Sunday, October 16, 2016

Corporatism and the Roots of Modern Populism (Here’s the part where I piss off everyone on BOTH sides)...

Image result for Monsanto

Image result for Monsanto

Back in 1977 a woman named Janice Hooker helped her husband, Cameron (a sexual sadist, into extreme B&D) take a young woman named Colleen Stan as a sex slave. The Hooker's kept Colleen Stan for over 8 years, hiding her in a box used to provide extreme sensory deprivation in order to effectively break down and ultimately brainwash Colleen. Janice later testified that she'd helped her husband because she didn't want to be subjected to Cameron's tortuous sado-sexual exploits any longer (Yeah, she preferred that some other woman be subjected to them, against her will). She also slimed Ms. Stan in her court testimony, in effect, blaming the victim, just as Camille Cosby and Hillary Clinton have dutifully done.

Now, I also confess to many times having engaged in what Donald Trump is now charged with; "course locker room banter” and “the ‘objectifying’ of women."


But, then again, I'd say any man that DOESN'T, or hasn't objectified women as "sexual objects"...well such males probably objectify...other males, if you catch my meaning. “NOT that there’s anything wrong with that.”

At any rate, while I believe that Bill Clinton is not close to being as dangerous a sexual predator as Cameron Hooker, who used and exploited a poor, young hitchhiker for his own sordid and nefarious purposes, still, BOTH these sexual predators relied upon “other women,” willing to serve as “personal enablers.”

All that said, I fully understand that in excess of 100 of the world’s wealthiest souls are all avowed Corporatists ("Progressive" in today's parlance). Progressivism IS Corporatism. Their lackeys, the vaunted “political-media class” think they belong to that club. They DON’T! They’re just hired help, and NOT so much sous chefs, as janitors.

So, I also get that their primary concern is that dolts like Angela Merkel and Hillary Rodham are, perhaps purposely undermining global Corporatism and its desire for a much more homogeneous and harmonious world. They seem part of a nefarious vanguard in our Western political-media class that is stealthily trying to undermine their corporate masters.

Don't believe that such people have Corporate "masters"? Consider that back in 2010 Monsanto was able to get its controversial Food Bill that pushed for greater reliance on GMOs passed as an attachment, or "Rider" to the "Cash for Clunkers" Bill. The Monsanto rider opened up the USA and subsequently most of Europe to Monsanto's GMOs. The Bill itself, was written by Michael Taylor the former VP of Monsanto, before he became the FDA's Food Commissioner (…/why-ex-monsanto-executive-michael-… That's how thoroughly global Conglomerates run our governments.

The primary concern of today’s globalists has to be that certain rogue "political/media operatives/employees" are attempting to undermine their global corporate control.

Incredibly enough, this current American election has shown that BOTH major political Parties in the U.S. obey the SAME Corporate masters. We saw FNC ("Fox News") go full frontal attack on the outsider Trump from the start. The Democratic party was only able to avoid the same sort of overt sliming of Bernie Sanders by rigging their Primaries with politically connected and Party loyalist "Super Delegates." Everyone thought Trump would "just go away," but this nascent populist rebellion seems to only be garnering more and more support as more of us "sheep" wake up! For that, I blame the likes of Merkel and Clinton who've undermined multiculturalism by looking to graft Muslims who adhere to a moral code that is both different and incompatible with Western morality.

STILL, I'd caution Corporatists and globalists against being too gloomy about the prognosis for the coming U.S. election. After all, as Joe Stalin correctly stated, "It doesn't matter who votes, but who counts the votes that matters." It is hard to believe otherwise that, no matter what, the vote COUNT will ultimately favor Hillary come November 8th! After that, it's up to her and her cohort Merkel to "make amends" and allay the fears of ALL ethnic Europeans now lurching Rightward in response to this Muslim invasion.

IF they fail, "Plan B" will probably be some kind of faux far-right, fascist movement that'll (1) scapegoat the Muslims in the West, (2) drastically change our political-media class and (3) replace it with one more aligned with global Corporatism.

BUT, come what may, our globalist elites favor, Corporatism today, Corporatism tomorrow...Corporatism FOREVER!

After all, that’s certainly what U.S. Senator Prescott Bush, the patriarch of the "Bush dynasty," preached and he was an American Nazi. FACT is, he and Democrat Averell Harriman ran Union Bank of NY that was shuttered for violating the "Trading with Enemy Act" during WW II. they did business with Fritz Thiessen, Hitler's personal banker! Subsequently, Harriman and Bush engineered the GOP's hostile takeover of the Democratic party via Nixon's "Southern Strategy," a strategy designed to alienate Southern whites and "Ethnic Northern Catholics" (mostly Irish & Italians at the time) from their home in the Democratic Party.

Both Bush and Harriman also engineered Operation Paperclip that brought scores of Nazis, including many Nazi scientists to the U.S. When Werner von Braun was complimented over "America's Space program," he sneered, "There's was never any American space program, nor any Soviet space program, just two Nazi space programs." He DIDN'T say "German" space programs, he said NAZI space programs!

Sure, BOTH Bush and Harriman were later cleared of holding "Nazi sympathies," by a government in league with those very same Nazis...Operation Paperclip basically REMADE the USA, at least its technological capabilities.

In truth, Prescott Bush was far more involved with the Third Reich (…/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar). It has been reported that BOTH Bush & Harriman were fond of wearing German (Nazi) uniforms at Union Bank Board meetings. Why NOT? The Rothschild banks helped Hitler as well!

Here's the reality we all face, asleep, or awakened, but awakened too late...what does it matter? There seems no way, now, to effectively overthrow this Corporate governance that now seems firmly in control of the West. IF you work for the government and are looking toward a public sector pension, or if you're on ANY government programs, then you're really probably better off remaining asleep. Hillary Clinton is by far the most likely to continue the existing status quo.

"Rocking the boat," could very well come with MANY unsavory and unseen realities, like the drastic reduction in government pensions, yes, even for those now collecting and the elimination of much of the existing social safety net (Food Stamps programs, Section-8 Housing vouchers, WIC programs, etc.)

Bill Clinton was a protégé of Bush the elder and was used to soften the advent of Progressivism/Corporatism in the U.S. When Newt Gingrich & company took over the U.S. Congress in 1994, instead of blocking their agenda, he made sure Newt's "Contract With America" became the law of the land. It was even Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, giving globalism and its cheap labor outsourcing a Progressive Democratic face.

Today the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. are simply two corporate teams - the RED team and the BLUE team. In effect Exxon-Mobil, Monsanto etc. vs Goldman Sachs, ADM, etc....SAME agenda, similar faces, just different corporate logos. Trump's populism, like that of the late, great Jorge Haider comes about 50 years too late. This George Carlin bit isn't all that funny...because it's sad, but entirely true. (

We remain so confused because we can scarcely identify actual ideologies any more. The “elites” purposefully merge and meld ideologies until they become mere labels...just “words.” I, myself have been alternately been called a "communist," socialist," "Nazi," "Corporatist," "Marxist" and, of course, "fascist.," depending upon the orientation of the offended, merely because I tell the truth.

I often tell people, "What?! Sure, we’re all corporate slaves now (public and private sector workers and ESPECIALLY the “government-dependent”, and ya know what? We’ve never had it so good!"

AND look, being completely honest, the struggle to preserve Europe's, America's and even Australia's original cultures and heritages is over...done...kaput! It seems far too late to wake up now. YES, we are ALL, at least in a sense, "Corporate slaves," BUT the cage is a very gilded one. I would ask, "Do we want to go back to feudalism or something?" If NOT, then we might as well all just accept reality as it is, right?

What’s kind of funny today, is watching those in the media and elsewhere attempt to sway “the religious” away from Trump based on “appeals to Jesus Christ,” a name that itself had been forbidden from use in our media, except when some athlete would “thank God...and Mom” for his/her success. BUT, there’s a reason for the futility of the arguments made by so many "Progressive Democrat" Hillary-supporters that they seem to fail to understand and that is that Donald Trump's support is NOT predicated on his skills, charm, charisma or governmental experience. His SOLE support and advantage with those who revile America's Corporately controlled political/media-class, and for them, his greatest asset is that "He's NOT one of them." The “THEM” being the globalist lackeys of our political-media class. He's NEVER been held to any "political standard" because he isn't expected to be a savior, just, "NOT one of THEM."

That's it!

So, in that regard, there's no way to convince or convert them, any more than there's a way to wake up those who don't want to see that every Western "democracy" today is controlled/owned by a relatively small group of global conglomerates. THAT’S why when polled some 91% of those who supported Trump said that his “locker room comments” from 2005 would have no impact on their support and another 3% said that the comments improved his standing in his eyes. I guess that was some folks looking to really offend the apoplectic media.

In the end, it probably really doesn't matter either way. Those still asleep are most likely much better off asleep and those who've awakened to the ugly realization of global corporate governance and media control, but STILL cling to the idea that, "A populist campaign can successfully transform this corporate governance"...well, they're almost certainly in for a very rude awakening. It’s pretty late in the game to change refs.

I'm kind of like an agnostic, in that while I kind of sympathize with the sleeping believers, I do not and CANNOT embrace their hatred for those who've awakened, albeit far too late. These "Right-wingers" are, for the most part, merely those who believe in individualism and human liberty and have awakened to the truth about the full weight of the threat to it today. They are actually far more aware and yes, somewhat smarter than those who've chosen to ignore the very reality they exist within.

Recently some have deflected Hillary’s role in Bill Clinton’s sexual predation. Some of them say things like, “Bill Clinton is not running for President, Hillary is. His womanizing is irrelevant and, since his heart surgery, he is but a shadow of the rascal he once was,” BUT truth be told, as I’ve said many, MANY times, “Bill Clinton's "womanizing" (is that some new euphemism for "serial rape" now-a-days?) ISN'T the issue, Hillary Clinton's (HRC's) enabling that sexual depravity AND attacking the women that Bill Clinton victimized IS.”

Personally, I am, at the least, somewhat surprised at how comfortable so many Progressives, especially the “Bernie supporters” are with HRC, because, after all, most of her support comes from Wall Street, including those “dreaded” Koch brothers (no more or less Corporatist than the likes of George Soros, or Warren Buffett), since their horse (Jeb Bush) was taken out.

I must add that Sanders was a ridiculous old fool! An avowed "socialist," once thrown off a commune for "failure to work."

Moreover, Sanders, like many of his supporters seemed to truly believe that socialism could work. In their defense, most of his supporters were naïve, young kids. He's an old fool, who should long ago have realized that no two people are "equal" and Marxism fails because compensating the orthopedic surgeon and the janitor the same/equally, results in a glut of janitors and an ultimate absence of orthopedic surgeons.

Clinton's been a lifelong ANTI-socialist "Progressive”...a "Corporatist" in every way.

Moreover, I believe she's learned from, and been chastened by Angela Merkel's great blunder and will look to attempt to carefully manage the Corporate global government that now controls the West. When Muammar Gaddafi sought to move OPEC off the U.S. Dollar and onto the gold-backed African Dinar (, Hillary dutifully supported the Western bankers “war” against Gaddafi, which resulted in his ultimate demise (they couldn’t risk bringing him to trial)...and later on, Benghazi.

The thing that’ll make THIS election interesting is that Trump and his most avid supporters aren’t going to leave quietly and flat out aren’t going away at all. In fact, that group, those who are “waking up,” is only growing. Unlike the Romney machine, they won’t accept Ohio or Florida voting precincts in which 110% or 115% of the population “vote,” they’ll fight. They’ll embarrass our elective system globally. They don’t care about our “system.” They’ll petulantly put their own view of “the truth” over everything else. EVERYTHING! That’s what makes this group interesting.

THAT part, is what’s really going to be FUN!

Why I'm NOT Religious...the Short Form



Bill Burr does a pretty good job of explaining the silliness of organized religions.

I gave up religion (going to Church) at around age 11, but I've never hated religion, looked down on religious people, or embraced the equally inane faith of Atheism. TRUE, there's no proof that there is no god either...AND we still don't understand the origins of life.

I've long believed that all religions arose out of mankind's need to make the incomprehensible at least somewhat understandable to people. Forget the concept of a "Creator" or even a "Creative Life Force," most of us can't really wrap our heads around concepts like infinity and eternity. At any rate, all such matters should be a matter of personal conviction. IF it helps someone else to believe that there's a bearded old man sitting on a throne somewhere in heaven, and the fear of that judgment or that old guy's wrath is enough to make that person strive to be a good person, then that's fine with me, but that's also NOT for me.

There are many on the Left who STILL insist on making "Jesus-based" arguments for Leftism/socialism.

That's nothing new. Martin Luther and a wide array of Catholic priests, mostly German and Austrian made many of the same arguments, although both more forcefully and more eloquently than today's cast of characters.

Back in the early 16th Century, Jacob Fuger ruled the roost. He was and remains "the richest man who ever lived." It was Fuger who so indebted the Vatican that they were forced into using his scheme that brought about the selling of "indulgences" and "relics." That, in turn ignited Martin Luther's Protestant rebellion. He single-handedly financed the Hapsburg empire, bringing the hapless Maximilian to the throne. By 1515, his wealth was so great and his tyrannical control over many of Europe's peasant class so extensive that numerous bloody peasant revolts were waged primarily against Fuger's interests. Jacob Fuger was himself an Austrian Catholic and not Jewish, just as many of today's international bankers and other leading globalists are non-Jewish Northern Europeans.

The Marxist/socialist arguments waged in Jesus' name often ARE consistent with Jesus' impractical teachings, but it's STILL unclear whether even those philosophies attributed to Jesus, really were his at all.

The “historical Jesus” was a Hebrew Rabbi named Joshua of Joseph (shortened to Jesus). He was indeed an anti-Roman revolutionary and a failed philosopher. His exhortation to, “Treat others AS YOU WOULD WANT to be treated, NOT as they treat you,” is the reason Thomas Jefferson said, “There are no true Christians, merely Paulists.” It is also entirely impractical and unworkable. It was Saul/Paul, NOT Jesus who is most responsible for the emergence of the Roman Christian Church (ROMAN Catholicism).

Virtually everything written about and attributed to Jesus was written 50 to 150 years after his death by followers who sought to shroud the story of an anti-Roman revolutionary as a that of a Messianic figure. Rome had defeated the Hebrews in two wars and twice destroyed their temple at Jerusalem. In short, ALL of that including the absurd and unworkable philosophy of Jesus was little but the fictions of a few raving, Hebrew lunatics.

Friedrich Nietzsche was almost certainly right that, “Charity is the curse of Christ.” In his view, Jewish/Babylonian-inspired “Christianity” has proven to be mostly toxic, especially to Europe, known as “Christendom” by the Middle Ages. In Nietzsche’s view charity amounts to enabling/coddling dysfunction and it effectively halts the evolution of mankind.

One of Hitler’s laments was that “proud, enlightened” European paganism was replaced by a corrosive “Christianity.” He believed (possibly correctly) that “Had Germany’s predominant religion been Shintoism, or Islam, Germany’s warrior ethos would’ve led Germany to lead all of Islam, or made Shintoism a global religion.”

I certainly agree that Christianity, with its misguided “curse of Christ” has been a dysgenic (enabling ever greater dysfunction at the expense of the productive “best”) and anti-evolutionary force that has drastically slowed down the advance of mankind and that both the religious “Jesus” and the secular Marx who both espoused the equality and equanimity of mankind were twin cancers on humanity.

No two people are effectively, or entirely “equal” and free people especially are UNEQUAL. Freedom and equality mean EVERYTHING. Nothing else, especially not a sentimental pity (charity) does anything to move mankind forward.


Most Republicans Disapprove of The Supreme Court, While (Curiously) Most Democrats Approve

Image result for U.S. Supreme Court Chambers
U.S. Supreme Court Chambers

In a recent Gallup poll 2/3s of Republicans disapprove of the Supreme Court, while an almost equal number (67%) of Democrats approve of the High Court.

WHY is that?

Well, polls show that the vast majority of the disapproval across the board stems from the Supreme Court's recent (June 27, 2016), shameful unanimous decision in the McDonnell v United States case (…/supreme-court-bob-mcdonnell-virgin…), in which the High Court basically OK'd political corruption and, by extension, bribery, in exonerating former VA Governor Bob McDonnell! The SC unanimously ruled that taking gifts (even large amounts of cash) and other forms of "Pay to Play" are perfectly legal, right and just, so long as they are not in the immediate vicinity of the alleged quid pro quo. In other words future speaking engagements totaling millions of dollars for regulatory and legal considerations done now are completely fine.

When looked at more closely the 2/3s of Republicans and 1/3 of Dems, along with the nearly 60% of Independents who DISAPPROVE of the Supreme Court right now, reference that particular disgraceful case. They WON'T forget. (…/supreme-court-eliminates-politi…/)

Many of the 2/3s of Dems and 40% of Independents who do approve of the High Court, either never heard of the McDonnell decision, or had already forgotten it. An equal number of Democrats and Republicans (about 15%) supported the Supreme Court precisely because they agree with the shameful McDonnell decision. Many of these are either career politicians, members of the political/media class that benefit from this decision, or businesses who've enjoyed lucrative "Pay-to-Play" arrangements with government officials.

In that regard the establishments of BOTH major political Parties are simpatico. From the Bush's to the Clinton's, they agree completely with the McDonnell decision.

When Political Groups Turn on Their Own...

Image result for Brentley Vinson
Brentley Vinson

Back in 1998 no women's groups supported Monica Lewinsky. NOW especially was too busy defending Bill Clinton.

The excuse most often offered was that they feared that alienating then President Clinton might mean a decrease in funding STILL rings hollow. The Executive Branch doesn't control government funding, CONGRESS does!

Worse still, the "Lewinsky Affair" put the lie to NOW's earlier claims that relationships within a "differential in power" (ie. a corporate executive and a 21 y/o secretary) were de facto "abusive." Their response to the Lewinsky Affair did a LOT to undermine NOW's stated mission of defending women's rights.

At the time, NOW and other such groups treated Monica Lewinsky as though she were not an actual woman. That gave resonance to Rush Limbaugh's long-stated claims that NOW was merely the "National Organization for LIBERAL Women."

This past Tuesday, the NAACP did pretty much the same thing to blacks in law enforcement, when it issued the statement, “Many black people who become police officers become blue, not black. In order for you to survive in a police department, you take on the police department’s ideology, ways of life, and culture,” said an NAACP representative. (

ALL members of law enforcement "become primarily BLUE," and NOT black, Irish, Jewish, German, etc. Just as judges are, they are legally mandated to base arrests on actions, not ethnicity. With that statement, the NAACP has pretty much called blacks in law enforcement, such as Brentley Vinson (pictured above), the Charlotte Police Officer who shot an armed Keith Scott, in North Carolina, an Uncle Tom who did the white man’s bidding by murdering a black man. You’d be hard-pressed to find a more offensive thing said about blacks in law enforcement.

In doing that the NAACP has just followed down the horrific and regrettable path that NOW took back in 1998!

New Jersey Arrest Made in Fatal Bronx Fire!

Police in Cliffside Park, NJ arrested Julio Salcedo the renter of the Bronx home at 300 W 234th Street that exploded, killing FDNY Battalion Chief Michael Fahy, yesterday.

Interestingly enough, Salcedo was arrested earlier this year on charges of unlawful imprisonment and strangulation of a victim who survived that attack (…).

IF Salcedo was guilty of those charges, then he never should've been out walking free among us. In 1977 Colleen Stan was abducted, kept in total isolation for over two years, tortured, raped and sodomized before being freed in 1984 (…/exclusive-woman-imprisoned-in-cof…/). Her captors, Cameron Hooker and his wife Janice had planned and practiced numerous dry that's what such people do. Likewise, Jaycee Dugard was kidnapped in 1991 and wasn't released until 2009 after having two daughters with her captor, Phillip Garrido ( People like that are extremely dangerous.

If Julio Salcedo was one of them, he never should've been free and perhaps yesterday's tragedy never would've happened.
American Ideas Click Here!