Imagine Overt Tribalism in World News… oh wait…

Recently, the oligarchs, otherwise known as “the establishment” in America, have been in full on panic mode. The rise in popularity of populist candidates around the world never much bothered them, they were always kept in check with some well placed bribery, blackmail, or a coup d’etat. Not so on home soil however, where things can get very messy, especially if the electorate were to witness another JFK style solution. I have serious doubts that the American public would swallow another conspiracy blindly, I’m sure the would-be conspirators do as well.

So it is with great speeches, and thunderous rhetoric, that we are allowed to spectate on the rise of people like Bernie Sanders and Donald Drumpf. In both cases we have candidates making a mark by being anti-establishment, and firmly by all appearances. All the other candidates in the 2016 election are basically sockpuppets, they speak when they are told to speak, they support who pays them, and in the most bizarre way, criticize each other for not being “establishment” enough. Members from both parties have been voicing concerns about their own candidates, warning that the party will end if the populists get the vote, which might actually be true, and it would be exactly what the electorate seems to want.

Naturally, in the first phase of candidacy, everyone will attack everyone, and will only play nice with other candidates, once they themselves have dropped out, or once the party has picked their leader. Since we’re in the first phase still, albeit very close to the point-of-no-return, some jabs and swipes are to be expected. Yet when you listen to the pundits and reporters, you find the pro-Democrat MSNBC doing whatever they can to ridicule or dismiss their most popular candidate Sanders, and the pro-Republican Fox News finding any excuse to bash Trump. It goes well beyond reason in some cases, it goes well beyond truth in too many cases.

In the case of Trump, the establishment is in danger more along the lines of a new King succeeding the last. In basic terms, the old cronies are likely to be ejected and replaced by new cronies, but otherwise not much will change structurally. Which is why the attacks are becoming more absurd. This isn’t to say there wouldn’t be vast changes, on the economic front, Trump has promised to audit the Federal Reserve, and dismantle all the destructive free-trade deals, but he never suggests breaking up the largest corporations or banks, which would set up quite a grudge match. On the business side of things, Trump’s promise to end all the military interventions around the world will necessarily bankrupt much of the military-industrial complex as we know it, and possibly bankrupt the majority of States that depend on them to employ their people. The megalithic businesses that fail could be replaced by numerous smaller businesses of course, as the flow of foreign made goods dries up, local business is incentivized to pick up the slack, but this will take time, possibly a good decade or more.

Under a Sanders administration, we would have a political retrenchment primarily, with the bulk of change happening in the legal arena. His focus seems to be restacking the deck, altering the makeup of the courts to serve the people once again, rather than being protectors of big business. To this end, strengthening the EPA and other counter-balance institutions to business would be a priority. There would be no mass layoffs or GDP sized deficits as some internet memes might suggest, but Sanders has also promised to end foreign wars, and not enter into any more free-trade deals. His socially focused policies on things like minimum wage and a single-payer healthcare system would lift millions out of poverty, and give the average person less downside risk. The real risk is that the established oligarchs would still have their cronies in key positions, and will do everything they can to stonewall or corrupt Bernie’s populist policies.

All the Jews over 40 are with Hillary Clinton. They just are. We just are…
Steve Rabinowitz, a Jewish Democratic political consultant

The groups that make up the lower classes, the urban blacks, the rural hispanics, the disaffected youth etc, will all have a greater say in what happens. This thought is terrifying to the top of the 1%ers at the top, who have spent fortunes to maintain dynasties throughout the last century and beyond. The unspoken truth is that most of the oligarchs in power today, are actually descendants of the Robber Barons of yore, and had very little hand in creating their fortunes. The bulk of modern-day economic titans also owe their success to those established dynasties and their cronies in the government. Google for example, received ample doses of seed-funding from defense contractors and agencies alike, their reward is unfettered access to the largest consumer oriented behavioral database, and even contracting them to aid terrorists disguised as Google Ideas groups.

A deal with the Devil is still a deal.

The Rothschilds controlled central banks have been rigging the economies of most developed and developing nations around the world for decades, but more recently have been aggressively rigging the investment markets, choosing winners and losers, often against the will of the market participants. This manipulation has not only become obvious, but so pervasive that the majority of investors can no longer pretend it isn’t happening, and they are losing confidence by the day. In perhaps a great irony, many of the new breed of multi-millionaires and above actually side with the middle-class on issues of wage disparity and a lack of free markets. Many of these new 1%ers are not so entrenched as to be immune from market crashes, or not well connected enough to get advance warning when the ponzi scheme will implode, and many more are waking up to the very real possibility that central banks have lost control. They don’t see much long-term upside to continuing along the path we’re all on, which more and more seems like the controlled demolition of everything that made America an economic powerhouse. They want a total rethink of the economy, just like many of their technologies disrupted incumbent businesses before.

Yet very little of the topics mentioned above make it into the predominantly Jewish oligarch controlled mainstream media (MSM). In fact, they deploy an endless stream of paid shills to pretend to have deep insight into the issues, when what they are really doing is steering the conversation away from the issue. When Donald argues about deporting immigrants, he’s tapping into tribal fears about unwanted aliens competing on their territory, which isn’t specifically racist, but also highlighting the underlying issue, that American jobs are being given away to non-Americans by the establishment en masse. He’s not entirely accurate on the mechanics of the outsourcing, and he’s not specifically blaming the right groups occupying those jobs, but it’s still a very effective rallying cry, behind  which he can tackle the actual problem. The MSM refuses to let anyone hear that kind of analysis however, and they will imply anyone who sides with him as obviously racist. Just like the Jewish lobby and media moguls will coordinate a mass assault on anyone who dares criticize the political (and illegal) state of Israel as racist.

What’s rather funny about this election, and the media’s obsession with Trump’s far-right-wing supporters, is that Sanders supports many of the same policies, and they can’t attack him for being racist. In fact, the Jewish elite doesn’t know how to quite handle Bernie. They can’t smear him with ad hominem attacks as they can with Trump, because he’s one of their own, even if he disagrees, as that could break down the well-crafted image of the Jewish neo-liberal or neo-conservative elite as being entirely benevolent. Imagine, “liberal” Jews attacking a very popular “socialist” Jew, that’s not going to fly is it? And being Jewish never helped anyone running for office previously.

Sanders is also the son of poor immigrants, that gives him an even more powerful connection with the downtrodden elements of society, a connection that the Jewish elites who oppose him don’t have. He’s also not an overt Zionist, possibly because he understands Palestinians in refugee camps, are not much different to ostracized immigrants, even though he has made unpopular pro-Israel statements on his campaign stops. A direct character assault on Sanders is thus rather difficult to pull off, at least without alienating the people they need to convert. The best they can muster is sweeping him under the rug wherever possible, hoping media silence is enough. Their backup plan seems to be vilifying Sanders supporters as naive anti-capitalist bums, who just want free stuff, paid for by the noble blue-collar worker. Judging by the closeness of the Democrat primaries, it’s not working too well though.

All this brings to light an interesting question, how would America be different, if the media representation of events and facts actually reported the tribal attachments of all the actors involved? We see this happen everyday when it comes to Islam, “Islamic extremists” or “linked to Al-Qaeda” were hugely popular sayings in the media for over a decade now. Imagine the media had referred to neo-con hawks in the Bush Jr. administration, with their affiliations and associations like this:

• Paul Wolfowitz, a Jewish military doctine author for the State Dept.
• Bill Kristol, an ardent Zionist and son of a primary founder of neo-conservatism.
• Richard Perle, linked to Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and member of the Bilderberg Group
• Michael Ledeen, linked to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
• Charles Krauthammer, Jewish strategist, and a strong defender of the Likud party in Israel.
• Robert Kagan, linked to Mossad and the Israel lobby.
• Dov Zakheim, a Jewish arms industry shill, and partly responsible for militarizing Israel.
• And many more…

Clearly a little word association changes the entire feel of the “Americanism” of the George W. Bush presidency. Nearly everyone he listened to was Jewish, linked to Israeli interests, and had with close ties to businesses that profit from war, including his own father and his VP. We also don’t hear much about the Bush family’s involvement with the Nazis in World War II, but people might feel that’s historical information, and no one wants to admit the Nazis actually asked the Jewish people to leave Germany, as that would screw up the holocost narrative.

So what if all news stories carried such qualifications for everyone mentioned?

The first thing it would expose, is just how “Jewish” the influential American elite really are. Not only the media moguls, the Hollywood producers, the military contractor executives, etc, but a good chunk of key intellectuals inside the government. Obama’s current pick to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court is Jewish, and if appointed successfully, 4 of 9 Justices in the most powerful court in the land will be Jewish, which is very disproportionate for a group making up a very small minority of America by population.

The second thing that would be exposed, is just how unfairly and selectively labels are attached to other peoples in the media. It is this selective painting of tribal affiliations that encourages xenophobia, and to some extent racism. People are labelled loners, psychopaths, thugs, etc by the media all the time, and while they may or may not be apt, they are also not tribal identities. It’s when people are labeled collective titles, that things start taking on extra emphasis in any given narrative. Like how the false-flag Paris attacks on Friday the 13th we pinned on Syrians, then people transiting through Turkey, then Belgian nationals, the story kept changing, but the associations are never refuted. It all serves to reinforce the broader message, that people from the Middle East are fanatical Muslims who kill nice friendly white people listening to death-metal bands, in a theater owned by a Jewish couple.

The good old days, I remember them well… not.

Over the last century, the American political elites, although largely Christian at the time, were pushing the American way onto the rest of the world as they do today. Concurrently the Jewish dominated Hollywood was producing films that encouraged or exemplified given behaviours of the American people, a kind of social conditioning, while appealing to the conservative masses. Many stories involved underdogs, which can be an allegory for revolutionaries, the David vs. Goliath story was very popular. Subversive Jewish ideologies were disseminated everywhere, in perhaps a less perverse form than today.

Part of the problem of this quest to create political pervasiveness throughout the world, which intensified with the Communist “threat”, is that Hollywood was exported with it, and the two began to co-mingle. Each group used the other to promote Americanism, and jointly were very successful. And is there really much difference between the Jewish idea of chosenness versus American exceptionalism? Are these two ideas not one and the same, aside from religious context?

Many Hungarians fleeing in the wake of the revolution in 1956 had never even heard of Canada, when it opened its refugee program, most of them made the trip only knowing that it was “like” America. They knew this only by association, the American propaganda machine, with the help of Hollywood, had so effectively drowned out most other options. It’s this kind of brute-force culture machine that most Muslim countries resist today, and it’s a machine that’s still controlled almost exclusively by Jewish executives and owners, unless you count faceless shareholders.

Even “alternative” media outlets like Infowars, which started out as a voice of reason against the establishment, have been corrupted from the inside out. There was reason to think Alex Jones was very anti-Israel in the beginning, when he produced 9/11 documentaries, pointing out the Mossad agents video taping the event, and worked with Jesse Ventura to expose many coverups, but that all changed. How it happened is clear, he hired staff linked to Mossad, and suddenly changed his tune. Alex LaFarge Jones, no longer allows criticism of Israel or Jews directly, he merely calls them globalists, refusing to connect the last dot. We can deduce why easily enough too.

Alternative media is a tough business to be in, not only because production is expensive, but it’s hard to filter through the endless crud called “news” to find the juicy bits without a huge staff. So to stay on top of things, a site might need a helping hand in the form of a mole, or well-connected benefactor who can drip feed some conspiratorial materials. Mossad is ideally positioned to do just that with America’s secrets, and there are some political advantages gained for Israel to have the capacity to leak fabricated or altered intelligence into the wider world without showing their involvement. It is also possible Alex was hitting too close to home, and some nice Jewish fellas paid him a visit with an ultimatum.

Wikileaks, which made a name for themselves exposing leaked military footage from the early stages of the occupation of Iraq, showing a helicopter pilot casually killing people milling about, and then killing them s’more. We know now that the Private Bradley Manning was the source of most of their material, but it wasn’t long until Mossad started leaking some embarrassing documents to bolster Wikileaks too. Since Assange is still holed up in an embassy building in London, it’s not likely he has any direct contact with Mossad agents, except through his laptop. Nevertheless, Julian’s leaks never seem to involve any material damaging to Israel, which follows the same pattern.

The enemy you know…

The Jewish intellectuals, oligarchs, elites, however you like to think of them, have mastered one more art form, and that’s creating a controlled or satellite opposition. It is basically what Israel has done with the BDS movement, and with so many other political groups trying to oppose Jewish ideologies or Israel, like the 9/11 truth movement:

The BDS movement was compromised from its onset. BDS changed its goal statement in an effort to appease its Jewish supporters and Zionist funders.* Many commentators now see that BDS has been reduced to an internal Jewish exchange that benefits Israel and Zionism. Instead of debating ‘Israel’s right to exist’ the argument has been changed into various Jews arguing about the ‘right to BDS.’ This is a very clever move on Netanyahu/Mondoweiss’ part.

BDS, originally intended to mount economic and political pressure on Israel and its supporters, achieved the opposite. It united the Jews, both Zionists and the so called ‘anti’, in a debate on BDS.

The new British anti-BDS bill is a spectacle of Jewish power, both Zionist and ‘anti.’ BDS is now an internal Jewish debate. Read today’s Middle East Monitor report on the dissent to the new directive. The Palestinians are not even mentioned. Instead we learn about the good BDS Jews.  “Amongst those who have objected to the plans were British Jews from various organisations who defended the BDS movement as a weapon of moral persuasion, deploying a tactic frequently used by powerless people in their opposition to racism, slavery and oppression.”
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/2/18/the-uk-government-bds-and-the-jews

If the entire conversation is hijacked, and the first 90% of it had you enthralled, one of two things will happen, either you get sucked down a hole that leads nowhere, or you become disenchanted with the entire topic. Doesn’t really matter to the people keeping the secret, a discredited conspiracy theorist is just as good as someone who never believed.

The War was Good wasn’t it?

Most of the films produced by Hollywood during and in the years following WWII, were war propaganda. Let’s just be honest about that. Most were CIA or Pentagon funded, most gave the government of the day final edit on the films, and often rejected scripts, or forced rewrites, all to further the illusion of America to its own citizens. Sometimes it was to promote the bravery of killing indigenous people for mineral rights in their backyard, other times it was to promote a sense of invincibility of the American military machine, but usually it was just trying to imply that America’s position in all cases as justified. What liberal 18yr-old would volunteer to fight for a corporate army, in a war of aggression that their own family would not benefit from at all?

What these people learned, no doubt in part from the example of the Catholic Church throughout history, is that once you control the moral center of your society, which is what all religions have traditionally done in the past, you gain control of your populace more completely than through laws. It is this power that caused Kings to so fear the  Church, and it is this power that television has taken away from them. In this way, the Jewish dominance of the media, has to a large extent, shaped American society, and by export, has shaped all western societies. To pretend this is not the case should be as illegal as disputing the official version of the holocost is today.

This time though, the moral center was deliberately made more fluid, and based on vague notions rather than specific tenets. A rigid orthodoxy is always backwards facing, and cannot be adjusted easily as they wish it, unlike some vague notion of patriotism, that can justify murdering innocent civilians in far away places, as a solution to a collective resentment. You can see how the media dialogue changes from the invasion of Iraq, to the endless quagmire it becomes. The justification for involvement changes from getting rid of evildoers, to supporting the troops, and who can argue with that, some godless Commie?? They accomplished this feat, mainly by destroying intellectual criticism, and subverting the language, something George Orwell warned us about in 1984, and George Carlin warned us about later.

https://youtu.be/hkhUivqzWv0

When a language is co-opted and contorted, war becomes good, free speech becomes bad, and anyone who asks the wrong question is unpatriotic. Take for example the famous “War on Terror”, how can you have a war on a feeling? Precisely! How about a “War on Drugs”? Absolutely! In 1984 Winston is educated by his friend, he explains how the word bad is redundant, since all we need is good, and ungood. It is elegant, even beautiful he suggests. This is the new front in the warfare between the elites and the rest of us, controlled opposition, and controlled language to express the opposition.

In 2016, the United States is a cultural battleground, where many disparate groups, each with their own vision of American society, or at least their vision of an ideal society, are fighting a high stakes duel to determine the future. It is kind of laughable to think that many of these visions are inspired by the sit-coms and cartoons they grew up with. Everything from feel-good shows like Leave it to Beaver, to period defining shows like All in the Family, to gender-bending brainwashing like Teletubbies. People are not necessarily a product of what they watch, but you can be sure it leaves a mark, or leaves a door open to a certain ideology.

The post-war conservatives, who pine for the 1950’s all over again, fight to assert their televised Americanism on the government, and are increasingly perturbed by the government’s resistance. They are equally maddened by the cultural-Marxists masquerading as “liberals” who demonize them for it. In this way, much of their conflict has been hijacked, they are not fighting the right enemy to achieve what they want.

There are also generally liberal people, who think the 80’s was the pinnacle of American civilization, with flashy cars, flashy suits, and a haze of limitless empowerment. Even though this is also pure fantasy, and the swing towards environmental friendliness has nailed that coffin, it’s still motivating people to this day through films like Wall St. High finance, and the information economy would save us all they said. High finance nearly destroyed the economy in 2008, and the “information economy” destroyed manufacturing. Hurrah.

In an ironic twist, there are now younger generations that are less tolerant than their parents. A product of political-correctness, crossed with increasingly sandboxed feminist intellectuals promoting ever more twisted forms of gender conflict, and sprinkled with heavy doses of sexual confusion, these people have become militant victims. They find flaw with everything that exists, and seek to celebrate oppression in all its forms, even where no oppression exists. The schools are becoming nurseries, education is being whitewashed of anything conflicting with today’s values, and critical thinking has been displaced by padded rooms where people can go to escape disturbing ideas.

There is no doubt the media is complicit in screwing up society in this way. There were some very tiny problems with intolerance, and their solution was to expose children with little to no understanding of these concepts, earlier and earlier in life. If it was merely exposing children to the idea of gay marriage, or that strange people exist, that would be one thing, but now an entire curricular system foisted upon the entire country, called Common Core, is riddled with abnormal sexual and non-binary gender themes. There is so much of it, that any logical person would think the solution is more harmful to normal children, than the harm previously caused to a minority through omission, while not tackling the major problem of the sexualizing of children on TV. Because of intolerant standardized testing, and arbitrary attitude evaluations, we can expect entire generations of kids to grow up feeling inferior, unable to express their frustration, having difficulties connecting with partners, and have no ability to problem solve or manage risk.

We need to step back and ask if this is by design. Are the elites, in their adopted tribe of 1%ers, waging intellectual and moral warfare on everyone elses children? We can perhaps answer that by noting how many States are preventing home-schooling. Curricula are being made entirely rigid as well, with no flexibility allowance for children slightly immature, or slightly advanced. Recess is being systematically excluded or cut back in most schools, all in the false belief that children need more seat time to get higher grades, despite scientific studies to the opposite from all over Europe. School is becoming a forum for indoctrination, snitching on parents, and subduing individual will.

We can likewise ask, are the Jewish media and production companies waging an intellectual and moral war against adults? Here too we can answer by observation. Whistleblowers are being routinely punished. Any and all criticism of American imperialism leads to black listing for government employees, leads to journalists being targeted for surveillance, and in some cases being added to no-fly lists. All these actions are unconstitutional, as people are not allowed to be punished without a crime being committed.

Yet every day, the MSM lies to our faces, spinning whatever version of the truth they feel like that day. The spin cycle is nonstop now, it serves to make sure people end up believing false facts, which then prevent accurate deduction, and be vulnerable to ridicule if any of those facts are disproven in a well researched debate. Perfect for making people inarticulate, with incoherent memories. The insidious part is that media lies are protected “free speech”, as are the obscene contributions they make to political parties, whereas an individual lying is at risk of a libel suit, and has a contribution cap.

Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.
John Basil Barnhill, 1914

We would be remiss not to ask if the English language itself is safe from similar psychological warfare? The truth is probably murky on this point. The language as proposed in 1984 is a comical extreme of sanitizing speech, yet the Social Justice Movement, which is really the embodiment of “political correctness” in tribal format, and completely devoid of justice, seems to be promoting exactly that. Label everything, unless it’s a hurtful label, then pick a new label! Until we end up with people in yelling matches over the correct way to not offend someone. Total lunacy, because continuing down this path leads to people completely dependent on their adopted tribe of freaks, retards, deviants, loners, stoners, zealots and dingbats, when what society really needs is more intellectual resilience.

Some of the new-wave feminists, Social Justice Warriors, and other morally confused neo-liberals, have suggested removing all forms of labelling from the news, and even from conversations. People would be no longer referred to as “black” or “African-American”, because that creates “disunity” and perpetuated the idea of race, and hence allows for racism. What they fail to realize is the real problem can’t be fixed with sterile language. I would argue the exact opposite, we need to see more descriptiveness of persons in the news, we should hear more details about ethnicities, so that that people are forced to realize just how much diversity exists. Likewise we need to see who supports what ideology where possible, so that we as thinking observers can keep a tally of who is likely loyal to whom, and learn what to expect from people who follow those ideologies. We also need to dispel the notion that religions, or even sects within religions, are somehow uniform, or supportive of each other. We can’t do these mental gymnastics if we are kept completely unaware of these subtle facts.

Lastly, we can ask what comes next? Just what happens to a society which is intellectually exploited, sexually confused, morally vacant, and yet indignant about damn near every trivial matter the media tells them to be? Nothing good I fear. Nothing good for anyone.

At its heart, this is suppression of freedom, and suppression of dissent. Serfdom by another name. Them versus us. The tribe of the 1% against the rest. Viva la revolucion?