For those of us who have made our bones, so to speak, in the study of deep political phenomena, certain current events invite near-instant analyses informed by all we have learned from work in these areas.
Case in point: John McCain's aggressive telegraphing of his "going negative" punch at Barack Obama.
All day long (10/7), in advance of the second presidential debate, members of the American print and television pundit class have expressed deep befuddlement as to why the McCain Campaign makes such a show of signaling its negative intentions.
Their simple-minded conclusion is that McCain has to change the subject from the economy or else virtually guarantee a defeat of historic proportions -- and he has to do it LOUDLY.
And so -- no great surprise -- we are confronted with the latest in a seemingly endless procession of the MSM's shallowest of Shallow Political "analyses"
My take: At its deepest political level, this move is all about making a McCain "victory" plausible in the wake of what will (as opposed to would) be America's third consecutive stolen presidential election.
The blaringly trumpeted McCain campaign tactical decision will so dominate the pre-"election" discussion that, on the morning of November 5, the pundits will trample each other in the rush to be the first to explain McCain's "victory" by suggesting that his negative attacks put him over the top.
This in tandem with the "argument" that Palin's appeal proved to be the icing on McCain's cake will be enough (at least for all "thinking" Americans) to counter charges of wide-spread election fraud -- of the sort that's already underway in swing states and elsewhere -- and support once again the illusion of democracy in a country that has all but become a democracy-free zone.
Mark my words.
And please offer your own to support, disagree with, or expand upon my analysis.
Charles Drago Wrote:For those of us who have made our bones, so to speak, in the study of deep political phenomena, certain current events invite near-instant analyses informed by all we have learned from work in these areas.
Case in point: John McCain's aggressive telegraphing of his "going negative" punch at Barack Obama.
All day long (10/7), in advance of the second presidential debate, members of the American print and television pundit class have expressed deep befuddlement as to why the McCain Campaign makes such a show of signaling its negative intentions.
Their simple-minded conclusion is that McCain has to change the subject from the economy or else virtually guarantee a defeat of historic proportions -- and he has to do it LOUDLY.
And so -- no great surprise -- we are confronted with the latest in a seemingly endless procession of the MSM's shallowest of Shallow Political "analyses"
My take: At its deepest political level, this move is all about making a McCain "victory" plausible in the wake of what will (as opposed to would) be America's third consecutive stolen presidential election.
The blaringly trumpeted McCain campaign tactical decision will so dominate the pre-"election" discussion that, on the morning of November 5, the pundits will trample each other in the rush to be the first to explain McCain's "victory" by suggesting that his negative attacks put him over the top.
This in tandem with the "argument" that Palin's appeal proved to be the icing on McCain's cake will be enough (at least for all "thinking" Americans) to counter charges of wide-spread election fraud -- of the sort that's already underway in swing states and elsewhere -- and support once again the illusion of democracy in a country that has all but become a democracy-free zone.
Mark my words.
And please offer your own to support, disagree with, or expand upon my analysis.
Could well be. Those behind the scenes/curtain of Bush/Chaney/McCain/Palin are hardly about to give up their rule and will attempt to prolong it by ANY means necessary. Yes, they still have some leverage over Obama - as they did Clinton - but not at the same and such easy level. I'd fully expect more vote stealing/challenges/electonic-vote fraud PLUS a last minute 'Octover Surprise' in about two-three weeks.....These people play dirty as the last years show even more than the proceeding 50+.
Allow me to be the barrel of laughs here and say that yes, Obama woud be better than John McBain but et us not forget that Obama is in pocket of the Trilateral Commission.
No matter who gets elected, the only winners are the business party.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
There once was a thoroughbred racetrack in Rhode Island -- the state of my birth -- that Vinnie Teresa, the first high-profile Mafia stool pigeon who famously testified to the reality of La Cosa Nostra in America, termed the most thoroughly "fixed" track in the country.
Yet each pre-determined race there could be handicapped by honest bettors -- although not by evaluating traditional criteria such as horses' won/lost records, performances on specific track conditions, jockeys' abilities, injuries, etc.
The way you picked a horse at that track was to determine who owned it, the nature of the owner's relationship to the crime family running the operation, who had a favor coming -- that sort of thing.
Like the way we apply deep political analyses to American presidential contests.
Polls and policies are, as Ian Fleming might put it, "of as little account as sparrows' tears."
The ever interesting Greg Palast managed to get some BBC airtime late last night to expose the upcoming American electoral fraud with the Republican purge of voter rolls. Palast's film can be seen here:
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
As I type this it is 6:25 PM EDT on Wednesday, October 8, 2008.
These election fraud stories were virtually non-existant over the past -- which number should I choose -- 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, or 96 months?
Except, of course, as filed at "alternative" media sites by a handful of courageous journalists like Greg Palast, whose superb work simply doesn't register on the public consciousness.
Like the warnings of RFK, Jr.
Unheeded.
Last night, as part of CNN's post-debate "analysis," Democratic operative James Carville said, and I paraphrase, "If Obama goes into election day five points ahead and McCain wins, we're going to ... well, I'll leave it at that."
Here's hoping -- against hope -- that this subtle public warning has been delivered to the inevitable fixers in more certain terms privately.
But wait.
As previously noted ... what difference does it make?
I'm still with George Carlin on this whole voting thing.
Not being familiar with that particular Carlin quote, I looked it up:
.....
George Carlin - On Voting (04:19)
"You may have noticed that there's one thing I don't complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says, "They suck". But where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. No, they come from American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and they're elected by American voters. This is the best we can do, folks. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out.
....I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain", but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.
I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."
Heck, I must've read Carlin in my sleep once because I've been advocating the same thing as him for two decades. Voting is simply falling into trap that your vote counts when it doesn't.
It's a fixed roulette wheel, overseen by a crooked croupier, working in a criminal casino that is regulated by a villainous gaming commission in a corrupt state.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
I totally agree with the first posts here. I fully expect that some sort of October Surprise will be manufactured, as well as fraud to ensure that the neocons grab further power. Yes David, Obama is in the Trilateralist's back pocket. You cannot rise to this level of power without this being the case. So was Jimmy Carter, but he was, and is still, a good man.
The differences between McSame and Obama are staggering in my opinion.
McNasty is unstable, angry, prone to war and more war, has become a neocon, has shown to be tied to scandal, inept in a similar vein to W. With Mc Same we WILL have more of the last eight years.
Obama has a different vision. And most importantly he won't start world war three. Will he stand up to the powers that be the way JFK did? This remains to be seen.
I fear that he will be stopped before we ever find out. When I hear the pundits sayin this thing is in the bag my blood runs cold. Have they not read the massive amount of reporting on the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004?
