theist Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Republican or Democrat it doesn't really matter. It's all taxation and no protection. O chaste one, the king's good name, durationof life and good rebirth vanish when all kinds of living beings areterrified by miscreants in his kingdom. It is certainly the prime dutyof the king to subdue first the sufferings of those who suffer.Therefore I must kill this most wretched man because he is violentagainst other living beings. SB 1.17.10-11 PURPORT When there is some disturbance caused by wildanimals in a village or town, the police or others take action to killthem. Similarly, it is the duty of the government to kill at once allbad social elements such as thieves, dacoits and murderers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Yep, my sources are telling me this new stimulus package is pretty much the deathblow for the dollar and that the elites are definetly going for broke on a world government and a world bank now with attempt at complete corporate control of humanity. Interesting times to be alive and witness this. I have been lifting weights and amped up my chanting and my reading of Krsna Consciousness books lately. You can feel the storm coming and I find the stories in Srimad Bhagavatam to be especially inspiring and calming given current world events. The Rockefeller/Rothschild banking cartel controlling the US Government makes Hiranyakisipu or Kamsa seem like cute little cuddly teddy bears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/eugenics/Bush_Family_Eugenics.html Sociopathy -- An Infectous Mental Disease often passed down in wealthy families. If John D. Rockefeller, Sr., had his own beliefs applied to himself he would have been tortured, and then gased like an unloved stray dog in a pound. That's what nazis did to millions of others when they applied the theories funded by Rockefeller money. John D. believed in elimination of the 'unfit'. He believed in building a better human race by extermination of the bottom tenth, the least worthy. Rockefeller believed in Eugenics. John D. Rockefeller was not alone of the moguls of Wall Street to believe in, fund, plan for, and carry out plans for wholesale populations disposals -- he was joined by his brother William and nephew Percy, his son John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Andrew Carnegie, E.H. Harriman's widow and offspring E. Roland Harriman and W. Averell Harriman, Henry Ford, "Corn Flakes" inventor Kellogg, and many other famous names. Unfamous at the time, Samuel Prescott Bush, and George Herbert Walker (both grandfathers to G.H.W. Bush and great-grandfather to George "Dubya" Bush) taught these eugenics values to their families, as history has shown. John D. Rockefeller was the son of a viciously abusive mother who beat him with sticks frequently. His father was alleged leader of a horse-thief gang, travelling snake oil salesman, a bigamist ultimately buried under a false identiy he used with his second family, and a sadist. In short, father William Rockefeller was a type of a "Jukes", a sociopath who taught criminal values to his offspring -- exactly what the eugenicists wanted to sterilize out of existence. Wild Bill Rockefeller would have been sterilized under the laws passed a generation later by his son's monied elite. Over 70,000 Americans in 26 states were sterilized for reasons allowed by law of "feeble minded", "epilepsy", and "other". John D. Sr. and Jr.'s crowd helped pass those laws. Frankly, sterilization was too slow. War was a much faster method of extermination of large masses of surplus human beings. Not only could you get the victims of war to pay for their own killings, but you could make rich profits off those lucky survivers who lived as well. Rockefellers and friends, including the Walker-Bush patriarchs and their scion Prescott Sheldon Bush, made fortunes funding all sides of WWI and WWII. All this would be dry old history if not for the Bush Dynastic presidencies. Currently there is a resident of the White House brought up in this family tradition of liquidating populations for war profiteering, for racist cleansing, for removal of the weak, for applied social darwinistic predation. This essay will not introduce all the characters of tell all the details. There are walls of shelves in the national archives, in the Library of Congress, and plenty in local libraries or bookstores which do that. This effort is to put something on the internet which helps point out resources for understanding the multi-generational planning of genocide by committed eugenists. The nazi era is the most conspicuous, most written about episode, but mass murders, genocides, have been sponsored by weathy meddling and scheming on all continent. It will never end until the genocidal mind has been learned, studied, and outwitted. The first lesson is to learn the defining characteristics of sociopathy and apply on to behaviors. In a series of webpages produced, there are two of initial importance to learn: http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/Sociopathy.html http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/Ordinary_Men/Ordinary_Men.html John D. Rockefeller Deceived about his "Trust Conspiracy" for years in many states and to federal government. Aggressively destroyed competition, bankrupted and ruined other striving for their American Dream through ruthless cabals. Lack of remorse to the day he died. Broke laws with impunity. Reckless disregard of life in warmongering. Rockefeller apologists point to his Baptist church support and attendence, but Jim Jones went to church and killed over 900 followers, Jim Bakker was a famous TV churchman yet swindled millions, Jimmy Swaggert went to church on Sunday after spending Saturday night in the motel with hookers. Rockefellers gave millions, hundreds of millions to "charity", to nobel causes. Look harder. Rockefeller gave to the eugenist Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, and he gave generously to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany which produced famous eugenicists Ernst Rudin and sadist Josef Menegele. There are so many people involved, so many names to keep straight, that it is daunting to pierce the veil into the eugenics plottings. Suffice it say for now, that not all apparant acts of "charity" actually are for good purposes. Rather, sometimes it is the "cost of doing business" to present a facade of generousity while fleecing suckers. The astonishing quantities of money, $100,000,000 donated over just two years to the Rockefeller Institute covers over the fact that far greater riches were being stolen from nations. John D.'s nephew Percy came into control of Remington Arms, which sold 64% of all the ammunition used in WWI. Sam Bush, the president's great grandpa was a partner in that deal. Rockefeller's four of the seven largest oil companies also profitted from war work, as did his steel, coal and railroad interests. J.D.'s brother Frank relinquished control of the Buckeye Steel Castings Company to Samuel Bush shortly before it converted to making artillery gun barrels and shell cases for WWI. Sociopaths never revert. Once Rockefeller's pattern of sociopathy was fixed, it was lifelong. Thereafter every act has to be looked at askance, looking deeper for the sociopathic purpose. Rockefeller corrupted his family (albeit willing corruptees) just like the Bush patriarchs corrupted their lineage. George Herbert Walker Conning and deceptive, engaged in Trading With The Enemy with Harrimans, Warburgs, Rockefeller interests. Reckless disregard for life or safety, warmongering, profiteering, WWI & WWII. Lack of Remorse. Aggression upon mankind. The pattern repeats in the next generation. Prescott Bush Conning and deceptive, engaged in Trading With The Enemy along with Harrimans, Warburgs, Rockefeller interests. Reckless disregard for life or safety, warmongering, profiteering WWII. Lack of Remorse. Aggression upon mankind. The pattern repeats in the next generation. George Herbert Walker Bush Conning and deceptive, CIA chief, knew Saddams's history on CIA payroll, excused gassing Kurds until politically useful to condemn it. Engaged in Trading With The Enemy, arms for hostages to Iran, arms to Contras in violation of law. Allowed Serb terrorists to commit genocide in Sarajevo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, (Clinton's complicity in same does not excuse Bush's). Reckless disregard for life or safety; warmongering; profiteering Gulf War '91, Lack of Remorse. Aggression upon mankind. The pattern repeats in the next generation. George Walker Bush Conning and deceptive: Florida election 2000; WMDs in Iraq, "Saddam has nukes that can hit the USA". Reckless disregard for life or safety; warmongering; profiteering Gulf War '03, over 100,000 unarmed civilians killed in Iraq, so far. Lack of Remorse. Aggression upon mankind. Racism is a tool of "Divide to Conquor". The sociopathic families have used this one for many generations, first with pure slavery, then with wage slavery. The KKK was supported by elites in each district, generously funded, politically protected. Between WWI and WWII the KKK made a major upsurge in America. The eugenicists put into effect immigration laws to restrict the inferior races. Jews would pay with their lives when the nazis came to take them to the slave camps and death camps. Jews were as unwelcome in KKK territory as the blacks or catholics. The door to America was slammed shut in their faces. Slavery is an idea which has never gone out of fashion, only gone underground to reappear. The bunks in the nazi death camps are virtually identical to the bunk arrangements on slave ships. The idea of a "master race" existed here in the USA long before it existed in Germany. Germans have a history of being conquored by the Romans, many taken as slaves. Then Germans were enlisted as mercenaries, as Roman soldiers taking Gauls and Britons as slaves for their masters. But Germans themselves only came as close as serfs towards slave ownership. Rockefeller never fought for the US. Brother Frank did, in the Civil War and received a wound, but none others of the dynasty ever saw combat. John D. bought his way out of fighting by paying $300 for a surrogate. John D. Rockefeller believed in slavery and master race. His kingdom fought against the betterment of his workers, fought with guns, bullets, clubs and KKK riders against union organizers. John D. believed in taking others property, taking their wealth, taking their labors as cheap as possible, taking their lives if they got in his way. His family values was infectously passed on down the line. It's important to make the distinction that "sociopaths" identify themselves as a "race" apart from the rest of humanity. They may use KKK as tools, or use John Birchers, or use neo-nazi skinheads if it comes to that, but Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are more than token negros. The sociopathic race uses brownskinned "contra" terrorists in Nicaragua and brown death squads in El Salvador, used asiatic Pol Pot, to carry out their elimination of the lower tenth. (Once the lower tenth is eliminated, then the remainder is redivided into tenths and the purge keeps going forever.) How did Colin Powell get in there? We may never know the whole story, but one critical piece of information is he served to conceal the My Lai massacre, proving his "trustworthiness". My Lai did become public despite his efforts to smother it, but his credentials were sealed by his attempt. 500 civilians were murdered, as we all know, but the Powells of the world kept the 60,000 others just like them killed in Operation Phoenix from coming to light. The death tolls from the daily body counts merged into a blur, and nobody noticed mass murders orchestrated by the US power elites. Allen Dulles worked with George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush on deals with I.G. Farben of Auschwitz infamy. Dulles and others like him invented the CIA. It would be nice to believe the hero stories about Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles, but the template of sociopathy shows they are elaborate hoaxes, shams. Allen Dulles Lawyer for Sullivan and Cromwell, law firm for J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller interests on Wall Street. http://www.sfbg.com/focus/141.html http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sullivan_%26_Cromwell http://www.namebase.org/books10.html Lisagor, Nancy and Lipsius, Frank. A Law Unto Itself: The Untold Story of the Law Firm Sullivan and Cromwell. New York: Paragon House, 1989. 360 pages. ISBN: 0688048889 After two years in the Princeton library, where the archives of John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles are stored, the authors knew about Sullivan and Cromwell's ten-year record of cooperation with Hitler. Then they approached the law firm for interviews, but soon a memo went out instructing the lawyers not to cooperate. At that point the authors found a National Archives microfilm detailing the Justice Department investigations of John Foster Dulles's wartime collaboration. They were finally allowed to see a representative of the firm, but he wouldn't answer any questions. A year later Sullivan and Cromwell changed chairmen after some embarrassing press concerning three important partners. Now they were willing to grant interviews to present their side of the case. But until then the firm didn't like publicity, and this book helps us understand why. After 100 years of creating power and wealth by manipulating the interface between government and business, and with a transnational reach that considers World Wars a mere inconvenience, the story of Sullivan and Cromwell makes it clear that there's one set of rules for the rest of us, and no rules at all for the ruling class. http://www.nationarchive.com/Summaries/v160i0001_08.htm http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920sp2.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 http://www.thesusijnagency.com/authors/shaw.htm ROYAL BABYLON - KARL SHAW THE ALARMING HISTORY OF EUROPEAN ROYALTY Queen Victoria warned that it was unwise to look too deeply into the Royal houses of Europe – that the ‘black spots’ were best kept from prying eyes. This unique book reveals all. Since 1714 Britain has been ruled by a clan of inbred Germans with a history of mental instability and a talent for profligacy and debauchery. But, compared to their blue-blood cousins across the Channel, they are neither remarkable nor particularly mad. In the last three hundred years, Europe has been plagued by dysfunctional rulers – the insane kings of Spain, the psychopathic kings of Prussia, the sex-fixated French kings, the famously inbred Habsburgs of Austria, and, of course, the drunken, debauched and always dangerous czars of Russia. This unusual and amusing account of the great and the sordid will make even the most ardent royalist wonder whether Europe’s republics really miss this collection of madmen, philanderers, sexual misfits, sociopaths and tragic emotional cripples. (325 pages) Review: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2CG2P4757GZZY?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview Royal Babylon has in one stroke completely cleansed me of any notions that it is kind of a cute idea to let the British Royal family linger in the background of our nation's future. It also woke me up completely to the fact that they really aren't even 'British'. I'm more British than the Royal family!! And I'm 4th or 5th generation Australian!! Beyond that, I will guarantee that this horrific documented history of inbreeding, madness, STDs, syphilis, inbreeding, mass philandering, inbreeding, Nazi sympathising and inbreeding again will cure ANY reader of proceeding beyond mere curiousity to affection for the idea of monarchy. What a sick, sick history!! Almost a milennium of mass suffering, war, national upheaval and slaughter for the majority of people while a very very priveleged minority wallowed in massive excess and madness for no better reason than a documented history of inbreeding (the royal lineage) and a fairly savvy sense of self-preservation (and the funds to ensure it). This book doesn't cover just the British Royal family, it is a history of all the royal families in Europe. It is an easy read, it's not a heavy historical tome, but it succeeds where these fail: by unrolling almost endlessly the history of insanity and excess in an easily digested format. I've read a lot of history and was familiar with the more obvious figures of royal lunacy like Ludwig of Bavaria, Henry viii, George the Regent, the Romanovs (enough said), Catherine the Great (earlier), but I've never seen it compressed and presented like this and as it stands, Royal Babylon is a damning indictment of the divine right of anyone to rule anybody and the modern day equivalent of retaining these people at vast expense to the average person for no good reason. The author is circumspect about the current royal families, referring once to Prince Charles as a 'frankenstein' and making the point that of the 10 royal families that remain in Europe, 7 are heavily related to the British royal family. But honestly, at the end of this book it's a case of 'nuff said!'. It certainly did it for me, I am now completely an avowed Republican! https://secure.ereader.com/servlet/mw?t=book_excerpt&bookid=4812&si=59 Excerpt INTRODUCTION About 200 years ago, England's greatest republican confidently predicted the imminent downfall of the House of Hanover. "Hereditary succession is a burlesque upon monarchy," he wrote. "It puts it in the most ridiculous light, by presenting it as an office which any child or idiot may fill. It requires some talents to be a common mechanic, but to be a king requires only the animal figure of a man -- a sort of breathing automaton. This sort of superstition may last a few years more, but it cannot long resist the awakened reason and interest of men." Thomas Paine had good reason to believe that he was on fairly safe ground. The reigning King of England was evidently insane and reduced to conversing with long-dead friends and indecently exposing himself to servants. The King's brother Henry had just become the first member of the British royal family to be sued for adultery. The rest of the royals, especially the King's seven sons, were reviled throughout the land. One of them was even suspected of having murdered his manservant and raping his own sister. The heir to the throne, an unstable, bloated philanderer unable to step outside his front door without risk of being pelted by the London mob, was locked in the most publicly disastrous royal marriage since Henry VIII was obliged to remove Catherine Howard's head. Those of Her Majesty's subjects who saw the blitz of British royal embarrassments of the mid-1990s and concluded that the British monarchy had never been worse represented were presumably ignorant of standards set by earlier generations. In the realm of royal behavior, Prince Charles's devotion to his mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles, probably qualifies as fidelity. Most of the men who have held the title "Prince of Wales" were an embarrassment, none more so than Prince Charles's great-great-grandfather, Edward VII, a man who took the family motto, "I serve," into another dimension. From the day the Hanoverians first set foot on British soil in 1714, apart from during the reigns of George V, George VI and Queen Elizabeth II, the British royal family has never been popular, nor does it deserve to have been. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, British kings and queens -- Shelley's "royal vampires" -- were subject to regular attacks from the press for their profligacy, their indolence, their stupidity or for their squalid private lives. And then a curiously repressed minor royal from Germany, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, made the situation of his family even more difficult by forcing them into a straitjacket labeled MORAL FIGUREHEADS TO THE NATION, dooming the British royals to an endless struggle to keep up appearances and keep a lid on their family scandals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 http://dailymusings.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!EBAB74DA8F94C559!5257.entry February 29 Is Obama a Political Sociopath? Maybe Hillary Clinton should read this article from the Asia Times. Maybe Howard Dean could relate strongly to the Obama "in hiding" because he is the same type. Maybe Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should read this, but it's likely they already know all about the "hidden Obama". John McCain would never read this because it's too hard to read something this long and if it's about the "real Obama" he doesn't want to know. Sort of like how he played so dumb as one of the "Keating Five" that he was re-elected. A sociopath definition is available online to anyone. Rather than spell it out, let me suggest you go look. It's important that anyone reading this article takes the time to absorb it's import. The article sort of creates the image of a smiling Obama in the foreground with ghostly faces of his mother and fathers snarling with hate filled eyes behind him. The smiling radiance of his face drowns out the reality of his thoughts, the hatred of America and all it stands for. This will take you some time to read. It is extremely important to you and to your family and friends. You may well want to print out copies to pass around. There is information in this article which you may never have seen in the American press. This article is from the Asia Times and by a person who can see Obama without the god-like sunbursts put around him by the American press. The future of America is important to all of us and is worthy of our time. "Cherchez la femme," advised Alexander Dumas in: "When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman." In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama's women reveal his secret: he hates America. We know less about Senator Obama than about any prospective president in American history. His uplifting rhetoric is empty, as Hillary Clinton helplessly protests. His career bears no trace of his own character, not an article for the Harvard Law Review he edited, or a single piece of legislation. He appears to be an empty vessel filled with the wishful thinking of those around him. But there is a real Barack Obama. No man - least of all one abandoned in infancy by his father - can conceal the imprint of an impassioned mother, or the influence of a brilliant wife. America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America is the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster. Between half and nine-tenths of the world's 6,700 spoken languages will become extinct in the next century, and the anguish of dying peoples rises up in a global cry of despair. Some of those who listen to this cry become anthropologists, the curators of soon-to-be extinct cultures; anthropologists who really identify with their subjects marry them. Obama's mother, the University of Hawaii anthropologist Ann Dunham, did so twice. Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother's revenge against the America she despised. Ann Dunham died in 1995, and her character emerges piecemeal from the historical record, to which I will return below. But Michelle Obama is a living witness. Her February 18 comment that she felt proud of her country for the first time caused a minor scandal, and was hastily qualified. But she meant it, and more. The video footage of her remarks shows eyes hooded with rage as she declares: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. The desperation, frustration and disappointment visible on Michelle Obama's face are not new to the candidate's wife; as Steve Sailer, Rod Dreher and other commentators have noted, they were the theme of her undergraduate thesis, on the subject of "blackness" at Princeton University. No matter what the good intentions of Princeton, which founded her fortunes as a well-paid corporate lawyer, she wrote, "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong." Never underestimate the influence of a wife who bitch-slaps her husband in public. Early in Obama's campaign, Michelle Obama could not restrain herself from belittling the senator. "I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There's Barack Obama the phenomenon. He's an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right? And then there's the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy's a little less impressive," she told a fundraiser in February 2007. "For some reason this guy still can't manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure the bread so that it doesn't get stale, and his five-year-old is still better at making the bed than he is." New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reported at the time, "She added that the TV version of Barack Obama sounded really interesting and that she'd like to meet him sometime." Her handlers have convinced her to be more tactful since then. "Frustration" and "disappointment" have dogged Michelle Obama these past 20 years, despite her US$300,000 a year salary and corporate board memberships. It is hard for the descendants of slaves not to resent America. They were not voluntary immigrants but kidnap victims, subjected to a century of second-class citizenship even after the Civil War ended slavery. Blackness is not the issue; General Colin Powell, whose parents chose to immigrate to America from the West Indies, saw America just as other immigrants do, as a land of opportunity. Obama's choice of wife is a failsafe indicator of his own sentiments. Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common. Obama imbibed this hatred with his mother's milk. Michelle Obama speaks with greater warmth of her mother-in-law than of her husband. "She was kind of a dreamer, his mother," Michelle Obama was quoted in the January 25 Boston Globe. "She wanted the world to be open to her and her children. And as a result of her naivete, sometimes they lived on food stamps, because sometimes dreams don't pay the rent. But as a result of her naivete, Barack got to see the world like most of us don't in this country." How strong the ideological motivation must be of a mother to raise her children on the thin fair in pursuit of a political agenda. "Naivete" is a euphemism for Ann Dunham's motivation. Friends describe her as a "fellow traveler", that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report. Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them, twice. Ann Dunham met and married the Kenyan economics student Barack Obama, Sr, at the University of Hawaii in 1960, and in 1967 married the Indonesian student Lolo Soetero. It is unclear why Soetero's student visa was revoked in 1967 - the fact but not the cause are noted in press accounts. But it is probable that the change in government in Indonesia in 1967, in which the leftist leader Sukarno was deposed, was the motivation. Soetero had been sponsored as a graduate student by one of the most radical of all Third World governments. Sukarno had founded the so-called Non-Aligned Movement as an anti-colonialist turn at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia. Before deposing him in 1967, Indonesia's military slaughtered 500,000 communists (or unfortunates who were mistaken for communists). When Ann Dunham chose to follow Lolo Soetero to Indonesia in 1967, she brought the six-year-old Barack into the kitchen of anti-colonialist outrage, immediate following one of the worst episodes of civil violence in post-war history. Dunham's experience in Indonesia provided the material for a doctoral dissertation celebrating the hardiness of local cultures against the encroaching metropolis. It was entitled, "Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving against all odds". In this respect Dunham remained within the mainstream of her discipline. Anthropology broke into popular awareness with Margaret Mead's long-discredited Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), which offered a falsified ideal of sexual liberation in the South Pacific as an alternative to the supposedly repressive West. Mead's work was one of the founding documents of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and anthropology faculties stood at the left-wing fringe of American universities. In the Global South, anthropologists went into the field and took matters a step further. Peru's brutal Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerilla movement was the brainchild of the anthropologist Efrain Morote Best, who headed the University of San Cristobal of Huamanga in Ayacucho, Peru, between 1962 and 1968. Dunham's radicalism was more vicarious; she ended her career as an employee of international organizations. Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household. In the Muslim world of the 1960s, nationalism rather than radical Islam was the ideology of choice among the enraged. Radical Islam did not emerge as a major political force until the nationalism of a Gamal Abdel Nasser or a Sukarno failed. Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States. There is nothing mysterious about Obama's methods. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are the world's biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone Power's portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley. The latter is available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt uplifted by an Obama speech. America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point. Since the Ronald Reagan boom began in 1984, the year the American stock market doubled, Americans have enjoyed a quarter-century of rising wealth. Even the collapse of the Internet bubble in 2000 did not interrupt the upward trajectory of household assets, as the housing price boom eclipsed the effect of equity market weakness. America's success made it a magnet for the world's savings, and Americans came to believe that they were riding a boom that would last forever, as I wrote recently [1]. Americans regard upward mobility as a God-given right. America had a double founding, as David Hackett Fischer showed in his 1989 study, Albion's Seed . Two kinds of immigrants founded America: religious dissidents seeking a new Promised Land, and economic opportunists looking to get rich quick. Both elements still are present, but the course of the past quarter-century has made wealth-creation the sine qua non of American life. Now for the first time in a generation Americans have become poorer, and many of them have become much poorer due to the collapse of home prices. Unlike the Reagan years, when cutting the top tax rate from a punitive 70% to a more tolerable 40% was sufficient to start an economic boom, no lever of economic policy is available to fix the problem. Americans have no choice but to work harder, retire later, save more and retrench. This reversal has provoked a national mood of existential crisis. In Europe, economic downturns do not inspire this kind of soul-searching, for richer are poorer, remain what they always have been. But Americans are what they make of themselves, and the slim makings of 2008 shake their sense of identity. Americans have no institutionalized culture to fall back on. Their national religion has consisted of waves of enthusiasm - "Great Awakenings" – every second generation or so, followed by an interim of apathy. In times of stress they have a baleful susceptibility to hucksters and conmen. Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word "hope", they instead hear, "handout". A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as "something for nothing". Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over. The George W Bush administration has squandered a great strategic advantage in a sorry lampoon of nation-building in the Muslim world, and has made enemies out of countries that might have been friendly rivals, notably Russia. Americans question the premise of America's standing as a global superpower, and of the promise of upward mobility and wealth-creation. If elected, Barack Obama will do his utmost to destroy the dual premises of America's standing. It might take the country another generation to recover. "Evil will oft evil mars", J R R Tolkien wrote. It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. As he recalled in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama idealized the Kenyan economist who had married and dumped his mother, and was saddened to learn that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a sullen, drunken polygamist. The elder Obama became a senior official of the government of Kenya after earning a PhD at Harvard. He was an abusive drunk and philanderer whose temper soured his career. The senior Obama died in a 1982 car crash. Kenyan government officials in those days normally spent their nights drinking themselves stupid at the Pan-Afrique Hotel. Two or three of them would be found with their Mercedes wrapped around a palm tree every morning. During the 1970s I came to know a number of them, mostly British-educated hollow men dying inside of their own hypocrisy and corruption. Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchandra Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Republican or Democrat it doesn't really matter. It's all taxation and no protection. Present governments simply don't know that if they rule their country but just exploit the whole situation for personal enrichment are performing sinful activity which ends in their own defeat and destruction. Corrupt political leaders are pushed into heavy degradation but who is explaining this? Prabhupada commenting on British rule in India: "Why these Britishers came? They came for money. The Britishers exploited the Indians, and the capitalist class of India, they have learned how to exploit only. They exploited the whole world for the benefit of few persons in London, and that is very bad. They started their exploitation from seventeenth, eighteenth century. And in the twentieth century, everything finished. The French people and the English people… This is also one of the examples. Both the nations came here to exploit. That was the competition in… The French people and the English people, they would go for colonization, fight, and establi… America was also that, Canada, everywhere. Formerly the Manchester people were exploiting Indians. Now the Ahmedabad people, they have learned how to exploit. That’s all. And government is satisfied because they pay tax. “Never mind. The workers may suffer, go on suffering.” They would not allow anyone to enter India to make trade. So Britishers will not allow them. Actually, Britishers were selling goods, purchasing from Germany and Japan, And when German would go to trade, they will enhance the custom duty very, very large amount. So that was the grudge of the German nation. Two times, they fought with that “Finish these Britishers-shop-keeper’s nation.” Yes. Emperor Wilhelm, some of them, was calling the Britishers: “shop-keeper’s nation.” Everyone in the United Nations pressed on them: “Why you are colonizing? Why you are occupying so much land? You give up.” They were obliged. And there was great national movement of Gandhi. So all United Nations pressed that: “They’re wanting to avoid you. Why you are, by force, staying there?” Still, they would not go. But when the soldiers began to join the national movement, they gave it up. “Now we cannot rule it.” How very nasty! For their political power, they did so many heinous activities in India. That’s a great history. For selling their cotton goods, India’s weavers were cut this finger so that they cannot weave. This is there in the history. But if you go on pinching, pinching, pinching, how long you will tolerate? This is India’s condition. Britishers, when they were ruling, had some responsibility. Although they were exploiting, but they were arranging for sufficient food and other things. But these people are irresponsib…, simply personal gain. “Whatever money I can get, that’s all.” This is going on. All these so- called ministers, they come to the post for taking money, as much as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.