nora's blog

The Death Cult War Crimes Industry guys are still at the Bohemian Club's Bohemian Grove and events there will continue until July 27; they are listening to talks and presentations and being entertained, etc., and deciding and planning our future, or lack of it.

Despite the promise of openness and transparency inherent in our Constitution's instructions for our representative government, groups like the Bohemian Grove revelers are usurping decision-making from our representative government. Undercover of SECRECY protected by their private security police, they are doing what should be done in the LIGHT OF DAY by our elected representatives -- planning the future activities of our nation. (Oops, I forgot. Elected officials go to the Bohemian Grove too.)

And if this sort of undercover-of-the-Dark-Side stuff weren't bad enough--

The Citizenry of the U.S.of A. has been EVICTED from the process of government through further means:

O The replacement of valid elections with crime-ridden elections favoring the criminals who are usurping the power

O The major corporate media blackout of vital information and the full spectrum of issues and viewpoints pertinent to actual problem solving

O The inducement of confusion, fear, and chaos. The inducement of confusion can come from the ignorance caused by the major media blackout, and the intellectual dissonance caused by the remaining propaganda; or confusion can result when one consistently inhabits fear-related states aroused by constant fear-mongering from the media and the actual endangerment a Citizen experiences during purposeful failures by Bush-controlled government institutions. Regarding the fear and chaos -- it is described so well in Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" that you must go there to get the best description. But it would be useful to point out here that fearfulness and fear-related states are varied and here are just a few: A vague state of forboding; a frozenness caused by utter fright or unexamined trauma; constant sense of need to escape (flight) for fear of facing that which cannot be borne; the attempt to postpone fearful experiences through escapism; indiscriminate aggression arising out of not knowing why one is fearful and so distrusting and fighting in general; feeling chronically drained because of not knowing how to resolve one's fearfulness; exhaustion from the relentlessness of the fearful states caused by fearful situations. Note that FLIGHT or FIGHT modes of fear are active states; however, fear-induced states like UTTER FRIGHT, SHOCK, CONFUSION, DESPAIR, FATIGUE and EXHAUSTION are rather quiescent. Another way to look at it is that FLIGHT and FRIGHT are ENERGIZED/HIGH ENERGY states; in contrast, UTTER FRIGHT, SHOCK, CONFUSION, DESPAIR, FATIGUE, and EXHAUSTION are states of being LOW ENERGY -- or even can be described as COLLAPSED ENERGY states.

Perhaps now you may see where I'm going with this from the metaphysical perspective. Dust off those words like VIBES, and AURAS and ENERGY FIELDS and see if you can see what is being done to the American people and our country.

First, compare the following two groups:

Group One

a person waiting for a bus

a very drowsy child

a dog lying in the sun

Group Two

an Olympic athlete running a race

a child in a sandbox building sandcastles

a dog chasing a ball

What's the difference between the two groups? (And I forewarn you, this can be considered a trick question!)

If you said, Group One is in a quiescent energy state and Group Two is in an active energy state you would have been correct, but you would not have answered the question thoroughly from the metaphysical perspective.

The answer is: The difference between those in Group One and those in Group Two is that those in Group Two are expressing DESIRE-induced energy states that express a greater out-flowing of energy to fulfill their DESIRES.

DESIRE is the key to accomplishing ANYTHING.

Why should this be considered a metaphysical topic? Because what we are talking about here is HOW Consciousness creates Reality. And key to this metaphysical law of Creation is DESIRE.

Now back to the way the American people are victims of psychological (constant fear-mongering and shock) and physical (job losses, Katrina, predatory economy, war) abuses. The U.S. Citizenry have been deliberately put into fear-induced states that result in the COLLAPSE of their energy fields and, therefore, they have been unable to rekindle their sense of DESIRE with which to CREATE experiences that differ from the Bush/Corporatist/Oligarchy/BohemianGrove/Neocon/Whatever scripts that are developed at places like the BohemianGrove/DeathCult/WarCrimesIndustry summer get-together.

Some people are awake and motivated and handling the FEAR problem; but they're having a heck-of-a-time motivating the bulk of the American population.

Perhaps at this point you ask, "If they have succeeded in collapsing almost everybody's energy fields to the point of quelling DESIRE completely and so there is no creative thrust possible from The People, then WHY the systematic removal of Constitutional freedoms and rights to the point of a totalitarian regime where TOTAL REPRESSION and TORTURE and DISAPPEARING is evident and instantaneous as the movement of the little finger of the Unitary Executive Figurehead George W. Bush? Why do they need all that when folks have almost negative auras!"

In answer, firstly, the REPRESSION and TORTURE and DISAPPEARING are for those who aren't incapacitated by FEAR.

And, secondly, when the fascist plan finally becomes evident, perhaps through some planned event or problem, and many of The People flip from quiescent fear-induced behavior to active SURVIVAL MODE fear-induced behavior (FLIGHT or FIGHT), the fascists will be prepared. (Indeed they were prepared during Katrina: They locked down New Orleans. Not only could no one GET OUT. No one could GET IN either. Those expressing the natural human DESIRE to help and CREATE a rescue were also REPRESSED by the Bush Junta.)

(Oh, I'm fighting an urge to go off on a tangent about WHY is Obama triggering in his devotees mere 'hope' only, and not strong and concrete DESIRES? -- but I'll repress it right now.)

I believe these groups like Bohemian Grove are groups where core members know and utilize metaphysical laws. Perhaps smack dab in the 'scientific age', it is not safe to speak so boldly. When one contemplates the metaphysical world, sometimes one can't help but smugly think "Harrumph! The scientific method as applied to just one dimension of the material world is only bean-counting and measurements, outlines and limited observations.' Still, for the Power Elite to have taken complete control of what in our culture we call science (even to the point of preventing us access to free clean green energy for generations), I suspect that takeover of science could only have been done by utilizing powerful metaphysical laws about harnessing and increasing the FEELING of DESIRE for the purposes MANIFESTING their vision.

The stronger the DESIRE, the more effective and successful the results.

The one who can control and increase and direct the most DESIRE, 'wins'.

This is why a small group of cold-blooded, despicable people can control the masses. They have the DESIRE to do so.

I guess Obama would not be where he is if he did not accept the established Bush terms and frames of the events to date.

And Obama's opinion piece in the New York Times does not break the mold created by Bush. And that is too bad, because it is an opportuntiy missed. Will he start speaking English instead of Bushspeak after the election if he wins the election? It's anyone's guess. But for now, it looks hopeless. As Obama makes clear in his op-ed piece, The Military-Industrial-Congressional-Media Complex has little to fear from him; was reassuring them even the purpose of the piece?

First Obama makes it clear he was and is not opposed to a WAR OF AGGRESSION waged against Afghanistan on the pretext of going after the bogeymen the Taliban and Al Qaeda:

"...I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks...."

I reject the Bush attitude that the Middle East is now under direct U.S.A. hegemony, and therefore no international peacekeeping forces can be introduced. Unfortunately, Obama does not. All the while mentioning Iraq's sovereignty, Obama's proposed withdrawal without any international or regional assistance or oversight indicates that -- should problems reemerge -- he, like Bush, intends to view this as a quasi-territory of the U.S.A., and so reserve the U.S.A.'s prerogative to reenter Iraq in force:

"Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal."

In the following paragraph, Obama uses the words "our interests protected" and those are potent words; unfortunately he does not clarify in detail what those 'interests' are:

"In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected...."

Again, the broader so-called "strategic goals" are mentioned further on, but Obama does not clarify what those are, so can we assume they are the same imperialistic goals Bush has been pursuing with bases all over Central Asia?:

"Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven."

Obama continues the phony, misleading and destructive use of the Bush jingoism "the war on terror", adding an "-ism" at the end, as if that change is enough to continue to approach terrorism militarily instead of through law enforcement. This can only please the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Media Complex, who must feel reassured that business as usual will be preserved:

"Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there."

Obama mentions the permanent bases in Iraq, but does not define temporary bases either, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and so on. Permanent or temporary, why are we deploying troops throughout the area? Obama makes no stand against this current spread of troops throughout the region:

I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

It even appears that Obama is not talking about reducing the number of active troops once they are out of Iraq. He is not talking about bringing troops home. Instead, he is talking about the deployment of those troops elsewhere in the region for further American activity/aggression in the area, evident in his terminilogy "focus on the broader security challenges that we face" which he does not define for us:

"In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender."

It appears that the only war Obama is committed to ending is "this war", meaning Iraq. As for future incursions stemming from a committed involvment in forcing U.S.A. empire in the region, that seems to be moving along on track, because, as he said, the charges about "surrender" are "false":

"It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war."

Only "this" war, Senator Obama? What about the future wars on the Neocon drawing board?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

Postscript
If I seem too critical of Obama for you, perhaps it is because I am still digesting a video I saw earlier this week about the militarization of space. It explains the use of space technology in the recent Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. And in the last half there is discussion of the Central Asia theater and the future plans for more use of space technology and U.S. military interests there. I recommend the video.

The video (59 minutes) is "The Arsenal of Hypocrisy" at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4835966027154828456