Monday, October 22, 2012

Jim Fetzer

with Ryan Brooks - re Romney vs. Obama


  1. I agree with Ryan. I spent years escorting patients into women's clinics, and I can't see any evidence that Obama's made women's choice more secure. Ditto for LGBT people. Ditto for criminal justice and the drive to turn free Blacks into prison laborers (read: chattel slaves). Most of the people who've been calling for justice in these areas have been hoodwinked by wishful thinking, empty rhetoric, and outright dissimulation. As for war crimes, Obama (even if only a mouthpiece for Hitlery Clinton's State Department) is right up there with G W Bush and even more aggressive. Would redneck, white-faced Bush have dared launch the recolonization of Africa that's under way now? Do you suppose, Jim, that the imperial ruling class would REALLY let us decide their strategy for them, at this crucial juncture? Let me pose a hypothetical: if the plantation slaves had been given the right to select which cracker would be their master, would you've been telling them to vote for Massa Joe rather than Massa John? Suppose one of the two had invited them to don Confederate uniforms just like the white boys wear and dig trenches for Robert E Lee? Would that have made the choice clearer?

  2. Since the Republicans are getting 100% blame for the electronic voting-machine rigging, I'd like to know what the evidence is that the Democratic Party, except for two or three lone Democrats who were vilified for it by the DNC, have done one thing to un-rig the election system? What logic can preclude the possibility - and I would say probability - that Barack Hussein Obama was selected using the same software?

  3. Well, the problem is that Romney is EVEN WORSE than Obama. At this point, are we confronting the decision to take up arms and overthrow the government? The Declaration of Independence indeed declares:

    "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    Some of my recent articles on Veterans Today are rather sobering, including "Fear and Fusion: The Non-Existent Domestic Terrorist Threat" and "Homeland Security: Preparing for Massive Civil War". Could this be the reason for acquiring more than 1.5 billion rounds of .40 calibre hollow-point ammunition, which is not even permissible for use in warfare under the Geneva Conventions?

  4. Just as most of the really obnoxious, anti-Jewish "fringe" groups have long been funded and controlled by Zionist Jews, the loudest, angriest and most visible "patriot" groups (at least from the Waco/Randy Weaver era forward) have been run by intel-agency spooks. As Lenin said, "The best way to deal with opposition is to... BE THE OPPOSITION."

    OF COURSE the elite want another civil war. Even now they're salivating over the coming societal collapse and how it will create a golden opportunity to squash ranting dissenters like bugs and put the finishing touches on a combination cyber-panopticon police state and subsistence-wage, national (later global) plantation.

    And that's why Alex Jones and his radio-cadre of wannabees have been so well-funded and successful at stirring the pot of paranoid resentment and fanning the flames of eventual, armed revolt. You see, the Jones crew are, in effect, breeding a legion of the very "domestic terrorists" that today's Homeland Security goons are planning to use for hollow-point target practise.

  5. I've followed you on the Homeland Security revelations, Jim; and, yes, they are frightening. Naturally, all of us would like to live a long life; but there are times when Napoleon's injunction to show "l'Audace! Encore l'audace! Et toujours l'audace!" (audacity! again audacity! and always audacity!) is better counsel than the dictates of prudence. I realize that here I'm talking to the choir, for I can attest to no lack of courage, tenacity, or power of reason on your part, Jim.

    I know the quotation from the Declaration of Independence almost by heart. The phrase "to provide new Guards for their future security" is expanded in the Preamble to the Constitution:

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    On five of the six counts, the Government of the United States has for decades failed to meet the objectives of the nation's founding. Perhaps it has formed a "more perfect Union" in a strictly logistical sense, but so have all dictatorships. And naked dictatorship is exactly what we have if one brushes aside all the empty rhetoric and mock sentiment. What hasn't been fully explained is where this unrelenting current "pursuing invariably the same Object" comes from. And why this design "to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism"? Is it to cut off some tsunami that the tyrants can see but we ourselves can't? Is there a powerful conspiracy that threatens them? Is there a devil in the hearts of the millions that spell the ruin of civilization as they know it? Do they evermore brazenly usurp their delegated powers because they are aware of some menacing crisis in the affairs of mankind to which we little mortals living our little lives are oblivious? Can we count on their faculties of reason when faced with such mortal dangers as little minds such as ours can't begin to imagine? I can faintly discern their cry: "O great Gods of Olympus, save us from our chamber maids!"

  6. The suggestion that Obama would be the lesser of evils presupposes that the President actually has the power to make at least some of his own decisions. I am not convinced that the American Presidents are anything more than puppets. It seems to me that the last President who had any ability to try to make his own decisions was JFK. Since then, American Presidents do what they are told, or else. I think this is particularly true when it comes to foreign policy, and the waging of wars. It may be the case that a limited amount of domestic policy is still within the power of the President, but it is ridiculous to suggest that the foreign/war policy is within the powers of the President.

    The same is certainly true in Canada. Stephen Harper may have power to tweek our tax structure, and perform other relatively minor changes to our laws. But if Canada did not join NATO in the insane destruction of Libya, Harper would find himself shot, or perhaps the Toronto subway system would suffer a "terrorist" attack.

    Obama, a supposed Democrat to the left of centre, simply continues the policies of the supposed Republican right of centre Bush administration. The left versus right distinction is fraudulent, this is obvious. If Romney took over, the same continuation would take place as would if Obama was re-elected.

    So, lesser of evils? Maybe, but I am not sure it makes very much differernce either way.

  7. The key words in the Preamble to the Constitution are ‘our posterity’. They were there for a reason. You can only expect to maintain a culture as long as there is loyalty to the generations that came before and that will follow, but if that kind of loyalty comes to be seen as morally wrong then disloyalty to the culture that underpins it becomes a moral act. This doesn’t just mean society is opened up to a certain number of people unlike the Founders in race and culture, it means that a diversification away from the Founders’ stock and culture comes to be seen as a value in itself and other races and cultures are positively preferred over the old, bad one that now is seen as negative in itself.

  8. atlantabill,

    “Most of the people who've been calling for justice in these areas have been hoodwinked by wishful thinking, empty rhetoric, and outright dissimulation.”

    Earlier than you know. By ‘justice’ of course you mean ‘social justice’ not ‘equal justice’. The difference being that social justice means the privileging of one group over another, e.g., affirmative action and no protection for White men or straight people against ‘hate speech’. So social justice means injustice - and since social justice is the only justice we’re permitted, Justice = Injustice.

    Funny how you can call out some of this Orwellian bullshit, atlantabill, yet be a vociferous defender of other parts of it.

    “Hitlery Clinton’s State Department”

    Sure, she’s Hitler in a dress. Funny how all her heroes and mentors were Marxists.

    “redneck”, “white-faced”, “cracker”, “white boys”

    Why all the racial slurs, atlanta? I haven’t noticed you using equivalent terms about Black people, never seen you refer to Obama as rubber-lips, darkie, jigga or boy, for example.

    “I'd like to know what the evidence is that the Democratic Party, except for two or three lone Democrats who were vilified for it by the DNC, have done one thing to un-rig the election system?”

    I think the deal is, Democrats don’t talk about the Republicans’ centrally organised machine fraud and in return the Republicans’ don’t talk about the Democrats’ spontaneous, decentralized local fraud. Right-wing radio does a great job covering the massive voter fraud that goes on at the precinct level favouring the Democrats, and left-wing media like Democracy Now and Greg Palast do a great job covering the extensive machine fraud that favours Republicans, but no-one really stands above the fray and covers the full truth. It’s clear Dr Fetzer only really hears the left-wing stuff.

    1. "Earlier than you know ... Justice = Injustice"

      Nicely unpacked. This doubletalk is so ubiquitous we usually don’t recognize it as such. All those groups not only have all the rights and benefits of citizenship the rest of us have, they already have extra protections and assistances.

  9. “recolonization of Africa”

    Was it ever de-colonized?

    As to the formerly ‘British’ parts of Africa and Asia, it was Sir Andrew Cohen at the Foreign office in the late 1940s who developed the system for transferring nominal authority back to the native peoples without threatening the bankers’ actual control. See Ronald Robinson, ‘Imperial Theory and the Question of Imperialism after Empire,’ and the same author’s contribution to Morris-Jones and Fischer (Eds), DECOLONIZATION AND AFTER: THE BRITISH AND FRENCH EXPERIENCE (Cass, 1980), ‘Andrew Cohen and the Transfer of Political Power in Tropical Africa, 1940-1951.’

    In the first of these Robinson asks whether decolonization and the recognition of nationalist claims was not simply the ‘continuation of imperialism by other and more efficient means?’ We know the answer.

    I say ‘British’, but the major boosters and beneficiaries of Britain and Europe’s age of empire were bankers of south-west Asian descent who’d already colonized Europe. English, Irish, Scots and Welsh soldiers, farmers, railway engineers, teachers and missionaries, even if they were lucky enough to survive generally had little to show for their efforts to grow the economic infrastructure of Africa and Asia. See for example A.L. Morton’s socialist classic, A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND, relevant excerpt here:

    But whatever the history, a more appropriate concern for today's Americans and Europeans is to work toward the decolonization by non-Americans and non-Europeans of our countries.

  10. Nick, thanks for all the source material. No racist* motive behind identifying Hillary Clinton with Adolf (*I don't use 'racial' because it implies the discredited notion of "race"). I believe it was the Romans, and virulently antisemitic Romans at that, who colonized Europe in the centuries following Julius Caesar (who slaughtered a million Celts), the fall of the Republic, and Rome's re-incarnation as the Holy Roman Empire. Watch Joseph Atwill on the Roman origin of European antisemitism:

    To a degree, the answer to whether Africa was ever de-colonized is, "No." But there was a qualitative break with the former situation, following WWII, such that in modern times native African politicians have been able to act with as much independence from Europe as native South Asian politicians do and, if there's a slave market, it's not one for European or Arab consumption. Jewish names were common among the administrators; but the instigators were non-Jews and for the most part products of the Catholic Inquisition in Europe. How true this was can be seen in the fact that the observations of native African religious rituals in the Cape of Good Hope by the first Portuguese explorers sparked a resurgence of "witch" burnings in Europe. Along the east coast, the slave trade was dominated for centuries by Muslims at a time when they were extremely hostile to Jews on religious grounds - scriptural justification: ...but a contrary Muslim view:

    Listen for clues in this brief mainstream history of antisemitism (below) that Joseph Atwill (linked above) is onto something. Notice the classic error here, however, of identifying Jews as a "race"; and also the identification of the "national aspirations" of Jews with the colonial-settler State of Israel. When viewing the beginning of this video, recall the taunt of Franco's fascists at the balcony of Miguel Unamundo: "Down with Reason! Long live Death!" (an echo of the Spanish Inquisition)

    1. Seekers of a general theory of antisemitism should begin by considering semitism as a cause where it’s the only or most obvious constant factor. Only if that investigation fails to provide satisfactory answers do we need to look for something going on among the non-Jewish groups. A theory of specifically European antisemitism is only necessary if it’s known that Europeans have different kinds of complaints about Jews than others who interact with them. Finally, a Roman theory of European antisemitism is only worth looking into if non-Romanized cultures within Europe do not exhibit similar antisemitic attitudes. Go back to Square One, bill.

    2. in modern times native African politicians have been able to act with as much independence from [Jewish bankers operating out of Europe] as native South Asian politicians do. And both enjoyed more independence from said Jewish bankers than did native European politicians. This may be observed from the fact that African and Asian politicians were empowered to take their peoples’ sides in conflicts over territory and self-determination with European colonists, while European politicians were forced to impose upon their peoples a much more extreme scale of African and Asian colonization of their own countries.

    3. "Jewish names were common among the administrators; but the instigators were non-Jews and for the most part products of the Catholic Inquisition in Europe"

      From the aforelinked notes on the conquest of Egypt by the ‘British’, to the British East India Company of a century earlier, to the Dutch West India Co. before even that, Jewish bankers and other investors were dominant figures in the age of European expansion. In fact going right back to 1492, Columbus’s voyage was dominated by Jewish personalities and financial and other concerns.

      He was financed chiefly by two Jews, Luis de Santangelo, finance minister to Ferdinand and Isabella, and Gabriel Sanchez, treasurer of Aragon. According to Wikipedia, but it’s widely accepted,

      “Santangel had arranged for the majority of the financing for the voyage contributing much of the money from his own pocket and additional money that he had borrowed.”

      According to the Jewish American Hall of Fame,

      “it was Spanish Jewry, not Spanish jewelry, that paid for Columbus' voyage of discovery … There has been much speculation over the centuries as to whether Christopher Columbus may have been Jewish or of Jewish descent. The Encyclopaedia Britannica indicates that he may have come from a Spanish-Jewish family settled in Genoa, Italy. But there is no question that it was his Spanish-Jewish friends who were instrumental in arranging for his meeting with the Spanish Monarchs in 1486 and who turned his dream into reality … it was Luis de Santangel, whose grandfather had converted from Judaism to Christianity under pressure of Spanish persecutions, who lent nearly 5 million maravedis to pay for the voyage … In addition, Santangel’s influence with King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella was decisive in gaining their acceptance of Columbus’ proposals. In recognition of his assistance, Santangel was the first to hear of the historic discoveries directly in a personal letter from Columbus. Showing his allegiance to his former co-religionists, Luis de Santangel made substantial contributions toward the hiring of ships that enabled them to leave when they were expelled en mass from Spain … Another of Columbus’ stalwart friends was Don Isaac Abravanel, who had remained stalwart to his religion and who was one of the most distinguished biblical scholars, philosophers and statesmen of the period. He also helped to finance Columbus’ voyage. /endquote

      Call them Conversos/Marranos/crypto-Jews/products of the Catholic Inquisition or just Jews, like the Jews themselves do, five of them were among Columbus’s crew, including his navigator, doctor and Hebrew translator, Luis de Torres. An important part of the mission was to try and discover one or more of the ‘lost tribes of Israel’. Could you get more Jewy than that? De Torres became the Americas’ first ‘European’ settler of this era when he decided to remain in Cuba when the rest of the mission sailed back to Spain with 500 captured Indian slaves for Gabriel Sanchez. The non-Indian slave trade and the colonization of the Americas was a Jewish led enterprise from the get-go, right at the very start of the European Age of Expansion we find a dominant Jewish role.

    4. “virulently antisemitic Romans”

      There have been no virulent European antisemites. Virulence implies invasiveness, toxicity and parasitism. Where the Romans did indeed invade a Jewish ecology, they were neither parasitic or pathogenic. Yes, there were the tax-gatherers, the ‘publicans’ of the New Testament, but you only have to ask, ‘What have the Romans ever done for us (in return for those taxes)?’ to hear in your mind's-ear the Pythons’ reel off a long list of benefits the Jews received in return. Virulence has been strictly a one way street running in precisely the opposite direction to the one you choose to imagine.

      Perhaps the fullest historical survey of Jewish virulence is by the anonymous encyclopedists responsible for the online PDF ‘When Victims Rule’, but Albert Lindemann, ESAU’S TEARS: MODERN ANTI-SEMITISM AND THE RISE OF THE JEWS (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997) and Kevin MacDonald, THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE: AN EVOLUTIONARY ANALYSIS OF JEWISH INVOLVEMENT IN TWENTIETH CENTURY INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1998) are two excellent scholarly works examining Jewish aggression against Europeans and European Americans over recent centuries.