Precisely the outcome from ideology overwhelming a society that professes Freedoms but practices Cult of Liberalism throughout every node and sector of life.
Corruption of morals and ethics and debasement of every profession is the state of the nation.
It has been in process since the coup of November 22, 1963.
It is not merely a Party ideology. The UniParty promoted it continually, even through the Reagan decade. It is a global cult mission that turned a powerful nation into a Hegemon globally and a Tyranny domestically.
But People see it clearly now. Trump has pulled the curtain away. And he leads a Movement to Drain the Swamp and Prosecute the Criminals.
It will take decades to complete the purge. But this election is the beginning.
Either it started earlier, or Ray Bradbury’s book Fahrenheit 451, published in 1953 was a prophetic vision. In that book the job of firemen is to start fires – to burn all books.
Michael Moore nails the core USA ‘F__k You’ motivation/dynamic beneath the media-managed hype.
It seems Trump has recently done a ‘Putin’ on the self-severing so called
‘Executive’ class… would have been niv=ce to see, … especially if he demanded his pen back from the thieving Oligarch du jour.
Very interesting analysis by Thierry Meyssan on the “State of the Nation”, only, it seems that he is kinda of the same opinion like me and sees the roots of your problems so deep as to the very foundations of your country and so….
I enjoyed Theirry’s analysis and found plenty of religious ironies to chuckle about in that linked article, because I was never attached to any denominations of any church.
The only student in my grade in Dammam KSA was the son of a Palestinian doctor, through kindergarten, and grades 1 and 2. There was no TV.
Grade 3 was in Texas. Grades 4-7 in South America.
My first impression of my fellow Americans in their own home environment was in Texas. A chubby girl of 10 or 11 in the same garden apartment complex announced in all sincerity, “I would die without television!”
I thought to my 8 year old self, “OK. These people are nuts.”
They will require plenty of compassion. Even those people in the audience in Michael Moore’s Trump supporting video. They need relief from the ruling .0001%, but most have no idea of what rotten foreign policies they ignorantly supported, that made others around the world suffer much more than they have, from those same people. Whether such understanding and compassion will be forthcoming from the rest of the world, even if most Americans wake up and seek atonement for the effects of their pitiful unawareness of crimes committed in their name, is a very open question.
The first step is for them to avoid being crushed by war brought to their own soil. Trump might avoid that war. I don’t see him inspiring that much compassion in the rest of the world, however. That task may have to fall to his successor, even if he serves somewhat successfully for one or even two terms. Which is a huge IF.
If Hitlery is elected, I’m afraid no successor of hers would be able to pull off a FDR or JFK role of making Americans liked in very many places, in 4 or even 8 years. Only a lot of humility over a long period of time would do the job, IMHO.
I usually enjoy Theirry’s analysis on events. But he shouldn’t write on US history. This article had more historical mistakes than I could throw a stick at. Most of Cromwell’s followers didn’t emigrate to the American colonies.Which had been founded before Cromwell came to power (some did certainly,but not nearly a majority).And while the Afrikaners were Calvinists (as where many Dutch in the Netherlands).And some British Calvinists settled in the Netherlands. Almost none of the Dutch settlers of South Africa were from those British settlers.And his saying the US Southern colonists were Catholic.A small number where. More than in the US North.But the vast,vast,majority of both areas were settled by Protestants in the colonial period.The Southern States also did not abolish slavery in the US South.It was abolished by Lincoln during the war.And while the discrimination against black people is a serious problem,even today.It isn’t nearly as dire as he implies.And while Calvinist religious groups do venerate the 10 Commandments,they also have Crosses in their Churches.I don’t know where he got that they didn’t from.It would have been better if he hadn’t written that article, instead of making so many mistakes in it. It took away from the valid statements he did make there.
I can buy that, Uncle Bob. What I enjoyed is the risks he took with many of his edgy comments. I’m sure they got a lot of non Americans going, and I’m not sure that some of the things you object to are that far off base.
For example, Britain did outlaw the slave trade. Was it in the 1860s, or earlier? And Britain was behind the Confederacy, Even the Confederate flag is an altered Union Jack. So, if you really stretch the sophistry you might say the South outlawed slave importation from Africa….. maybe?
But the issue is mute, isn’t it? There were already millions of slaves in the Southern Sates to breed, and the confederates certainly intended to hang on to that practice, at the cost of treason and joining the British Empire, and it was probably no longer economical anyway. So I don’t buy the idea of a moral improvement in Britain, either.
The religious stuff is a big mess you and Theirry might argue out, and you ought to know more than he does on that score, I’ll give you that.
IMHO there are only a few people in many denominations, that have any real spiritual depth to them. The vast majority are transparently playing a big game or moral pretense in an environment of elite mind control over the masses.
Thierry often talks with Webster Tarpley, who he should have consulted before writing this article. I’ve been at at least two Tarpley presentations on US History in the 1800s where he was analyzing what I think is called “The Great Awakening” of “religious revival” (i.e. Irrationalsim) in that century. Travelling revival meetings under big tents. Speaking in tongues, handling rattle snakes in a religious trance, etc, etc.
The best punch line of those presentations was “Revival meetings where more souls were conceived in the dark corners of those tents, than were saved.”
Yes,the British abolished the slave trade in 1807 (and slavery in their colonies in 1833). The US abolished the slave trade a year later in 1808 (but slavery in the US in 1864 and 1865).There was “some” British support for the Confederacy. But not nearly as much as is thought.The British people weren’t supportive.Only some of the elite and government people. Which is the main reason they never were able to officially “recognize” the Confederacy as a nation.The US and the Confederate flags were both based on British background flags. That was only because of the British ancestry of the US.The US flag is closely related to the design of the British East India Company flag.One that the colonists would have seen before.While the Confederate battle flag (the one you are thinking of) is similar to the Union Jack,in some ways.
Ok, but I don’t believe that the British Empire elites paid much more attention to the feelings of their “subjects” than the current US elites do. They have ways of persisting with their agenda despite such “feelings”. don’t they?
I ‘m pretty sure the prospect of war with Russia after the Russian Fleet was sent to New York and San Francisco harbors in support of Abraham Lincoln was more of a damper on the imperial impulses of the British and the French than anyone’s “feelings”.
That is true somewhat. But times were complicated then (as well as now). Britain had opened voting to the masses a few decades before that. And the elite governments were not as stable as afterwards.That was the Victorian Era remember .And religious thinking on morality (at else in public) was very important. And the religious elements of the elite,including the Queen,were against slavery. While the middle and lower classes were strongly against it.So that was probably the main reason nothing was done to aid the South.The support for the South was mainly because of the need for Southern US cotton, for British mills. But they started to import it from Egypt and India (as well as some of the other colonies).So it wasn’t the disaster they feared.Also the British weren’t going to recognize the South alone. That was an idea that was shared by France.But for the same reasons in France ,the abolitionist movements.And because the British didn’t trust the French (after they saw Napoleon III’s plan for Mexico).The partnership to recognize the South didn’t gain traction.As for Russia. I believe we think too much of that.It certainly was a nice gesture of support from one abolitionist (Tsar Alexander II in that time abolished serfdom) for another (Lincoln).But Russia was just recovering from the Crimean War. And was not looking for another war while dealing with the serf issue.In that period Russia was very inward looking.I don’t believe historians would give that more credit than the other reasons I mentioned for the British (and French) not aiding the South.
The so-called “Libertarian” VP candidate comes within an inch of endorsing Hillary Clinton for President, as he attacks Trump. One more proof if any are needed that these “third party” candidates in the US are only shills to deflect the “protest vote”.And are only part of the political establishment meant to mislead the voters into thinking they have “a voice”. Its sad and foolish that so many are tricked by that BS:
Its called ziofascism.
for those who do not understand what ziofascism is on a very practical level:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/27/tom-haydens-haunting/
Precisely the outcome from ideology overwhelming a society that professes Freedoms but practices Cult of Liberalism throughout every node and sector of life.
Corruption of morals and ethics and debasement of every profession is the state of the nation.
It has been in process since the coup of November 22, 1963.
It is not merely a Party ideology. The UniParty promoted it continually, even through the Reagan decade. It is a global cult mission that turned a powerful nation into a Hegemon globally and a Tyranny domestically.
But People see it clearly now. Trump has pulled the curtain away. And he leads a Movement to Drain the Swamp and Prosecute the Criminals.
It will take decades to complete the purge. But this election is the beginning.
Either it started earlier, or Ray Bradbury’s book Fahrenheit 451, published in 1953 was a prophetic vision. In that book the job of firemen is to start fires – to burn all books.
Michael Moore nails the core USA ‘F__k You’ motivation/dynamic beneath the media-managed hype.
It seems Trump has recently done a ‘Putin’ on the self-severing so called
‘Executive’ class… would have been niv=ce to see, … especially if he demanded his pen back from the thieving Oligarch du jour.
“Michael Moore Explains Why TRUMP Will Win”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc
Can anyone elaborate on this?
It says US under martial law since August:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13e8c07ebe268d79cf7ff3202f14fc201b18125d48f7b1d608d3fa0235ac8933.jpg
IIRC, it’s been under martial law since 9/11.
Very interesting analysis by Thierry Meyssan on the “State of the Nation”, only, it seems that he is kinda of the same opinion like me and sees the roots of your problems so deep as to the very foundations of your country and so….
http://www.voltairenet.org/article193847.html
I enjoyed Theirry’s analysis and found plenty of religious ironies to chuckle about in that linked article, because I was never attached to any denominations of any church.
The only student in my grade in Dammam KSA was the son of a Palestinian doctor, through kindergarten, and grades 1 and 2. There was no TV.
Grade 3 was in Texas. Grades 4-7 in South America.
My first impression of my fellow Americans in their own home environment was in Texas. A chubby girl of 10 or 11 in the same garden apartment complex announced in all sincerity, “I would die without television!”
I thought to my 8 year old self, “OK. These people are nuts.”
They will require plenty of compassion. Even those people in the audience in Michael Moore’s Trump supporting video. They need relief from the ruling .0001%, but most have no idea of what rotten foreign policies they ignorantly supported, that made others around the world suffer much more than they have, from those same people. Whether such understanding and compassion will be forthcoming from the rest of the world, even if most Americans wake up and seek atonement for the effects of their pitiful unawareness of crimes committed in their name, is a very open question.
The first step is for them to avoid being crushed by war brought to their own soil. Trump might avoid that war. I don’t see him inspiring that much compassion in the rest of the world, however. That task may have to fall to his successor, even if he serves somewhat successfully for one or even two terms. Which is a huge IF.
If Hitlery is elected, I’m afraid no successor of hers would be able to pull off a FDR or JFK role of making Americans liked in very many places, in 4 or even 8 years. Only a lot of humility over a long period of time would do the job, IMHO.
I usually enjoy Theirry’s analysis on events. But he shouldn’t write on US history. This article had more historical mistakes than I could throw a stick at. Most of Cromwell’s followers didn’t emigrate to the American colonies.Which had been founded before Cromwell came to power (some did certainly,but not nearly a majority).And while the Afrikaners were Calvinists (as where many Dutch in the Netherlands).And some British Calvinists settled in the Netherlands. Almost none of the Dutch settlers of South Africa were from those British settlers.And his saying the US Southern colonists were Catholic.A small number where. More than in the US North.But the vast,vast,majority of both areas were settled by Protestants in the colonial period.The Southern States also did not abolish slavery in the US South.It was abolished by Lincoln during the war.And while the discrimination against black people is a serious problem,even today.It isn’t nearly as dire as he implies.And while Calvinist religious groups do venerate the 10 Commandments,they also have Crosses in their Churches.I don’t know where he got that they didn’t from.It would have been better if he hadn’t written that article, instead of making so many mistakes in it. It took away from the valid statements he did make there.
I can buy that, Uncle Bob. What I enjoyed is the risks he took with many of his edgy comments. I’m sure they got a lot of non Americans going, and I’m not sure that some of the things you object to are that far off base.
For example, Britain did outlaw the slave trade. Was it in the 1860s, or earlier? And Britain was behind the Confederacy, Even the Confederate flag is an altered Union Jack. So, if you really stretch the sophistry you might say the South outlawed slave importation from Africa….. maybe?
But the issue is mute, isn’t it? There were already millions of slaves in the Southern Sates to breed, and the confederates certainly intended to hang on to that practice, at the cost of treason and joining the British Empire, and it was probably no longer economical anyway. So I don’t buy the idea of a moral improvement in Britain, either.
The religious stuff is a big mess you and Theirry might argue out, and you ought to know more than he does on that score, I’ll give you that.
IMHO there are only a few people in many denominations, that have any real spiritual depth to them. The vast majority are transparently playing a big game or moral pretense in an environment of elite mind control over the masses.
Thierry often talks with Webster Tarpley, who he should have consulted before writing this article. I’ve been at at least two Tarpley presentations on US History in the 1800s where he was analyzing what I think is called “The Great Awakening” of “religious revival” (i.e. Irrationalsim) in that century. Travelling revival meetings under big tents. Speaking in tongues, handling rattle snakes in a religious trance, etc, etc.
The best punch line of those presentations was “Revival meetings where more souls were conceived in the dark corners of those tents, than were saved.”
Yes,the British abolished the slave trade in 1807 (and slavery in their colonies in 1833). The US abolished the slave trade a year later in 1808 (but slavery in the US in 1864 and 1865).There was “some” British support for the Confederacy. But not nearly as much as is thought.The British people weren’t supportive.Only some of the elite and government people. Which is the main reason they never were able to officially “recognize” the Confederacy as a nation.The US and the Confederate flags were both based on British background flags. That was only because of the British ancestry of the US.The US flag is closely related to the design of the British East India Company flag.One that the colonists would have seen before.While the Confederate battle flag (the one you are thinking of) is similar to the Union Jack,in some ways.
Ok, but I don’t believe that the British Empire elites paid much more attention to the feelings of their “subjects” than the current US elites do. They have ways of persisting with their agenda despite such “feelings”. don’t they?
I ‘m pretty sure the prospect of war with Russia after the Russian Fleet was sent to New York and San Francisco harbors in support of Abraham Lincoln was more of a damper on the imperial impulses of the British and the French than anyone’s “feelings”.
That is true somewhat. But times were complicated then (as well as now). Britain had opened voting to the masses a few decades before that. And the elite governments were not as stable as afterwards.That was the Victorian Era remember .And religious thinking on morality (at else in public) was very important. And the religious elements of the elite,including the Queen,were against slavery. While the middle and lower classes were strongly against it.So that was probably the main reason nothing was done to aid the South.The support for the South was mainly because of the need for Southern US cotton, for British mills. But they started to import it from Egypt and India (as well as some of the other colonies).So it wasn’t the disaster they feared.Also the British weren’t going to recognize the South alone. That was an idea that was shared by France.But for the same reasons in France ,the abolitionist movements.And because the British didn’t trust the French (after they saw Napoleon III’s plan for Mexico).The partnership to recognize the South didn’t gain traction.As for Russia. I believe we think too much of that.It certainly was a nice gesture of support from one abolitionist (Tsar Alexander II in that time abolished serfdom) for another (Lincoln).But Russia was just recovering from the Crimean War. And was not looking for another war while dealing with the serf issue.In that period Russia was very inward looking.I don’t believe historians would give that more credit than the other reasons I mentioned for the British (and French) not aiding the South.
The so-called “Libertarian” VP candidate comes within an inch of endorsing Hillary Clinton for President, as he attacks Trump. One more proof if any are needed that these “third party” candidates in the US are only shills to deflect the “protest vote”.And are only part of the political establishment meant to mislead the voters into thinking they have “a voice”. Its sad and foolish that so many are tricked by that BS:
https://www.rt.com/usa/364237-libertarian-party-vp-insults-trump/