To: cyberjournal
Cc: conspiracy theory research list, AGENDAS, Truth in Media
1/21/98, •••@••.••• (Joshua2) wrote:
>Forget the sex scandel nonsense. WHO IS PUSHING CLINTON OUT OF THE WHITE
>HOUSE?
>I would like to hear speculation from the list.
>But please... lets keep it terestrial.
Dear J2,
I know the answer to this question; no need to speculate. Please bear with
me, we need to go back a few years to the early '70s, Watergate, Nixon, and
Carter for the necessary context.
The first thing I ask you to think about are the similarities between
Clinton and Carter:
- They both professed to be Liberals (Carter being sincere and
Clinton being an opportunist).
- Both were outsiders as regards Washington politics, and
both were from politically insignificant Southern states.
- Neither was a charismatic politician who built up a national
following: both were simply picked by party leadership and offered
to the electorate as a package.
- Despite various liberal initiatives, they both did more to help the
capitalist elite than they did to advance liberalism (Clinton's
primary "accomplishment" has been the all-important passage of
NAFTA; for Carter's "accomplishments", I recommend Greider's "Who
Will Tell the People?")
- They both end up thoroughly discredited at the final end of their
terms (Carter: Iran hostage crisis; Clinton: scandals).
- They both are followed, as a consequence of their "failure", by
right-wing administrations.
The last point, as regards Clinton, is a prediction, but MARK MY WORDS.
All the other points are matters of record.
The second thing I ask you to consider is how thoroughly discredited the
right-wing and the Republican Party were following Watergate. The feeling
in the country was that the Republican party would never rise again. There
was a tremendous surge of liberal power: the election of Carter, passage of
the Freedom-of-Information act, the near-impeachment of Nixon, a national
consensus against interventionism, etc. Liberalism was an honorable
philosophy in the public mind, and the right-wing were considered crooks.
Finally, I ask you to consider how radically things have shifted since
then: liberalism is now thoroughly discredited in the "public mind" (at
least according to media propaganda) - it has become associated with
"bungling", "tax and spend", "corruption", "self aggrandizement", etc.
How did such a radical shift occur? How did we get from "liberalism is
good" in '72 to "liberalism is bankrupt" today? How did we get to the
point where AtTila the Hun himself (eg, Dole) could make a good showing as
a candidate in the next election?
- - -
What we've seen, I suggest, is the effective and sophisticated management
of public opinion and the political process, with the goal of moving the US
toward near-fascism (ie, capitalist-elite control). Here's the scenario...
In the early 70's, faced with a decade-long anti-war movement, a strong
"new left" national sentiment, and an abysmal failure in Vietnam, the elite
needed a strategy. Their opening tactic was to use Nixon as a scapegoat:
"Deep Throat", a member of the in-the-know elite, fed the necessary
clues to the Washington Post to accomplish Nixon's impalement. Thus all
the sins of Johnson/Nixon years were hung on one individual - he "took the
fall" - and the whole sordid Vietnam episode was "put behind us": systemic
harm to elite interests was thereby minimized.
Carter was then picked to be the beneficiary of the anti-right political
climate. There were many politicians of greater stature who would have
made a much stronger President: people established in Washington, people
better known nationally, people who could have pushed through thoroughgoing
reform legislation. Carter was picked BECAUSE of his political weakness,
to minimize the "damage" that would be done during the inevitable
liberal-reaction administration.
While he made what liberal waves he could, the elite used the four years to
mount their counter offensive. Reagan and the neoliberal(*) revolution
were carefully prepared in the wings, and various stratagems were
considered to assassinate Carter politically, and more important to
discredit liberalism generally. The Iran hostage crisis was eventually
selected, and carefully engineered.
(*) Note: "neoliberal" refers to laissez-faire capitalism; it
has nothing whatever to do with "liberal" in the leftist sense).
The staff of the American Embassy in Tehran included many CIA personnel;
they KNEW that if the Shah were allowed into the US that the embassy would
be occupied by radical students (this was in the press prior to the
occupation). Kissinger himself (Mr. Elite Spokesman) was dispatched to the
White House to talk Carter into letting the Shah into the country. Carter
was rightfully dubious about the prospect, but he was no match for
Kissinger in an argument: he fell for the trap.
Once the embassy occupation occurred, they had Carter by the balls, and
they squeezed, squeezed, squeezed. Every day on the evening news it was
"DAY X OF THE HOSTAGE CRISIS": never for one second was anyone allowed to
forget that the US was being "humiliated". Carter couldn't have been
elected dog-catcher after this well-orchestrated episode. Just to clinch
his demise, and exploiting his desperation, they talked him into the
silliest of helicopter-rescue schemes, and made sure the helicopter was
mechanically defective - it never even made it to the embassy. And they
dispatched Bush (according to "October Surprise" revelations) to bribe the
Iranians (with promises of weapons) to delay releasing the hostages until
Carter's term was over.
Thus in only four years they completely turned around the American
political climate. The corpse of the Republican party was brought back to
robust health, in the person of Reagan, and liberalism was replaced by its
opposite (neoliberalism) as the dominant political paradigm. Nixon was a
dim memory, and elite resurgence was complete. Altogether an impressive
coup.
We then had twelve years of rampant, destructive right-wing rampage. We
didn't realize it at the time, but Reagan (and Thatcher) were launching
GLOBALIZATION - the destabilization of the nation state, the bankrupting of
government, the unleashing of corporate power, the transfer of sovereignty
to a new-world-order bureaucracy, and the establishment of a Judge-Dredd
version of international "law" (Grenada -> Panama -> Desert Storm).
As Reagan-Bush's reign was coming to an end, this 12-year rampage had
accomplished wonders for the corporate elite - but it had also alienated
most voters. Once again, it was necessary to "yield" to leftist/liberal
reaction, and once again the elite adroitly managed this situation to their
ultimate advantage.
The formula they used with Carter had worked so well that they essentially
produced a re-run: the "Clinton Movie" could have been billed as "Carter II
- The Sequel".
But in Clinton's case the depth of his (and liberalism's) discrediting has
been much greater. Rather than a single incident (hostage crisis) coming
near the end, Clinton's entire term has been tarnished by humiliation after
humiliation. The press has treated him with utter disrespect. While
Reagan could get by with appointing total crooks to his Cabinet, without
any problem getting them approved by Congress, Clinton had people rejected
because they hadn't paid taxes on babysitter money!
While Reagan was able to defy Congress (Contra terrorism), sell arms to
Iran, and send his lieutenants to lie blatantly to Congress - all while
being treated with kid gloves by the press - Clinton has been insulted
every time he turns around. While Barbara Bush was always treated with
deference by the press, Hillary has been treated like dirt. Basically it
has been "open season" on the President and his wife. The power and
arrogance of the corporate media is immense.
Whatever crimes Clinton committed in Arkansas were all well known to the
elite before he was selected for his sacrificial role. The "revelations"
have systematically dribbled out (a "time-release headache capsule"), the
drama has carefully been built up, and it will all peak just in time to
guarantee his final humiliation, and the election of whatever incarnation
of Ghengis Khan they decide to saddle us with for the next interval of
corporate rampage.
In fact I predict that yet-another coup-de-grace will cap his demise: a
major economic depression. The beginnings of this crisis have already been
started with the elite-engineered collapse in Asian economies, and
"wooly-headed liberal policies" will be blamed for the final outcome. In
fact, it will be Federal Reserve policies that will allow the crisis to
unfold, and Clinton has no power over those policies (even if he had the
will to fight his scapegoat destiny).
During the Presidential term 2000-2003, the consolidation of globalization
will occur. The suicide of America will be so overwhelming that it can
only be carried out in the shadow of a THOROUGHLY discredited "liberal"
record in the White House. By 2003 American sovereignty will be history,
and the world will be ruled by the corporate elite, via their IMF and WTO
bureaucracies.
A Judge-Dredd global police force will be fashioned out of US and NATO
forces, and will be placed under international control, just as the
militias predict (though with a completely wrong understanding of the
dynamics). The US will become a police state and military operations
within US borders will become "acceptable" to maintain "order". A
corporate-dominated neo Dark Ages will have begun.
I invite you (especially non-cyberjournal subscribers) to see "CyberLib"
(accessible at www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal) for analysis backing up
the above scenario.
rkm
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland
www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen)
* Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
To join cyberjournal, simply send:
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: (ignored)
---
sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe <-- your name there
Share: