the images of an Obama rally on MSNBC. It was the early afternoon of Monday, January 7, 2008.
“My God!” I exclaimed. “It’s a color revolution in the U.S.!”
It was indeed an attempted color revolution, organized in the form of a surprise attack. At this point, my entire political orientation began to change rapidly. As 2007 had come to an end, I had repeatedly told my weekly radio audiences on the Genesis Communications Network that the two most important goals in the upcoming primary season were first of all to defeat Mayor Giuliani as the most dangerous Republican candidate, surrounded as he was by the entire gaggle of discredited and demented neocon warmongers. My second goal had been to deny Mrs. Clinton the Democratic presidential nomination, based on her stubborn support for the lunatic military adventure in Iraq, and her hostile attitude towards Iran. She further appeared to be the consensus candidate of the Wall Street banking establishment.
The evidence available just after midday on January 7, 2008 clearly showed that this second point, however plausible it might have seemed during the course of 2007, was no longer applicable. It was now evident that Mrs. Clinton had become the object of the universal execration and obloquy of the controlled corporate media. The press whores were attempting to tear her to pieces. A massive mobilization of intelligence community assets against Mrs. Clinton was in progress. At the same time, it was now clear that the candidate of Wall Street and of the intelligence community was none other than the unknown outsider Obama, who was suddenly revealed as a typical photogenic demagogue from Brzezinski’s central casting department. The mass hysteria generated by Obama’s joint appearances with the New Age billionairess celebrity Oprah Winfrey now revealed its sinister purpose: it was in every way a coup d’etat.
All of this required me to reverse my political field immediately. My priorities had to be reordered, and radically. I needed to shift target at once. I needed to focus on the most dangerous oligarchical and imperialist threat. In a naval battle, it makes no sense to scatter one’s fire haphazardly among the ships of the opposing fleet. It is far better to concentrate one’s attacks on the enemy’s flagship. There was now no doubt who this was.