"Of course you've seen this shocking story on TV, and below is the NY Times report, 13 Shot Dead During a Class on Citizenship . I've included at the bottom some of the comments that readers posted in response to the article. As you might expect the following kinds of sentiments were passionately expressed:
• guns must be banned!
• guns aren't the problem!
• too many immigrants are getting into the country.
• the attacker was probably a redneck.
• right-wing talk radio deserves the blame for the killings.
• the liberal media is playing up this incident for its own purposes.
The political consequence of the incident is increased polarization, left vs. right, much like we are seeing with the hoopla around Rush Limbaugh, and his tirades against Obama. Those tirades makes sense to many on the right, and are seen as dangerous nonsense by everyone on the left. Meanwhile we have Obama blaming the Republicans for creating all the problems, and for putting obstacles in the way of his programs.
Besides polarization, we are also getting increased fear on both sides. The right is afraid of a socialist takeover, while the left is afraid of some kind of right-wing reaction. As one reader of the article put it, " We don't need to fear Al-Quaida, we need to focus on the terror being fanned by Limbaugh and others."
This is developing into a positive-feedback scenario, where increased fear on each side leads to increased stridency, leading to a heightened reaction from the other side, and so it repeats. This kind of shooting incident dramatically accelerates the spiraling process of mutual fear and animosity.
One of the consequences of this polarized environment is the submergence of all substantive issues. The only thing that matters is whether you're for Obama or against him. If you offer a critique of his agenda, you must be a right-winger, or a victim of right-wing propaganda, in the eyes of liberals. If you support Obama, you're either a socialist or you're brainwashed, in the eyes of the right. Neither side is interested in a reasoned discussion of the issues, and neither side is interested in listening to the other side's point of view. Ironically, it's similar to the kind of divisiveness Bush promulgated: Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists.
If you think this is all a co-incidence, then I suggest you take the blue pill, and skip ahead to the NY Times article.
___
Every Presidential administration comes in with a covert substantive agenda, a phony public agenda, a psy-op mind-control regime, and of course a lead PR person, the President, who pretends to be in charge.
In the case of the Clinton administration, the substantive agenda was the destabilization of Yugoslavia, the seizure of Kosovo's resources, a genocide program against the Iraqis, and the undermining of US economic sovereignty via NAFTA. The phony agenda was about gay rights, universal health care, and human rights generally.
The psy-op regime had an obvious part and a non-obvious part. The obvious part, as usual, was the media attention given to the phony agenda, making it seem to be the important news of the day, and the spin given to the covert agenda, making it seem unintended or forced by others. The non-obvious part was the Monica Lewinsky affair, and the way it was handled, creating a rabid anti-Clinton constituency prepared to embrace a Christian-sounding Bush. Of course the gay-rights thing added considerably to this constituency, while vote fraud and Supreme Court corruption made up the difference.
In the case of the Bush administration, the substantive agenda was the dismantlement of the Bill of Rights, the establishment of a police-state infrastructure, the destruction of the economy, the expansion of US power in important petroleum-related territories, and the surrounding of Russia and China with US bases. The phony agenda was about fighting terrorism and disarming weapons of mass destruction.
The psy-op regime, apart from the usual obvious part, was of course based on the 9/11 false-flag op, the preparations for which began long before Bush took office. The constant 'terror alerts', the nonsense security measures at airports, and the phony Bin Laden videos, were all pure psy-op. And just as Clinton had an 'exit psy-op' in the Lewinsky Affair, Bush's exit psy-op was his well-acted stupidity, and the hopelessness he made us all feel, preparing us to embrace savior-figure Obama.
One of the things I learned from Estulin, is the degree to which the think-tank industry is devoted to psy-ops. That is, for example, one of the primary missions of the Rand Corporation -- figuring out how to manipulate the masses psychologically. It's high-tech stuff, psychologically speaking, much more nuanced that what Madison Avenue puts out.
And of course there have been the experiments on the population itself, usually referred to as Operation Mind Control. There was the first phase, aimed at controlling Manchurian Candidate type operatives, using drugs, hypnosis, sensory depravation, and who knows what techniques. That's where you get your 'crazy-man massacres', like this current one in New York. Then there was the second phase, research into cult management, with such infamous CIA experiments as Jim Jones' People's Temple, and Koresh's Branch Davidian movement.
In the case of the Obama administration, the substantive agenda is about completing the destruction of the economy, institutionalizing the transfer of power to financial elites, reducing American living standards and public services closer to third-world standards, moving the world toward a global centralized government, and expanding and re-focusing the military missions begun by Bush. The phony agenda has to do with hope, improving health care and education, energy independence, becoming more green, stimulating the economy, and creating the conditions for resumed economic growth.
So we have a situation where Obama will be doing, and has been doing, the exact opposite of what he promises. This creates a special challenge for the psy-op regime. How do you get people to keep believing in hope while their world is being systematically dismantled around them? In order to rise to this challenge, all the stops have been pulled out, giving us a psy-op regime that in its own way is just as radical, dramatic, and unexpected, as was the demolition of the twin towers.
Every President has played their supporters and detractors against one another, that's part of the standard psy-op regime. But with Obama we have something quite different. For the first time, we have the deployment of an outright cult operation. It was launched via an innovative campaign strategy, is being carefully nurtured by the media, and it features Obama as the naturally charismatic leader, like Jones and Koresh in the experimental prototypes.
Normally we have supporters and detractors who are motivated by issues, with the President promoting policies that his supporters have been asking for, and that his detractors disapprove of. With Obama, we have instead believers and disbelievers, who are motivated by their psychological response to Obama's emotional rhetoric. No concrete agenda was articulated or debated in the campaign, rather Obama sought to convince people that his perceived intelligence and integrity would guarantee change of a useful kind. And people had been carefully prepared to welcome such a fellow, by eight years under an administration seemingly headed by a perceived idiot and liar.
Obama was selling himself rather than a platform, and the media played along, focusing on the personalities in the campaign, rather than on any key issues. When people began to question how we could expect change to come from his establishment Cabinet appointees, he underscored this personal focus: " The change will come from me ", he said, and that was more than enough to satisfy the believers. In their minds, lions in his den reveals his confidence and strength, rather than signaling his capitulation, as it so obviously does.
And that's how cults work. Once the leader has been imprinted in the believers' minds as the one in whom we trust, then the logical mind will go to any lengths to rationalize that continuing trust. The relief from having hope is very powerful, and the thought of losing hope is very threatening. These are very strong psychological forces that bind the believer to the leader, in the same way people are bound to religions. The purpose of the CIA experiments was to see how far you could go with these binding forces, to develop mind-control techniques that could get people to take their kool-aid on command. They learned their lessons well.
What they learned is that you need other binding forces as well, in particular you need an outside threat. The disbelievers are just as important to cult management as are the believers. Having hope is a strong binding force, but when the contradiction between hope and reality becomes too great, there is always the possibility that rational thinking might raise its ugly head and undermine the cult dynamic. Thus we see media attention given to Limbaugh et al, to inspire fear and revulsion in the believers, and to draw them closer to their comforting leader. And in the liberal media, we see ridicule of the right wing, and the characterization of them as being dangerous, tightening the emotionally-oriented cult bonds, and further submerging any concern with issues.
But this is only the beginning. The shit has not really hit the fan yet. When unemployment doubles and doubles again, when there are food riots and unemployment riots, when the dollar becomes worthless, that is when the cult bonds will become critical to maintaining the mind-control regime. Thus it is necessary to accelerate divisiveness, to accentuate fear, and to create a charged us-vs-them environment. If 3,000 can be sacrificed in a 9/11 incident without any sense of guilt or remorse by the perps, then 13 or 14 in a shooting incident is surely small potatoes. As Kissinger says, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
rkm"
___
NYTimes April 4, 2009 - 13 Shot Dead During a Class on Citizenship
More about this:
More about this:
"What these articles point to is a disturbing trend that is certainly taking shape across the United States. The incident in Pittsburgh, combined with the numerous mass shootings over the past three weeks nationwide, is certain to bring about stricter gun laws as well as tighter nooses around the neck of the 2nd Amendment. What's worse, the First Amendment is sure to receive heavy criticism as free thinkers are being compared to those who have committed seemingly random acts of violence.
An article posted on Infowars.com last month detailed the list of firearms President Obama plans on including in his proposed sweeping federal gun ban." WRH permalink
