This and That...

[Ross]

Just Because!

[Ross]

Globalist Brainwashing 101: Building the Perfect Beast Inside Your Head

January 20, 2014 By 21st Century Wire

It's all very matter-of-fact sounding, when highfalutin think tanks construct our reality for us.

The low end of public brainwashing comes from the mainstream media, but the high end of intellectual distortion is supplied by globalist 'think tanks'...

public compliance, it's important to preserve the existential threat, or the perfect beast. Harlan Ullman speaks of 'al Qaida' as some kind of naturally occurring extremist plague but fails to mention the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon and their roles in funding and steering al Qaeda. No mention of Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields. He speaks of the resurgence of al Qaida and 'non-state actors' but fails to mention the west's central role in arming them in Libya and Syria. No mention of Israel either. The facts are conveniently left out.

Globalist think tanks like The Atlantic Council are strictly targeting one of the most intellectually vulnerable, perennially naive and mentally challenged sectors of society: elected US Congressmen and Senators.

If the existential threat is fading, then it's time to build-up an internal threat. For this, Ullman speaks of Snowden and Manning – as if whistleblowers are  some sort of problem to be 'dealt with'. Ullman then outlines the big picture:

"September 11th could become the demarcation point of this new era much as 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia marked the beginning of the state-centric system of the international order."

He speaks as if Sept 11th was actually a grass-roots, Islamic terror operation, as if that were actually plausible. He attempts to leverage this historical distortion in order to put down the nation-state, in favour of an unelected One World Government underpinned by a cartel of globalist corporations, or a 'New World Order'.

In another recent Atlantic Council paper entitled, The Security of Cities: Ecology and Conflict on an Urbanizing Planet, social engineer and 'environmental security expert' Peter Engelke purports to have all the right answers... to all the wrong questions. He claims:

"The culprits are people who live in cities. The collective behavior of billions of urbanites is the main reason why fossil fuels are mined from the ground, coastal mangroves are turned into fish farms, and the Earth's atmosphere is changing."

The experts' willful admission of the true facts of the matter are glaringly obvious and reveal who actually pays the bill for these policy mills. According to the Atlantic Council, mankind's demise is all down to the "billions of urbanites". Not a mention of the arcane and short-sighted government policies, and more importantly, the run-away corporate cancer which has metastases in almost every area of social life, especially in the wanton destruction of small farmers and natural, organic methods of food production, in favour of big agri, big petro-chemical, big pharma and big gene.  Notice how these kind of elite essays dovetail perfectly with the UN Agenda 21 directives. Now you see where they are quietly nudging society, why, and for whom.

Arrogantly, pseudo intellectuals with titles like 'Senior Research Fellow' will proceed to write a version history tailored to a future where their status is preserved, which then roll it up, and shoved down our collective throats.

A look at who pays for all the Atlantic Council's policy hacks and their papers should tell you who their real audience is:

Unilever, ExxonMobil, Novartis, Genel Enerji, Microsoft, Accenture Federal Services, Aramco Services Company, ATK, The Boeing Company, 21st Century Fox, African Energy Resources, Barclays Capital, The Blackstone Group, Bloomberg, The Coca-Cola Company, Infosys, Intesa Sanpaolo, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, LexisNexis , PwC and Raytheon – to name only a few.

Yes, a New World, safe for them.

AN INCREDIBLE DISTORTION OF REALITY, AND THE FUTURE...


.
War on Terror Is not the Only Threat
.
Harlan Ullman
Atlantic Council

Unspecific warnings last week about an al-Qaida terrorist plot were taken very seriously.

With the anniversary of September 11th looming and the tragic killing of U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, last year still open political wounds in Washington, it was unsurprising that the United States, Britain, and France ordered the closing of a score embassies and posts throughout North Africa and the Middle East and issued travel warnings for the region. In the United States initially, there was general bipartisan support for the closings.

Critics of the Obama administration were quick to point out that the war on terror was far from over and pronouncing the "decimation" of al-Qaida premature. As the word "decimation" was wrongly used yet again — it means a 10 percent degradation — so too has been the collective failure by the West to recognize the tectonic changes that are reshaping the international geostrategic system far beyond the reach of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

Hence, the counter-terrorism responses have been technical and tactical rather than strategic and aren't addressing the forces that are dramatically altering the nature of international politics.

In simple terms, al-Qaida is symptomatic of far greater changes in the structure of the international system. The major enemy and adversary are no longer states bent on disrupting or dominating the system despite those who see China as a future foe.

Instead, the more immediate danger rests in the dramatic empowerment of individuals and groups, for good and sadly evil, often lumped together as "non-state actors."

Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, countless "hackers" and anonymous people mailing anthrax-filled letters whose actions have indeed constituted real threats and systemic disruptions are among the former. Al-Qaida and other radical groups reflect the latter.

In essence, the 365 year-old Westphalian system that placed sovereign states as the centerpieces of international politics is being tested and in some cases made obsolete by the empowerment of individuals and non-state actors. As former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft observes, global politics has entered a post-Westphalian era. But very few have taken note and fewer have acted on this realization.

The fundamental cause of this empowerment is the diffusion of all forms of power writ large commonly called "globalization," accelerated by the information revolution and instantaneous global communications and the real and perceived fragilities and weaknesses of states to intervention, interference and disruption by non-traditional actors.

September 11th could become the demarcation point of this new era much as 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia marked the beginning of the state-centric system of the international order.

While the analogy is loose, it won't take centuries for the effects of globalization and the end or at least the transition of the Westphalian era to take hold.

Beyond this inflection point in international politics, still unabsorbed and misunderstood by most governments and people, a second reality complicates taking effective action in what could truly be a "new world order," the description coined by U.S. President George H.W. Bush after the implosion of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago.

Failed and failing government from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe with Brussels and Washington in between is the largest collective impediment to the betterment of mankind.

Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance. The United States is Exhibit A although there are far too many competitors for that title.

However, the changing Westphalian system can and must be addressed if there is to be any chance of success in containing, reducing and eliminating the dangers posed by newly empowered non-state actors.

We have been here before. Sixty-eight years ago this month, the nuclear age dawned over Hiroshima. Over time as nuclear and especially thermonuclear weapons were seen as more than just extensions of conventional munitions and potentially existential, a theory of deterrence emerged. We are at similar juncture regarding cyber where we lack an overarching understanding of the implications and possible consequences of this domain.

The first step as the Westphalian system faces profound redefinition is understanding and recognizing that these shifts are under way. From that appreciation, specific concepts and ideas can be fashioned to help guide us on this journey.

The path will be difficult and tortuous. Politics and ideological preferences will confuse and distort clear vision. The tendency to overreact, as occurred after September 11th and the Snowden and Manning leaks, will collide with budget realities in which a great deal less will be spent on national security. And because of the pernicious nature of the U.S. system of government, finding institutions with the objectivity, courage and perseverance to chart this new unknown won't be easy.

Yet this must be done.

Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at the Atlantic Council, and chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business. This article was syndicated by UPI.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/20/globalist-brainwashing-101-building-the-perfect-beast-inside-your-head/

[Ross]

   

My emphasis on NGO's in the article!

October 08, 2012

The Westphalian Imaginary

by Tanja Venstad   
 
As students of international relations, we are all familiar with the Westphalian system.  The traditional story is as follows (in greatly simplified form):

The Thirty Years' War was a struggle between two main parties.  On one side were the "universalists" and on the other were the "particularists".  The universalists were the members of the Habsburg dynasty who advocated absolute control over Christendom.  The particularists were those who rejected overlordship and upheld the right of all states to full independence.  The particularists won, and the great Peace of Westphalia was signed, which formalized the principles of state sovereignty, autonomy, and equality.  The Peace of Westphalia marked the transformation of the international system into a system that would respect a states' authority over its defined geographic area and freedom from outside interference in its domestic affairs.  The Westphalian system has been the primary structure of the international system since 1648, but reached its peak, or "Golden Age", in the nineteenth century with the rise of nationalism.

International relations theorists adopted the view of the winners and three main tenants of the treaty are defined as enduring characteristics of the international system:

1.All states have a right to sovereignty and political self-determination
2.All states are legally equal
3.One state (or a group of states) cannot interfere in the affairs of another

The Westphalian settlement has formed the normative structure of the modern world order for the past four centuries.  However, in the past twenty years or so, it has been suggested that the Westphalian system is in decline.  One can observe the gradual shift from the state-centric Westphalian system to one (which has yet to be defined or labeled) which includes strong non-state actors such as the European Union, terrorist groups, NGOs, etc.

But my question is: how can we be moving into a post-Westphalian system when the Westphalian system never existed?

The Westphalian system is a construct that has guided international relations for hundreds of years.  But I believe that we have never actually experienced a true Westphalian system.

First, let's look at the Thirty Years' War.  Common IR rhetoric tells us the story written above.  It's clear that this was a complex conflict with a variety of actors, motivations, and goals.  But if one examines the war more closely, the Habsburgs did not start the war because they wanted to expand their power.  In fact, the other actors (France, Denmark, and Sweden) in Europe were trying to diminish the Habsburg's role and aggressively expand their own territory.  The war began as a conflict between the Habsburg's and the German princes; the other powers jumped in claiming to be fighting oppression, but really hoping to increase their landholdings.

So, if the war was not fought in the name of defending national sovereignty, then our interpretation of the peace treaties cannot be right.  IR scholars tend to read the treaties as concerned with issues of sovereignty and reordering the European system.  However, the peace treaties dealt primarily with freedom of religion and religious practices within states.  None of the states involved in the war were concerned with losing their sovereignty, but rather with reshuffling the balance of power in their favor.  No great revolution in the way we conceptualize sovereignty actually occurred.  The hierarchical system that was in place before the Thirty Years' War, endured after the war and after the peace treaties.  The idea of an international "system" is an 18th century construct that was then used to analyze past events.  The Peace of Westphalia is a major turning point, not because the peace treaties themselves said anything about the principles of sovereignty, territoriality, and autonomy, but because of their implications for the development of IR theory.

Also, the Westphalian system has more exceptions than rules.  I can name hundreds of instances in which the sovereignty of one state was violated by another: recent intervention in Libya, the European Union, the First Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Soviet satellite states during the Cold War, colonization of the Americas, Asia, and Africa...I could go on forever.  The point is, if we insist that the principles of sovereignty, territoriality, and autonomy are the three foundational principles of international system, why do we break our own rules so often?  Could it be because our fixation on the Westphalian model is preventing us from seeing the world as it really is?  We cannot claim that we operate in the Westphalian way when we conduct our international relations as exceptions to the Westphalian model.

But just because the Westphalian system is imaginary does not mean that it is not important.  Whether it exists or not, the Westphalian model has guided international relations for over four hundred years.  The basic notions of sovereignty, territoriality, and autonomy are the foundations upon which we have structured our world.  And this story that we are told about the Westphalian system makes sense.  The Westphalian model offers a simple, arresting, and elegant image of our world.  And we're reluctant to accept that the lens we have constructed, the lens through which international relations has been studied for years, is just that: a lens.  The recent discourse on the "decline" of the Westphalian system is relevant only in the theoretical sense.  IR theory tells us that it's important to understand we are moving to a post-Westphalian world; but in actuality, we were never even in a Westphalian system.

http://scinternationalreview.org/2012/10/the-westphalian-imaginary-5/

[Warph]

"I Have A Dream..."

Probably the most famous speech of the 20th century by Martin Luther King, Jr. on Wednesday, August 28, 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.  I present to you a heartfelt speech which reminds us the fundamental rights and values of man in full version![/color][/b][/size]

Born:
Michael King, Jr.
January 15, 1929
Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.

Died: From an Assassin's Bulltet
April 4, 1968 (aged 39)
Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.

Monuments:
Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial
located in West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C.,


Education:
Alma mater Morehouse College (B.A.)
Crozer Theological Seminary (B.D.)
Boston University (Ph.D.)

Occupation:
Clergyman, activist
Organization: Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC)
Political movement: African-American Civil Rights Movement, Peace movement
Religion: Baptist (Progressive National Baptist Convention)

Spouse(s):
Coretta Scott King (1953–1968)
Children Yolanda Denise King (B.1955–D.2007)
Martin Luther King III (b. 1957)
Dexter Scott King (b. 1961)
Bernice Albertine King (b. 1963)

Parents:
Martin Luther King, Sr.
Alberta Williams King

Awards:
Nobel Peace Prize (1964),
Presidential Medal of Freedom (1977, posthumous),
Congressional Gold Medal (2004, posthumous)

Signature:

[Ross]

There are several videos listed on youtube about this subject at:

Is this a conspiracy or just a plan?
Is the United Nations real or fictitious?
Why have so many United States, State Governments voted resolutions to block the United Nations Agenda 21?

All this is for you to decide?

[Ross]

REALLY !

During a fundraiser in Tampa in December 2007, in which she discussed how hard it was for her and her husband to pay off student loans from "good schools," Michelle Obama said the following:

"What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country - the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama - a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world."

See it here: (The reference to "Kenyan" starts about 2:00 minutes into the video) -

Once again Michelle Obama said that Barrack is from Kenya... just saying.

These were in 2007 and 2010, but they are as good as new to me, because I never saw them until today.

[Warph]

A Message to Obuma:

"Being Black Isn't Your Problem.  The Problem Is You Suck!"

One of our favorite commentators on politics and global happenings is back with his latest diatribe, and as is usually the case, he's right on target.

This week Bob at Drinking with Bob takes aim at President Obama's recent comments in an interview with The New Yorker in which he made the claim that one of the main reasons his popularity is sinking is because he is black and some Americans haven't gotten over that.

Here is the excerpt of the interview to which Bob responds in the following video:

Obama's election was one of the great markers in the black freedom struggle. In the electoral realm, ironically, the country may be more racially divided than it has been in a generation. Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history.

The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country. Obama's drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters. "There's no doubt that there's some folks who just really dislike me because they don't like the idea of a black President," Obama said.  "There is a historic connection between some of the arguments that we have politically and the history of race in our country, and sometimes it's hard to disentangle those issues."

There is no doubt that there are those who dislike Barack Obama because he is black. Likewise, there are plenty of African Americans who dislike white politicians simply because of the color of their skin. Welcome to earth, what else is new?

But for President Obama to make this claim is not only disingenuous, but is a complete deflection to steer the American people away from his failures and to pit us against each other by once again throwing out the race card..

Barack Obama became President of the United States because half of the country voted for him. And he knows very well that a large portion of those voters were white. In recent weeks we've seen his poll numbers collapse to a 39% approval rating, suggesting that many who supported him during the elections have lost faith.

If we are to believe the President, then that 10% drop in approval was a result of the anti-black racists?

When they voted for a (half) black man for President it was a "fundamental transformation" for America. What's troubling is that when those very same people who put him in office disapprove of his performance, President Obama claims they are doing so because of the color of his skin?

His complete failure in everything he's touched – from health care to foreign policy –couldn't possibly be the reason, right?

Bob weighs in:
Stop using the color of your skin as an excuse for your failures. Being black isn't your problem. The problem is you suck, bro. You friggin' suck.

Obama's New Excuse - "I'm Black"...

Previously from Bob (because sometimes one video isn't enough): "What was Obama Doing at Harvard... Parkin' Friggin Cars?"

Obama is Unqualified to be President...

[Warph]

Poll: Support For ObumaCrappyCare Hits Record Low, 36%

(Love it...)

Via Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/23/fox-news-poll-obamacare-support-hits-record-low/

A record high number of voters now oppose the 2010 Affordable Care Act and a record low number supports it, according to the latest Fox News poll.

In addition, a majority thinks the new law will increase their health care costs, while few think it will improve their quality of care.

The new poll finds 59 percent of voters oppose the health care law, up from 55 percent who opposed it six months ago (June 2013).  The increase in opposition comes from both independents and Democrats.

Nearly a third of Democrats — 30 percent — oppose the law, up from 22 percent in June.

Opposition among independents went from 53 percent to 64 percent today.

Overall, 36 percent of voters favor the new health care law.  That's down from 40 percent in June and marks a new low.

Sixty-four percent of Democrats, 29 percent of independents and 11 percent of Republicans like the law.

[Warph]

Stupid Tweet Of The Day

Libertarian Nation @LibertarianWing

[Warph]

Report: Obuma Admin "Doesn't Object" To Lebanese Government That Includes Hezbollah

(The Clown's already getting snuggly with Ayatollah Khamenei, so why not Hezbollah?
White House renovations seem to be going well)

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/804/8471/original.jpg?w=600&h

(NOW) — The Obama administration finally got what it wanted as the Geneva II conference kicked off yesterday with the stated purpose of joining together the Assad regime and the opposition in a transitional government. At the same time, another farcical production is underway in Beirut, as efforts continue to form a unity government including Hezbollah and the March 14 bloc. As with its Syrian iteration, the formation of such a Lebanese government appears to have US backing. Sensing a convergence with American preferences, Hezbollah is playing up to Washington, seeking to leverage the US position to its advantage.

Renewed talk of a national unity government took many in Beirut by surprise, especially when former Prime Minister Saad Hariri appeared open to the idea. So far it remains unclear what motivated Hariri's decision, but what is curious is that a potential partnership with Hezbollah in government looks to be receiving approval from Washington.

Over the past several weeks, the pro-Hezbollah media has published alleged quotes by David Hale, US ambassador to Lebanon, as well as by another unnamed US official weighing in on the question of forming a unity government. Last December, as there was talk of President Suleiman forming a neutral government, the pro-Hezbollah Al-Akhbar newspaper published what it claimed was Ambassador Hale's counsel on the matter to Suleiman's advisor. According to Al-Akhbar, Hale allegedly expressed "America's understanding of Saudi Arabia's rejection of Hezbollah's participation in any government. However, America fears the reaction of Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran to such a step. For these reactions could lead to a total loss of stability, and maybe worse, to total Hezbollah and Syrian control over Lebanon." Hale, Al-Akhbar proceeded to say, then counseled Suleiman's advisor to support the efforts of Walid Jumblatt, who was working for a unity government with Hezbollah.

Then earlier this month, the pro-Hezbollah newspaper As-Safir quoted another unnamed US official making that point more explicitly. "If the obligatory gateway to forming a new government in Lebanon is partnership with Hezbollah, then the US does not object, especially since the reality and composition of Lebanon attest without a doubt that there is no possibility to form a government without Hezbollah."

Read More At:https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/531904-hook-line-and-sinker