@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: •••@••.••• (Sebastian)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:39:52 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: cj#761> WHO IS PUSHING CLINTON OUT?
Clinton is the best representative of the corporative power.
There are NO differences between Republicans and Democrats.
The Rationale is to watch how the system (bi-partisan system), is replaced
by a multinational corporative model in the facts if not in the "screen".
Clinton IS Bush.
Bush IS Clinton
Republicans are Democrats
Democrats are Republicans...
The rest is wasting time...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear Sebastian,
The situation isn't quite so simple as that, as will be discussed more
below. In Congress there is a considerable difference between the voting
records of Democrats and Republicans on issues such as the environment.
That's not to say the Democrats have been great ecologically, but if you
look at the folks with the best voting records, they usually turn out to be
Democrats (or Republicans, if you're looking from some other perspective).
rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998
Sender: Bob Djurdjevic <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#761> WHO IS PUSHING CLINTON OUT?
Hey, Richard, there is a simple answer to the above question: Because
that's the only for one someone as dense as Al Gore to become President.
Otherwise, I agree with nearly everything you've written. The NWO
establishment could have taken Clinton down any number of times in the
past, and not only because his "droopy drawers" affairs. But by doing it
NOW, just days before his State of the Union address, they've ensured that
any morsel of credibility and dignity which Clinton still had would be gone
by next Tuesday. And they've given Gore a head start for the Y2K election
campaign.
But I disagree with your following comment:
...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.
As George Bush, Bob Dole and New Gingrich have proven, it doesn't matter
whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House. They all serve
the same Big Business masters. Occasionally change is good, because that
way the NWO ensures that the masses continue to regard our "demo farce" as
democracy.
That's why I think that Gore is bound to lose the Y2K election anyway, but
only after having carried the NWO torch for a while (just as Ford lost to
Carter in 1976). Your doomsday scenario 2000-2003 may indeed come to pass
unless more Americans are awakened from their hibernation. But it is
likely to happen under a "Republican" President.
Best,
Bob Dj.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear Bob,
There are important differences between the experience of Repubicans and
Democrats in the Presdency. There are some things one can get by with that
the other can't, and things one is permitted to do that the other isn't.
For example, Nixon could go to China because he was a Republican and
because he had a reputation as a staunch anti-communist. A Democrat might
have been attacked by the Republicans (with Nixon in the forefront) for
"giving in to the commies".
Similarly, it was easier for Clinton to push through NAFTA and eliminate
welfare. If a Republican tried either, one could have expected a
Democrat-Labor opposition. Both parties serve the same masters, but they
work in tandem like a "nice cop, tough cop" team, each playing a unique
role.
In particular, Democrats are not allowed to preside over successful
(glorious) military campaigns, that's the prerogative of Republican
presidents. When Regan was given the Grenada project, or Bush allowed to
invade Panama and Iraq, the media resonated with "respect for the chief".
Coverage was filtered to glorify events, attitudes of respect were
projected, awe surrounded press conferences, etc. Given the same war, the
media COULD have emphasized civilian casualties, the wasteful expense of
the whole affair, and pointed out that Bush had sold weapons to Iraq - the
glory is in the media, not on the ground.
By contrast, with Carter (the helicopter rescue attempt) or Clinton
(Ethiopia or was it Somalia), they're given puny military opportunities,
bungled by the Pentagon, and the media covers it with mockery.
The Democrats and Republicans are NOT treated alike by the elite (who
control foreign policy and the media). The Democrats are humiliated at
every turn and the Republicans are treated with kid gloves. This is by
design, and the objective is to push the country toward the "right" - not
in the sense of a genuine American conservatism, but in the sense of an
illiberal tyranny.
The final installation of globalism, which could well occur in the
2000-2003 window, can be expected to involve violence at various levels.
The mass hysteria generated during wars is a convenient cover for
implementing major new societal changes; it distracts and it justifies,
aided by appropriate media spin. Another raid on Iraq is would be to
small, as would be an invasion of Cuba - when one or both occur, it will be
only for practice. The scale I anticipate would be more like a war with
China, and/or a domestic military offensive aimed at the Militias.
Such military ventures would be carried out under the "respect for the
chief" paradigm, and hence I would expect a Republican standard bearer
during this critical transitional phase into global slavery.
rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998
Sender: Bill Michtom <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#761> WHO IS PUSHING CLINTON OUT?
> The first thing I ask you to think about are the similarities between
> Clinton and Carter:
> - They both professed to be Liberals
The first thing to note about this statement is that - as to Clinton -
it is totally wrong. Clinton has always professed to be a "New Democrat"
- read Rockefeller Republican. He *never* said he was a liberal. The
liberals wanted to believe he was an ally. They were totally wrong.
As to Carter, I don't remember him professing to be a liberal (though I
am not positive about this, as I *am* about Clinton). Carter's economic
policies were always "conservative" - read moderate Republican. He
increased the defense budget significantly, for instance.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear Bill,
At one level, I'm in complete agreement with you. Democratic Presidents
are no more sincere about their rhetoric than Republicans are about "family
values". It's all propaganda deception. None of them are really liberals
or conservatives - they're opportunists, or hired dupes, or both.
But having said that, one must admit that to the average voter Clinton vs
Bush was "liberal vs conservative", and similarly for Carter vs
WhatsHisName. And the campaign rhetoric of the Republicans was heavy with
criticism of "liberal tax-and-spenders". And when Clinton pushes for gays
in the military, that is perceived as a "liberal" move, as was Carter's
support for human rights in foreign policy.
The media party line is that Democrats suffer from liberal wolly
headedness, and that Republicans are hard-headed businessmen. From that
context, the unequal treatement the two parties receive (humiliation vs
respect) serves to discredit liberalism in general (no matter how illogical
you can prove that to be), and to glorify "conservatism", in the sense of
outright capitulation to elite capitalist control.
rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998
From: Charles <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#761> WHO IS PUSHING CLINTON OUT?
A couple of quick points:
Neither Trilaterist Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton, founding member of the
`centrist' (i.e. rightist) `Democratic Leadership Council' came to power
as a `liberal'. On the contrary, both presented themselves as `moderate'
alternatives to such dangerous radicals as Teddy Kennedy and Paul Harkin.
(It was George Bush, by the way, who turned `liberal' into a dirty word to
replace outmoded terms such as `communist' or (earlier) `nigger-lover').
If the globalist Establishment that Carter and Clinton so faithfully
served chose to discard them, it was not because they opposed its policies
but rather because (like Nixon before them) they had become
embarrassments. I rather doubt that this Establishment looks forward with
any enthusiasm to the prospect of a `genuine' right-wing regime whose
agenda might differ in crucial respects from its own. I would imagine
that it is now engaged in a silent but intensive search for a suitably
amenable Republican to set against Al Gore so that whoever wins will
maintain a steady course in the direction the Establishment wishes to go.
Keep an eye on John McCain.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear Charles,
First, permit me to refer you to the preceding response, since your points
are _very_ close to Bill's. Yes, in both parties, when it comes to
choosing candidates, there is generally a gravitation toward the pragmatic
center. But nonetheless, by comparison with one another, the Democrats are
perceived as being in the liberal direction, and media concern is always
that they will spend too much. Of course this has nothing to do with
reality, in the sense of which Presidents actually over-spend (hint:
Reagan).
No, Carter and Clinton didn't oppose establishment policies, we all seem to
agree on that. But as regards "embarrassments" and "discarding" the
question to address is which is the horse and which is the cart?
If Carter had created the hostage crisis on his own, and then bungled it,
then that would fit your "embarrassment" leads to "discarding" model. But
the crisis was a setup, the CIA knew for certain that the occupation would
follow a visa for the Shah, Kissinger personally persuaded Carter to grant
the visa, and the media then turned the episode into an "embarrassment"
writ large.
Recall that hostages were being held for long periods during Reagan's
reign, and there was no "Day 23 of the Hostage Crisis" staring everyone in
the face at 6pm every day.
The events and the embarrasments were engineered, and the result wasn't so
much that the "establishment dropped the men", but rather that the elite
manipulated the population into losing repect for the men and the standard
they bore, hence facilitating a Republican victory, and a chance for the
"tough cop" to take his turn with the night stick.
No the establishment wants no genuine right wing candidate, if by that you
mean one who respects the Constitution and national sovereignty. But a
candidate of the Bush/Reagan/Dole genre would be far enough to the right,
in this strange doublespeak we must use, to fulfill the missions to be
assigned.
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 *
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: