This Will Make You Laugh…

-

…or cry, I’m not sure which.

Why did it occur to me to post this today? Well, it turns out John Bolton won a Bradley Prize yesterday. His acceptance speech was a brief rant on the importance of fighting liberal government bureaucracies as a conservative political appointee. In other words, be a headache for your liberal colleagues and, in Bolton’s particular case, push back against the instructions of your quasi-internationalist Secretary of State.
And why should one do that? In essence, according to John Bolton, because some higher-level political appointees have “gone native,” adopted the culture of their bureaucracies, and are ignoring their legitimate democratic mandate to govern conservatively.
My favorite part of the speech, though? It had to be his grouping Sens. Lincoln Chafee and Chris Dodd together with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Syria:

There are, of course, many other people I should mention. For example, I should note Senators Lincoln Chafee and Chris Dodd, who did so much to help make me eligible for this Prize. Prominent citizens of Pyongyang, Havana, Damascus, Tehran and elsewhere also pitched in, simply by being themselves.

Mr. Bolton is a private citizen and his views are mostly irrelevant at this point, so I won’t take up too much space on this blog dealing with his latest. But this one was just too good to pass up.
— Scott Paul

Comments

17 comments on “This Will Make You Laugh…

  1. PoliticalCritic says:

    It’s the blind leading the blind with Bolton and Condi. Soon she’ll be unemployed too.

    Reply

  2. "Responsibility" & "Values" says:

    “How is the U.S. Government routinely influencing American Citizens utilizing technological devices that have been and are currently “classified”? The answer is: utilizing technological devices such as tiny electronic implant devices, radio-frequency “chips”, massive supercomputers in numerous countries, databases of psychological profiles illegally collected and used for these purposes without any knowledge or consent of innocent civilians, and dozens of other coordinated methods comprising a vast illegal, amoral, inhuman and entirely undemocratic and unamerican nazi system of oppression, control, coercion and disinformation, all linked to and enabled by the “mainstream” corporate media and numerous other “big business” sectors, particularly the “defense” establishment, which in this case is engaged in direct offensive war on unarmed non-combatant private individual human beings. The existence of such insidious tools seems too shocking and implausible to the already ignorant, deceived, and distracted sensibilities of the American public, which have always been shaped by their PR. Generally, a majority of American citizens haven’t bothered to investigate the nature of classified info or covert operations and hence believe comforting lies told to them by these masters of subterfuge.
    The DIA has manufactured this denial and avoidance in the minds of the general public citizen taxpayers of the fact that such sophisticated covert manipulations do in fact exist and are in fact being used on an ever-increasing scale. Plausible deniability is the most effective tactic for maintaining covert status of “psychic influencing” using classified mind control technology, the intended result of the media monopoly’s authoritarian, security paradigm promotional chicanery positing a “War On Terror”, which is a deliberately cognative-dissonant impossibility, as one cannot wage war on an abstract notion or tactic. Thus has been created the ultimate front for the ultimate covert control, and actually a war of terror, waged directly on you, the private individual. Plausible deniability and distraction from knowledge of covert operations has been and is the intention, goal, and desired outcome that the DoD works constantly to influence into the minds of the American public. This hidden foundation of American social reality paradigms is insidiously designed to manufacture compliance to totalitarian objectives of dominance and control over all living beings on Earth. The U.S. Senate discussed the issue on January 22, 1997. The U.S. Air Force’s “Commando Solo” aircraft have been used to send subliminal radio frequency messages to manipulate even the minds of foreign nations in their elections. Haiti and Bosnia are a couple of recent examples. In July 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense proposed the use of “non-lethal” weapons against anyone of opposing political views, economic competitors, counterculture individuals and so forth, who are all subject to attack through a variety of entirely amoral and illegal technologies and criminal methods, supported through billions of dollars of their own tax monies.
    However, because of the pervasive nature of these programmes, no one can be said to be immune from their influence, including those who perceive themselves as “in power”. Sooner or later even they must fall victim to their own devices, so it is best to protest the existance and use of these misnamed “non-lethal” technologies, as they are in fact quite lethal and do violate all standards of rational human morality, sanity, and conscience.
    It is very important to understand that The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders has been a diabolically engineered cover up operation in 18 different languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies’ actions towards their targets. The manual lists all mind control complaints as signs of “paranoid schizophrenia” in typical blame-the-victim nazi style.” – adapted from an article by Bob Burton at the Center For Media And Democracy
    In order to confront and comprehend these realities, one must first understand that the U.S. is not sovereign as we are taught to believe in school, but that it is in reality controlled, as are all other nations, by an internationalist cabal of enormous wealth and resources with no regard for our American national borders, national hegemony, or genuine national security. The science-fiction of George Orwell’s 1984 pales by comparison to the technological tyranny which already exists and which we are now living in every day. It also helps to understand that the “advanced” “cutting-edge” technology which we are aware of is in reality very old and outmoded by at least fifty years or more. The true nature of the state of technology is invisible to us, as it is deliberately kept from our knowledge by those who possess it. What can be said is that the intentions of these elements has already proven to be of the most dangerous and anti-human character possible, and that these technologies have their roots in the nazi experiments of WWII and previous investigations. The statistical probability that the many millions of pages of information regarding these subjects are all merely a hoax, or disinformation, or fantasy is mathematically impossible, and millions of people all over the world can, have, and are confirming that many of the elements described in these millions of pages are real, do exist, and are being used against them without their prior knowledge, permission, consent or agreement every single day on an increasing basis which is profoundly unamerican, anti-human, amoral, criminal, and civilizationally corrupt.
    “In short, for the establishment, human rights is a side issue that should not be allowed to affect the “important” considerations. The mainstream media rarely acknowledge this priority system in straightforward fashion; even more rarely do they suggest that decision-makers view human rights, first and foremost, as an annoyance and public relations problem; and they never suggest that human rights violations and violators might be viewed positively by U.S. business and political leaders. The media of course miss the hypocrisy and cynicism of this game. The business community and politicians have a rationale for doing little or nothing on behalf of human rights in numerous countries (or within the U.S. itself), often repeating that greater trade and investment will itself serve to democratize them. This is a wonderfully convenient argument, unproven, and somewhat illogical as greater trade and
    investment strengthens the existing political regime and gives it greater freedom of action. It is also interesting that this argument is generally not applied to Cuba and various other countries, nor was it to Nicaragua during the years of Sandinista rule–as in those particular cases desired change was “thought” to follow from reducing trade and investment. So we see it is all just made up according to expediency on the part of those who pretend to legitimacy without regard for numerous genuinely important considerations. The mainstream media don’t discuss this double standard and its meaning. Why does the media engage in the human rights charade? In part, because the public does value human rights and the nominal leaders of the United States are supposedly “in favor” of “human rights” and “democracy”, so that a show of
    concern by our leaders is required to demonstrate our high moral character. This display of concern is not necessary if there is little public interest in or knowledge about the abusing country and its victims. Whether the public is informed on these matters is, of course, affected by what government, business and the media choose to publicize, and these conjointly tend to play down abuses by the foreign and domestic regimes that serve ostensible U.S. business and strategic interests, particularly the utterly criminal brain implantation and electronic mind-control “business” and “strategic interest” within the U.S. itself. They have very successfully minimized publicity on genuine human rights in these domestic areas and regarding most “non-enemy” states. The mainstream media can hardly even perceive that official and business elites are not sincerely devoted to human rights; and the idea that they might positively favor human rights violations and violators, or be actively engaged in despicably inhuman electronic implantation and mind-control is completely outside their frames of thought, by ideological premise.
    Yet, they are occasionally puzzled by “investor” preference for authoritarian regimes. One illustration is an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Free To Choose: Investors often pick authoritarian over democratic countries”. This makes complete sense if we recognize that U.S. business wants a “favorable climate of investment” abroad, and that military regimes that will crush labor unions and otherwise serve foreign business meet that demand. In a classic of the genre, Business Week reported back in 1972 that dictator Ferdinand Marcos told one U.S. oilman: “We’ll pass the laws you need–just tell us what you want.” The magazine stated that “American businessmen have become increasingly sanguine about their future” in the Philippines. The point that the mainstream media couldn’t face up to is that Marcos, Pinochet, and the Argentinian and Brazilian generals created a favorable climate of investment by massive human rights violations, and were therefore greatly appreciated and given enthusiastic support by U.S. businessmen and officials. Similarly, Mexico, Indonesia and China have systematically attacked attempts at independent labor organization, thereby helping provide a favorable climate of investment, and attracting U.S. business in good part for this reason. But the establishment can’t admit that it is the human rights violations that make the U.S. and other countries attractive to business–so history has to be fudged, including denial of or eye aversion from our support of regimes of terror, including our own state-sponsored domestic terror, along with the terror practices that provide “favorable” climates of
    investment, and our destabilization and subversion of genuine democracy, particularly our own, that doesn’t meet the standard of service dictated by transnational corporations. In the mythology, we destabilized because of the Red Menace, not the “threat of a good example”. Today, the actors strutting across the stage in the human rights charade, and their media flunkies, must pretend that we really regret the repression of labor in Mexico, Indonesia and China, and right here at home, as do our noble,
    humanistic businessmen rushing to take
    advantage of repressed labor and the non-enforcement of numerous human rights, civil rights, and environmental rules. The frame is that despite their actions and lobbying efforts, they are really devoted to human rights and are doing their bit by investing in sweatshops of human rights violators, and in our own domestic labor “farm”, bringing not only jobs but our “democratic” example to “those” benighted places. Charity, however, begins at home. When the U.S. confronts the numerous insidiously evil “black-budget” electronic implantation and mind-control programmes long conducted on its own citizens, and entirely outlaws, prohibits, and
    eradicates that profound amorality within its own Constitutional processes, then and only then may it genuinely be said to be “free” in any meaningful human sense, and thus be fit to negotiate for the freedoms of others.” – adapted from The “Human Rights Charade” by Edward S. Herman

    Reply

  3. "Responsibility" & "Values" says:

    “How is the U.S. Government routinely influencing American Citizens utilizing technological devices that have been and are currently “classified”? The answer is: utilizing technological devices such as tiny electronic implant devices, radio-frequency “chips”, massive supercomputers in numerous countries, databases of psychological profiles illegally collected and used for these purposes without any knowledge or consent of innocent civilians, and dozens of other coordinated methods comprising a vast illegal, amoral, inhuman and entirely undemocratic and unamerican nazi system of oppression, control, coercion and disinformation, all linked to and enabled by the “mainstream” corporate media and numerous other “big business” sectors, particularly the “defense” establishment, which in this case is engaged in direct offensive war on unarmed non-combatant private individual human beings. The existence of such insidious tools seems too shocking and implausible to the already ignorant, deceived, and distracted sensibilities of the American public, which have always been shaped by their PR. Generally, a majority of American citizens haven’t bothered to investigate the nature of classified info or covert operations and hence believe comforting lies told to them by these masters of subterfuge.
    The DIA has manufactured this denial and avoidance in the minds of the general public citizen taxpayers of the fact that such sophisticated covert manipulations do in fact exist and are in fact being used on an ever-increasing scale. Plausible deniability is the most effective tactic for maintaining covert status of “psychic influencing” using classified mind control technology, the intended result of the media monopoly’s authoritarian, security paradigm promotional chicanery positing a “War On Terror”, which is a deliberately cognative-dissonant impossibility, as one cannot wage war on an abstract notion or tactic. Thus has been created the ultimate front for the ultimate covert control, and actually a war of terror, waged directly on you, the private individual. Plausible deniability and distraction from knowledge of covert operations has been and is the intention, goal, and desired outcome that the DoD works constantly to influence into the minds of the American public. This hidden foundation of American social reality paradigms is insidiously designed to manufacture compliance to totalitarian objectives of dominance and control over all living beings on Earth. The U.S. Senate discussed the issue on January 22, 1997. The U.S. Air Force’s “Commando Solo” aircraft have been used to send subliminal radio frequency messages to manipulate even the minds of foreign nations in their elections. Haiti and Bosnia are a couple of recent examples. In July 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense proposed the use of “non-lethal” weapons against anyone of opposing political views, economic competitors, counterculture individuals and so forth, who are all subject to attack through a variety of entirely amoral and illegal technologies and criminal methods, supported through billions of dollars of their own tax monies.
    However, because of the pervasive nature of these programmes, no one can be said to be immune from their influence, including those who perceive themselves as “in power”. Sooner or later even they must fall victim to their own devices, so it is best to protest the existance and use of these misnamed “non-lethal” technologies, as they are in fact quite lethal and do violate all standards of rational human morality, sanity, and conscience.
    It is very important to understand that The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders has been a diabolically engineered cover up operation in 18 different languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies’ actions towards their targets. The manual lists all mind control complaints as signs of “paranoid schizophrenia” in typical blame-the-victim nazi style.” – adapted from an article by Bob Burton at the Center For Media And Democracy
    In order to confront and comprehend these realities, one must first understand that the U.S. is not sovereign as we are taught to believe in school, but that it is in reality controlled, as are all other nations, by an internationalist cabal of enormous wealth and resources with no regard for our American national borders, national hegemony, or genuine national security. The science-fiction of George Orwell’s 1984 pales by comparison to the technological tyranny which already exists and which we are now living in every day. It also helps to understand that the “advanced” “cutting-edge” technology which we are aware of is in reality very old and outmoded by at least fifty years or more. The true nature of the state of technology is invisible to us, as it is deliberately kept from our knowledge by those who possess it. What can be said is that the intentions of these elements has already proven to be of the most dangerous and anti-human character possible, and that these technologies have their roots in the nazi experiments of WWII and previous investigations. The statistical probability that the many millions of pages of information regarding these subjects are all merely a hoax, or disinformation, or fantasy is mathematically impossible, and millions of people all over the world can, have, and are confirming that many of the elements described in these millions of pages are real, do exist, and are being used against them without their prior knowledge, permission, consent or agreement every single day on an increasing basis which is profoundly unamerican, anti-human, amoral, criminal, and civilizationally corrupt.
    “In short, for the establishment, human rights is a side issue that should not be allowed to affect the “important” considerations. The mainstream media rarely acknowledge this priority system in straightforward fashion; even more rarely do they suggest that decision-makers view human rights, first and foremost, as an annoyance and public relations problem; and they never suggest that human rights violations and violators might be viewed positively by U.S. business and political leaders. The media of course miss the hypocrisy and cynicism of this game. The business community and politicians have a rationale for doing little or nothing on behalf of human rights in numerous countries (or within the U.S. itself), often repeating that greater trade and investment will itself serve to democratize them. This is a wonderfully convenient argument, unproven, and somewhat illogical as greater trade and
    investment strengthens the existing political regime and gives it greater freedom of action. It is also interesting that this argument is generally not applied to Cuba and various other countries, nor was it to Nicaragua during the years of Sandinista rule–as in those particular cases desired change was “thought” to follow from reducing trade and investment. So we see it is all just made up according to expediency on the part of those who pretend to legitimacy without regard for numerous genuinely important considerations. The mainstream media don’t discuss this double standard and its meaning. Why does the media engage in the human rights charade? In part, because the public does value human rights and the nominal leaders of the United States are supposedly “in favor” of “human rights” and “democracy”, so that a show of
    concern by our leaders is required to demonstrate our high moral character. This display of concern is not necessary if there is little public interest in or knowledge about the abusing country and its victims. Whether the public is informed on these matters is, of course, affected by what government, business and the media choose to publicize, and these conjointly tend to play down abuses by the foreign and domestic regimes that serve ostensible U.S. business and strategic interests, particularly the utterly criminal brain implantation and electronic mind-control “business” and “strategic interest” within the U.S. itself. They have very successfully minimized publicity on genuine human rights in these domestic areas and regarding most “non-enemy” states. The mainstream media can hardly even perceive that official and business elites are not sincerely devoted to human rights; and the idea that they might positively favor human rights violations and violators, or be actively engaged in despicably inhuman electronic implantation and mind-control is completely outside their frames of thought, by ideological premise.
    Yet, they are occasionally puzzled by “investor” preference for authoritarian regimes. One illustration is an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Free To Choose: Investors often pick authoritarian over democratic countries”. This makes complete sense if we recognize that U.S. business wants a “favorable climate of investment” abroad, and that military regimes that will crush labor unions and otherwise serve foreign business meet that demand. In a classic of the genre, Business Week reported back in 1972 that dictator Ferdinand Marcos told one U.S. oilman: “We’ll pass the laws you need–just tell us what you want.” The magazine stated that “American businessmen have become increasingly sanguine about their future” in the Philippines. The point that the mainstream media couldn’t face up to is that Marcos, Pinochet, and the Argentinian and Brazilian generals created a favorable climate of investment by massive human rights violations, and were therefore greatly appreciated and given enthusiastic support by U.S. businessmen and officials. Similarly, Mexico, Indonesia and China have systematically attacked attempts at independent labor organization, thereby helping provide a favorable climate of investment, and attracting U.S. business in good part for this reason. But the establishment can’t admit that it is the human rights violations that make the U.S. and other countries attractive to business–so history has to be fudged, including denial of or eye aversion from our support of regimes of terror, including our own state-sponsored domestic terror, along with the terror practices that provide “favorable” climates of
    investment, and our destabilization and subversion of genuine democracy, particularly our own, that doesn’t meet the standard of service dictated by transnational corporations. In the mythology, we destabilized because of the Red Menace, not the “threat of a good example”. Today, the actors strutting across the stage in the human rights charade, and their media flunkies, must pretend that we really regret the repression of labor in Mexico, Indonesia and China, and right here at home, as do our noble,
    humanistic businessmen rushing to take
    advantage of repressed labor and the non-enforcement of numerous human rights, civil rights, and environmental rules. The frame is that despite their actions and lobbying efforts, they are really devoted to human rights and are doing their bit by investing in sweatshops of human rights violators, and in our own domestic labor “farm”, bringing not only jobs but our “democratic” example to “those” benighted places. Charity, however, begins at home. When the U.S. confronts the numerous insidiously evil “black-budget” electronic implantation and mind-control programmes long conducted on its own citizens, and entirely outlaws, prohibits, and
    eradicates that profound amorality within its own Constitutional processes, then and only then may it genuinely be said to be “free” in any meaningful human sense, and thus be fit to negotiate for the freedoms of others.” – adapted from The “Human Rights Charade” by Edward S. Herman

    Reply

  4. "Responsibility" & "Values" says:

    “How is the U.S. Government routinely influencing American Citizens utilizing technological devices that have been and are currently “classified”? The answer is: utilizing technological devices such as tiny electronic implant devices, radio-frequency “chips”, massive supercomputers in numerous countries, databases of psychological profiles illegally collected and used for these purposes without any knowledge or consent of innocent civilians, and dozens of other coordinated methods comprising a vast illegal, amoral, inhuman and entirely undemocratic and unamerican nazi system of oppression, control, coercion and disinformation, all linked to and enabled by the “mainstream” corporate media and numerous other “big business” sectors, particularly the “defense” establishment, which in this case is engaged in direct offensive war on unarmed non-combatant private individual human beings. The existence of such insidious tools seems too shocking and implausible to the already ignorant, deceived, and distracted sensibilities of the American public, which have always been shaped by their PR. Generally, a majority of American citizens haven’t bothered to investigate the nature of classified info or covert operations and hence believe comforting lies told to them by these masters of subterfuge.
    The DIA has manufactured this denial and avoidance in the minds of the general public citizen taxpayers of the fact that such sophisticated covert manipulations do in fact exist and are in fact being used on an ever-increasing scale. Plausible deniability is the most effective tactic for maintaining covert status of “psychic influencing” using classified mind control technology, the intended result of the media monopoly’s authoritarian, security paradigm promotional chicanery positing a “War On Terror”, which is a deliberately cognative-dissonant impossibility, as one cannot wage war on an abstract notion or tactic. Thus has been created the ultimate front for the ultimate covert control, and actually a war of terror, waged directly on you, the private individual. Plausible deniability and distraction from knowledge of covert operations has been and is the intention, goal, and desired outcome that the DoD works constantly to influence into the minds of the American public. This hidden foundation of American social reality paradigms is insidiously designed to manufacture compliance to totalitarian objectives of dominance and control over all living beings on Earth. The U.S. Senate discussed the issue on January 22, 1997. The U.S. Air Force’s “Commando Solo” aircraft have been used to send subliminal radio frequency messages to manipulate even the minds of foreign nations in their elections. Haiti and Bosnia are a couple of recent examples. In July 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense proposed the use of “non-lethal” weapons against anyone of opposing political views, economic competitors, counterculture individuals and so forth, who are all subject to attack through a variety of entirely amoral and illegal technologies and criminal methods, supported through billions of dollars of their own tax monies.
    However, because of the pervasive nature of these programmes, no one can be said to be immune from their influence, including those who perceive themselves as “in power”. Sooner or later even they must fall victim to their own devices, so it is best to protest the existance and use of these misnamed “non-lethal” technologies, as they are in fact quite lethal and do violate all standards of rational human morality, sanity, and conscience.
    It is very important to understand that The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders has been a diabolically engineered cover up operation in 18 different languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies’ actions towards their targets. The manual lists all mind control complaints as signs of “paranoid schizophrenia” in typical blame-the-victim nazi style.” – adapted from an article by Bob Burton at the Center For Media And Democracy
    In order to confront and comprehend these realities, one must first understand that the U.S. is not sovereign as we are taught to believe in school, but that it is in reality controlled, as are all other nations, by an internationalist cabal of enormous wealth and resources with no regard for our American national borders, national hegemony, or genuine national security. The science-fiction of George Orwell’s 1984 pales by comparison to the technological tyranny which already exists and which we are now living in every day. It also helps to understand that the “advanced” “cutting-edge” technology which we are aware of is in reality very old and outmoded by at least fifty years or more. The true nature of the state of technology is invisible to us, as it is deliberately kept from our knowledge by those who possess it. What can be said is that the intentions of these elements has already proven to be of the most dangerous and anti-human character possible, and that these technologies have their roots in the nazi experiments of WWII and previous investigations. The statistical probability that the many millions of pages of information regarding these subjects are all merely a hoax, or disinformation, or fantasy is mathematically impossible, and millions of people all over the world can, have, and are confirming that many of the elements described in these millions of pages are real, do exist, and are being used against them without their prior knowledge, permission, consent or agreement every single day on an increasing basis which is profoundly unamerican, anti-human, amoral, criminal, and civilizationally corrupt.
    “In short, for the establishment, human rights is a side issue that should not be allowed to affect the “important” considerations. The mainstream media rarely acknowledge this priority system in straightforward fashion; even more rarely do they suggest that decision-makers view human rights, first and foremost, as an annoyance and public relations problem; and they never suggest that human rights violations and violators might be viewed positively by U.S. business and political leaders. The media of course miss the hypocrisy and cynicism of this game. The business community and politicians have a rationale for doing little or nothing on behalf of human rights in numerous countries (or within the U.S. itself), often repeating that greater trade and investment will itself serve to democratize them. This is a wonderfully convenient argument, unproven, and somewhat illogical as greater trade and
    investment strengthens the existing political regime and gives it greater freedom of action. It is also interesting that this argument is generally not applied to Cuba and various other countries, nor was it to Nicaragua during the years of Sandinista rule–as in those particular cases desired change was “thought” to follow from reducing trade and investment. So we see it is all just made up according to expediency on the part of those who pretend to legitimacy without regard for numerous genuinely important considerations. The mainstream media don’t discuss this double standard and its meaning. Why does the media engage in the human rights charade? In part, because the public does value human rights and the nominal leaders of the United States are supposedly “in favor” of “human rights” and “democracy”, so that a show of
    concern by our leaders is required to demonstrate our high moral character. This display of concern is not necessary if there is little public interest in or knowledge about the abusing country and its victims. Whether the public is informed on these matters is, of course, affected by what government, business and the media choose to publicize, and these conjointly tend to play down abuses by the foreign and domestic regimes that serve ostensible U.S. business and strategic interests, particularly the utterly criminal brain implantation and electronic mind-control “business” and “strategic interest” within the U.S. itself. They have very successfully minimized publicity on genuine human rights in these domestic areas and regarding most “non-enemy” states. The mainstream media can hardly even perceive that official and business elites are not sincerely devoted to human rights; and the idea that they might positively favor human rights violations and violators, or be actively engaged in despicably inhuman electronic implantation and mind-control is completely outside their frames of thought, by ideological premise.
    Yet, they are occasionally puzzled by “investor” preference for authoritarian regimes. One illustration is an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Free To Choose: Investors often pick authoritarian over democratic countries”. This makes complete sense if we recognize that U.S. business wants a “favorable climate of investment” abroad, and that military regimes that will crush labor unions and otherwise serve foreign business meet that demand. In a classic of the genre, Business Week reported back in 1972 that dictator Ferdinand Marcos told one U.S. oilman: “We’ll pass the laws you need–just tell us what you want.” The magazine stated that “American businessmen have become increasingly sanguine about their future” in the Philippines. The point that the mainstream media couldn’t face up to is that Marcos, Pinochet, and the Argentinian and Brazilian generals created a favorable climate of investment by massive human rights violations, and were therefore greatly appreciated and given enthusiastic support by U.S. businessmen and officials. Similarly, Mexico, Indonesia and China have systematically attacked attempts at independent labor organization, thereby helping provide a favorable climate of investment, and attracting U.S. business in good part for this reason. But the establishment can’t admit that it is the human rights violations that make the U.S. and other countries attractive to business–so history has to be fudged, including denial of or eye aversion from our support of regimes of terror, including our own state-sponsored domestic terror, along with the terror practices that provide “favorable” climates of
    investment, and our destabilization and subversion of genuine democracy, particularly our own, that doesn’t meet the standard of service dictated by transnational corporations. In the mythology, we destabilized because of the Red Menace, not the “threat of a good example”. Today, the actors strutting across the stage in the human rights charade, and their media flunkies, must pretend that we really regret the repression of labor in Mexico, Indonesia and China, and right here at home, as do our noble,
    humanistic businessmen rushing to take
    advantage of repressed labor and the non-enforcement of numerous human rights, civil rights, and environmental rules. The frame is that despite their actions and lobbying efforts, they are really devoted to human rights and are doing their bit by investing in sweatshops of human rights violators, and in our own domestic labor “farm”, bringing not only jobs but our “democratic” example to “those” benighted places. Charity, however, begins at home. When the U.S. confronts the numerous insidiously evil “black-budget” electronic implantation and mind-control programmes long conducted on its own citizens, and entirely outlaws, prohibits, and
    eradicates that profound amorality within its own Constitutional processes, then and only then may it genuinely be said to be “free” in any meaningful human sense, and thus be fit to negotiate for the freedoms of others.” – adapted from The “Human Rights Charade” by Edward S. Herman

    Reply

  5. "Responsibility" & "Values" says:

    “How is the U.S. Government routinely influencing American Citizens utilizing technological devices that have been and are currently “classified”? The answer is: utilizing technological devices such as tiny electronic implant devices, radio-frequency “chips”, massive supercomputers in numerous countries, databases of psychological profiles illegally collected and used for these purposes without any knowledge or consent of innocent civilians, and dozens of other coordinated methods comprising a vast illegal, amoral, inhuman and entirely undemocratic and unamerican nazi system of oppression, control, coercion and disinformation, all linked to and enabled by the “mainstream” corporate media and numerous other “big business” sectors, particularly the “defense” establishment, which in this case is engaged in direct offensive war on unarmed non-combatant private individual human beings. The existence of such insidious tools seems too shocking and implausible to the already ignorant, deceived, and distracted sensibilities of the American public, which have always been shaped by their PR. Generally, a majority of American citizens haven’t bothered to investigate the nature of classified info or covert operations and hence believe comforting lies told to them by these masters of subterfuge.
    The DIA has manufactured this denial and avoidance in the minds of the general public citizen taxpayers of the fact that such sophisticated covert manipulations do in fact exist and are in fact being used on an ever-increasing scale. Plausible deniability is the most effective tactic for maintaining covert status of “psychic influencing” using classified mind control technology, the intended result of the media monopoly’s authoritarian, security paradigm promotional chicanery positing a “War On Terror”, which is a deliberately cognative-dissonant impossibility, as one cannot wage war on an abstract notion or tactic. Thus has been created the ultimate front for the ultimate covert control, and actually a war of terror, waged directly on you, the private individual. Plausible deniability and distraction from knowledge of covert operations has been and is the intention, goal, and desired outcome that the DoD works constantly to influence into the minds of the American public. This hidden foundation of American social reality paradigms is insidiously designed to manufacture compliance to totalitarian objectives of dominance and control over all living beings on Earth. The U.S. Senate discussed the issue on January 22, 1997. The U.S. Air Force’s “Commando Solo” aircraft have been used to send subliminal radio frequency messages to manipulate even the minds of foreign nations in their elections. Haiti and Bosnia are a couple of recent examples. In July 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense proposed the use of “non-lethal” weapons against anyone of opposing political views, economic competitors, counterculture individuals and so forth, who are all subject to attack through a variety of entirely amoral and illegal technologies and criminal methods, supported through billions of dollars of their own tax monies.
    However, because of the pervasive nature of these programmes, no one can be said to be immune from their influence, including those who perceive themselves as “in power”. Sooner or later even they must fall victim to their own devices, so it is best to protest the existance and use of these misnamed “non-lethal” technologies, as they are in fact quite lethal and do violate all standards of rational human morality, sanity, and conscience.
    It is very important to understand that The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders has been a diabolically engineered cover up operation in 18 different languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies’ actions towards their targets. The manual lists all mind control complaints as signs of “paranoid schizophrenia” in typical blame-the-victim nazi style.” – adapted from an article by Bob Burton at the Center For Media And Democracy
    In order to confront and comprehend these realities, one must first understand that the U.S. is not sovereign as we are taught to believe in school, but that it is in reality controlled, as are all other nations, by an internationalist cabal of enormous wealth and resources with no regard for our American national borders, national hegemony, or genuine national security. The science-fiction of George Orwell’s 1984 pales by comparison to the technological tyranny which already exists and which we are now living in every day. It also helps to understand that the “advanced” “cutting-edge” technology which we are aware of is in reality very old and outmoded by at least fifty years or more. The true nature of the state of technology is invisible to us, as it is deliberately kept from our knowledge by those who possess it. What can be said is that the intentions of these elements has already proven to be of the most dangerous and anti-human character possible, and that these technologies have their roots in the nazi experiments of WWII and previous investigations. The statistical probability that the many millions of pages of information regarding these subjects are all merely a hoax, or disinformation, or fantasy is mathematically impossible, and millions of people all over the world can, have, and are confirming that many of the elements described in these millions of pages are real, do exist, and are being used against them without their prior knowledge, permission, consent or agreement every single day on an increasing basis which is profoundly unamerican, anti-human, amoral, criminal, and civilizationally corrupt.
    “In short, for the establishment, human rights is a side issue that should not be allowed to affect the “important” considerations. The mainstream media rarely acknowledge this priority system in straightforward fashion; even more rarely do they suggest that decision-makers view human rights, first and foremost, as an annoyance and public relations problem; and they never suggest that human rights violations and violators might be viewed positively by U.S. business and political leaders. The media of course miss the hypocrisy and cynicism of this game. The business community and politicians have a rationale for doing little or nothing on behalf of human rights in numerous countries (or within the U.S. itself), often repeating that greater trade and investment will itself serve to democratize them. This is a wonderfully convenient argument, unproven, and somewhat illogical as greater trade and
    investment strengthens the existing political regime and gives it greater freedom of action. It is also interesting that this argument is generally not applied to Cuba and various other countries, nor was it to Nicaragua during the years of Sandinista rule–as in those particular cases desired change was “thought” to follow from reducing trade and investment. So we see it is all just made up according to expediency on the part of those who pretend to legitimacy without regard for numerous genuinely important considerations. The mainstream media don’t discuss this double standard and its meaning. Why does the media engage in the human rights charade? In part, because the public does value human rights and the nominal leaders of the United States are supposedly “in favor” of “human rights” and “democracy”, so that a show of
    concern by our leaders is required to demonstrate our high moral character. This display of concern is not necessary if there is little public interest in or knowledge about the abusing country and its victims. Whether the public is informed on these matters is, of course, affected by what government, business and the media choose to publicize, and these conjointly tend to play down abuses by the foreign and domestic regimes that serve ostensible U.S. business and strategic interests, particularly the utterly criminal brain implantation and electronic mind-control “business” and “strategic interest” within the U.S. itself. They have very successfully minimized publicity on genuine human rights in these domestic areas and regarding most “non-enemy” states. The mainstream media can hardly even perceive that official and business elites are not sincerely devoted to human rights; and the idea that they might positively favor human rights violations and violators, or be actively engaged in despicably inhuman electronic implantation and mind-control is completely outside their frames of thought, by ideological premise.
    Yet, they are occasionally puzzled by “investor” preference for authoritarian regimes. One illustration is an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Free To Choose: Investors often pick authoritarian over democratic countries”. This makes complete sense if we recognize that U.S. business wants a “favorable climate of investment” abroad, and that military regimes that will crush labor unions and otherwise serve foreign business meet that demand. In a classic of the genre, Business Week reported back in 1972 that dictator Ferdinand Marcos told one U.S. oilman: “We’ll pass the laws you need–just tell us what you want.” The magazine stated that “American businessmen have become increasingly sanguine about their future” in the Philippines. The point that the mainstream media couldn’t face up to is that Marcos, Pinochet, and the Argentinian and Brazilian generals created a favorable climate of investment by massive human rights violations, and were therefore greatly appreciated and given enthusiastic support by U.S. businessmen and officials. Similarly, Mexico, Indonesia and China have systematically attacked attempts at independent labor organization, thereby helping provide a favorable climate of investment, and attracting U.S. business in good part for this reason. But the establishment can’t admit that it is the human rights violations that make the U.S. and other countries attractive to business–so history has to be fudged, including denial of or eye aversion from our support of regimes of terror, including our own state-sponsored domestic terror, along with the terror practices that provide “favorable” climates of
    investment, and our destabilization and subversion of genuine democracy, particularly our own, that doesn’t meet the standard of service dictated by transnational corporations. In the mythology, we destabilized because of the Red Menace, not the “threat of a good example”. Today, the actors strutting across the stage in the human rights charade, and their media flunkies, must pretend that we really regret the repression of labor in Mexico, Indonesia and China, and right here at home, as do our noble,
    humanistic businessmen rushing to take
    advantage of repressed labor and the non-enforcement of numerous human rights, civil rights, and environmental rules. The frame is that despite their actions and lobbying efforts, they are really devoted to human rights and are doing their bit by investing in sweatshops of human rights violators, and in our own domestic labor “farm”, bringing not only jobs but our “democratic” example to “those” benighted places. Charity, however, begins at home. When the U.S. confronts the numerous insidiously evil “black-budget” electronic implantation and mind-control programmes long conducted on its own citizens, and entirely outlaws, prohibits, and
    eradicates that profound amorality within its own Constitutional processes, then and only then may it genuinely be said to be “free” in any meaningful human sense, and thus be fit to negotiate for the freedoms of others.” – adapted from The “Human Rights Charade” by Edward S. Herman

    Reply

  6. Sam Thornton says:

    Bolton’s “dual citizenship”
    Googled this and it seems to spring from a comment to a post on…The Washington Note by: MinM at January 4, 2006 07:27 PM . How cool is that? Here’s the URL:
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001174.php
    Nope, I refuse to make the obvious comment.

    Reply

  7. Kathleen says:

    I heard Bolton had dual citizenship,back during the non-confirmation hearings, but I can’t remember which was the other country.
    Didn’t realize it was Israel, but that would figure.

    Reply

  8. Matthew says:

    jojo: Where did you hear that Bolton is a “dual” citizen of America and Israel? That seems wrong to me. He was raised a Lutheran.
    It is an error to assume that all neo-conservatives are Jewish. They are not.

    Reply

  9. steambomb says:

    Got Milk?

    Reply

  10. jojo says:

    Bolton Silly Goat. I hate guys that put Israel first and use America like toilet paper. Why is it that soooooo many likes of him are running this country ? His dual citizenship with Israel and the creep represented USA & Israehell at the UN. Israel has two UN representives at all times ! No wonder USi is a mess!

    Reply

  11. hazmaq says:

    This may help ease the pain. And give you a another good laugh.
    Other Bradley winners include the wicked witch of the Right herself, Abigail Thernstrom.
    Remember her anti-civil anti-voting rights propoganda during the 2000 election hearings as the Vice-Chaairman of the of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights?
    So she’s the perfect companion to Mr. Personality.
    So much for being a Bradley weiner.
    But hey! This is an award even Bill O’Reilly could win!

    Reply

  12. parrot says:

    Please never waste my time like that again.

    Reply

  13. David N says:

    Matthew:
    Your comments are quite appropriate.
    Two things strike me about this whole thing:
    1. Every word of the Bradley statement describes what the Bush administration has been against. Bush has run the most incompetent, overreaching, anti-intellectual, idea-free, and damaging administration in history. Bolton was only a small, comic-relief part of the whole sad affair.
    2. Bolton in his statement kept talking about how the president, as the person elected by the people, sets policy. Was this what he said about the policies of that democratically elected president, Bill Clinton? Of course not! His “principles” only apply to “conservative” administrations. As if expedience were not the main characteristic of every thought he’s ever had.
    Finally, note that the most damaging part of the actions taken by the Rove patrol in the Justice Department was their effort — it was certainly not limited to Justice — to burrow their true believers into the career bureaucracy in order to undermine actions and policies should the American people ever again elect a Democrat as president. These people would then do exactly what Bolton says is so terrible, but, of course, since they were “true believers” serving the cause of “right,” they would then merit his praise.
    It isn’t that they are so wrong that makes me sick even looking at wing-nuts. It isn’t just the damage they do to real security and prosperity. It’s that they are so self-righteous and hypocritical.
    So I guess I vote for cry.

    Reply

  14. Kathleen says:

    Just the still pix of Revoltin’ Bolton is more than my gag refex can handle.
    Matthew, loved the top several floors subtraction.

    Reply

  15. Matthew says:

    This is what he got the prize for:
    The Bradley Foundation’s Mission
    “The Bradley brothers were committed to preserving and defending the tradition of free representative government and private enterprise that has enabled the American nation and, in a larger sense, the entire Western world to flourish intellectually and economically. The Bradleys believed that the good society is a free society. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is likewise devoted to strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles, and values that sustain and nurture it. Its programs support limited, competent government; a dynamic marketplace for economic, intellectual, and cultural activity; and a vigorous defense, at home and abroad, of American ideas and institutions. In addition, recognizing that responsible self-government depends on enlightened citizens and informed public opinion, the Foundation supports scholarly studies and academic achievement.”
    I guess you could take a few floors off the Bradley Foundation and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference in the world.
    P.S. Why does the “not” mysteriously seem to apply to Bolton and every statement in the Mission Statement?

    Reply

  16. Carroll says:

    Bolton and DeLay should form a has-been club. Have they been listed as AEI fellows yet?

    Reply

  17. Mackie says:

    That’s a whole lotta John Bolton there.
    Put me down for ‘laugh’.
    My favorite Bolton moment was when he had been called on the carpet to address a Senate(?) committee. Someone asked him if he’d read a particular paper, and he shot back belligerently: “I don’t read fiction.”

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *