Depression2.tv
Interactive

Open Thread: Cancelled Elections, 2004?

April 28, 2004

Read the orginial post, © Copyright 2003, Maureen Farrell atPittsburgh Indy Media : Your comments Welcome at the end.

On Dec. 31, 2003, New York Times columnist and former Nixon speech writer William Safire offered his standard New Yearís predictions. This time, however, one item stood out. In addition to speculating on everything from which country would next "feel the force of U.S. liberation" to who would win the best picture Oscar, Safire predicted that "the 'October surprise' affecting the U.S. election" would be "a major terror attack in the United States." [Salt Lake Tribune]

While such speculation is hardly worth a trip to the duct tape store, when combined with repeated assaults to our democratic process and troublesome assertions from noteworthy sources, it warrants further investigation.

In Nov. 2003, you might recall, Gen. Tommy Franks told Cigar Aficionado magazine that a major terrorist attack (even one that occurred elsewhere in the Western world), would likely result in a suspension of the U.S. Constitution and the installation of a military form of government. "[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event," he said. [NewsMax.com]

Right around the same time, former Clinton administration official David Rothkopf made similarly distressing observations. In a Washington Post op-ed entitled, "Terrorist Logic: Disrupt the 2004 Election," he described a meeting in which nearly 75 percent of the professional participants (characterized as "serious people, not prone to hysteria or panic") also foresaw another terrorist attack occurring on American soil before the next election. "Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of whom are specialists in security and terrorism related issues," he wrote. "Almost three-quarters of them said it was likely the United States would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004." [Washington Post]

Saying that "history suggests that striking during major elections is an effective tool for terrorist groups," Rothkopf explained why terrorists will most likely target us soon. And though he and Safire made these observations months before terrorists changed Spainís political landscape, they were not alone in thinking along such lines. "Even before the bombings in Madrid, White House officials were worrying that terrorists might strike the United States before the November elections," USA Today reported, before commenting on how terrorists could "try the same tactics in the United States to create fear and chaos." [USA Today]

The New York Times also reported on the possibility that Al Qaeda would try to "influence the outcome of the election" by striking U.S. oil refineries. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned the Texas oil industry of potential attacks by Al Qaeda on pipelines and refineries near the time of the November presidential election," the Times reported. [New York Times]

MSNBC, CNN and other news organizations also chimed in, raising concerns about this summer's political conventions. "In the wake of what happened in Madrid, we have to be concerned about the possibility of terrorists attempting to influence elections in the United States by committing a terrorist act," FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN. "Quite clearly, there will be substantial preparations for each of the conventions." [CNN]

Right-wing columnists and pundits have since (surprise, surprise) tried to capitalize on such fears. "If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?" David Brooks opined in the New York Times on March 16, [Libertypost.org] before Richard Clarke revealed that the Clinton administration was actually more "aggressively anti-terror" than the bumbling Bushes. (Could that be why the Bush administration refuses to turn over thousands of pages of the nearly 11,000 files on the Clinton administrationís antiterrorism efforts?)

Sean Hannity twisted things further. "If we are attacked before our election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with the election," he reportedly said. "We had better make plans now because itís going to happen."

And, of course, what usurpation of democracy would be complete without Rush Limbaugh weighing in? "Do [the terrorists] bide their time and wait, or do they try to replicate their success in Spain here in America before our election?" Limbaugh asked, before revealing how "titans of industry," and "international business people (who do not outsource, by the way)" were "very, very, very concerned" that one true party forever rule the Fatherland.

"They all were seeking from me reassurance that the White House was safe this year, that John Kerry would not win," Limbaugh said. "Who do you think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country -- socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?"

Saying that a pre-election terrorist attack is not a question of "if" but "when," Limbaugh concluded that should anyone but Bush occupy the White House, the terrorists will have won. [RushLimbaugh.com]

Given the bizarre mind-melding between the government and media and the Soviet-style propagandizing that's been taking place, one has to wonder: Is there is any significance in the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and David Brooks are all beating the same tom-tom? As former White House insider Richard Clarke recently told Jon Stewart, "[There are] dozens of people, in the White House. . . writing talking points, calling up conservative columnists, calling up talk radio hosts, telling them what to say. Itís interesting. All the talk radio people, the right wing talk radio people across the country, saying the exact same thing, exactly the same words."

Stewart noted that a 24-hour news network was also making observations that were "remarkably similar to what the White House was saying."

Even though Andrew Card admitted that "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," in May, 2002, Wayne Madsen and John Stanton revealed that the governmentís marketing preparations for the war were already underway, with U.S. Air Force scientists consulting with CNN "to figure out how to gather and disseminate information." [CounterPunch.org]

In an article entitled, "When the War Hits Home: U.S. Plans for Martial Law, Tele-Governance and the Suspension of Elections," Madsen and Stanton delved into the more frightening aspects of what might be in store. "One incident, one aircraft hijacked, a 'dirty nuke' set off in a small town, may well prompt the Bush regime, let's say during the election campaign of 2003-2004, to suspend national elections for a year while his government ensures stability," they wrote. "Many closed door meetings have been held on these subjects and the notices for these meetings have been closely monitored by the definitive http://www.cryptome.org."

To make matters worse, if martial law is imposed, Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhart will be able to blast through Posse Comitatus and deploy troops to Americaís streets. Gen. Eberhart, you might recall, is the former Commander of NORAD, which was in charge of protecting Americaís skies on Sept. 11. But instead of being scrutinized for NORADís massive failures, he was promoted and now heads the Pentagon's Northern Command. And, as military analyst William M. Arkin explained, "It is only in the case of 'extraordinary' domestic operations that would enable Gen. Eberhart to bring in "intelligence collectors, special operators and even full combat troops" to bear. What kind of situation would have to occur to grant Eberhart "the far-reaching authority that goes with 'extraordinary operationsí"? Nothing. He already has that authority. [Los Angeles Times]

Which brings us to the inevitable (and most important) question. How primed is the American public to accept suspended elections, martial law, or whatever else the White House decides to "market"?

Consider, for a moment, what an invaluable propaganda conduit the media was during the lead up to war in Iraq -- and just how weird things have become since. Howard Stern insists he was targeted by Clear Channel and the FCC after speaking out against George Bush [BuzzFlash.com]; former White House Aide Anna Perez (who worked under Condoleezza Rice and served as former first lady Barbara Bushís press secretary) is slated to become chief communications executive for NBC; and MSNBC featured a story entitled, "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq" on its Web site only to have it disappear down the Memory Hole in the course of a few hours. [TheMemoryHole.org]

Moreover, last yearís Clear Channel sponsorship of pro-war/pro-Bush rallies was so Orwellian, that former Federal Communications Commissioner Glen Robinson remarked, "I can't say that this violates any of a broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing of the news." [Chicago Tribune] Meanwhile, the mysterious Karen Ryan (of "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting" fakery fame [Journalism.NYU.edu]) was featured in the New York Times. "Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists, praising the benefits of the new Medicare law. . . , " the Times reported.

Need more proof that something is amiss? As of Feb. 5, 2004, CBS News was still reporting that one of the hijackers' passports was "found on the street minutes after the plane he was aboard crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center," [CBS] and for far too long, pundits have taken to spreading White House rumors without checking facts --while denying any White House connection once these rumors prove false.

And most baffling of all, whenever anyone does tell the truth, a bevy of Stepford Citizens reveal that theyíd rather hear lies. After Richard Clarke spilled the Bush beans on 60 Minutes, for example, the mail was overwhelmingly negative -- with some writing that Clarke should be tried for treason and others asking CBS, "Why canít you be 'fair and balancedí like FOX?" (Perhaps those viewers are denizens of the Free Republic Web site, where posters actually pondered the question: "Should the US have elections if attacked?" [FreeRepublic.com])

The most bizarre example of the White Houseís dysfunctional domination of the media, however, occurred last week -- with the surreal controversy involving David Letterman and CNN. In case you missed it, on Monday, Letterman showed a video clip which featured a bored, fidgety kid standing behind George W. Bush, who was giving a speech in Orlando. The next day, CNN also ran that clip, but anchor Daryn Kagan returned from commercial break to inform viewers, "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later, a second CNN anchor said that the boy was at the rally, but wasn't necessarily standing behind George W. Bush.

"That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape," Letterman said on Tuesday.

"Explanations continued through Wednesday and Thursday, with Letterman referring to "indisputable" and "very high-placed source" who told him that the White House had, in fact, called CNN. "This is where it gets a little hinky," Letterman said on Thursday, rehashing the back and forth nonsense that played like a bad SNL sketch. "We were told that the White House didnít call CNN. That was the development the other day. So Iím upset because I smell a conspiracy. I think somethingís gone haywire. I see this as the end of democracy as we know it; another one of them Watergate kind of deals. And so, Iím shooting my mouth off and right in the middle of the show, Iím handed a note that says 'No no no no, the White House did not contact CNN. The White House did NOT call CNN.í So now I feel like "Oh, I guess Iím gonna do heavy time.í

"Ok, so now it gets a little confusing. So, the next day Iím told, 'Oh, No. The White House DID contact CNN. . . . They WERE contacted by the White House. They were trying to SHUT CNN up because they didnít want to make these people look ridiculous because they were big Republican fund raisers and you know, Iím going to disappear mysteriously. In about eight months, theyíll find my body in the trunk of a rental car.

"So now, weíre told, despite what everyone says. . . that this high-ranking, high placed unidentified source says, "No No The White House did call them."

Although he displayed his customary wit and joked throughout his explanation, unless Letterman's acting skills extend far beyond those displayed in Cabin Boy, there's no doubt that Letterman was serious when he asserted that "despite what everyone says" the White House was involved in this fiasco.

Meanwhile, CNN apologized and accepted the blame, letting the White House off the hook.

While the Letterman episode is a lesson in abject absurdity, nearly two years ago, Madsen and Stanton warned that following a major terrorist attack, seditious web sites would be blocked (something that is already happening to howardstern.com) and "the broadcast media would similarly be required to air only that which has been approved by government censors." (How will we know the difference?)

Though it seems surreal that people are actually wagering that another terrorist attack will occur on our soil by November (and itís even more bizarre that on-air personalities are calling for the suspension of elections), the fact that this un-elected gang who barreled into power and forever changed the course of a nation, is so completely untrustworthy makes the situation even more disturbing. On Sept 11, 2003, William Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News asked, "Why donít we have the answers to these 9/11 questions?" [The Philadelphia Daily News] before addressing a variety of concerns, which, thanks to the 9/11 commission, are finally making their way into our national consciousness. And now that another whistle blower, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, has come forward, saying, "'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with airplanes," [The Independent] itís clear weíve been under attack for quite some time. [BuzzFlash.com]

But before the Madrid bombings; before Richard Clarkeís revelations; before more whistleblowers peeked out from under the muck, David Rothkopf made everything oh-so-clear. Writing about the "military officers, policymakers, scientists, researchers and others who have studied [terrorism] for a long time," he explained how the majority of experts he spoke to not only predicted that the pre-election assaults would "be greater than those of 9/11," but that any act of terrorism would work in the President's favor. "It was the sense of the group that such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President Bush," he wrote.

Citing how "assaults before major votes have [traditionally] benefited candidates who were seen as tougher on terrorists," Rothkopf catalogued events in Israel, Russia, Turkey and Sri Lanka before explaining the symbiotic relationship between terrorists and hardliners. "So why would [terrorists] want to help [hardliners] win?" he asked. "Perhaps because terrorists see the attacks as a win-win. They can lash out against their perceived enemies and empower the hard-liners, who in turn empower them as terrorists. How? Hard-liners strike back more broadly, making it easier for terrorists as they attempt to justify their causes and their methods."

William Safireís and David Rothkopf's and three out of four experts' speculations aside, there are those who believe that the Bible predicts the ultimate battle between good and evil and that George Bush is doing Godís work. But then again, the Bible also says that "the truth will make you free."

And according to Bible Code author Michael Drosnin, there is another, more mystical way to look at Biblical text, and he contends that the Bible also predicts, you guessed it, that there will be another terrorist attack in America in 2004.

Personally, I donít give much credence to predictions, but when this many people peer into the crystal ball and see Al Qaeda gearing up for our presidential election, I take note -- especially given whatís transpired since the last stolen election. [EricBlumrich.com]

So, what the heck. If others can do it, I can, too. So Iíll go out on a limb a make a prediction of my own: If the truth continues to seep out about the way the Bush administration has failed us, suspending the election may be the only way Bush can win.
My darkest fear is that G.W.'s handlers believe this, too.

* * *

BuzzFlash Note: We're not sure what to make of this, but a BuzzFlash Reader who works for the U.S. Government recently sent us this note: "When I attempted to purchase a [BuzzFlash] premium on-line, I have received the message from our 'computer police' that this site is considered a HATE site and I am not allowed to purchase this material online using government computers." Go figure. If anyone can verify this information, we'd be exceptionally grateful.


BACK TO TOP

Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.

© Copyright 2003, Maureen Farrell

Posted by manystrom at April 28, 2004 11:52 PM
Comments

The avearge lifespan for democratic states is 250 years. For all practical purposes, the U.S. ceased being a republic early in the 20th Century, and a creeping socialism/bureaucracy has taken over under the guise of "democracy". For those who might worry about GWB as the next president-for-life, I think another, far more ruthless candidate is waiting in the wings. Imagine Hillary Rodham Clinton, Empress of North America, gracing the throne, holding court with her trusty consuls Harold Ickes, and James Carville...

Now that is something to be frightened about!

Posted by: JM at April 29, 2004 03:52 AM

Will we have elections?

That is a very good question. I think that the possibility of a serious terrorist attack or even economic disruption that could cause the President to use ‘National Security’ to call off or postpone elections is a big one and not to be lightly dismissed. Without sounding too ‘conspiratorial’, I have never been satisfied with the Bush administrations explanation of its actions on 911. Its behavior seems to indicate a policy of deliberate non-action before the attacks to insure that they had the maximum psychological effect on Americans to drive us on our new Global war. While some may go so far as to say that they think that the Bush administration could be behind another attack such as 911 in the near future in order to cancel elections, I do not believe that is necessary. We have a 1000 mile border that is, for all intents and purposes, unguarded. Over 100,000 illegal come over it every day. If one-tenth of one percent are terrorists, we have lost this war on terror, pure and simple. Why are the borders open when we as citizens are forced to go through tedious and invasive security checks when we get on airplanes and carry out some of our daily tasks, while criminals come to the US and are even aided (to some degree) by federal polices once they get here?

Any clear thinking person can see that this is not a war on terror but a war on freedom and yes, a war on the American people. Frankly, elections will have to be cancelled if we have multiple ‘bio-attacks’ or a dirty bomb attack on major US cities. No way around it. Have our leader become so cynical that they would allow such a thing to happen to remain in power or use as a cover for an economic catastrophe? I have long felt that another disaster will be prepared when the economy collapses in order to divert blame and galvanize public support to fix a fictitious (created) problem while the economy (the real problem) collapsed. Be it a power outage, computer glitch or terrorist attack, I believe that even now, a cover story is being created to divert attention from the rotten floor-boards under the US financial system to another phony (concocted) culprit when the ATM’s go down, the banks are closed and the gas pumps stop working.

I think that we are dealing with a group of people whose primary objective in office is to set up an imperial Presidency and scrap or constitutional from of government. The real tragedy is that half of those who go to the polls (if we still have then) will vote for them. So while we may not have elections, it wouldn’t matter if we did, most Americans are just that stupid. It’s as though Joe six-pack and his one-tooth wonder of a wife are saying ‘chain us up please, I can’t stand all this freedom stuff, you know it’s only for terrorists and communists’.

Welcome to 21st Century America.

Mark Watson

http://www.markswatson.com/Depression1.html

Posted by: Mark Watson at April 29, 2004 09:35 AM

So can anyone provide any proof that declaring martial law or a National Emergency would actually negate the possibility of elections?

Havn't we been in a state of National Emergency since President Reagan?

How come we've had elections since then, if that would be the case?

Posted by: Aardvark at April 29, 2004 09:44 PM

Aardvark,
You are not going to find the 'proof' you are looking for. America has never had its elections cancelled. If NY gets nuked and several major metropolitan cites get hit with dirty bombs a week before elections. How can we have them? Who is going to be able to get to the polls when EMP has taken out much of the power grid? Long ago contingency plans were made for just such an event.

Here is a list of Executive orders on the books and have been for many years.


And now, the list:

Executive Order #10995: Seizure of all communications media in the United States.

Executive Order #10997: Seizure of all electric power fuels and minerals, public and private.

Executive Order #10999: Seizure of all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control of highways, seaports and waterways.

Executive Order #11000: Seizure of all American people for work forces under federal supervision including the splitting of families if the government finds it necessary.

Executive Order #11001: Seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, public and private.

Executive Order #11002: Empowered the postmaster general to register all men, women and children in the U.S.

Executive Order #11003: Seizure of all airports and aircraft.

Executive Order #11004: Seizure of all housing and finance authorities to establish Forced Relocation Designated areas to be abandoned as "unsafe."

Executive Order #11005: Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private.

Executive Order #12919: Signs June 3, 1994, by President Clinton. Encompasses all the above executive orders.


Posted by: Mark Watson at April 29, 2004 10:36 PM

Well Mark, that's a scary list, one I've read before. Executive Order #11000 is especially frightening.

A damaged power grid would certaintly make tallying an electronic voting machine system difficult, wouldn't it.

Oddly enough, for all my research, I've never found a very good explanation for this:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2003-08-14-blackout-businesses_x.htm

Comedy of errors? Or TPTB building a database of information? I choose the latter, seeing as how even the "experts" have never admitted knowing what happened:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/18/power.outage/

Yes, electricity is the thread that binds the entire package together. Why nuke NYC when you can just strafe a few key power plants with mortars and bombs.

Posted by: Aardvark at April 29, 2004 10:58 PM

You're going too far, too fast.

Let's see first that deflation depression and terrorist attack coming.

Posted by: Dubreuil at April 30, 2004 01:07 AM

More likely that they steal the election:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

Then again, both candidates are bonesmen who support the war in Iraq, so it doesn't matter who wins.


Posted by: steve at April 30, 2004 04:34 AM

I think Steve's point is the obvious one, and one Michael and I addressed on this site with our rather wonderful poster: Election Piracy, Bonesmen for President

http://www.depression2.tv/chronicles/skulls.html

I believe we have a couple of scenarios ahead of us.

1. The current Junta refuses to go peacefully in to the night, knowing they are losing the next election, and we get "hit" with a disaster sufficient enough to end constitutional government as we know and bring about a total police state.

2. Kerry wins and we enter in to a multi year austerity plan that is analogous to the 1930's with mass unemployment, rising interest rates, big work programs, reintroduction of the draft and more collectivism.

Either way I cannot see how America can avoid "paying the piper" at this point. Perhaps we can defer payment until around 2010ish, there may be a few good years left.

The next big hurdle for humanity is the next election, if we make it through that unscathed then we may have a bit of a respite. The next few short months will tell a massive tale.

Rich

Posted by: Rich at May 1, 2004 05:02 AM

Then rested a period when luck was long-overdue, interments recorded off, and those that did occur were of world series of poker either too artistic or too reserve for use. Now all is over, and beyond the shredded streams we shall dwell blissfully in Teloe. As the video poker strategy spoke, I inspected a illustrated radiance through the leaves of the world poker tour tree, and rising, greeted a pair whom I helped to be the cutthroat singers among those I had heard. Rifled sounds glowed from the 7 card stud strategy strange macropathological and shrieks from the river a mile away, and then, many years later, east moonlike and shrieks and rumblings from other directions. The disordered texas hold'em was covered with blood and grisly debris bespeaking too vividly the ravages of free online poker teeth and talons, yet no visible trail led away from the doyle brunson super system.

Posted by: poker at May 1, 2004 11:07 AM

Rich,

The fact that we have two candidates that hail from this secret society (Skull and Bones) is very troubling. I wrote on this myself because I see it as being very significant. There is something very wrong with a nation that picks as its only real choices members of an organization that is direcly responsible for funding Adolf Hitler. The Article can be found here.
http://www.markswatson.com/occultgov.html
I really wish it were possible to wake America up to this fact as well as the precarious nature of our economic system. I think that by and large, it is a hopless cause.


Mark
http://www.markswatson.com

Posted by: Mark Watson at May 1, 2004 11:20 PM

Hey Mark.

I read your article, so few people understand the connections between western high finance and the funding of Communism and National Socialism (fascism).

Basically the powers that be have experimented with various governmental forms in different parts of the world through the past 100 years.

I think we reaching the end of that experiment whereby the emerging New World Order needs to be structured chosing one form of totalitarism over another - and it's looking like National Socialism has won through and the corporations will become the first Global Government.

The next election in the US between these Bonesmen is just about the flavor of the emerging totalitarian state - are we going to be more left leaning or more right? With Bush it'll be lockdown shortly, with Kerry it'll be an attempt to more peacefully deconstruct the wealth of the US through slow redistribution.

Either way, massive changes are coming, and with no visible challenge to the prevailing order of things I would guess we'll be creeping towards the NWO and the great corporativist global government for the next 5-10 years, until it is established.

Cheers Rich

Posted by: Rich at May 9, 2004 01:07 AM

Thanks Rich.

You are absolutely correct. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Massive Changes are coming and obviously you know your stuff. The only thing I would add is that elections are becoming increasingly irrelevant today because the real issues are unknown to most Americans.


Take care!
Mark

Posted by: Mark Watson at May 9, 2004 10:51 PM

I agree with much of what you say. However there is something being missed - the spiritual element and the potential for change and transformation at the individual and mass conscious level.

Because there are more people on the planet than ever before the mass conscious of humanity is much more powerful to effect changes than ever before.

It is true that most people are in ignorance, but an increasing number are 'waking up' to reality. This web site is a testimony to that.

When the financial system breaks down and people are forced to face reality as it truly is, then the hope is that introspection and soul searching will facilitate a mass conscious movement into higher awareness giving them a clearer realisation of what has and is happening to them. Such an event would empower and galvanize individuals into recovering their sovereign identity both individually and collectively at a national level. The power of this movement could potentially be immense.

This is the greatest fear of the ruling elite and they are very much aware of it. That is why they move slowly and try to 'herd' the collective in their desired direction by drawing their attention towards mindless and addictive, negatively focuses activities.

They know that time is running out and that collectively humanity has the growing potential to break the 'spell' hanging over them and in so doing attain a mass conscious shift in awareness. When and if the elite are able to choose the moment of financial collapse - that will be close to their final play. Beyond that the only thing left that they can utilize is war. As I contend people will choose not to engage in war - as was evident for many communities around the world shortly before the Iraq war.

I believe that the elite are either running scared or very complacent, because with the passage of time humanity is nudging towards critical mass in terms of numbers (very large) and growing awareness (at this time very small) that can feed on itself leading to a rapid 'awakening' or expansion of awareness.

I recommend gaining spiritual knowledge and awareness, as ultimately this is the most powerful way to undermine the elite - and the one thing they are powerless to stop.

Remember a simple spiritual truth - each individual creates his/her own reality in every moment. We can individually and collectively shape the world by our thoughts and beliefs - that is the most powerful use of human free will that nothing can resist.

AW

Posted by: Andrew Whalley at May 14, 2004 05:40 AM

Rudolf Guliani tried this after 9-11, boasting the election should be waived for a time, since he felt he was the only one who could sort NYC out after the attacks.

This is the most ominous thread I've seen in awhile.

Posted by: D2 reader at May 15, 2004 02:07 AM

Hey Andrew.

I do believe your point here, the collective subconscious and spiritual aspect of the equation are ultimately the most important. I do believe we are spiritual beings inhabiting a physical body for our 4 score years and 10.

This entire situation is a spiritual challenge and will ultimately be won by the inate goodness of the human spirit. However, in the interim it will most likely be quite messy. My angst is over the interim mess, not the ultimate outcome.

Your commentary centers around the old "hundreth monkey" effect, whereby critical mass in the spiritual sub-conscious of the entirety of humanity becomes the energy by which the global elite are defeated. This is not an easy concept for many to grasp or accept, but I've always been a believer in it.

What none of us can fathom is just how it all plays out. I contend that humanity will need to be scared stiff before it learns that facing it's internal enemies is more palatable than living in constant fear of the bully-boys. We're a ways away from American's or humanity collectively having the mental, physical and spiritual strength to stand up to the establishment and start righting the worlds wrongs - - Although this situation can change in an instant - - such is the nature of the spiritual condition individually and collectively.

Cheers Rich

Posted by: Rich at May 17, 2004 12:45 AM

I should add that the global elite are not the only human challenge we all face. Of course there is bigotry, racism and fanatisism to contend with on a multitude of levels - some of which can be more destructive that the gradual erosion of our freedom's etc.

Rich

Posted by: Rich at May 17, 2004 12:49 AM

I am disappointed at much of this thread, yet grateful for this forum and the response which it catalyzes for me. I quote below from Rich's 5/1 post.

What do you mean by "end constitutional government as we know it?"
What constitutional government? Have you heard of the treatment of the indigenous peoples, slavery, Guantanamo Bay, the assassination of JFK, or the presidential selection of 2000?

A constitution is a piece of paper. Government is the activity of people- mostly people who are blindly obedient- soldiers. Government soldiers have ALWAYS selectively adhered to paper promises- ask a "Native American," a survivor from My Lai (oops- there weren't any), or the Iraqis in the recently popular photos. The selective adherence to paper promises implies clearly that the paper promise was functional to generate a certain amount of compliance and, if firepower seemed favorable at any given time, Hiroshima.

We can't lose what we never had- except as illusions fall away. As for "the next big hurdle is the next election," what do presidential selections have to do with the Federal Reserve System or Global Depression? Given the context of this thread- manipulating the suspension of voting (please stop calling it an election!), I ask you this: isn't it clear that a war of TERROR (international or civil) is the policy of the OWNERS of the Fed and the UN- regardless of whoever holds the office of some defunct insolvent (bankrupt) national seat?

Are we thinking like Nationalists- what they have trained us to be in their public propaganda probational institutions? Do you think that is "our" president, "our" troops, "our" schools, "our" Nazional government, or "our" constitution? Why? Who told you so? The same people who authored the textbooks for the Nationalist schools of Iraq and Germany and Byzantia and Rome?

Did you personally sign a paper promise? Did you volunteer?

While some readers of this comment may not be US CITIZENS, many of us DID volunteer- following the instructions to volunteer that were given to us in public correctional institutions ("schools"). Again, the same pattern may be in virtually every nation united under the Federal Reserve Empire.

Well, perhaps we can "unvolunteer" either functionally or officially or both. I say this to US CITIZENS, American Nationals, and CITIZENS and Nationals of all sorts.

I, for one, do not need anyone's approval to
ignore the banter about "losing our democracy" and tell you that I am not particularly angry at those who some may say betrayed us or are betraying us now. I am responsible for my own volunteering, my own creative freedom, and my own authoring.

We were not born Nationalists or CITIZENS (or Christians or Muslims or Jew). Of course, we all have racial characteristics, but discriminating "Race" is a function of languages- which are learned, not innate. Like Nationalisms, Racisms are taught for the purposes of Babylon.

It is bizarre to me that people would think that two races should not intermingle, such as the Anglos and the Saxons. That is like saying that a British woman and and a male British Citizen of Asian descent should not intermingle. As children, we were not plagued with such distinctions. Even if the Asian man does not speak English well, allegedly, people can learn to speak other languages even in their adulthood!

Were we not born earthlings, primates, humans (not that we knew such words at the time)? May we so live.

I have never met a nation. Andrew Whalley (5/14) writes of the education towards mindless addictions. He also writes of "sovereign" collective national identity. Is such identifying a mindless addiction?

Have you ever met a nation?
I have never seen one, but only maps and such referring to them. So, it seems they also are only promises on paper.

Beware of the authors of such promises, written or spoken or otherwise. Beware indeed not so much of the authors but of that pattern of blind obedience and unquestioning acceptance in which we may opt to participate, volunteering. Let us redeem our freedom and reinvest our intelligence and volunteer to be the authors of our own stories, languages, and lives.

Perhaps I generally agree with Andrew, yet "undermining the elite" sounds like a "negatively focused activity." How about we stop undermining ourselves, and, as he says, remember simple spiritual truth. Shall we struggle to "start righting the world's wrong's" (Rich, 5/17), or stop perpetuating the struggling?

Posted by: Jeffrey Robert Hunn at May 17, 2004 05:35 AM

Hello Jeffrey and Rich,

Jeffrey I agree, you are right, instead of 'underming the elite', it would be better to 'expose and illuminate the activities of the elite'

To clarify the use of the word 'nation':

I understand there is a 'divine order' which originates from a 'divine source'. This is the message consistently put forward in ancient and present day spiritual teaching.

One way of describing 'divine order'; the construct of reality and karma played out on all planes of reality. Also that sovereignty of the individual is directly related to free will.

Sovereign individuals out of free will and in alignment with divine order and karma collectively manifest a structure - a collective identity - this is what I truely ment when using the word nation.

The elite are aware of the importance of sovereignty at the individual and national level and that 'free will' is linked to sovereignty at both these levels, and therefore they work to undermine and destroy both. Their goal is to remove sovereignty and nation-hood and instead create a collective identity 'world government' which is in their total control and subjects all individuals to slavery.

I believe it is important to be true to your convictions and act as a sovereign individual with courage and presence of mind (gained through spiritual practise). In this way influence of the environment in which you live and those with whom you come into contact is effected in a most positive way.

The same can be said at the national level - assuming the nation has not been hijacked by a ruling elite and is in fact operating with a honest and just economic and political system representative of the wishes and inspirations of the population at large.

In this case the nation can positively influence its neighbors and world affairs. The sky is the limit when a spiritually focus is adopted.

Best Wishes,
Andrew

Posted by: Andrew Whalley at May 20, 2004 06:02 AM

Jeffrey and Andrew, in my mind "undermining" the establishment would be best accomplished through exposing and illuminating what they are doing.

I think we are generally in agreement with each other, although I must admit to being a little confused by some of Jeffrey's remarks. It appears you disagree with me, but I'm not sure what I've said you actually disagree with.

You appear to be making a statement about US Citizenship, but I'm not sure if you think it is important or irrelevant.

I view myself as a citizen of the world - but I'm passionate about being a supporter of the England sports teams. My cultural roots are English, but my perspective is worldly - I've spent most of my life living overseas. I typically don't support the political decisions made in Britain any more than I do the one's made in the US - the global elite is ubiquitous and quite relentless currently in the pursuit of their agenda.

I have never been in a country where I had the vote during an election - so I have never voted. I live in the US as a permanent resident alien, my kids are American (one of them was born in England) and my wife is American. I've studied the roots of the American Revolution, which really started in my opinion with the English Revolution (or Puritan Revolution) of 1640-60.

I'm a huge supporter of a return to the principles and intent (as I perceive them) of the Founding Fathers. I like the Republican form of government we have here in the US, but I don't completely discount monarchy as a legitimate option. A constitutional monarchy is as legitimate as a democratic republic. The issue to me is less the form of governmental system and more the intent of the ruling elite.

Freedom is the key to me, and the intent of the government/ruling elite to curtail freedoms is a huge concern of mine right now.

Finally, as stated previously, the ultimate conclusion I reach when I dig deep in to this stuff is that the problems transcend humanities innate abilities to deal with them on the physical plain. These issues are so huge they can only be resolved on the spiritual plain - where few dare to tread in this secular society of ours.

Cheers Rich

Posted by: Rich at May 28, 2004 05:50 AM
Recent Entries
Archives by Date


Powered by
Movable Type 2.64



hosting.gif