The Political Spectrum

[Thrashen]

It is my contention that absolutely everything within the American political spectrum is appallingly incorrect; every preconceived perception or collective thought ingested and processed by the Mass Man is the complete and polar opposite of the actual truth.

The "Left vs. Right"Â￾ archetype has been a totalitarian ruse since its infancy. No amount of "Right"Â￾ has been permitted to exist in this nation for over 100 years. "Left vs. Neocon"Â￾ would be a much more fitting mantra-of-the-moron. "Liberal"Â￾ and "Conservative"Â￾ are the sweet, fictitious little labels, invented by those who manage the ever-banal Mass Existence Media and Mass Existence Government. After all, those unimaginative drones are only capable of "thought"Â￾ when said thought can be referenced with a previous thought, neatly branded with the proper "stamp,"Â￾ and therefore coupled with this prior notion or idea no matter how absurd the comparison. The Mass Existence Media and Mass Existence Government may maneuver most topics and issues with a fickle sort of nature, wavering back and forth like the gullible, bobbing head of the smiling Mass Men / Drunken White Fans; however, there is one matter in which no amount of vacillation is tolerable; the white race.

The endless "debate"Â￾ and subsequent "automatic political associations"Â￾ of the following political issues has always been quite comical to me"¦.these days it's downright side-splitting. When a real man, a white nationalist, views the "issues"Â￾ in terms of racial consciousness, he will find that many of the supposedly "conservative"Â￾ political positions of the "official"Â￾ conservative party are not so white-friendly, nor "conservative,"Â￾ for that matter"¦

1) "Conservatives love big-business, corporations, and making money."Â￾

Hardly. What's to love, exactly? The zillionaire Zionists and white Marxists at the top of the corporate totem polls pulling all the strings? The odious commercialization of the farms, trades, and small family business that our ancestors spent their entire lives building from nothing? The myriad of lovable "stupid white guy"Â￾ TV commercials? The utterly deceived white women and white men getting out-birthed at a rate of 100:1 on a global scale because they'd much rather buy high-heel shoes, cheer for NFL negroes, or selfishly booze themselves stupid (because the corporate media piggies said it was "OK"Â￾ to be materialistic) than produce white children? The institutionalized racism and sexism (all anti-white, naturally) invented by big businesses and corporations to make things racially "equal?"Â￾ Oh yes, having the ability to consume the immeasurable amount of unnecessary products (or make money selling them) on the American market has done our race a world of "good."Â￾

2) "Conservatives love organized religion."Â￾

Modern Christianity / Catholicism are perhaps the epitome of race-hustling institutions. Passing of the proverbial "collection plate"Â￾ might as well be known as "globalized welfare,"Â￾ benefiting mainly non-whites. Think Katrina, think Haiti, think Africa, think South America, think Asia. Think teenage white girls venturing into the heart the Dark Continent, risking their lives to do their Zionist hand-out missionary work. Perhaps religious whites could afford more children of their own if their money wasn't handed to everyone, anything, as long as it doesn't help their own kind. Nearly 100% of Christian / Catholic churches would have no problem with an interracial marriage (and children), as long as they too pledge their allegiance to the Zionist Christian philosophy. They teach whites to worship and defend Israel as the sacred "motherland."Â￾ They teach whites to be "sweet"Â￾ and "loving"Â￾ and "kind"Â￾ to every other race, when this courtesy has never, ever been reciprocated (quite the opposite, actually). "Love Thy Negro,"Â￾ indeed.


3) "Conservatives love war."

Sure, because it's so much fun to watch young white men and women dying by the herds fighting Zionist-inspired "wars" over random disagreements between non-whites in far away lands. And all the while, neocons sing their songs of praise for the American warfare state: "Death to the Krauts, death to the Japs, death to the Commies, death to the Arabs." Even the American Civil War was mainly fought over money (slaves were property, etc). War used to mean something; it used to represent racial and tribal unity...now war is nothing but liberals and neocons "vanquishing" their political enemies (usually to make even more money) across the globe. Another materialistic End Game"¦and one that has destroyed billions of white families, how "conservative,"Â￾ not.


4) "Conservatives hate the environment and prefer fossil fuels over alternative energy."

Right, because everyone loves being completely dependant upon the loathsome Arabic oil cartel, the Nigerians, and Venezuela for energy. Whites have literally handed these goons quadrillions of dollars for minerals that those dim-witted turds didn't even know existed, so whites drilled oil for them and paid them royalties. I'm sure that every single white person would love solar electric and geothermal wells for their homes, fuel cells or homemade bio diesel for their cars, etc. Who the hell wouldn't rather be self-sufficient (like our white ancestors had to be), as opposed to being totally reliant on some odious, non-white prick for energy? What white person would want to intentionally pollute an environmental that their white children will eventually inherit?

There are many, many other examples of how the "official" conservative values according to the American Political Spectrum are actually anti-white values. Sorry for the rant. Just my opinions on what a real conservative should be"¦

 

[jaxvid]

Great rant! So much there but one comment I would like to add re energy, white people have a way to avoid using oil-nuclear energy. Easily generated and readily available. Only the protests of the neo-Luddites prevents this "white" energy from saving us from the perils of peak oil.

 

[FootballDad]

I also think it's a great rant. I detest the labels and boxes that we are all thrown it to. I my view, none of the above are what made this country great. It was the hard work and diligence of its primarily European heritage, combines with the unique experimentation of having an extremely limited government, so that the individual could thrive to the best of his/her ability. Big business is not evil unto itself, but only when it seeks government help=force to do it's bidding. Big religion? Jesus fought against big religion, against "religion" in general, as it's mostly a human apparatus, when it should simply be a relationship between a person and God. Big religion is designed to appear godly, but serves the interests of it's hierarchy.
I can't add any thing to the war point, as I'm in agreement for the most part. As for the energy point, sure I like alternative energy if it makes sense. But wind and solar are a pipe dream, while "fossil" fuels are abundant, and anthropomorphic climate change isa joke. Nuclear energy is fantastic, look, the French generate 90% of their power this way, but the "progressives" in this country will just point to Hanoi Jane and the China Syndrome as reasons that it's bad.

Great job, Thrashen!

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Thrashen once again introduce the head of the nail to the hammer.

well done, sir!

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Outstanding synopsis Thrashen!

Regarding the bogus Right/Left (control mechanism) paradigm, I was surprised to hear that "reality star" Heidi Montag was swayed from being a Neocon after watching Alex Jones' documentary the "Obama Deception". It's refreshing to see more "celebrities" become aware of the fraud of the PTB!

Heidi Montag with Alex Jones Discussing "Left/Right" ParadigmEdited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Don Wassall]

The real dynamic is nationalism (or red-blooded Americanism) vs. globalism. All the others are indeed ruses designed to deceive and divert,or are just plainarchaic.

And yes, great rant Thrashen.

 

[jwhite96]

In the " Conservatives Love War" are you saying WW II wasn't justified?

I mean I can understand blaming Zionists and Neocons for recent wars but Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Germany had plans to attack the US , years before they foolishly declared war on the US right after Pearl Harbor, citing their mutual defense treaty with Japan.

Otherwise you made many excellent points.Edited by: jwhite96

 

[DixieDestroyer]

JW96, I've not done extensive research on the (particular) subject, but there are theories out there that FDR had prior knowledge of the coming (jap) attack on Pearl Harbor, but squashed it so the U.S. would have "justification" to enter WW2 (for the benefit of the Central Banking Cartel). FDR was a shill of the PTB, so I believe he did indeed have such prior knowledge.

The Pearl Harbor Deception

FDR & Pearl Harbor (Video)

Day of Deceit

Pearl Harbor : Mother of Conspiracies

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[jwhite96]

Dixie; Very good point.

I read Day of Deceit. The author uses a document only unclassified about 10 years ago which was a proposal on what actions FDR could take to bring about an attack on the US.

The author also makes a good case that radio traffic from Yamamoto's Carrier fleet was picked up by the US military well before the Pearl Harbor attack.



Edited by: jwhite96

 

[FootballDad]

I found this to be an appropriate thread to post this article. It's a fascinating look into how the PTB look at worldwide social-political issues. It really has nothing to do with making things better for anyone (obviously) but solely as a means to an end, an "evolutionarily correct" end. All hail One
World Governance!


<DIV align=center>GAME PLAYING IS REPLACING BIBLICAL MORALITY



Erica Carle
May 15, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
The Bible and the Ten Commandments are being banned because game playing is taking the place of truth and morality. Internationalists in universities, government, industry, education, and the United Nations play games with us in their attempt to substitute collectivist world regional government for Constitutional government. It is as if we were participants in an international game of high stakes poker. This is literally true. If you have seen the movie, "A Beautiful Mind" you will get some concept of the importance social scientists place on game theory.
The movie tells the story of John Nash, the schizophrenic mathematician who shared the 1994 Nobel Prize in economics for the contribution he made to the Theory of Games in his Princeton doctorate dissertation in 1950.
I first became aware of the existence and importance of game theory when I bought a stack of old FORTUNE magazines from our public library. In the June 1949 issue was an article by John McDonald that explained some of its basic principles. The article was based on a 1944 600-page book, The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John von Neumann, Hungarian-born mathematician, atomic scientist, Rockefeller Fellow, and computer developer, along with Oskar Morgenstern, Professor of Economics at Princeton University.
Without being a mathematical genius one can learn enough from the FORTUNE article and the movie to begin to understand what is going on. Sociologists, economists and political 'scientists' on both the left and the right have rejected the idea that there is a universal moral code or set of moral principles on which to base policies and behavior.
Instead, they have a religious devotion to the theory of evolution, encompassing social evolution. Game theory takes the place of Christian moral restraints. We are all treated as game players who make our decisions on the basis of economics, or gain for ourselves and/or our team. All ethics are situation ethics based on setting goals and attempting by hook or crook to achieve them. Good is success and evil is failure.
The ultimate goal is total world unity that theorists believe must be the ultimate outcome of evolution. Harvard University calls this system of goal-centered management, '"management by objectives."
How are game theory and management by objectives used to gain power? The FORTUNE article explained some of the facts about the theory. It is based on conflict and it originated in the game of poker. Von Neumann stripped the game to its bare structure, beginning with two players or two groups. Each has imperfect information concerning the adversary. Each attempts from time to time to confuse the adversary by bluffing or misrepresenting his position of strength or weakness.
The conflict is resolved by a bet or a call after which the two hands are compared.
The basic good strategy must be always to bet high on a high hand and mostly low on a low hand, but with occasional, irregularly distributed bluffs. Enterprises operated according to game theory make lying (bluffing) permissible if it is useful toward reaching the goal. There are two possible motives for bluffing. The first is the desire to give a false impression of strength in real weakness. The second is the desire to give a false impression of weakness in real strength.
Of course, gaining world economic, social, educational, and political control is more complicated than a simple game. However, control is sought using principles similar to that of a three-person game. The power game involves (1) chance, (2) strategy, and (3) the possibility of forming coalitions.
Extra players add complications to solutions. Even in a 10-person game the players can be split into two opposing coalitions in 511 ways. However, game theorists say it is by no means necessary that so many combinations come into existence. The trade-union movement is given an example of how large numbers of economic individuals can group themselves back into small numbers of strategy-minded units. Nevertheless, the authors said, the problem of large numbers is the greatest challenge the game theorists have to meet.
And that is where John Nash's 'beautiful mind' and his game theory come in. An article in the January 9, 2002 PALM BEACH POST by Nicholas Thompson of the BOSTON GLOBE explained Nash's contribution. Supposedly Nash's theory can describe all competition involving an infinite number of players. He created a concept now called Nash equilibrium: "The game is over when the participants agree on a set of strategies such that no player wants to change to a different one. A Nash equilibrium doesn't mean that everyone is happy. It just means that no one wants to switch his position given the decisions of others."
With Nash's game theory, economic, political, and social theorists have methods by which facilitators can manipulate large groups to reach consensus.
BUT HOLD ON!
'Consensus' is another term used by game theorists that needs explanation. Two ladies, Ruth Feld and Jil Wilson, found this out in 1980 when they attended the Governor's Conference on Children and Families in Wisconsin. After the conference they wrote,
<BLOCKQUOTE>
"One facilitator reminded a group, who kept on wanting to vote on issues, that a consensus did not mean the view of the majority, but is a 'consensus view.'"</BLOCKQUOTE>
The statement puzzled them, and when told about it I went scurrying for a dictionary that could help me understand what was meant by a consensus view. . From my search I came up with two significant synonyms for consensus:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
1. agreement
2. accordance</BLOCKQUOTE>
Regarding (1) How can the Governor's Conference claim consensus when there is not agreement? The definition does not fit the circumstance.
Let's try (2),"accordance": "the state of being in accord; agreement with a person; conformity to a thing."
"Conformity to a thing" is the definition that makes sense. To game players consensus does not necessarily mean agreement. The beliefs of individual participants at the Governor's Conference on Children and Families were unimportant to the organizers and facilitators. They did not want a vote. They were unaffected by personal beliefs. The important thing was that participants were conforming to the game-playing system of facilitated conferences as the means to direct government policy. Participants did not necessarily have to be happy with the results. To participate or conform to the system was sufficient.
Game-playing meetings and conferences always have a person who is called a "facilitator." The duty of the facilitator is to stimulate discussion about the economic, political, or social issue among the diverse group of people assembled until it can be said they have arrived at a "consensus." Political, sociological, and economic, game playing can involve lying (bluffing), chance, coalition building, side-payment, cooperation, blocking, etc..
In game playing, economic, sociological, political, and educational decisions are generally made by a select group of players. However, no one person among the decision-making group can change the decision because it has been reached by 'consensus.'
The goal of game playing is always power and success. Despite all the so-called 'science' and experimentation involved in setting up game-playing systems, they can go bad for an enterprise (e.g. Enron). What happened? Were the bets too high? Were there too many bluffs? Was the goal too grandiose? Were wrong strategies chosen to reach the goal? Did competition or new players entering the game cause unanticipated problems? Did cooperating groups renege on their commitments? Or, perhaps, was the fall of Enron a victory for the system?
Why weren't Enron game players blocked before such a monumental disaster occurred? To understand this we have to remember we are talking about game playing--not morality. With game players in business, government or education the one who calls the bluffs or questions strategy of his own side (asks to see the cards) is known as a whistle blower. Whistle blowers destroy consensus. The facilitated game is intentionally set up so no one will feel comfortable making the call, exposing the hand, or destroying consensus.
How can you know whether someone is playing games with you rather than giving you personal respect? First, game playing events always have facilitators to guide the discussion toward the desired result. Second, there is always a pre-determined social problem to be discussed. Third, no one is allowed to criticize or attack the opinion of another participant. Fourth, there is an attempt to declare that a 'consensus' has been reached, even if it is an agreement to disagree.
Game playing has become accepted behavior in a great number of circumstances. Anyone who has attended meetings of foundation-funded or government-funded citizen groups organized around public issues; anyone who has discussed social problems in a classroom; any teacher who has been paid to attend in-service seminars; any member of an organization which is associated with an international blanket organization, such as the International Chamber of Commerce or Rotary International; any politician who has felt compelled by his party to vote against his better judgment has, whether aware of it or not, participated in game playing and consensus building for the New World Order.
Game playing to reach 'consensus' by groups of citizens in an effort to determine public policy has become so prevalent that a new career has been added to the social science milieu. Facilitators by the thousands are being trained to bring about what they call '"social change."
An International Association of Facilitators was set up in 1994. Its purpose is to "help promote the profession of facilitation as a critical set of skills in the global society of the 21st century." For those wishing to investigate further the home page of the International Association of Facilitators.
Unless people by the millions wise up to game playing and its techniques for controlling group opinion, in the future there will be but one opinion tolerated -- that which supports management by objectives for a global collectivist society.
The global society has no morality and no permanent rules, such as the US Constitution or the Ten Commandments. There is only one principle â€" success. To the game players success for the World Management System is good. Failure is evil. They have thrown away truth and their Bibles and they expect you to do the same.
© 2010 Erica Carle - All Rights Reserved