Apr 17, 2013
It's on. In the wake of the Boston
bombing, the event is arbitrarily being blamed on "homegrown",
"domestic" actors, and these are of course codewords for
Constitutionalists, people who oppose the banker takeover, gun rights
advocates and so forth. This is being done by government officials and
MSM pundits alike (read links below). It's the obvious follow-up to the
ongoing campaign to smear all opposition to the two-party system. Wait
for an aggressive drive of puns and word games. After all, isn't Boston
the place where a *Tea Party* caused a few (good) blows in times past?
The social narrative is always more important than the factual events themselves. The narrative shapes public perceptions and determines public reactions. If a tyrant can create a general perception that group X or Y is the "universal enemy/devil", as the Nazis did with the Jews, or the Communists with anyone they labeled "bourgeois", then that grants popular backing to despotic actions. So, the Boston event is already being associated with "memes" such as "Tea Party", "Tax Day", "tax protesters", "gun owners" and, most of all, that most elusive of all groups, the "rightwing extremists".
As you know, these mafia people spend most of their waking hours writing fake lexicons and quack checklists, by which they label as "rightwing extremist" everyone who is willing to make a stand against the corporate fascist government.
In this exercise in demagogy, people who don't like the Wall Street takeover are "rightwing extremists" (except when they're with Soros NED provocateurs in Occupy). Constitutionalists, libertarians, gun rights advocates are all labeled as "rightwing extremists". So are people who don't like the UN, the World Bank or the IMF. Or anyone wanting any sort of sensible reform; even New Dealers are now potential "rightwing extremists". So are "disgruntled war vets" -- is that how a country is to treat guys who actually put their lives on the line?
Likewise, even beatnicks who value their personal space are now "rightwing extremists". The same goes for non-aligned left-wingers, who want an end to war in the Middle East and stand for civil liberties in the MLK model, are given their own slot in the all-inclusive "rightwing extremist" label. You can't allow for civil liberties when you're part of the communist/establishment left. The big goal there is communitarianism, with local committees and commissars running everyone's lives, on behalf of the big public/private consortiums at the top.
This politicized psychiatric fest of insanity leads to a further repression of civil liberties. That's what a criminal state does. Indeed, you are now run by mobsters. Mobsters have no qualms about mass killing people to advance their goals. That's the Aurora in their grey new day. They even rise other mobsters to power elsewhere and allow them to kill a runner boy or two; watch Benghazi. Mobsters have a very ugly sense of humor. They'll say, after the atmospheric hurricane of Sandy, comes the psychosocial hurricane of Sandy (Hook). And again, they're bound to make ugly jokes on the Boston *Tea Party*.
Mobsters also like to give it to you nice and slow. The Obama era is very much along this line, building up on what you had in the Clinton years: a multitude of "minor" terror events, hundreds of sting setups, a widespread range of small wars across the globe. This is far more creeping and destructive than the desperado approach of the Bush years, with one Hollywood-type event, shock and awe, bring'em on.
The creeping approach to terror and violence was very well captured by Terry Gilliam in his movie "Brazil", where he showed you a very interesting picture of the "war of terror on everyone" future. You didn't have 9/11s there. You just had one Boston every other day. These were mostly false-flags, perpetrated by privatized networks operating the government. Staged terror was used as a pretext for the militarization of society -- gotta keep those slaves in line. That's where we're going, unless people snap out of their induced apathy and start standing up for what's right, individually and in mass.
I'm keeping my bet. If Boston was indeed a false-flag, they'll come up with patsies. Based on these people's actions, I assume the patsies will be something along these lines:
- "Disgruntled war vets";
- With a psychiatric ward, brainwashing, mass drugging history;
- With a history of racism;
- In some way connected to a right-wing group of any sort.
By God I hope I'm mistaken, and if I am, I VOW to listen to a full Barkey speech, and to gaze at a picture of Janet Napolitano, the Don, for one whole minute (the horror).
Please share this!
The social narrative is always more important than the factual events themselves. The narrative shapes public perceptions and determines public reactions. If a tyrant can create a general perception that group X or Y is the "universal enemy/devil", as the Nazis did with the Jews, or the Communists with anyone they labeled "bourgeois", then that grants popular backing to despotic actions. So, the Boston event is already being associated with "memes" such as "Tea Party", "Tax Day", "tax protesters", "gun owners" and, most of all, that most elusive of all groups, the "rightwing extremists".
As you know, these mafia people spend most of their waking hours writing fake lexicons and quack checklists, by which they label as "rightwing extremist" everyone who is willing to make a stand against the corporate fascist government.
In this exercise in demagogy, people who don't like the Wall Street takeover are "rightwing extremists" (except when they're with Soros NED provocateurs in Occupy). Constitutionalists, libertarians, gun rights advocates are all labeled as "rightwing extremists". So are people who don't like the UN, the World Bank or the IMF. Or anyone wanting any sort of sensible reform; even New Dealers are now potential "rightwing extremists". So are "disgruntled war vets" -- is that how a country is to treat guys who actually put their lives on the line?
Likewise, even beatnicks who value their personal space are now "rightwing extremists". The same goes for non-aligned left-wingers, who want an end to war in the Middle East and stand for civil liberties in the MLK model, are given their own slot in the all-inclusive "rightwing extremist" label. You can't allow for civil liberties when you're part of the communist/establishment left. The big goal there is communitarianism, with local committees and commissars running everyone's lives, on behalf of the big public/private consortiums at the top.
This politicized psychiatric fest of insanity leads to a further repression of civil liberties. That's what a criminal state does. Indeed, you are now run by mobsters. Mobsters have no qualms about mass killing people to advance their goals. That's the Aurora in their grey new day. They even rise other mobsters to power elsewhere and allow them to kill a runner boy or two; watch Benghazi. Mobsters have a very ugly sense of humor. They'll say, after the atmospheric hurricane of Sandy, comes the psychosocial hurricane of Sandy (Hook). And again, they're bound to make ugly jokes on the Boston *Tea Party*.
Mobsters also like to give it to you nice and slow. The Obama era is very much along this line, building up on what you had in the Clinton years: a multitude of "minor" terror events, hundreds of sting setups, a widespread range of small wars across the globe. This is far more creeping and destructive than the desperado approach of the Bush years, with one Hollywood-type event, shock and awe, bring'em on.
The creeping approach to terror and violence was very well captured by Terry Gilliam in his movie "Brazil", where he showed you a very interesting picture of the "war of terror on everyone" future. You didn't have 9/11s there. You just had one Boston every other day. These were mostly false-flags, perpetrated by privatized networks operating the government. Staged terror was used as a pretext for the militarization of society -- gotta keep those slaves in line. That's where we're going, unless people snap out of their induced apathy and start standing up for what's right, individually and in mass.
I'm keeping my bet. If Boston was indeed a false-flag, they'll come up with patsies. Based on these people's actions, I assume the patsies will be something along these lines:
- "Disgruntled war vets";
- With a psychiatric ward, brainwashing, mass drugging history;
- With a history of racism;
- In some way connected to a right-wing group of any sort.
By God I hope I'm mistaken, and if I am, I VOW to listen to a full Barkey speech, and to gaze at a picture of Janet Napolitano, the Don, for one whole minute (the horror).
Please share this!
No comments:
Post a Comment