Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out Radio Far Side. Send thoughts and comments to luap.jkt at gmail, and tell all your friends. Sampai jumpa, y'all.


Simple Questions, Complex Answers

One of our long-term readers and correspondents, LK, has done it again by sending a huge, loaded question using their regular economy of words:
"What is your take on the military and CIA and how O is getting rid of them?"
I could take the easy route out of this one and say that Obama is paving the way for the Anticrhrist, and I'd have backup, but I'll resist the temptation and delve a bit deeper into this issue.

Let's dispose of the Petaeus case first.  In case you've been under a rock for the past decade, and a lot of folks are, David Petraeus was the US general sent into Afghanistan to oversee the "Quiet Surge" against Afghan "Taliban warlords and strongmen", and prevent the Anglo-American Empire from becoming yet another victim in the long line of historic empires who met their doom in that land.

Forget for a moment that under the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 80s, it was known as "military escalation" against "Taliban freedom fighters".  See Tom Hanks in "Charlie Wilson's War".

In a desperate attempt to keep the American public on track with the war effort, Petaeus was built up into a military genius and his "Surge" was considered highly successful, though facts tend to disagree.  As a reward, Petraeus was handed the reins of the CIA, figuring he'd be a compliant sort, lest the PTB take away his glorious mantle.

Well, it seems that Petraeus knows a great deal about the events in Benghazi and the death of the Libyan ambassador there.  So much, in fact, that he was called to testify before Congress.  My guess, and this is a good bet, was that he stated to his handlers unequivocally that he wouldn't lie under oath.  This wouldn't do, since it would undermine the five or six officious versions of those events and even lead to Obama being brought up on criminal charges before Congress (often called impeachment).

For damage control, Petraeus was, fell on his sword to bury a few big skeletons in the US closet.  We can assume this since having an extra-marital affair is about as unusual in Washington as cockroaches in a New York brownstone.  Hell, if Bill Clinton could get away with leaving "DNA evidence" on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress, not to mention JFK's dalliances, we can easily assume much deeper motives in this case.

Of course, this is all speculative, but history and the evidence presents a strong argument.

Now, as for the larger question of disassembling the military, we will have to climb a bit further out on the limb of speculation, but I believe the cumulative events of the past 20 years will support the weight.

First of all, we must define current events.  There are basically two major groups vying for world domination.  One is the Socialists (often called communists, which is a gross misnomer), and the other is called the Fascists.  The Socialists envision the world dominated by the State and operated by a central steering committee.  The Fascists see the world dominated by corporate interests and run by a Board of Directors.  The central goal is the same, this is only an argument over who's heel the world will be squashed under, and how it will be done.

In the US, these interests are represented by the Democratic and Republican parties respectively.  In other countries, they have different names, but in nearly every case, there are two dominant parties who simply trade reins back and forth in things euphemistically called 'elections'.  The Socialists want to unwind the military and middle classes of strong Fascist economies in order to subject everything to the States.  The Fascists want to build up the militaries and middle classes in order to prosecute their wars of domination over Socialist strongholds.

The Socialist faction is centered around Russia, China and parts of Europe, while the Fascist segment is headquartered in the US and UK.  The recent US elections were a victory for the Socialists, which is why the corporate media and business interests are wringing their hands.  The firing of Petraeus and other efforts to undermine the US military are also related to the Socialist efforts to bring the corporate war machine to heel.  By discrediting Fascist military leaders, the Socialists can advance their people into key positions, and with Obama being a lame-duck president, he is free now to begin the pogrom in earnest, having fooled enough of the population into supporting him.

The Socialists have also gone out of their way to undermine the middle classes of the US and Europe.  The Socialists want something similar to Orwell's dystopia in "Nineteen Eighty-Four", while the Fascists envision a strong middle class controlled by creature comforts and gee-gaws.  In actuality, we are seeing a sort of amalgam emerging globally, with the growth of Asia's and the subversion of the West's middle classes.  In effect, the independent Fascist middle classes must be brought to heel, while the cowed populations of Socialist states can be allowed to enjoy some rewards in order to keep them tied to the wheel of state.

In order to create the fusion of Socio-Fascism, the US/UK military might must be crushed and a new leadership with more compliant and less nationalistic allegiances must be installed.

Given the growth of Asian middle classes and the soon to be complete destruction of Western middle classes, plus the balancing of military strength across the planet, that some kind of truce has been made at the highest levels of global domination, with a fusion of the two competing economic and political systems being the consensus outcome.  Eventually, probably sooner than later, an equilibrium will be struck globally with power being shared between corporate and state interests.

Whether this will be a successful marriage of opposites (not complete since they share the same overarching goal) remains to be seen.  Certainly, the masses seem content when they have disposable income, TeeVees and little blinky lights in a box to distract them.  However, there seems to be a need on the part of the PTB to completely expunge the independent spirit still flickering in certain Western cultures.  Those people must be completely dismembered and rebuilt in the image of the PTB.

For their part, the PTB seem to have come to a consensus.  The Socialists see the value of creature comforts and hypnotic toys in keeping the masses controlled, while the Fascists have witnessed the value of forced production and consumption.  And certainly both sides are happy with the re-election of Obama and the fall of Petraeus, since it advances the goal of subduing the West into the global empire.  The Obamacare tax beginning next year will be the final nail in that coffin.

On the other side is a small but growing number of people who realize that slavery is slavery, whether the chains are gold or steel.  There is a definite war going on with the Socio-Fascists on one side and the free humans on the other.  The Ron Paul campaign exposed a great number of them, and that may in fact have been the purpose of allowing Ron Paul to be as successful as he was, whether or not Paul was aware of it (and I haven't decided which yet).

The free thinkers have been drawn into the open now.  Their positions and strongholds have been revealed.  If you perceive the PTB being a little cockier and more at ease, this is why.  The final battle for global domination can begin in earnest now, since all sides and see each other clearly.  The problem is that most free thinkers don't know what they've done yet.  People like Assange and Paul have smoked out the resistace and the PTB can target them at last.

Where is all this leading?  Well, that is entirely up to you, dear reader.  First, you must decide if you are a Socio-Fascist or free thinker.  Then you must determine what defensive and offensive positions you will assume.  Finally, you must take positive action to join one side or the other.  The time for fence-sitting is finally past and the Big Showdown is at hand.  The only weapon the free thinkers have is creativity and culture.  The PTB have shown their modus operandi over the past 500 years.  It only requires a commitment to study on your part to get up to speed.

As usual, LK has opened a large can of worms with a simple question.  The answer requires every non-zombie to face the decision of what price they are willing to pay for "peace and security".  The evidence and strategy are plain enough to support this speculation.

So, which is it?  The freedom to choose your own path?  Or the security of having it chosen for you?  The former will require you to leave everything behind, while the latter will see everything taken from you by force.  By 'everything' I mean dignity and self-achievement, not toys and gee-gaws.

Petraeus served his masters well, and we see the price of his loyalty.

As for me, give me liberty or give me death.
This just in from another long-time reader, correspondent and benefactor of our efforts...
"Hello Bernard:

Again, we appreciate your blogs. Keep up the vigil.

In your Y2K+12+Doom rant you posed a good point about all those instantly disappearing dissenters, such as the many Ron Paul supporters, following the Obama 2.0 selection. Like thousands of others I believe had done, I wrote in my vote for Paul. However there is not one mention in the media or alternative media about him that I can find.

I wanted to send you a link to an interesting article that you might not know about because it is on a financial website.

Along with moneyball and and scientific advances in neuromarketing techniques being used by the media there isn't much hope for all those Facebook members armed with Ipods and a deficit in critical thinking skills, which is just about everybody. Remember in "The Manchurian Candidate" when everybody in the company was going around parroting the same phrase, "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life." Well, a lifelong friend emailed me after the election and said enthusiastically, "Did you hear Obama's acceptance speech? He is the kindest, warmest, most wonderful man!" The heartfelt letdown is that my friend really meant what she said and there was nothing I could say for an answer without being terribly insulting.

Sometime I feel very alone, but your website is a great lift.

Best wishes,

P.S. You know what I miss the most about Indonesia. Riding on a crowded public bus with all those gentle, sensitive people,,,and durian...I miss durian.
Excellent points there.  Especially the one about the strange Obama zombies.  All very worrisome, indeed.

As for the durian, I know just what you mean.  And that brings up another simple question.  Who was the first person to look at a football-sized fruit with lethal spines all over it that smelled like month-old gym socks stuffed with rotten onions and contained yellow, slimy worm-like fruit and think, "Hey, that looks good to eat!"