Pretending that the Wars are Done

I've been saying for many years that we don't really have a two party system in this country, and certainly we don't really even have the appearance of one like we did when I was young. Back then you had bonafide working class Democrats like Tip O'Neill, who opposed the Republicans based on substantial economic differences. 

Bill Clinton and his "New Democrats" did away with all that by putting the last knife in the back of the working class, though in truth the process began when Nixon -- so-called champion of the Silent Majority-- went to China to open up its labor camps and sweatshops to American corporations.

Today, we have two Republican parties, for in truth the Democrats are nothing but the old Rockefeller Republicans (and are in fact funded by the Rockefellers and their networks of bundlers and NGOs, such as the Soros groups). 

The only difference between the parties is in the symbolism and the identity politics, which can get very toxic indeed.  

Even conservatives are starting to realize this, the ideological, non-partisan conservatives, that is. I've been saying for years that on a whole host of issues Obama (or his handlers) is to the right of Ronald Reagan (or rather, his handlers) and certainly economic inequality has done nothing but skyrocket the past 6 years. 

So many of the 'positive indicators' are smoke and mirrors (people are no longer considered unemployed when they give up looking for work) but the truth is that a record amount of Americans are not employed, and that number is expected to grow due to automation.

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … 

Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” 

Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time 

PUNCH 'n' JUDY

Our electoral system really begins to resemble professional wrestling the more you look at it. John Kerry, a popular, long-serving Senator from Massachusetts turned into a bumbling idiot when he ran against fellow Bonesman George Bush in 2004. You could almost read from the script he was following.

Another popular Massachusetts pol, Mitt Romney, played the mustache-twirling evil rich guy role to the hilt in 2012, despite having served in an overwhelmingly Democratic state as a classic Northeast moderate. He even went so far to run against Obamacare, which was modeled on his own (successful) health care program! 

He too seemed ordered to take the big dive and ensured he would lose by enlisting Ayn Rand radical Rep. Paul Ryan, whose budget plans scared all of the seniors and others dependent on Social Security. Otherwise, like Kerry, there's a good chance he would have won. Can't have that.

There's a funny pattern that never seems to fail in our two party system. The Republicans win a Presidential election and immediately begin to make noises about going after Social Security, which threatens their older voter base. Suicide, in other words.

The Democrats win an election and immediately unleash the social justice harpies, which not only depresses their own turnout in the midterms (see the 1994 and 2014 elections), it further alienates working class white voters. 

Again, it's like some script is being followed.

Though I realized the Democrats were being set up for a fall in these midterms when the same hectoring, elitist dialectic that contributed to the 1994 disaster was rolled out in their party's media organs such as The New York Times and Salon.com, it was a rather odd but important signal that clinched the deal. 

A President who valued symbolism so highly, whose election and inauguration was rife with high initiate symbolism was being told, in no uncertain terms, that he was about to be humiliated....


This series looked at the astounding efforts made to identify Obama with Tut, who was praised by the scribes as the great restorer of the Horus Throne after the disastrous reign of the heretic Akhenaten. Obama was even ritually anointed as the new Tut by no less a luminary than the (now-disgraced) Zahi Hawass (read: Aiwass).

But it all went badly. Obama's campaign in the Muslim world and the Arab Spring didn't lead to a new era of peace and prosperity, it lead to widescale war, chaos and dictatorship and the mad-dogs curiously named "ISIS" by the Western media.

If Obama was meant to be the symbolic figurehead of the new New World Order, it's safe to say all of that is in serious jeopardy. Russia got tired of the constant provocations by NATO and is now indulging in much more serious provocations of its own. China is feeling its oats and crunching its numbers and seems to have decided it would be better off as the overlord of a rising Asia than the underling of a dying West.

Could that be what led to this strange story, popping into the new cycle towards the end of the campaign season?

The REAL face of King Tut: Pharaoh had girlish hips, a club foot and buck teeth according to 'virtual autopsy' that also revealed his parents were brother and sister  

• ‘Virtual autopsy’ composed of more than 2,000 computer scans carried out •  Genetic analysis of Tut’s family showed his parents were brother and sister • Family history could also have led to his premature death in his late teens • Various myths have him murdered or dying in chariot race • Club foot would have made it impossible to take part in chariot racing 

Yeah. Still want to be identified with King Tut? I didn't think so. 

This could all be a coincidence but given the exhaustive and explicit efforts made to identify Obama with Tut, I tend to doubt it. 

I stopped paying attention to all of these symbolic provocations, for the same reason I stopped paying attention to the occultism in pop videos and other media; by blogging about them I became an accomplice to whatever workings were being done.

But even though I've only been paying half-attention I do have to say that there seems to be a lot less of this kind of thing in the political arena these days, which may be why you may be looking at much different landscape in this country in the years to come. 

Because, as Americans were focused on the elections, the rest of the world seems to be getting ready for war.

Sweden is finding that it looks like easy pickin's for a big ol' hungry bear, who's been slapping it around with unanswered incursions the past several weeks:  

States like Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and Sweden have to understand that the doubletalk is newspeak--that it’s almost meaningless, and they have to take the Russian threat seriously. Poland has responded to the ceasefire by realigning its entire force structure east, to fight the Russians in case of invasion. Both Sweden and Finland are examining ways to deepen cooperation with NATO, and Moldova is edging towards changing its traditionally neutralist stance.

In one form or another, these states are preparing for war. Eventually, one or many – but most likely the Poles – are going to push back against Russian aggression in Ukraine, either surreptitiously with “volunteers” or overtly with some sort of joint units. And then there will be a crisis, because some NATO states will be in a war and others will back them up.

So despite the doublespeak, despite the conferences, despite the de-escalatory frameworks and timetables, NATO is heading towards a crisis that could remake the face of Western security.  

Sweden would fall in an hour, its Viking spirit long since snuffed out by a stultifying political correctness. The Baltic states might be a bit tougher, but no match for Russia's missiles. Would America really risk nuclear war to protect them? It didn't when it was a much stronger and more united country.

If Russia was the only problem, it could probably be contained. But it's not:

Russia is already the world’s third highest military spender behind the United States and China and they’re clearly going to keep amping it up. But they won’t be doing it alone. 

As has been the case for the last decade, Russia can look to China for support. The two nations’ alliance is more powerful than most are willing to acknowledge. Consider their support for one another throughout the Ukraine crisis.

When Russia invaded Crimea in March, China tacitly supported the move by abstaining from a vote in the United Nations. And when new EU sanctions against Russia came out last week, Beijing suggested that additional sanctions “may lead to new and more complicating factors” in Ukraine.

 And that’s not all. Russia and China cooperate along economic, technological, military, and political lines. What’s more, in all of these areas they have something the U.S. lacks: strategy and the will to put it into practice.

Things are about to change in this country. In Europe as well. You can sense it, if you put your antennae up high enough.  I lived through the chilling phase of the last Cold War and I'm getting a definite sense of deja vu.

I can't begin to speculate what awaits us on the other side of the worldwide conflict that is fast approaching, I can only guess that the world as we know it now is about to be swept away like sand castles in a tsunami.