Tag Archives: Rand Paul

Rand Paul: Formidable Populist or Neo Con Sellout?

randhypnosis

It seems Rand Paul will run for President in 2016.  He has charmed all the factions of the Republican party, but ultimately might sell out his libertarian base with his shameless support of the TPP and failure to demonstrate any intentions of halting the United States’ insatiable appetite for ravenous imperialism.

Rand Paul seems to be indulging in the same mainstream fantasies about terrorism when he fails to recognize the reality of government-manufactured groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Libertarians won’t address this issue because Rand Paul is their hope for real change, but it is important to remember that Rand Paul is NOT Ron Paul and the system will change Rand Paul before he changes it.

Will the change that Washington needs be sacrificed for another political fad, or will the public wake up and demand serious solutions?

Lest there be Sacred Cows

The liberty minded parties such as the Constitutional, and Libertarians possess an inherent divisiveness by virtue of being a group of individualists. It is a characteristic that exists much to the respective parties’ own detriment. It is a systemic issue that prevents the respective parties from going very far in the mainstream political spectrum. Of course it obviously does them no favors being constantly demonized in popular culture, labeled as “terrorists” and “extremists” simply because of a natural aversion to compromise on moral issues that ultimately affect personal liberty.

With this in mind, the liberty-minded groups have to exercise a measured level of discernment with “grass roots” organizations and the front people of these groups so as to avoid a corporate co-opted candidate who says all the right things to get elected, the person who is all the right things to all the right people. This will inevitably provide the conditions for an incurable case of apathy on the part of the constituents, because “their guy got in.”

Voters must be open to the possibility that the Tea party could easily be funded by trans-national corporate interests in an attempt to both infiltrate the party to stifle dissent and secure political power, or use the party to prop up another party. This is a pretty common occurrence in politics.

There were claims that the Republicans funded Ralph Nader in the 2000 election to hurt Gore’s chance of winning. Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party candidate was famously funded by corporate interests, compromising votes for William Howard Taft, which guaranteed Woodrow Wilson’s win. This ultimately cost the election for the other competing factions. More recently Libertarian candidate for Governor, Robert Sarvis in Virginia was funded by Democrats in an attempt to stifle the Republicans chances of winning.

It is not a far stretch of the imagination to consider that the elements of the Tea Party could either be used as leverage to give power to another mainstream party or it could be hi-jacked by rabid corporate interests in an attempt to maintain control of the system. At the same time, the liberty-minded voters must remember to refrain from inaction stemming from the false notion that they are powerless to cause change. Since these liberty-minded groups are filled with the remnants of society’s “rugged individualists” their bad habit of being overly critical of anyone who happens to rise to prominence because they don’t fit the ideal standards.

Ron Paul was the closest thing to a Libertarian in the mainstream. Dr. Paul was also ripped to shreds by the corporate-controlled media, and by conservative in-fighting—all amounting to the same issues that plague his son Rand Paul—not being “Ayn Randian” enough for the good of the party–the same in-fighting that is the catalyst for the destruction of the Republican Party.

On the one hand, it is positive that liberty-minded constituents won’t support Rand Paul or Ron Paul just because they are libertarians, but they are far from the “lesser of two evil” paradigm that we are accustomed to.

After Bush, the public desperately wanted a change, and Obama’s oratory prowess was welcomed with open arms.

Many voters are disillusioned by the system, and so they are unable to believe that anything can be done on their part to make a serious change. The generally benevolent and overly critical conservative, or classically liberal people could very well sabotage a true grass roots movementthemselves, or on the other hand exalt it to a position beyond reproach.

The public simply needs to hold liberty candidates to a higher standard lest there be sacred cows.

Shades of Corruption

The United States’ Constitutional Republic has fallen since many years ago, the government is ran by foreign oligarchs who wish to install a scientific dictatorship.

If any more attention is granted to the NWO front man–the revolving door in American politics, known as the executive branch of government, then people are really demonstrating they don’t really understand what is actually going on here. The people have been hoodwinked.

Obama is a puppet of the transnational corporations, to focus all this attention on him is really meaningless when there are other threats as well.

There needs to be more light shed on the corruption behind the scenes, and the distraction the president poses which ceases true reform.

At this point it is inconsequential if he really is an American citizen or not, it really doesn’t matter what religious persuasion he is, and his personal ideologies being communist in nature–all these things are blatant distractions from the technocratic oligarchs–the men behind the curtain so to speak that really run things.

All the complaints about Obama have been counter productive, it is like whining about a cough to get rid of cold instead of getting plenty of vitamin C and good rest. Knowledge is the vitamin C in this case, and staying informed about true political workings is the only way true liberal values can be sustained.

let’s say for a moment that people actually start ignoring the corporate candidates–the Republicans and Democrats–during the next election and a true libertarian gets elected.

Even if this happens the public doesn’t live happily ever after. Corruption is an inherently systemic issue, it is the sweat of the body politic.

The true foreshadowing of this rampant corruption in Washington today, the tell-tale indicator that the public, who was on the verge of a revolution, the fact that they did not prosecute Bush–he was not impeached, and the next president did not take action to file criminal charges for war crimes.

If the public settles for another Republican, like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, then this is a sign that things will not change. News flash: just because ”your guy” gets in doesn’t fix the system which is utterly saturated with the worst insidious malevolence.

Rand Paul’s law suit against the NSA is a good cause because it draws attention to the issue, but the public cannot be certain about his true motives unless he goes on record to convince the public he will pursue prosecute the treason criminals who have sold the American people down the river.

The only way things will head in the right direction is if a third party candidate is elected, they must be held to a rigid condition of scrutiny to ensure they don’t lead the public down the same road.

People have to remember that the liberals who supported Obama were considered conspiracy theorists for pointing out all of Bush’s criminality, and even though the truth came out about his illegal wars and secret prisons, the “liberals” ended up gaining the majority with the promise of correcting everything.  Unfortunately they became the evil that they initially protested against.

And even if the supposed tea party and libertarians who are labeled conspiracy theorists currently gain power, despite all their rhetoric about restoring liberties there is really no assurance that they will not become the same authoritarian scum bags that the Democrats became in the post Bush era.

The only real assurance can come from the people themselves, a well-informed public willing to hold the politicians accountable for their actions.  The solution to America’s problems will not come out of the Oval Office, and the people will have to divert their attention elsewhere.  If the citizens of the US mature and truly understand the political arena then that will be half the battle.  It will no longer work for anyone to simply place all the blame on the “elected” officials.

The people have to make real use of their system by starting petitions, boycotts, and writing to the local newspaper about real issues that affect everyone.

When the people are aware, and then make a conscious decision to reject the post-industrial neo-feudal technocracy then society will be on the right track toward recapturing freedom.

False Left/Right Debate

The country can’t afford the generalizations like the terms ”liberal” and ”conservative” associated with left and right anymore. They are gross implements of a technocratic agenda to dumb down populations by simplifying the language so logical debate becomes impossible.  These terms are viruses let loose into the linguistic atmosphere to devour the value in the concepts of conservatism or liberalism.  A decadent moral relativism has been unleashed into the debates, dismantling the political arguments.

The cognitive atrophy displayed in the current political atmosphere is indicative of the gradual dumbing down of the population.

It can’t be readily apparent upon casual observation–some upon hearing such a harsh critique of the state of society will deny such a claim vehemently that the people have either been reduced to the likes of slobbering zombies, or worse yet that they, through their own growing (like a cancer) apathy have let themselves decline into a pleasant mental slumber, free of conflict, questions, or independent and creative pursuits–this is the condition described by Aldous Huxley in his dystopian novel Brave New World, a vivid glimpse into a future scientific dictatorship; it is a fiction novel, but eerily prophetic as well–no surprise it is so accurate since Huxley was privy to secret initiatives as he was linked to Rhodes round table groups, which have had a strong influence on society’s direction.

Certain derogatory labels toward a certain group of people is behavior indicative of elitism, a precursor to authoritarianism.

Terms like ”birther” ”truther”  ”denier” become prevalent at the expense of the real issue:  liberty verses tyranny.

This seems to be a growing phenomenon in educated circles, usually individuals who search alternative sources of media for their information failing to give credence o the corporate-controlled presstitutes.

A serious look needs to be focused on the new liberty verses tyranny paradigm that is actively taking shape.  It is the future of the coverage of political matters.

A special level of skepticism needs to be applied to the likes of Rand Paul, the supposed libertarian savior, who receives an almost automatic consensus across the spectrum that he is benevolent.  Rand Paul could also easily be a red herring, a brief distraction from a more sinister level of corruption waiting for the liberal opposition parties like the tea party, constitutionalist, and libertarians to be briefly appeased.  Perhaps, the technocrats are betting on classic liberal minded individuals to go to sleep, the same way liberals went to sleep when Obama was elected.

The ‘lesser of two evils’ argument is manifesting again and consequently people are falling into the default mentality of settling for the other party that isn’t responsible for all the corruption and atrocities.

It happened last time when Obama ran against Romney, and it happened the time before last when Mccain was running against Obama.  The choice becomes:  “who is the guy who won’t mess things up too much?”

Realistically, one of the main reasons Obama got elected besides the man’s obvious divine oratory abilities, was the fact that the people were sick to their stomachs of republicans– Why were they sick of the republicans?

The people were absolutely sick of the war mongering, the rampant anti intellectualism, they were tired of the scandals, and constant constitutional violations.

The country was ready for liberty, they were tired of the US hegemonic imperialism: constant wars, secret prisons, and the neo liberal policies of third world exploitation. People still want those things, but their priorities have changed–if a Democrat pursues those things it is fine, and quite frankly they have been manipulated in a very obscene way with the most advanced tools of mind control available, truly innovative propaganda designed to numb the mind, to literally hypnotize the population.

The political atmosphere was very electric during the campaign between McCain and Obama. The people’s revolutionary energy was used to propel the Democrat’s agenda forward with powerful momentum. Obama became a civil rights icon almost overnight. He was equated with both Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. apropos of nothing besides the man’s profound ability to move a crowd with his incomparable and refined eloquence.

Besides the fact that this man Obama ran as a libertarian, essentially—really, go back and listen to some of his speeches about upholding the constitution, those speeches echo the sentiments of tea party favorites such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. One example of this is a comment Obama made about his vehement opposition to raising the debt ceiling, his reasoning for why it would not be prudent to do so was because the government would be signing off the country’s debt to future generations.

History is repeating itself, because conservatives and liberals are so fed up with Obama that everyone is ready to just settle for a Republican—any Republican, and it is the exact same mentality the country fell into in the election before last.

Both parties are run by the same corporate, multinational interests, above-the-law technocrats. It will be useless to just simply vote for one of the parties and seriously expect results.

Third party candidates have to be considered in order for this system to attain any semblance of credibility anymore. The third party candidates, who receive little to no coverage in the corporate-controlled media discuss real issues—issues pertinent to civil liberties. The politicians who act as spokesmen for the two corporate systems with the same mutual interest in this country, the Republicans, and the Democrats, act in a condescending manner toward the public.

Democracy is just a buzzword, it is meaningless, yet it gets thrown around with complete abandon in order to reinforce the illusion there is still freedom in this country. The illusion is continued that the public is empowered, and the government hasn’t been steeping in toxic fascism for the last fifty years.

It is a trap, plain in simple. The ploy to get the people stuck in a system where they are forced to choose between two incompetent criminals. The Democrats are propping up Hillary Clinton–no matter what–even if it came out she lost $6 billion during her time as Secretary of State; and many people will vote for a republican just to avoid voting for Hillary. It just doesn’t seem like an option to most of the population to vote for a third party rather than participate in the same nauseating cycle.

Scientific Dictatorship and the New Slavery

We must keep in mind the warnings of President Eisenhower during his final speech to the nation when he warned of the growing influence of the military-industrial complex and the rise of a scientific dictatorship that would destroy America.

We are entering a time when there is a very overt attempt to destroy the Constitutional Republic, first by gradually eroding the civil liberties, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.  An example of eradicating civil liberties through what former Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson referred to as ‘administrative legislation’ is the current process of enforcing gun control not by an act of congress, but by eliminating the process of acquiring the firearms through an administrative process such as drying up the supply through bulk purchases of weapons and ammunition.  So far, bills have been rejected by the Senate to restrict clips for certain guns.

There has been cases of confiscation in California, and Louisiana, also Connecticut instituted a gun registry, with citizens mindful of their second amendment rights actively reisisting. There have also been many instances of children being expelled or suspended from school for having colored toy guns, drawing pictures of guns, and playing cops and robbers. There have been cases of people reporting neighbors in possession of firearms—not because they were illegal, but because they ‘felt’ scared.  A recent case in Utah, where open-carry is legal, a man had a gun in public and was arrested, not for anything dangerous, but because the police ‘didn’t know what he was going to do’.

This is an obvious case of projecting what Orwell called: ‘thought crimes’ onto the public.  Senator Dianne Feinstein has openly stated her desire to confiscate all guns.  President Obama has declared that he will exercise his right to executive orders to further his ‘unilateral agenda’ on guns, since he was unable to affect gun control through the legislative process.  Recently a New York Mayor, John C. Tkazyik withdrew his membership from the Mayors Against Illegal Firearms, because he discovered their agenda to confiscate all guns.  He admitted that New York’s strict gun laws did nothing to decrease violence, and in fact left citizens vulnerable to violent attacks.  He stated:

“I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms and I will not be a part of any organization that does.”

However, in the meantime, there are plans to reduce access to firearms by making the manufacturing process virtually impossible.  One recent move to decrease ammunition came in the form of a concern for ‘global warming’ when reference was made to the lead content of the bullets.

Fear mongering has become more prevalent in the corporate controlled mainstream media since the terrorist attacks of 9/11.  Statistically you are more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack, but nonetheless the media hypes the terror threat to a fever-pitched level.

Legislation for increased security measures like the ‘naked body scanners’ which were rolled out after the 2009 Christmas day underwear bomber fiasco are presented conveniently after a terrorist attempt, it has been proven many times that almost all these alleged terrorists are informants who have intelligence connections, either to the FBI, CIA, or MI6 British intelligence.

In a recent Foreign Affairs article entitled, “The Rand Paul Bubble” by Colin Dueck, Senator Rand Paul was criticized for his ‘isolationist’ attitude, the idea of refraining from foreign entanglements, imperialism and nation-building.  Dueck makes a reference to the speech Senator Paul gave to the Center for the National Interest about diplomacy and making dialogue a primary concern for Syria, Iran, and North Korea, ‘’dialogue is always preferable to war,’’ he stated.

Dueck points out how he should be referred to as a ‘Jeffersonian’ or someone who wants to avoid military interventions; Dueck then continues to say that although ‘Jeffersonians’ are quite popular right now in the Republican party, that doesn’t matter because they usually have a tendency to ‘Jacksonianism’ which he describes as: a nationalist who takes pride in the US military, values sovereignty, honor, well-being, and security in a dangerous world—these types, he claims tend to have an inherent mistrust for ‘elite-sponsored legal, multi-lateral, and idealistic plans for global improvements’, but once their country is attacked they are ‘relentless’ and ‘unyielding’.

Senator Paul wants to cut military spending, strategic disentanglements, foreign aid, and scaling back the national security state—including the targeting of and surveillance of suspected terrorists—this last point is obviously intended as a blow below the belt to imply Senator Paul is soft on terrorism, or that he is indifferent to the threat.

What Dueck fails to point out is the loosely defined term of ‘terrorist’ and how concepts like: ‘the enemy combatant’ can be easily manipulated to include American citizens.  The term seems to be used to demonize political enemies.

According to the 2009 Department of Homeland Security report:  ‘Right-Wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalizing and Recruitment’, the new terrorists are gun owners, veterans, anti-war protestors, immigration protestors and those suspicious of the federal government; this report repeatedly combines what it refers to as ‘right-wing extremists’ with white supremacist groups.

It constantly refers to an ‘anti-government’ attitude, disgruntled people obsessed with the new African American President, and those angered over the increasing immigrant population—libertarian constitutionalists are also categorized with all of the above.  Anyone who makes reference to a ‘new world order’ or a ‘north American union’ are also suspects of terrorism.

According to the leaked 2009 MIAC Strategic Report on the Modern Militia Movement, those who are critical of the federal government, the corporate Federal Reserve, libertarians, constitutionalists, Christians, those who support third party candidates, and citizens concerned with sovereignty or ‘common law’ are considered terrorists.

The Foreign Affairs article continued to criticize the patriotic nationalism espoused by conservatives and the Senator’s lack of ‘internationalist’ ideals.  He is further marginalized for his ‘anti-establishment’ attitude, and he is reduced to nothing more than an idealistic dreamer with no chance of being elected.

Political think tanks like The Club of Rome promote concepts like: ‘global governance paradigms’, ‘changing outmoded practices like capitalism and democracy.’

On the Atlantic Council website, there is an article by Harlan Ullman, stresses the point of the elite losing their control, and he emphasizes the main goal to eliminate threats to the power structure:  ‘eliminating the empowered individual’.

The article goes on to lump whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning with terrorists, and he goes on to suggest the further overt implementation of the Hegelian dialectic, the problem, reaction, solution model of creating a crisis and offering a solution to the public in the midst of wide spread panic.  Ullman states:

“Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance.”

Ullman continues by insisting civil liberties and sovereignty are the menace:

“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.”

It is obvious that various liberties are being stripped away with the justification of security.  The fourth amendment is being decimated with:  DUI checkpoints, seatbelt checkpoints, random blood-draw/mouth-swab checkpoints, eating-while-driving checkpoints, and also the increasing use of warrantless wiretapping on a massive scale.

The NSA monitors 200 million text messages a day, storing all phone calls, monitoring all internet searches and emails, and installing chips in all new electronic devices to enable them to transmit a signal allowing constant access to that device regardless if it is turned on or not.  These are just a few of the gross abuses of the fourth amendment that have been leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The second amendment is under attack with ‘common sense’ gun measures put into place to make everyone ‘safe’ and soon the right to bear arms will be destroyed completely with tight regulations on clips and ‘gun-free zones’ put into place on school and military grounds.

The absurdity of restricting citizens’ rights to bear arms is worse when one considers the links that President Obama has with many terrorist organizations:  The Weather Underground, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda (Al-CIA-da).  In 2013 Obama waived section 40 and 40a of the Arms Export Control Act to supply ‘Al-Qaeda freedom fighters’ in Syria with weapons. The government has demonized the purchase of firearms, while simultaneously the DHS purchased 1.6 billion of rounds of hollow point rounds for ‘practice’ (despite the fact experts have pointed out the absurdity of using hollow point bullets for practice), and there was also a purchase of paper targets depicting civilians:  pregnant women, children, elderly, and more.

Mass surveillance on the population is justified by the supposed ‘war on terror’ launched in the wake of the attacks of 9/11.  No instance can be presented demonstrating how this intrusive omnipresent surveillance system has prevented terror attacks, but it remains in place, and in fact, continues to grow.  There is much evidence that actually points out that there was a plethora of evidence warning of inevitable attacks on buildings with commercial aircraft used as weapons prior to 9/11 from various intelligence agencies, plus multiple foreign intelligence agencies.  There were specific warnings about the Al-Qaeda (Al-CIA-ada) terrorist organization, and Osama Bin Laden before the attacks going all the way back to the Clinton administration.  Warnings to the Bush administration about radical islamists fell on deaf ears.

The increased surveillance system and police state has become more pervasive in everyone’s lives.  President Obama said in a PBS interview that US persons don’t have their telephone calls listened to and their emails read.  James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, perjured himself when he denied to Representative Ron Wydnen of Oregon who asked directly if there was NSA spying on Americans.  It has been revealed that not only is there massive spying to an obscene level, but the data from search engines and financial transactions is being stored to sell to corporations to better forecast economic climates, create consumer profiles, and strategize the most effective methods to advertise to customer’s individually based on past purchases, and interests.  After it was revealed that there was an on-going system of illegal data collection and spying, President Obama came out with a cool attitude claiming it wasn’t a big deal, Paul Revere, he claimed, did the same thing, and these NSA agents, he reminded us, are our friends and neighbors.

This is a blatant violation of the fourth amendment, the right be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects.  The above mentioned actions are a complete disregard for the tradition of the presumption of innocence.  Whistleblowers like Edward Snowden are being condemned and linked with terrorism for revealing the government’s illegal actions.  President Obama stated recently that Snowden’s revelations about the NSA spying on the American people will have severe consequences that will not fully understand for years to come.

With the rise of the surveillance state, the public is being conditioned to accept omnipresent voyeuristic behavior, a panopticon, much like the world of Orwell’s 1984 where everyone must be perpetually cognizant of Big Brother’s gaze.  Gradually, over time, and through subtle means the once high valued individual liberties will be compromised and expectations of privacy will diminish.   The methods employed to gain unquestioned power are classic psychological techniques used to control the public through means of operant conditioning; for example the collection of meta data, in the ever emerging science of ‘neuroeconomics’ is claimed to not violate the public’s fourth amendment rights while information called ‘meta-data’ is retrieved through financial transactions and internet searches, tracking every customer’s behavior, which determines the most effective ways to promote various products to them, like Amazon’s new ‘preemptive packaging program’ that claims to predict what customers will order before they know it themselves.

The tech giants at the heads of the major corporations are developing devices sold to ‘make life easier’ or more ‘convenient’—to empower the population in ways never before seen.  With new devices like Google Glass, a product that allows one to access the internet via hi-tech glasses, also now available in contact lenses.

Electronic enhancements have already been immersed into our culture, and will continue to become more commonplace.  The advancement in these electronic prosthetics will undoubtedly increase the value of life for many people, and it will be easy to justify diminishing privacy rights with claims that the ‘antiquated constitution’ wasn’t written with such advanced technology in mind so a rationale will inevitably be created to modify the laws already in place.

RFID chips are slowly making their way into our lives, soon they will no longer have the negative stigma attached to them.  They are installed in various products for demographic tracking purposes, they are in almost all credit cards, they are being introduced in some areas of employment by both government and private corporate agencies as a way to track workers.

New Samsung Galaxy phones with biometric analysis iris scanning software, or Iphones with thumb print scanning, social media venues such as Facebook provide the most accurate biometric data bases in the world with all the necessary information to identify anyone at any time.

All these so-called elements of technological progress are being sold as means for empowerment, but given the nature of such pervasive tools we must be wary of the potential loss of privacy, and the possibility of a new type of slavery.  It is important to note the psychological technique of ‘operant conditioning’ at this point, because it fits the scenario described accurately.  With operant conditioning, the subject in question can be trained in a sense to react to certain stimuli, and eventually over time a desired behavior will take over through means of positive and negative reinforcement.  Think of a reward system for good behavior that you want to encourage. To train an animal, the negative behavior is not acknowledged, but something good like a correct response to a certain command is rewarded with a treat.  The famous example is Doctor B.F. Skinner, who trained dogs to salivate when they heard the sound of a bell.  They associated the ringing from the bell with the acquisition of food.  After a time, the food was removed and the stimulus of the bell caused the anticipatory salivation.  One can increase their average of positive outcomes based on reinforcing selective behavior.   It is a very gradual process, and difficult to detect on a large scale unless you know what to look for.

The Transportation Security Agency is a perfect example of how the public has had its behavior modified over time.  Naked body scanners, pods that lock a person inside until they are ‘cleared’, checkpoints with random blood draws and saliva swabs, the New York stop and frisk policy, and now the suggestion of cavity searches did not appear overnight.

All of these examples of guilty until proven innocent would not have been accepted right away after September 11th 2001.  Compare the security that was introduced after the terrorist attacks, and fast forward to the attitudes and concerns about the violations of the fourth amendment with our current state of affairs—the complete invasive procedures designed to condition the public into accepting their predisposition to guilt.

With the elimination of the sovereign nation state, the dissolution of the individual—the biggest minority—into the collective ‘for the greater good’, and the prevalence of ‘global governance paradigms’, this is the beginning of the new slavery.