Trump, the Deep State Junta, and the Mysterious Motives for Regime Change in the Middle East

Globalists, both for and against Trump, are working to steer his foreign policy into the Middle East region and Syria specifically, and they are using the classic tactic of problem-reaction-solution to do so.

With rising geopolitical tensions from North Korean missile tests, direct threats from a desperate EU President Juncker, endless Russian conspiracy theories, and open calls for sedition among Washington swamp rats, the all-out war between President Trump and Globalists foreign and domestic finally came to a head when the administration may have used, you guessed it, a false flag operation to justify a tomahawk missile strike against Assad’s forces.

The pure geopolitical expediencies of such a move are apparent. Yes, it’s a show of force and a demonstration of political brinkmanship responding to aggression from North Korea, the seemingly ambivalent Chinese, and the ravings of the hysterical Juncker. And yes, it also helps to cast doubt on the Russian collusion conspiracy theory that the left peddles, as Russia has been trying to break out of post-World War II containment, into the Middle East, and finally into resource-rich Africa. Syria and Iran have been client states of the Russians since the Soviet era expressly for this purpose.

But maybe more importantly, the Trump administration is reasserting the US’s intent to serve as the primary guarantor of security for the region, a role which was relinquished by the US during the Obama administration’s failure to enforce their own red line policy. That role is now entrusted to the Russians, who began drawing up lucrative energy development and European pipeline agreements with Middle Eastern nations who had rejected the destabilization of Hillary Clinton’s “Arab Spring” operations in places like Libya, Egypt and Syria.

But one question still remains: was striking Syria worth the political cost? and the unwavering support of Trump’s voter base? Is this really a course of action that the President would have himself formulated? And why would the Trump administration choose to respond to growing tensions with action in the Middle East? Why not stage a false flag in the Ukraine? or in the South China Sea to address the Globalists directly? What is this long-running, Globalist fixation with interventionism and regime change in the Middle East? And most importantly, why would the Globalists precipitate Trump’s brinkmanship, and praise him when he prevails over them?

Report: Soros-Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack in Syria

I believe Globalists, both for and against Trump, are working to steer his foreign policy into the Middle East region and Syria specifically, and they are using the classic tactic of problem-reaction-solution to do so. Trump finds himself between a rock and a hard place, Trumps authorizes his military to carry out an unpopular missile strike, and then Trump’s approval rating mysteriously shoots up to 50% and the fake media suddenly start praising him? This is classic Pavlovian stimulus-response conditioning, or pressure from above and pressure from below to use the proper Gnostic terminology. Neocon warhawks are already calling for full-scale invasions, and H.R. McMaster has already made plans to insert 150,000 soldiers into the country.

…the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Daily News—offered no opinion space to anyone opposed to Donald Trump’s Thursday night airstrikes. By contrast, the five papers ran a total of 18 op-eds, columns or “news analysis” articles (dressed-up opinion pieces) that either praised the strikes or criticized them for not being harsh enough…

Five Top Papers Run 18 Opinion Pieces Praising Syria Strikes–Zero Are Critical

But we still have the question of what do the Globalists want from the Middle East? To answer this question, we must go to Iraq, back to the aftermath of the Iraq War invasion and the beginning of the occupation. At the time, Operation Iraqi Freedom was viewed largely as a success, but there was one glaring failure that even the media could not overlook  – the looting of the National Museum of Iraq located in Baghdad.


Those who know of the history of Iraq know that between the Tigris and Euphrates lies the fertile crescent and Mesopotamia, where the world’s first civilizations sprung up from seemingly nothing. While humans across the globe were still hunter-gathering nomads, seemingly fully-developed cultures with knowledge of agriculture, cuneiform writing, basic math and astronomy, two story houses, and a serious emphasis on record keeping and issuing receipts just popped up in places like Sumer, Ur, Babylon, and Akkad.

Considering that most historians had thought cities like Babylon to be a myth until its discovery in 1811 by Claudius Rich, these apparently anachronistic aspects of Mesopotamian cultures have puzzled academics, and no satisfactory answer has been given to try to explain this second “great leap forward” in human history. But the speculation may not be necessary as the Sumerians themselves admit in their creation story, just like the ancient Egyptians and the Zulu tribes of Africa, that they are a legacy civilization spawned from the fall of an older, greater civilization. Of course, this mode of thinking is in direct conflict with the standard Western model of human history, which considers the present period of Globalist feudalism and Orwellian thought control as the height of human progress.

According to the Sumerian texts, the cause of this fall was a sort of family feud among the “Gods,” similar to the quarrels of the Greek pantheon, which turned into a massive war and the destruction and diaspora of that ancient high civilization not unlike Plato’s account of the sinking of Atlantis. The Egyptians and the Zulu have maintained their creation stories via the oral tradition of their own mystery schools, but the Sumerians, with their aptitude toward cuneiform record-keeping, have transcribed that information to protect it from distortion and embellishment.

And it is these cuneiform records, or perhaps what they reveal about early human history and the fall, are what the Globalists are after and have been after for centuries. All of which brings us back to the looting of the National Museum of Iraq. The footage of Iraqi nationals walking away from the smashed museum with whatever they could carry was deemed a travesty, and the US military was heavily criticized for their inability to secure the site. And that became the narrative- that the looting was an unfortunate byproduct of a lack of law and order. But as time passed, more details came to light.

The story of what really happened inside the Iraq Museum when thousands of valuable antiquities were stolen in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 US invasion has been revealed in a new book.

Written by the chief investigator, it says there were three separate thefts, at least one of which was an inside job, another the work of professionals, and a third where fleeing Iraq military had left open a door which let in the looters.

The above-ground storage rooms told a different story. Here was where looters had struck, getting in via a door left open by Iraqi soldiers who, even as they fled, discarded their uniforms in a trail of clothing.

Revealed: the real story behind the great Iraq Museum thefts

One of these thefts resulted in the loss of a collection of 80,000 cuneiform tablets, and unless you think the average Iraqi looking to make a quick buck would skip the fancy vases and ceremonial masks and go straight for the massive cuneiform collection, I suspect that this recorded knowledge was the true goal of these thefts. And I also suspect that these “Iraqi soldiers” who discarded their uniforms may not have been Iraqi soldiers at all.

So who all was involved? It seems that the Globalists in the Bush and Obama administrations were not the only ones interested in this ancient knowledge. The other world power that has consistently demonstrated an interest in Mesopotamia archaeology has been the Germans.

The Germans

In 1902, noted German Assyriologist and linguist Friedrich Delitzsch began sharing through his lectures a shocking discovery he had made during his research of cuneiform tablets. In fact, his work was so provocative, Delitzsch was ordered to present his research before Kaiser Wilhelm and his court. The lecture, titled Babel and Bible, revealed that the proper name of the Jewish god of the Old Testament, Yahweh, had appeared in cuneiform writing during the age of Hammurabi and 300 years before the Israelite’s Exodus from Egypt. Delitzsch also noticed striking similarities between Sumerian creation myths and the Old Testament’s Garden of Eden. He tied the great flood of the Epic of Gilgamesh to the story of Noah’s Ark. According to Delitzsch, the Hebrew Bible, and therefore the Old Testament, was clearly and significantly influenced by Sumerian mythology.

What Delitzsch was discovering was that the Jews had been heavily assimilated to Babylonian culture during their 70 year period of captivity. The practice of monotheism slowly replaced polytheism in Judaism around this time. The introduction of the Hebrew alphabet, along with a new emphasis of referencing the Torah for matters of every day life, appear to be inspired by the Sumerian fixation with record keeping and written language. The cuneiform records were, indeed, telling an interesting story.

It was at this time German foreign policy changed from a sole emphasis on facilitating trade and access to ports, to a policy that included subversion, bribery and propaganda to keep other world powers out of the Middle East. Only four years prior, Kaiser Wilhelm had toured the region, and was advised to back the Pan-Islamism of the slowly unraveling Ottoman Empire. According to the Kaiser’s policy makers, the Ottoman Empire was pushing the Muslim identity and their self-proclaimed status as an Islamic caliphate due to the rebellion of Southern European Christians. The Ottomans wanted to unite the remaining Muslim-majority populace to end the encroachment of Nationalism into their territory.

At first, the Kaiser’s advisors were not interested in saving the Ottomans, they were instead interested in using Pan-Islamism, and later Jihad, to subvert British colonies in India and Egypt as well as French colonies in Morocco and Algeria. But when the German-backed Young Turks came into power in 1908, the stage was set for World War I, and the consequences of the Ottoman alliance turned out to be disastrous for the Germans.

And thus came the Nazis, who would widen the search for ancient knowledge to the Peruvian Andes and Tibet, and also substantially expanded the Kaiser’s policies to include the fomenting of Jihad and terrorism against other Western powers. As soon as Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he met with and formed an alliance with the Sunni Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini, who would later lead the Palestinian revolt against the British and actively encourage the extermination of Jews. The Nazis would also form allegiances with the Ba’ath Party, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Young Egypt Movement.

But the Grand Mufti would ultimately fail to spark the Pan-Islamic revolution the Nazis wanted when his rebellion ended in 1939. Undeterred, the Germans continued to back other Pan-Islamists and Arab Nationalist strong men like the Shah of Iran, Said Barre in Somalia, and Ba’athists like Saddam Hussein. But the Pan-Islamic Jihad revolution never materialized, and many of these Pan-Arab regimes just so happened to be the same regimes mentioned in Wesley Clark’s infamous “7 nations in 5 years” remark in March of 2007. And if you’ll recall, the “7 nations” regime change plan was a direct response to the attacks of 9/11.

Covert War

And now we have come full circle, back to the Iraq war of 2003, and the baffling continuation of regime change policy today. Although President Trump claims he will not invade Syria or interfere further with the Middle East, I believe the Globalist splinter group backing Trump will continue that policy against their German Globalist rivals. Whether the fake media will cover their insatiable lust for hidden knowledge and lost secrets is extremely doubtful.

You may have noticed Neocon warhawks like H.R. McMaster and Dina Powell taking power in the National Security Council, but President Trump’s choice for Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, is particularly telling. According to Wikipedia:

From August 15, 2001, to February 28, 2005, Coats was the United States Ambassador to Germany.[19][20] As ambassador during the lead-up to the Iraq war, he pressured the German government not to oppose the war, threatening worsened US relations with Germany.[21] As Ambassador he also played a critical role in establishing robust relations with then opposition leader Angela Merkel and in the construction of a new United States Embassy in the heart of Berlin next to the Brandenburg Gate.[22]

And note that the Berlin embassy Coats helped build was revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013 to be the same embassy that facilitated British and American spying on Angela Merkel’s personal phone.

So I am forced to speculate that there is indeed a covert war between German and American Globalists in the Middle East, but exactly what they are after remains murky. Could it be an ancient story of the origins of humanity? Or occulted knowledge providing insight into the mysterious structures of the universe? Could it be forbidden technology? Could it be all of these things?

Whatever it is, American Globalists have been using Arab Spring operations and ISIS cutouts to continue their pillaging of ancient sites and antiquities in other regime change nations like Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

Pictures: Looters Shatter Museum of Ancient Egyptian Treasures

Libya’s cultural heritage ‘being destroyed and plundered by Isis’

Inside the Palmyra museums looted by ISIS: Pictures show wanton destruction carried out by fanatics

And, when the Globalists have what they want, they simply order their ISIS agents to blow up and level whatever ancient site they are assigned to desecrate, thereby depriving anybody else from learning what they had just learned. Because things like culture, history, and art are irrelevant to the Globalists’ insatiable, sociopathic, psychotic desire for power. If President Trump allows these Rockefeller Republican, warhawk Neocons to bog the US down in another big Middle Eastern quagmire, the political consequences in 2020 may be insurmountable, and the era of Globalist tyranny will continue.

Are Justice Democrats The REAL Resistance? Or Are They Heading Right Into A Trap?

The reality is, the well-intentioned people who have started the Justice Democrats have no idea who they are messing with.

As Democrats languish under Republican control and their loss to an orange billionaire, the internal debate over the future of the party rages on. A Schism is forming between the Corporate Globalist wing of the party and the populist, “Berniecrat” wing. The continuance of Globalist leadership under Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer has rankled the populists, and the debate over who will replace the disgraced duo of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile as chair of the Democratic National Committee has split the Democrats further.

Bernie Sander’s choice of Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison was an ideal pick until Hillary Clinton supporter Haim Saban and the Anti-Defamation League opposed his candidacy, labeling Ellison an anti-Semite. It is ironic, and also sad, to see the ADL smear enemies of the Globalists as anti-Semites and Neo-Nazis while knowing the history and composition of the Globalist faction itself. Rep. Ellison’s rival is Obama Administration Labor Secretary Tom Perez, a representative of the Corporatist status quo who has the endorsement of Vice President Joe Biden.

Obviously, a showdown is looming between the two wings of the party, and many are saying the Democrats are “beyond broken” and a “sinking ship.” Some Democratic voters have expressed interest in going to a third party- the Democratic Socialists. Frankly, the only thing holding the party together is a smoldering, obsessive hatred for President Donald J. Trump, and their dopey “resistance,” which has yet to resist anything.


But there is one group, Justice Democrats, who have decided to start a real resistance, moving to takeover the Democratic party from the corrupt, corporate Establishment working for Mr. Global. Perhaps the Trump faction’s steamrolling and domination over the Republican establishment in this last election season was noticed by some on the left.

The Globalists are now looking at a grim situation. As Trump’s populism has ejected most of their influence from the right, Justice Democrats are threatening to do the same on the left, leaving the “elites” on the outside. Therefore, we should be seeing fierce resistance from the corporate wing, the same resistance we saw during the Senate and House leadership votes that shut out populists like Ohio Representative Tim Ryan. But with Rep. Ellison still in the race, and Chuck Schumer blessing off on his contentious run, that cohered, united resistance against populism is no longer there. So exactly what is going on in the Democratic Party?

To answer that question, we need to look at the big picture, the global picture. I have mentioned in previous posts how the Globalists reacted to European populists like Marine Le Pen with fake populists like Francois Fillon. In Fillon, the French political establishment rolled over on their usual sticking points of multiculturalism and Russian sanctions in order to preserve the economic agenda of Globalist outsourcing and job retraining. It’s an economic message that still hasn’t gone over well in Europe, and the French elections starting in April will speak to the efficacy of Mr. Global’s fake populist candidates. If successful, the Democratic establishment should follow suit and make their own fake populists.


But the Globalists in DC have two major obstacles preventing them from following this course of action: (1) The vast majority have spent most of their adult lives living in the bubble, being so completely removed from the reality of everyday people and dumbed down that they don’t know how to put together an appealing fake-Populist platform and (2) the Democratic establishment has a credibility problem, and their mainstream media propaganda machines are no longer working.

Taking all of these observations into account, I speculate that the Corporate Democrats may actually be cultivating the populist Justice Democrats movement through actions like Chuck Schumer’s endorsement of Rep. Ellison. As we have seen with the Occupy movement and BLM, the Globalists are always interested in infiltrating and co-opting grassroots movements. As soon as the Justice Democrats or any leftist populist movement gains popularity and legitimacy, Mr. Global will seize it, gut it of its substance, skin it, and wear that skin to parade around as a Justice Democrat to fool the voters who no longer trust the corporate, corrupt Democratic establishment.

The reality is, the well-intentioned people who have started the Justice Democrats have no idea who they are messing with. And I don’t say this to discourage them as I admire their motivations, but I say it to warn them. They will have to resist the gradualism, the seeping incrementalism of corruption, they will have to push back against the calls to be “reasonable,” and often times ignore the group consensus and the offer to compromise. These are not the type of things that Progressives do well, but they are things that President Trump did brilliantly. If inducement or infiltration won’t work, you can bet the Globalists will reach into their bag of dirty tricks to ostracize, slander, blackmail or do much, much worse to remove the true populists from the movement. If we know anything about the Globalists, it’s that they will do anything and everything necessary to maintain their own power.


Fake News, the Paradigm Shift, and Luttwak’s Voice of Authority

By taking the mainstream media’s new favorite term to marginalize and discredit and turning it back on CNN, Trump is using his bully pulpit to flip the paradigm.

As President-elect Trump’s inauguration inches closer every day, the geopolitical earthquake of his victory has driven the Washington political establishment into a frenzy. The response has been, among many other things, a smear campaign in the mainstream media, and the war of words came to a head last Wednesday when Trump held his first press conference since winning the election.

After Buzzfeed and CNN reported on a set of documents purported to be an intelligence report outlining a Russian control file on Trump, a report that was unverified and unverifiable, Trump shot back at the media outlets, calling Buzzfeed a “failing pile of garbage” and CNN “fake news.”

On Sunday, it was reported that the Trump administration and incoming Press Secretary Sean Spicer were considering holding future White House press briefings outside of the West Wing in order to facilitate more reporters from a variety of media. This is a direct assault on the corrupt culture of DC and the cozy relationship between the press corp and the White House. By deliberately expanding the membership of the White House press corp, and taking them out of the West Wing, the prestige and luster of being a White House correspondent is severely lessened. Reporters who may have been more amenable and non-confrontational during press briefings for fear of losing their membership to this exclusive club would have no reason to continue pulling their punches. And don’t expect to see any more White House Correspondents Dinners with Seth Meyers in the future.

But Trump’s attack on CNN, christening them fake news and winning applause from the crowd, represents something very subtle but significant. By taking the mainstream media’s new favorite term to marginalize and discredit and turning it back on CNN, Trump is using his bully pulpit to flip the paradigm.

The Globalists know that as they lose power in national governments, they will also lose influence and legitimacy. As Globalist career politicians like President Obama, David Cameron, and Matteo Renzi step down, the influence and weight of their positions may fall to bolder, more nationalistic candidates like Trump.

Edward Luttwak, in his book Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, describes this specific type of institutional influence as the “voice of authority.” According to Luttwak, a crucial component to every coup is occupying that voice of authority. In your typical dictatorial regime change scenario, that would mean gaining control over the state-run media networks and whatever palace or capitol building the dictator occupies. The coup planners will then have the ability to control the narrative and shape the perception of their rebellion in order to gain legitimacy while degrading their opponents.


A similar situation is happening right now in the US, but in a much more peaceful and nuanced manner. Due to the separation of powers, there is no sole position or organ in our federal republic that has this voice of authority. Instead, it is spread among key parts of the three branches of government. With Trump and the Republicans taking powerful positions at the top of two branches of government- the Presidency with its bully pulpit and the Supreme Court- the ability of the Globalists to control the narrative and frame the ideological debate is diminished substantially. Stuck with their increasingly obsolete mainstream media mouthpieces, the Globalists’ Nazi-style program of Weltanschauungskrieg (worldview warfare) is crumbling before their eyes.

So their response is to imitate Trump. There is now a very clear reversal of attitudes between Trump and Globalist operatives with the Globalists now making outlandish allegations, questioning the integrity of the election and the legitimacy of the next President, riling up and radicalizing their hardliners, and staging large rallies in the form of protests. The new Globalist strategy is to feign populism, something that became apparent to me in a previous post I wrote about French Presidential candidate Francois Fillon.

The depth of this deception was made clear about a week ago when the formerly Eurosceptic Italian 5 Star Party headed by comedian Beppe Grillo were outed as a Globalist front funded by George Soros.

“Soros, working from behind the scenes in New York and London, engineered a coup over this past weekend.

“Grillo was convinced to abandon his alliance with UKIP and offer to join the European Parliament’s extremely pro-EU bloc — the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).”

“There was one major glitch for Five Star and Grillo.

“ALDE refused to permit Five Star to join its parliamentary bloc.

“However, the damage was done. The anti-EU Five Star, which has wrested control of the mayors’ offices of Rome and Turin, had been exposed as a Soros front.”

Soros Cementing Control Over Europe’s Left

Almost immediately after this revelation, a Hungarian party leader called for all of Soros’ NGOs to be “swept out” of the country. Such is the price of clandestine political operations as Soros and his organizations have already been banned from Russia. Don’t be surprised if other nations start expelling Globalist fronts for interfering in their political systems.


All of this geopolitical and populist upheaval proves the Globalists’ strategies are no longer working. The coining of the term “fake news” to replace “conspiracy theory” is a perfect example of how the Globalists have had to change their tactics to deal with exigencies. By granting only the mainstream media the ability to report the “real news,” the Globalists have come to rely entirely on the reputation of the media to maintain their narratives. After the confrontation with the President-elect and the proposal to remove the press corp from the White House, Trump is putting pressure on the media to abandon the Globalist narrative.

The media would do well to do so. As I have stated previously, the Globalist narrative pertaining to Russia is designed to head off any prospect of a Russian reset and the implementation of detente politics. But in an effort to defame Trump, the Globalists have extended themselves past the point of credibility when most news outlets passed on the “docier.”

The fact that Trump compared the leaking of the alleged report to Nazi tactics is quite ironic. After the defeat of the Nazis, the part of Hitler’s intelligence apparatus responsible for spying on the Soviets was incorporated into the CIA. The organization was called Gehlen Org after its head, Nazi Major General Reinhard Gehlen, and for the beginning of the Cold War, the CIA relied entirely on Gehlen Org for their intelligence on the USSR. This organization, and the CIA by extension, had been heavily infiltrated by East German Communist spies almost from its inception. One notorious double agent, Kim Philby, spoiled Gehlen Org’s plan to keep Communism out of Poland via the clandestine WiN Operation. The truth is Russia has always had a formidable and competent intelligence program to keep up with the West


Keeping this in mind, the Globalist narrative regarding Russia starts to become even more inane. According to these intelligence sources, not only have they caught Russia interfering with a democratic election, but they have also obtained the Russians’ control file on Trump. If true, and that’s a big if, this would be a stunning loss for Russian intelligence. Not only would they have been caught with their hand in a very big cookie jar, one that Putin knows would cause severe blowback, but precious blackmail material saved to be used during political expedient times has been leaked to the public, making it far less useful. The more I read into this cartoonish narrative, the more it sounds like wishful thinking.

Accepting that Russia did hack the DNC, the question now becomes “who leaked it?” Julian Assange himself has hinted that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the perpetrator, not the Russians.

“[Assange] hinted darkly that the slain man had been a source in his organization’s recent publication of 30,000 internal DNC emails. The fallout from that embarrassment had led to the firing of several top Democratic Party officials.”

“‘What are you suggesting?’ a startled interviewer from Dutch television asked him.

“‘I am suggesting,’ Assange said, ‘that our sources, ah, take risks, and they, they become concerned to see things occurring like that.’ His organization later ‘clarified’ on Twitter that ‘this should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source for WikiLeaks or to imply that his murder is connected to our publications.’”

Seth Rich: Inside the Killing of the DNC Staffer

But all of this argument and debate ignores a key point. The media continues to frame the “Trump vs. CIA” debate as something legitimate. The reality is that Trump will be the President, Commander-in-Chief, and head of the Executive Department. That means he will have control over the CIA, and if his prerogative is to remove Globalist stalwarts from their positions and send the “CIA Cowboys” riding off into the sunset, he has every right to do so.

And last but not least, Trump had some very interesting comments on blackmail and pinhole cameras. He warned those present that it is common practice for foreign intelligence services to hide recording devices in hotel rooms, but I wonder if this may have been more of a warning to Trump’s political opponents than to those who travel internationally. Recalling the Project Veritas tapes that caught Democratic party operatives inciting violence at Trump’s rallies and busing voters from poll to poll, I wonder if Trump has even more politically incriminating footage that he could use against his enemies.

We may find out after the 20th.

Another Round of Skullduggery from the Deep State

As the Globalists send a grave message to Putin in Russia, their candidate in the US could also be be under covert attack.

Last week’s G20 forum held in Hangzhou, China was a busy occasion with political leaders around the world seeking new alliances and negotiating economic agreements. But below the surface, in the world of spooks, espionage and black ops, in the so-called Deep State where the Globalists and billionaires conduct their affairs, there are signs of an increase in activity as well. During the G20 events and after the Chinese had snubbed Obama as he arrived on Air Force One, a deadly accident befell Putin’s personal car and chauffeur in Moscow.

Putin’s official presidential car involved in head-on horror crash in Moscow, killing Russian president’s ‘favourite chauffeur’

Russia’s recent geopolitical developments and challenges to the Globalists, the recent and very public snub by China, and the DNC hacks being attributed to Russia may have prompted the West to send Putin a message by precipitating this “accident.” Considering that the chauffeur had 40 years of professional driving experience and the Russians have been working to replace Putin’s BMW with a Russian-made vehicle, there is the possibility of foul play.

The Department of Defense, DARPA in particular, has had the ability to hack into cars and control them remotely. In fact, they took to showing it off on 60 Minutes, and made this reporter crash into a row of traffic cones.

Obviously, there are clear parallels between this crackpot theory and the speculation surrounding the fate of Michael Hastings, who died when his car smashed into a palm tree and exploded in 2013. Hastings indeed had stepped on some very big toes when he penned The Runaway General, exposing the enmity General Stanley McChrystal and his aides had for the Globalists in the Obama administration, and the acerbic relationship between the two. For that, Obama summoned McChrystal to Washington, where after a 20 minute meeting, McCrystal would resign his post and be replaced by General David Petraeus. There have been long-standing rumors of the growing conflict between military leaders and the Globalists in DC. The clamp down and snuffing out of McCrystal along with a wariness of getting into a war with Russia and China, a growing unease of Russia’s latest technological advancements displayed by the USS Donald Cook incident, a Russian radar-jamming bubble over Syria, Chinese “quantum radar,” and a European army independent of the US and breakdown of NATO are all factors weighing on the minds of the leaders of the military as Globalist candidate Hillary Clinton continues her campaign for President. Considering how the military couldn’t stand the Obama administration, it would be no surprise for them to lament the possibility of another Clinton in office and a continuation, and probable intensification, of Globalist policies. On top of this, the recent social reforms repealing the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allowing women to serve on the front lines are rumored to have upset military brass greatly, being seen as an intrusion of social justice into military culture and an overstepping of bounds.

But this fracturing and its resultant factional conflicts may not be isolated to the military. Just recently, NSA head James Clapper chose not to support Hillary Clinton and the Globalist’s narrative concerning the DNC hacks, asserting no evidence of Russia being behind the hack and calling for an end to the speculation.

US intel head calls for end to ‘hyperventilation’ over Russia’s alleged role in DNC hack

There have been many recent scandals involving intelligence failures and fumbles such as the Edward Snowden leak, classified information on Hillary Clinton’s unsecured email server, and accusations a year ago that Clapper himself was manipulating and sugar coating war reports in favor of the ruling administration. If certain “rogue groups” or factions in the intelligence services are fed up with the administration and aligning themselves with the military against the Globalists, then it could be possible that this group, and not the Russians, may have been behind the hack of the DNC. If the NSA were facilitating this and using Russia as a scapegoat, they would be simultaneously manipulating the election against Hillary Clinton all the while reinforcing the importance of their cyber security role in the national security structure. There has been more interesting speculation on the issue as well from former NSA whistleblower and architect of the surveillance program William Binney.

EXCLUSIVE – NSA Whistleblower: Agency Has All of Clinton’s Deleted Emails

Binney also brings up the possibility of an “inside job” involving a lone, disgruntled intelligence worker working against Hillary Clinton because of her email server improprieties. Quite an interesting caricature.

As the Globalists send a grave message to Putin in Russia, their candidate in the US could also be be under covert attack. At yesterday’s 15th anniversary of 9/11 at Ground Zero, Hillary Clinton began to feel “overheated” and left the event early. As her transportation pulled up, she appeared frozen, held up by the concrete barrier before the secret service essentially carried her to the vehicle.

Hillary Clinton ‘collapse’: Democratic candidate feeling ‘much better’ after becoming unwell at 9/11 event

Despite the previous chatter around Hillary’s health, the coughing fits, and even the 269 day gap between her press conferences, I was skeptical that Hillary was suffering from anything serious or chronic. But with this new development, the question is not whether she is ill, but the severity of the illness, and even the mainstream media have begun labeling this a “health scare.” The official story released by the Clinton campaign states that Hillary was suffering from pneumonia, and has been proscribed antibiotics and rest. However, the speculation is that she is suffering from Parkinson’s disease due to her chronic cough, an apparent inability to swallow, periodic freezing, and convulsions. Although this is much more serious than pneumonia and may fit the description of her bouts of odd mannerisms and behavior, there is no solid evidence supporting it at this time.

Yet, the implications of the events at Ground Zero yesterday goes further than Hillary having to call out sick. After being carried to her van, she was taken to an undisclosed location and no press were allowed to follow her. Hillary would later return looking revived, and the press was told that she was taken to her daughter Chelsea’s apartment for feeling overheated. But the damage to her campaign was done and the debate over Hillary’s health is no longer an argument from silence. The irony of her inability to project strength and authority at a memorial for the worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor, and her appearance of being unfit to hold office should not be overlooked. After a 269 day stint away from the public, this was an opportunity for Hillary to appear like a strong leader as the elections grow nearer.

There are other details, such as her whisking away to a secret location and no word to the press. This behavior is more consistent with being attacked than suffering an illness. Hillary’s complaint that she was feeling overheated could be a result of pneumonia or an inability to swallow and drink water due to Parkinson’s, but I would think that her campaign and her doctors would be able to provide the Presidential candidate with cool water and AC, or at least intravenous hydration in secret. The odd thing is that the sudden turn in her health at Ground Zero can’t be attributed directly to any of these factors, nor can they explain the sudden reversal as she returned to the event around noon, as the day was getting hotter.

Therefore, I am compelled to speculate that Hillary Clinton may have been targeted by one of her enemies in a covert attack. If there are actors or groups willing to hack the DNC and interfere in an election against her, I speculate they would be willing to use some sort of Directed Energy Weapon, possibly low-powered microwaves, to either cause or exacerbate a previous chronic illness. Microwave weapons have been developed by the military and deployed in Afghanistan as well as Los Angeles. Yesterday may have been an ideal opportunity to make the candidate look unfit for office at a very public event, and further manipulate the election against her. If there were anybody capable of developing and executing such attacks, it would be the enemies of Clinton and the Globalists among the military leadership and possibly the intelligence agencies.

As the international struggle between the West and Putin’s alliance grinds on, so does the factional struggle in the US government. Considering the widespread failure of the current administration’s Trilateral Commission toadies, the outlook is understandably bleak and many are experiencing a loss of confidence in Globalist leaders. All of this chicanery and skullduggery that is shielded from the electorate and not touched upon by the media cannot be ignored in the greater picture of geopolitics.

The Bizarre Bearer Bonds Scandal Resurfaces Again

The given assumption, and the framing of the argument, that these are “real” US Treasury bonds is merely a red herring.

For the last several years, a rather mysterious anomaly has continued to pop up on my radar, and those are the weird caches of billions, and sometimes trillions, of dollars worth of US bearer bonds found around the world. These massive financial instruments are always quickly deemed fake or counterfeit by the US Treasury, an assertion that, as we shall see, doesn’t quite pass muster. Their very existence, and their continued presence since 2009, has befuddled many commentators including myself.

Bearer bonds are similar to an IOU. When an entity like a government or a corporation needs liquid cash, they can borrow it from wealthy individuals and issue them a bearer bond in return. That bearer bond usually includes some terms of the agreement such as the original amount of the loan, the time when the bond matures, and the interest rate that the government or corporation must pay to the individual. The interesting thing about bearer bonds is that they are owned by whoever physically holds them. In other words, they do not require a paper trail or written record to establish ownership, which makes this type of bond particularly useful to those trying to remain anonymous. Considering all of this, you can probably imagine the shock and suspicion caused by a 2009 incident in Italy when two middle-aged Japanese men were arrested (and later released without being charged) for having in their possession 239 US bearer bonds worth 500 million dollars each, and 10 bearer bonds worth a billion each. That’s a total of $134.5 billion dollars of IOU’s given to somebody from a US institution.

Mystery of Fake U.S. Bonds Fuels Web Theories

What would have been a one-time occurrence didn’t really pique my interest, despite the fact that the Italian police released the two men and remained tight-lipped over the issue. But when two more similar incidents popped up, this time in the shady financial havens of the Vatican and Switzerland, and with bonds dated from 1934 totaling $10 trillion, I began to suspect something was going on.

Italian police seize $6 trillion of fake U.S. bonds

Men held over Vatican Bank ‘three trillion euro bond fraud’

All of these bonds were deemed by the US Treasury to be fake, and they appear fake. Many of the bonds have blatant typos, none seem to match the patterns of actual bonds, and the highest denomination bond ever printed by the US Treasury was $1 million. Some of the bonds even have pictures of the American space program, depicting the space shuttle taking off and a portrait of JFK. Being bearer bonds, it would make sense to counterfeit them and pawn them off to a fool as no record follows these bonds.

So what’s the problem? Why not just write it off as another hair-brained scam? The answer to that is simple: there are no billionaires out there stupid enough to fall for it, and no scam artist would ever attempt it. If one were to counterfeit bonds, why make them worth billions of dollars? By putting an unheard of denomination on these bonds, any scammer would immediately open themselves up to scrutiny, and the strange appearance of the bonds themselves would give away the ruse. Even if the bonds were counterfeits, why would the scammers go through the additional hassle of creating fake Federal Reserve of Chicago chests and certifications on top of all of that? Why give the police more evidence to pore over when the mark goes to redeem his matured bonds? And why were those found holding these supposedly fake bonds released by the authorities?




With the US Treasury already dismissing these bonds, it should be an open and shut case, but not quite if you look at the bonds themselves very closely. You’ll notice that these bonds are not labeled US Treasury bonds, they are “Federal Reserve Notes.” As the Federal Reserve is a private institution, and bearer bonds may be issued by government entities and corporations, we may be looking at a secretive operation being run entirely by the Federal Reserve and outside the scope of the federal government and congressional oversight. The given assumption, and the framing of the argument, that these are “real” US Treasury bonds is merely a red herring. As these were meant to be bearer bonds, and some appear to have been traded for gold bullion, this operation could even be existing outside of the public banking sector, making it hidden from economic and corporate espionage. By releasing the holders of these bonds, and not charging them with a crime, any possible record and further scrutiny of these kinds of bonds is avoided. This means that the leaders of the West may have a hidden instrument of finance to dump trillions of dollars of funding into projects outside the purview of congress.

As time passed, more of these little caches of bearer bonds would appear, this time in the Philippines, and under much stranger circumstances.

No One Knows Truth About $300 Billion Bonds From Alleged Crash

“The elders of the Umayamnon tribe told me an American plane crashed in their river in the 1930s,” Estrella, 47, says by mobile phone from a footpath between the tribal village and Davao, the largest city on the Philippine island. “The river dried up in the 1990s, and the natives went into the plane and found 12 boxes that contained $300 billion in bonds.”

Each box, emblazoned with the Great Seal of the United States and the words “Federal Reserved Bond,” held five gold coins struck with a portrait of George Washington on one side, Estrella says. They rested atop stacks of certificates purporting to have been issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in 1934 and redeemable in gold bullion. The notes bore the signature of then Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr.

Again, notice the fact that these bonds are associate with the Federal Reserve, although they are notarized by Treasury Secretary Morgenthau. Also notice the blatant typo- “Federal Reserved Bond,” another strange feature that any counterfeiter with half a brain would have made sure to get right. I believe that these typos were deliberately inserted into the documents with this type of situation in mind, IE the recovery of these bonds by individuals operating outside of the secret arrangements and system set up by the Federal Reserve. By making the bonds for their hidden financial instrument appear to be blatant counterfeits, and confiscating them when they turn up, the Western banking elite can keep their system secret.

All of which brings us to the most recent incident involving these bizarre bonds, and how this scenario might differ slightly from those before it.

Billion-dollar bond that man tried to cash in Broward was fake, feds say

This time, a Venezuelan man attempted to redeem just one bearer bond worth $1 billion, much less than the trillions attempted previously. However, this man was arrested, and may face charges that could land him in jail for 15 to 20 years. The Venezuelan man’s story is also full of holes and logical fallacies.

According to the Secret Service, Barrios Briceno said that his contact in Colombia gave a loan to someone who provided the bond as collateral but never repaid the debt. The lender then asked Barrios Briceno to try to cash the bond, which he said he picked up from the lender’s sister in late June at Miami International Airport.

If you know about the Iran-Contra Scandal, the CIA ties with the Medellin Cartel, or have ever read the late Michael Ruppert’s work on the CIA drug trade, you won’t have to ponder very long why Western leaders would want to move a massive amount of money to Colombia in absolute secrecy. The strange part about all of this is that the original bearer of the bonds could not redeem them, so what made the Venezuelan think he could?

The defense said in court that Barrios Briceno went to Washington, D.C., in early August and met with somone who “verified” the bond was valid for a fee of about $30,000. Barrios Briceno also said he met separately with representatives from four major financial institutions and that one of them offered $180 million for the bond. The lawyer said nobody gave his client any reason to think the bond was counterfeit.

The Venezuelan man may have had his bond verified by somebody on the inside of the hidden system. The fact that he was offered only $180 million by one of the “four major financial institutions” he met with may have represented an offer of hush money to stop these bonds from from making their fifth appearance on the news and in society. This would explain why this man was arrested, unlike the others like him that came before.

Exactly what this weird bearer bonds scandal represents is still uncertain at this time. What is clear is that the Western leaders have, for the better part of a century now, been pumping billions and even trillions of borrowed dollars into unknown projects and endeavors, and may have left some of those lenders holding the bag. What was all of that money spent on? Your guess is as good as mine.



Nietzsche, Relativism, and the Death of Truth

When the individual is incapable of holding an objective thought, only the result of a collaborative effort between many is deemed to be based in reality and truth.

After dealing with the concept of Nietzsche’s Ubermensch in the first blog on this topic, we are now left to examine his concept of Perspectivism, and the wider umbrella term of Relativism under which it falls. Many have come to view our “postmodern” society as an opaque dystopia. Politics are heavily polarized and scandalous, the people are growing more divided along race and gender lines, popular culture is marginalizing the individual thinker into the lunatic fringe, and the impression left on us by the mainstream media is that we live in a mean, mean world along with our fellow psychotics. This is all the result of the divorce of society from the concept of universal truth, and the rejection of the notion that the individual has the ability to hold an objective thought. By doing away with the truth, the search for truth is done away with as well. So what happened? Where did it all go wrong? A more appropriate question to ask is “How did it all go wrong again?” as humanity has already observed and dealt with this issue in the past. It was Nietzsche who sent us back into the Bronze Age.

Before Nietzsche, there were the Sophists. These were ancient Greek teachers who peddled their lessons to the progeny of wealthy clients, claiming to be able to pass on their own virtues and wisdom to their lucky students. Rather than teaching actual knowledge (this was a time before modern science) they taught their own experiences and philosophy, and their teachings were often at odds with each other. Socrates noticed all of this, and saw how focusing on truth would often be compromised by touting popular belief to garner more students and collect more fees. Rather than collaborating to discover reality, the Sophists were competing against each other and the knowledge, and their students, suffered for it. Through his protege, Plato, the two would go on to condemn the Sophists and point out the first recorded instance of their expounding of Relativism. This is the concept that individual viewpoints are devoid of any type of objective, absolute truth, and the only value said viewpoints have is relative to the thought process and perspective of the individual. As the Sophists needed a means to defend their corrupted industry, they used Relativism to obscure the issue. Rather than having to answer the dichotomy of true and false, teaching knowledge or being a fraud, the entire search for truth was sidestepped, and their businesses could continue as “it’s all relative” and all viewpoints had value. Plato and Socrates were completely opposed to this thinking, and Plato would later use math and geometry to develop Platonic Realism and the concept of universal forms. By offering logic, reasoning, and math rather than pure rhetoric, Plato and Socrates would form the foundations of Western philosophy while the Sophists were later relegated to teaching speech craft in the Roman Empire.

Nietzsche was well-read and well aware of Plato’s criticisms of the Sophists, yet he considered Plato to be “boring” and claimed that the championing of reason would kill the passion needed for creativity and art. Nietzsche saw the decline of religious faith and the”death of God” as the primary factor for a coming fracture of society. Without one biblical narrative for all to believe in, he was convinced that the Western world would descend into nihilism and chaos. Nietzsche’s proposed remedy for this was his Perspectivism, which is essentially the same as Relativism but excludes the notion that all other viewpoints (and Sophists) are valued equally. By making this very small tweak to Relativism, Nietzsche gave himself sufficient leeway to suggest that scientists and science, intellectuals, and the political class be the new source for society’s values in his Ubermensch concept. God was on His way out, scientists and politicians were in. With one fell swoop, science and its thrall, pop culture, supplanted God and stood in opposition to the religious worldview.

So by Perspectivism and Relativism, we are cursed with the abandonment of the search for truth, the rejection of the ability to hold an objective thought, the leveling of value for all perspectives, and the modern science vs. religion culture war. Rather than encouraging the individual to discover the truth, we are now expected to listen to “experts,” refer to an authority, and seek a consensus among our peers to validate what is merely a perspective. We live in an age of “popular truth.”

The hideous fruit borne from the twisted tree that Nietzsche and the Sophists planted and nurtured is plain to see for all. The postmodern world has its own contemporary form of the Sophists in the form of the mass media, talking heads, and pundits. Instead of investigating and reporting the truth, yellow journalism, gossip, and two-party kool aid is pushed for ratings and the mantra of “if it bleeds, it leads.” Just like their ancient Greek counterparts, these sophists have corrupted themselves and their product for the sake of greed and short term gain. The audience on the receiving end of this dribble becomes polarized and begins to pick and choose their own reality in the absence of the possibility of truth. Identity politics is intensified, rhetoric becomes more divisive and blunt, and the echo chambers and circle jerks of the internet are filled with those who have given into group think and group values.

Society and culture itself is the primary victim of this Bronze age charlatanism. When the individual is incapable of holding an objective thought, only the result of a collaborative effort between many is deemed to be based in reality and truth. Queue the rise of rule by committee, political correctness, and so-called microaggressions, where everybody’s sensibilities must be catered to. The devaluing of the individual gives pop culture and popular belief more gravitas, allowing it to lord over the individual. The leveling of value for all perspectives is the groundwork for multiculturalism, and the delusional apologists for Islam. Group-thinkers like Ben Affleck ignore the scholarship from actual Muslims and researchers who have, for centuries, denounced certain precepts such as the outlawing of criticism and free speech and an aversion for innovation. Criticizing those apologists is met with accusations of racism, and further shaming for disagreeing. When an edict is passed down from our Ubermensch, the troops snap to and await their marching orders. The Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX, and the stress on gender equality, was the societal value that was given to the people. The result is a militant movement of Social Justice Warriors and the third wave Feminist Supremacists who, eerily similar to the Maoist Red Guards, began to vociferously and viciously attack, silence, and demand the exile of teachers and fellow students who question or fail to toe the Title IX line. Even false accusations and staged events are not below these unfortunately brainwashed people.

The only benefactor in this postmodern misery seems to be our dear leaders, the Ubermensch. As they establish our values and are above morality, who are we to question their political scandals and criminal conduct? With the deep divisions in the two party system, one only needs to discredit and dismiss their opponents as lacking virtue and playing political games in order to free themselves of accountability. This process repeated on both sides has degraded the legitimacy of the democratic system as a whole. Endless warmongering is enabled by the ambiguous, broadly-defined term of “terrorist.” The Ubermensch will decide who is a terrorist and who is a “moderate Syrian rebel” or freedom fighter, and the American people are not excluded from being classified a boogeyman enemy of the state. When Western leaders need to make their case, they have the option of doctoring up a study or some statistics and presenting a junk science argument to the public. Even science, when it is divorced from natural philosophy, cause and correlation, will be politicized and spun to build a consensus from supporters or intellectually bully an opposing perspective with academic pettifogging and appeals to their own qualifications. Nothing has been left untouched.

This is the current, sad state of affairs in our society. Group-thinking, polarization, and the disenfranchisement and devaluing of individual thought and creativity have reverted us back into the Bronze age with all of its mob mentality barbarism and sophism. I suppose 2,500 years ago, one could excuse the Sophists since Socrates, Plato, logic and science were still embryonic. But today, the kaleidoscopic refraction of reality, culture, and societal values must be recognized and shown as a wholly unnecessary evil that serves only to divide and weaken. The shaming, accusations of racism, and puppeteering of science and popular culture has made a mockery of Western civilization, and has condemned its citizens to a vile, discordant purgatory.

But that’s just my perspective.

Mass Shooters, Lone Nuts, and Cinema- Nietzsche’s Ubermensch Are Now Ubervillains

Nietzsche’s pessimistic, nearly apocalyptic views toward popular society and culture have actually been adopted by it, and his ideas seem to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Western culture and society gives Friedrich Nietzsche a lot of credit. Some of his attitudes towards organized religions have merit, particularly the “original sin” spiritual debt complex he somewhat lightly touched on in his views concerning slavery. However, Nietzsche’s pessimistic, nearly apocalyptic views toward popular society and culture have actually been adopted by it, and his ideas seem to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are two concepts specifically, Perspectivism and the worship of Ubermensch, that have burrowed themselves deeply into popular culture. The Ubermensch are well known, but Perspectivism is more deeply ingrained in our chaotic, “postmodern” age and its ongoing assault on humanism and our humanity. Since these two topics are quite large, they will be handled one at a time. Today, we will focus on the Ubermensch, which is often translated as “supermen” in English.

Nietzsche believed that the waning influence of religion and the belief in God would eventually lead to a loss of commonly-accepted values across a society. He believed that the “elites” of society (scientists, intellectuals, the very rich, and the politically connected) would then be obligated to provide new values to the helpless masses. These Ubermensch are to be so important that they are above the notion of laws and immorality, and there is no aspect of democracy or even national sovereignty in this concept. Nietzsche was suggesting the ultimate power fantasy, that a man could become, or at least be treated like, God. With no accountability and a might makes right attitude, this is the megalomaniacal undercurrent that still lives on in this day and age, and is the presumption of today’s “elites.”

Nietzsche also overvalued the role of religion as the linchpin of a society, which is true to some degree, but culture encompasses more than just philosophy and religion. For example, China’s incredibly rich culture has existed since around 2100 BC, that’s nearly 1,400 years before the monotheistic worship of Yahweh in Israel. Chinese writing, a key to culture, may have existed in a primitive form over 6,000 years before monotheism. In fact, the Israelis used to worship a pantheon of gods just like everybody else, meaning they could form their own beliefs rather than acquiesce to the worship of a single deity. There were no bibles, Korans, or Torahs toting “values,” and priests prayed for good weather, successful crops, and fertility among their people. There were cities with multi-ton, megalithic stone structures, organized farming and animal husbandry, and nascent art and culture. The older, polytheistic religions like paganism and the Greek pantheon actually had some quasi-scientific elements in them. Rather than attributing all of creation and purpose to the will of God, a philosophy that shut down brilliant people like Galileo, the ancient philosophers categorized and attributed specific aspects of nature and existence to their pantheon in an attempt to rationalize the world. Aphrodite was all about the creation of life and Hades dealt with death. Ares was associated with war and conflict and Dionysus linked to celebration and drunkenness. These are all aspects of life and human consciousness, and they represent culture as well. The ideology accompanying this type of naturalist philosophy begat great thinkers like Socrates and Pythagoras. So in a sense, the common religious philosophy that Nietzsche claimed was so crucial to the prevention of self-destructive nihilism could be just as suffocating as it was cohesive. There was a time when the postmodern dichotomy of science vs. religion did not exist.

So how does the Ubermensch fantasy present itself today? A very apparent example would be the current trend of prolific superhero movies. There is one about the “Superman” specifically, and the largely negative responses to it are very telling of the current state of Ubermensch worship. In the latest reboot, re-imagining, re-brand, rehash, or whatever marketing jargon you would like to call the remake of Superman titled Man of Steel, the reality of collateral damage incurred by the conflict between good and evil is brought to the forefront as Metropolis is reduced to a pile of twisted steel and powdered concrete. This aspect is necessary to set up the sequel, Superman vs. Batman: Dawn of Justice, but it completely negates the heroic efforts of Superman. The Ubermensch is above accountability, so when Batman confronts Superman on this issue, Nietzsche’s philosophical foundation for the entire superhero genre crumbles. The subconscious justification of an at all costs response to the antagonist is shattered, and Superman errs. Many have decided to lay the blame on director Zack Snyder, which is somewhat justified, but Snyder knows how to make a superhero movie. The movie 300 was far more of a superhero movie than anything Snyder made with DC. Just 300 Spartans stop the horde of foreign, evil Persians from invading their homeland, sacrificing themselves and their King in the process to preserve their culture and nation. Being so cut and dry, the plot is easy to understand and the protagonist is easy to get behind. This is how the superhero should be portrayed, according to Nietzsche.

From Suicide Squad to Batman v Superman, why are DC’s films so bad?

The fact that Zack Snyder is attempting a gritty, realistic version of the superhero genre is a fools errand anyway. The Watchmen series was written like that, so it works. Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Night Returns, was a welcome change of pace in a stagnant world of comics. The darker subject matter was a way to win back grown up fans, and the question of right and wrong became more ambiguous and complicated to keep an adult interested. These darker chapters of the comic book world were less about being realistic, and more about being complex and interesting. We are, after all, still talking about an alien flying out of a telephone booth wearing red underwear and shooting laser beams out of his eyes.

With Snyder’s latest flop, Suicide Squad, the darkness and deviance is pushed even further away from the original Ubermensch concept. Rather than rooting for a protagonist, the audience is expected to support a cast of super villains motivated by their own selfish interests rather than old-fashioned altruism. Instead of saving a school bus full of children falling off of a cliff or smashing open a water tower to put out a massive fire in the city, the characters of Suicide Squad engage in torture, kidnapping and betrayal to avoid completing their mission and advancing the story arc any way they can. Oh, and did I mention Superman himself is dead, rotting in a grave in Smallville during the whole movie? Being slaves to “nanobombs,” the villains of Suicide Squad do not portray the power fantasy, which is the main draw of the genre. I think it’s safe to say that Snyder has no idea why people liked superheros.

So if everybody understands the Ubermensch concept, even on a subconscious level, how powerful is the fantasy? Is it strong enough to drive someone to kill a President?

John Hinckley, Who Tried To Kill A President, Wins His Freedom

This “lone nut” did seem to have an Ubermensch fantasy as Hinckley was obsessed with the movie Taxi Driver. The protagonist, Travis Bickle who is played by Robert De Niro, becomes fed up with the dregs of New York City, going on a killing rampage against robbers, pimps, and mafia thugs. He even gets away with it and saves vulnerable Iris, played by Jodie Foster. Hinckley envied Bickle, he stalked Jodie Foster when she was attending college, and he mimicked Bickle’s assassination attempt on a politician when he targeted Ronald Reagan. The assassination attempt portrayed in the movie was itself inspired by a real attempt in 1971, leaving a presidential candidate paralyzed below the waist. Rather than portraying the true consequences of attempting such an egregious act, Taxi Driver allows Bickle to escape from the Secret Service, and his later vigilantism is excused and even praised in newspapers as his victims lacked virtue. The film was loved by critics, nominated for four academy awards, and later preserved in the national film registry and the Library of Congress. It is clearly a power fantasy and Travis Bickle is the Ubermensch, above any consequences for his actions. Obviously, it takes a very disturbed individual to think that murdering people would bring respect and admiration from their peers, but that is precisely what is portrayed. Hinckley may have misconstrued popular entertainment, and what is entertaining, with what is socially acceptable. Therefore, having a poor understanding of society and lacking social skills may have begotten this whole episode just as much as mental illness and the Ubermensch fantasy.

But what about mass shooters? As it just so happens, two of the most infamous were the Columbine shooters, and they also enjoyed a good power fantasy. Rather than Taxi Driver, these two enjoyed the film Natural Born Killers. Juxtaposed to excusing an instance of vigilantism and blatantly ignoring an assassination attempt, every important character in Natural Born Killers is a sociopath that participates in murder. The barbarity of mass killing is trivialized, but then again, decades of yellow journalism will have the same effect. But what is most disturbing is the power of notoriety given to the main character. While being interviewed from jail for a television appearance set to follow the Super Bowl, the character’s speech proves to be so powerful that it causes the prisoners to riot and the two main characters to escape. We are then left with a happy ending as the mass killers are living free in a mobile home with their two children and a bun in the oven. This is the Ubermensch family.

Now please understand, I am not advocating that the new standard for mass media be Teletubbies, I am just trying to point out the inherent social schizophrenia in our culture. People look at the mass shootings regularly appearing in the news nowadays and wonder how people can be so desensitized. I wonder who hasn’t been desensitized, at least in some small way. When these narratives are depicted for entertainment purposes, they receive praise from society. I’m not surprised at all when socially stunted, mentally ill, or maladjusted individuals are fascinated by them to the point of mimicry. If you don’t have a well-developed sense of societal values, irony, and satire, you won’t get that the film is so satirical and fantastical that it could have just as easily been a cartoon on Adult Swim. But what the lunatic fringe will get, just like everybody else, is the power fantasy.

There was a time when popular culture was not interested in such lowbrow storytelling. There was a time when people would say these films were made in bad taste, or were intellectually vacuous and playing off of emotions, cheap thrills, and guilty pleasures. Just like art, cinema has watered itself down to allow films that are social commentary or artistic expression rather than just creations of beauty, skill and passion. The latest iteration of Ghostbusters, with an all female cast and accusations of widespread sexism and misogyny as the reason why the movie was poorly made, is the latest example of how an attempt to inject social commentary, or exploit popular trends, can eclipse the original purpose of a movie- to show the audience an interesting, memorable story involving characters you would actually care about.

But I must stop myself before I get into the Perspectivism, and the postmodern relativism that allows directors like Paul Feig and hack… I mean… Zack Snyder to brand genuine criticism as bias or a result of a lack of virtue. The fact is, they are the ones who lack virtue, or are at least not smart enough to realize that making a good movie is much easier than defending a bad one. With movie budgets soaring into the hundreds of millions of dollars, movie making has become an industry, and with every industry you have the typical risk-averse investors, rule by committee and the ever present fear of the negative return. With these kinds of stakes, writers and directors are naturally going to gravitate towards the macabre, cheap thrills, and guilty pleasures to hedge their bets. The power fantasy is one of those cheap thrills, and the groundwork was laid by Nietzsche all those years ago. Considering how the man died a lunatic with a messiah complex, should it be any surprise that his philosophical concepts resonant particularly well with today’s psychopaths and sociopaths?

Are Sunnis Planning a Reform of Islam?

“El-Sisi warned against those exploiting sectarian or ethnic differences to cause division in the Muslim world.”

The suggestion of reforming Islam had almost always been met with violent disapproval in the past, but the idea is now being entertained in the middle east. About a month ago, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi didn’t just call for reform, he asked for revolution:

Egypt’s Sisi calls for purging religious discourse of extremist ideas

Egyptian president: Time to reform Islam, purge ‘discourse of extremism’

El-Sisi cites as motivation the threat of fundamental Islam to the international community via terrorism and a negative perception of Islam from the violence committed in its name. This would seem obvious to anybody who has watched the news in the past decade or so, but el-Sisi’s third reason is not as readily apparent.

“The Muslim world is going through a dangerous turning point and is facing unprecedented challenges targeting its existence and people, [and facing this] requires concerted efforts from all of us while putting all differences aside,” Al-Sisi said in the address.

It would seem that the third reason has to do with unity. The Ahram Online article puts it even more bluntly:

El-Sisi warned against those exploiting sectarian or ethnic differences to cause division in the Muslim world.

Taking into consideration Israel’s new found desire to normalize relations with its neighbors, Erdogan’s about-face on Assad, and Russia’s campaign on ISIS, a push is being made to bring stability back to the middle east. An unusual coalescence of interests converging around Russia involving Sunni-majority countries has suggested, to me at least, that a power bloc of Sunni nations is in the works. It is very likely that Russia has facilitated this since over half of its economy relies on oil sales, and a stable middle east is necessary if Russia plans on using its oil industry to take over the global energy market. Russia has been a strategic ally with Iran and has had close relations with India and Iraq, three nations who contain a majority of the Shiites in the world. If Russia can broker a peace (only temporarily) between the two sects of Islam, possibly involving Muslims willing to reform Islam, and succeed in the campaign against ISIS, a more stable middle east looks entirely possible. Considering China’s slow-motion take over of the South China Sea, they are looking to control trade, and stability is needed for a renewal of the silk road trade route running from Russia to China to Egypt.

Peace in the middle east? Sounds like a crackpot theory, alright.

When Art Became Cheap ‘N’ Easy

How does an art movement go from confounding and avant garde to inspiring lifestyle choices and philosophy?

If you’ve been following my blogs about art, how technology has outpaced it, and the modern emphasis on expression and controversy, you might be wondering exactly how and when everything really got out of hand. I think it started, in earnest, with minimalism:

The Oppressive Gospel of ‘Minimalism’

How does an art movement go from confounding and avant garde to inspiring lifestyle choices and philosophy? If you were to ask a professional art snob, he would probably say something edgy but completely vapid like,

“Minimalism in the 1960s was very much along the lines of taking LSD,” says Miguel de Baca, an associate professor of art history at Lake Forest College.

The reality is much less provocative and a little more historical. From the 1700’s to the early 20th century, the industrial revolution drastically reshaped every aspect of human society from fashion to war. Newly mechanized agriculture required fewer farmhands and urban factories needed more laborers to increase their output. The result was the birth of the middle class and modern cities, and with that, modern popular culture and entertainment. This explosion of productivity and technology would spawn cross-continental railroads, massive foundries burning plentiful coal rather than wood, and the magic of electricity. With everybody from the richest entrepreneur to the poorest worker sharing in this massive upheaval, what did the artist have to offer with their landscapes and cherubs?

It is because of this age, and as a result of the wonders of that technology, artists felt it necessary to separate their work from reality. With abstract art, there were no constraints like perspective or anatomical proportion. The artist was now free to create something that could not be found anywhere else in the world, no matter how far you travel in a locomotive or a hot air balloon. This process of evolution would continue in the 20th century. Further development of technology would up the ante and compete with art directly. With the invention of film, television and radio, entertainment could be pumped directly into the home. The mid 1960’s would see the color television and color films, and photography was beginning to be accepted as a medium for art. Facing the possibility of becoming irrelevant and niche, the standards for what would qualify and be labeled as art were lowered. Films and television shows were created with capital from investors, teams of professionals and large studios in a way that no single artist could match. Rather than trying to top the spectacle of entertainment, minimalism reset what was to be expected from artists. By going to the opposite end of the spectrum from sensationalism and grandeur to obscurity and subtlety, the disparity between art and entertainment could be bypassed completely. By standing in opposition to entertainment, art had a new reason to exist. This is why modern art isn’t explained, people are just told they don’t “get it.”

When minimalism lowered the bar, it made sure that art could continue to exist alongside entertainment and technology. Minimalism was also a fresh alternative to the over stimulation of entertainment, and to consumerism in general. Requiring so little, minimalism allowed the inclusion of the lazy and those who lack artistic talent. Businesses could quickly and cheaply create a stylish but no-frills product without ever having to mention the words “budget” or “economy model.” Following the dynamics of capitalist competition, more and more would adopt this business-friendly exploitation of culture. Without Donald Judd’s basic shapes and unfinished pine, Ikea could never exist. It allowed the inclusion of the poor as minimalism began to be associated with frugality and asceticism, two virtues of American counterculture. Now that art was cheap ‘n’ easy, spread throughout culture and ingrained in philosophy, it would change society in ways it never had before, and it would continue to be relevant.

Today, art follows what I call the Kanye West Template. This involves creating as much false or real controversy as possible to gain exposure and maintain relevance. This is how pop culture is hacked and gamed. Rather than providing some kind of thought or creation that generates widespread interest and attains popular acceptance (hence, “pop”), a divisive and provocative viewpoint is presented to stir emotions and illicit a response. Other purveyors of the template include Donald Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Charlie Sheen, among a bevy of artists like Justin Bieber and Marilyn Manson. But, can minimalism produce something beautiful? Although there is no virtue or value in schlock and laziness, the style can still be stirring. A prime example was constructed thousands of years ago in Giza by laborers paid in alcohol. The pyramids of Egypt are simple, they are giant stones arranged in fancy piles, yet they have inspired more awe, mystery, and debate throughout their existence than any piece of modern art.

How Modern Art and Celebrity Worship Encourages Society to Objectify People and Judge Personal Beliefs

Objectifying the artist and including them, and their thought process and attitudes, with the work that is to be evaluated and criticized has changed how we as a society judge one another.

If you’ve read my other article on modern art then you already understand how art has subjectified the act of expression itself over the objectification of a great thought, emotion, event etc. This means that in modern art, the style in which the artist expresses him/herself has been made as important as the work of art itself. The artist takes on a kind of cult of personality through the choices and attitudes (the thought process) they display in the art, attitudes which often clash severely with societal norms in order to affect the viewer. That means in modern art, it is literally style over substance because of competition from CG graphics and other electronic media. That is, except for these artists:

Banksy, Daft Punk, Elena Ferrante: The New Cult of the Anonymous Artist

There are very good reasons why some of the innovators in the article have decided to remain anonymous. The creator of bitcoin must have understood the potential destabilization of a decentralized currency on the currency markets, whose toes he/she could be stepping on, and how deep that side of the pool was. Banksy obviously knows that graffiti is illegal. Aside from the legalities, being anonymous also prevents one from becoming a part of the work, and a part of what is scrutinized by the public. The anecdote about jazz trumpeter Dupree Bolton hiding from the public due to the shame of his criminal record is one example of an artist separating themselves from their work to avoid judgement.

In an age in which engagement with artistic works has been displaced by gossiping about celebrity artists, the anonymous innovators have forced us to return our gaze to the creative product.

Objectifying the artist and including them, and their thought process and attitudes, with the work that is to be evaluated and criticized has changed how we as a society judge one another. In modern art, rather than judging an artist solely on the merits or lack thereof in their work, modern art encourages the examination of the choices, and therefore, the attitude of the individual during the artistic process. Particularly so if that behavior is deviant or controversial. It would appear, to my view, that this attitude has begun to spread or be spread into other areas.

In social media, commentary is valued equally to original content. Posts, status updates, and likes are often times commentary themselves. The emphasis is connectivity, or the ability to freely express oneself to another. When that ability is threatened, such as the attempt to copyright reaction videos on youtube, people respond quickly and emotionally.

The effect on social discourse is to significantly muddy the waters in ideological, epistemological warfare. Now that the person has been objectified, society is free to pass judgement on them as well as their ideas. This means that the event the most sophisticated, well-constructed arguments can be completely ignored and ad hominems heaped upon the person instead. Now that everybody has the option to kill the messenger, nobody wants to be the messenger and nobody’s getting the message. Rather than presenting an argument standing on its own cited facts and logic, the attitudes and beliefs of the presenter are the focus of examination. Those who have contradictory beliefs are “corrected,” and every social interaction becomes an opportunity to prove and reinforce loyalty to an ideology and rebuke outsiders.

Political correctness and “microaggressions” are an example of how specific choices of language, phrasing and interaction can be associated with undesirable attitudes by popular society rather than the individual. By giving into political correctness, one is forced to admit that they are, in some aspect, subconsciously antisocial and that popular society is attempting to correct them (white guilt anybody?) rather than attributing a different meaning, and intent, to their words and actions. Instead of ignoring the message and attacking the messenger, you only need one wrong word or act to establish bad character and discredit the messenger. Anybody wishing to have an intelligent discussion will be presented with a minefield with all of these divisive, pseudo-scientifically derived word and mind games.

The legal system has begun to take on these characteristics as well. Things like hate speech and hate crimes place additional emphasis, and scrutiny, on the thought process of the individual. Although the traditional, Orwellian meaning of thought crime does not require a specific act, these types of hate crimes do lay additional punishments on certain motivations and beliefs in addition to the act. Although the aim of these laws is admirable, one has to wonder if the act of having an illegal thought, and nothing more, would be enough to get one arrested in the future. With the spate of highly-publicized killings in the news lately (the media loves the ratings), legislation requiring mental health screenings is being proposed for gun buyers.

But none of this is new. For decades, the American people have been made to focus on aspects of psychopathy whether it be serial killers and suicide jumpers on the news or divisive, schizophrenic social attitudes and conflicts. When JFK was assassinated, Lee Harvey Oswald was the “lone nut.” In other words, on of us just went crazy and tried to kill the president on his own. This meme would be repeated for RFK, Ford and Reagan, and after being beat about the head with it for a few decades the people have succumb. The paranoia and polarization of our current times is the result.

%d bloggers like this: