The Obama Deception (A must watch video)

[Angela Leeds]

LoL...I think "love-mongering" stretches it, lol.

Or maybe not..."New-Agers" can dull their minds and perceptions with their "love & lightness" rhetoric as much as those who are fogged out by the "hope" rhetoric surrounding Obama.

All that confidence in him gives the Obama administration and its handlers free clearance to charge forward.

But...meh...I know nothing of any of this. I'm nobody. It's just what I see. I turn my eye to my life and what I *can* have direct power over. I have no political destiny, personally. I am no activist, except to encourage others to wake up and see beyond their limiting programming.

A mind that has powerful agendas is easily manipulated, if those agendas involve unresolved insecurities or beliefs they are compelled to impose on others.

[Brutha]

All that confidence in him gives the Obama administration and its handlers free clearance to charge forward.

Obama, as every president wants to be reelected. People will stay hopeful for a while but in the end they want results.

Additionally as Glenn Greenwald describes it:
That's why Brooks is angry with Obama here: there is almost a suggestion that Obama might have meant some of the critiques he voiced about Washington during the campaign or, at the very least, that Obama's anti-Washington rhetoric might force him, now and then, to oppose prevailing Washington orthodoxies and go against dominant Washington power centers even if Obama doesn't want to (which is what happened when his "campaign blather" forced Daschle out). Brooks is fearful and thus angry that Obama created a Frankenstein: leading people to believe that there would be any changes in Washington and that they had the right to expect it.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Obama, as every president wants to be reelected.

He'll get his reelection no doubt as long as he's loyal to his handlers' agendas. Sorry, I don't think it has much to do with the people at this point. There is too much corruption in the voting system and blindness amongst the people.

there is almost a suggestion that Obama might have meant some of the critiques he voiced about Washington during the campaign ]

Just useful & effective angle to portray him as independent & presidential.
I'm no historian, but it seems to me we probably haven't had an independent & truly "presidential" president since Kennedy.

[Brutha]

He'll get his reelection no doubt as long as he's loyal to his handlers' agendas. Sorry, I don't think it has much to do with the people at this point.

I don't suggest that a Republican that might replace Obama would be any better but if Obama would lose support among the people another president would be elected.

But maybe you are right and Americans are simply to blind.
In the end every democratic country gets unfortunately the leaderships that it deserves...

[yossarian]

Everything the propaganda ministers do is initiated by the subtle pinings of the population as a whole.

It is good to see yourself as part of a global brotherhood, and this is a positive movement for humanity for people to start caring about other countries in the same way they care about their neighbour, BUT what the propaganda ministers did is they saw this positive impulse coming and decided, like Aikido masters, that they would take the impulse and redirect it into a rejection of local social bonds. They take something good, and through subtle propaganda and funding turn it into something evil.

The goal of the rulers of the Earth is to dissolve all social relationships EXCEPT the ones that they sanction.

The relationships they sanction aren't bad relationships, the bad part is when they dissolve the other relationships.

They want to dissolve:

- The nuclear family (father, mother, kids, all under one roof, in the same house for 20+ years)
- Neighborhood unity (knowing the names of the people who live next door, being able to rely on them in times of difficulty)
- Local community (Groups within your borough or city of people who know each other and hold independent power and the ability to affect the community)
- Company/Employer/Employee moral obligation to one another
- City
- States
- Nations
- Race
- Culture
- Language
- Religion

They want to dissolve all of these differences between humans. They want all humans to abandon all the groups above.

The social structures they support:

- Individual Autonomous "Citizens of the World"

- "Agents of Change" political activist groups. Groups of activists who can temporarily be formed and funded with the intent of breaking down all the above-mentioned groups. The groups they fund in the liberal areas of the West are mostly feminist and gay groups, like the way they funded the creation of LGBT groups in every College in the West. Notice how they twist something good into something evil - it is important to give equal rights and respect to social deviants, but they twist the movement into something destructive that can be used to dissolve social bonds rather than something creative.

- Groups identity based on very wide-regions, such as East vs. West, seeing each other as the enemy. This is Plan B if "Citizens of the World" doesn't work. They are aiming for a One World Government but it is acceptable to them to have a few giant regions who they can play off each other. The point is to grow every government bigger and bigger, further and further away from accountability.

- Groups based on meaningless political affiliations such as "Right" vs "Left". This is part of the Hegelian "divide and conquer" Dialect. They play one group off the other to distract and control both. They support the formation of groups that advance the dialect, which is why you see them funding diametrically opposed political agendas. They fund pro-life groups so that they can control them, and turn the pro-life groups towards violence and extremism and away from any viable solutions. Just like with LGBT, they took something good - the desire to reduce the number of abortions that occur - and twist it into something that is evil and only works to dissolve social contracts and cause further suffering. Why is there no pro-adoption or pro-welfare funding? Because these are not agendas they support, but they do support endless militancy between militant pro-lifers and militant pro-choicers, both of which get funded, while reasonable voices are intentionally marginalized.

Any kind of positive movement in society they will use. Teabag parties - Look at how they twisted the movement of gun-rights people who, fundamentally, just want their basic human right to having self-determined local community. They took this movement, funded it, and then were able to control it and subtly direct it in the direction they wanted it to go, which in this case is to attempt to pressure Obama to be more cooperative since behind the scenes Obama has been seriously resisting both the democrats and the republicans and trying to get his own personal agenda passed. (Which I believe is a truly GOOD agenda. There is no doubt that the democratic and republican parties themselves work for the same masters, but I truly believe Obama is trying to work for the good of the people. Of course both dems and repubs are trying to twist his positivity into something evil - the power elite would like nothing more than to turn Obama into a messiah figure to which people will give away their power.)

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Brutha

In the end every democratic country gets unfortunately the leaderships that it deserves...

If a group of people were to vote on the color of the sky and the majority thought it was red, does the sky turn red? How about economics? If a majority of people think that X economic policy is the best, does that make it the best?

This is the problem with democracy. It was clearly defined in Plato's Republic. Democracy relegates society to it's lowest common denominator. That is, it's animal instincts. And those instincts are quite easy to control through mass media. So a people do not get what they deserve, they get whatever the oligarchy wants them to have: further slavery to their lower nature.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

This is the problem with democracy. It was clearly defined in Plato's Republic. Democracy relegates society to it's lowest common denominator. That is, it's animal instincts. And those instincts are quite easy to control through mass media. So a people do not get what they deserve, they get whatever the oligarchy wants them to have: further slavery to their lower nature.

Exactly. And we aren't supposed to be a democracy anyway.

We're supposed to be a republic, a nation of laws. If we can keep it, that is.


That's exactly why the lawbreaking by the Bush administration was such a big deal. Their lack of accountability for lawbreaking flaunted the idea that we are losing our republic.

[yossarian]

The truth is that every group always gets what they deserve, regardless of democracy or any other system.

In dictatorship, the public is getting what they deserve.

In monarchy, they're getting what they deserve.

In democracy, they're getting what they deserve.

You always get what you deserve, without exception.

The rulers of the world always rule at the pleasure of the masses.

Personally I think democracy is a pointless and stupid exercise. If you have an informed, educated, and self-empowered population, your rulers are gonna be good rulers whether it's a monarchy or democracy or whatever. Why even bother worrying about the specific system?

America was self-empowered for awhile because Americans were made up entirely of brave, ambitious, dissatisfied immigrants. America was a refuge of the best and brightest for a good 100ish years. As time went on, the "temperature" of America reverted back to the "room temperature" of the world, and so naturally tyranny took over in the same way tyrants have always ruled most of the Earth throughout human history.

Autocracy is the normal state of the world. This doesn't mean people are powerless - the masses have always been powerful and the individual is also powerful. But he exerts his power through his own person, not through some abstraction like "democracy".