Question 1: Where is the most crime in America? Question 2: Where do police need to be busiest among the people, despite how many cops are murdered there, by morally demented thugs, year in and year out?
While it is unnecessary to know Frank Herbert’s Dune series of science fantasy books to understand what is happening in the real world, it is critical to know the reality of what it depicts. In it, an order of being has assumed and been accredited the greatest of humanoid powers, the Spacing Guild.
What makes them special? In the language of America’s founders, the Spacing Guild controls the intercourse between and thereby within societies. Those who wish to finance, trade, export, import, or travel; and they who wish to gain and hold power, must do it by this class and by means of its arrangements. This guild controlled the spice melange, very akin to controlling a global currency.
Why is that so important to us, here and now, in reality? Let’s answer that below this very brief clip from the Dune movie from 1984, poignantly enough. (The Spacing Guild’s representative is the huge, brainy, mutant slug, called a Third Stage Navigator.)
Why is that important to know in the real world?
Because in reality, that is just how things are done, here and now:
That is why Republican and Democratic Party voters are each alloted some of what they want, but not sovereignty in international relations, nor our currency, nor increasingly in our own national, state, and even local laws and ordinances.
That is why our authentically personal economic freedom is replaced by the “free trade” of those who ascribe to unconstitutional committees of secretive and shadow governance.
That is how Republican politicians become RINOs, administering communitarian polices of global accords, and how corporation-blaming Democrats succumb to the trade deals of the most heavily leveraged mega-corporations of the world.
It is the work of global financiers along with the power brokers associated with them who have provided for Pandora’s boxful of collectivist, statist regimes, from the U.S.S.R., to Hitler’s Third Reich, to Mao’s China. This is what a faithful historical accounts show, though they are muted in our neo-Marxist academia. This also extends to the Wilsonian “administrative state” corrupted of the very United States of America, though the Declaration of Independence charted our nation to stand against just such imperialist and despotic powers. Further, this Marxofascist interlacing and binding of the globe via corporatist “public-private partnerships” is being carried out throughout our increasingly “state capitalist” world.
So, when we speak of the world’s greatest on-going threat and the adversary to our personal, state and national sovereignty and freedom, if the cross-hairs do not center upon the global cartel collective of shadow governance and megafinance, we are off the mark.
Blaming instead the Kremlin, Beijing, any Muslim caliphate, or any particular race or ideology actually does what the world’s greatest enemy of freedom has provided for us to do. (And they use any threat they choose, to herd the herds into their designated corrals and pathways.) Instead, let us ask how have those regimes gotten there? Within what structures and influences, both internally and transnationally?
For any initiative, let us ask, in the grander scale how the most powerful entities expect to benefit. Let us follow the money and the trends of power mongering, historically and through the present, into malevolent objectives for the future.
It is the aim of Gulag Bound to make sure America’s greatest enemy is fully spotted and sighted-in. Should we not be able to do even better than 20th Century fantasy literature, to show what is happening in the real world, here and now? My personal editorial aim, whatever the submission, is to make sure it supports and does not contradict this mission.
— for Sovereignty Unbound, Arlen Williams
Good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern. The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery. The most important element of government, therefore, is the method of choosing leaders.
Please Kate, keep it. Don’t release it upon us again.
“CITIZENS, YOU WILL ELECT ME. I WILL BE YOUR LEADER!” Kate McKinnon as… America’s worst nightmare… or is it our second worst? third worst? Depends on how you look at it. Relax, it’s only a still. The video is below.
Now say to yourself: it’s only a video… it’s only a video… it’s only a video…
Oh wait, no. She’s actually running. God save America from itself.
This is what totalitarian revolution looks like. The sexual revolution and specifically the militant homosexual political movement are long known tools of revolution by the Marxian method. Along with other malevolent stratagems of collectivists, whether communist, fascist, “progressive,” or under some other name, it is intended for breaking down Western Civilization while building the structural Marxism, all for “the fundamental transformation” to be done.
As Norman Dodd related decades ago, egalitarianism is just a deceitful ideological devise, albeit a massive one. The true goal is the evil of universal enslavement. The times change, but the motivations for the Tower of Babel and the serpent in the Garden of Eden stay the same. This grand, global opera must not be thought of as merely the power plays of men.
James Simpson, Cliff Kincaid, and Jerry Kenney discussed Marxian globalists’ use of sympathies for homosexuals last evening on Roku.tv. Their enlightening and succinct conversation should be available here this Saturday.
Over the past two days, both U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki have admitted that the current nuclear deal being negotiated with Iran is “non-binding.”
Speaking at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, Kerry said that the deal is not “legally binding.”
“We’ve been clear from the beginning we’re not negotiating a legally binding plan. We’re negotiating a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now.”
Kerry made his remarks in the context of addressing what he called the “misconceptions” contained in the open letter released earlier this week that was signed by 47 Senators.
In an exchange with reporters at yesterday’s daily State Department press conference, Psaki was asked how the deal could be non-binding if the United States does not trust Iran. The video is embedded below the transcript.
QUESTION: The problem is is that you’ve stressed over and over again this is not about trusting, right? This is about verifying. But then you’re saying that these are political commitments but not necessarily binding. It would seem to me that if this wasn’t about trust, you would want them to be binding, not political commitments, which are your word. That’s what a political —
MS. PSAKI: Well, Brad, we’re talking about specifically how pieces —
QUESTION: Political commitment just means “I will do this.”
MS. PSAKI: It is not that. We’re talking about how specifically pieces would be agreed to between the parties. In terms of the implementation of it, I’m sure we will talk about that at the time we would have an agreement.
QUESTION: Since I don’t understand then what a political – as I understand a political commitment, it means a person or a political entity saying, “I will do this; I commit to doing this.” How is that not anything other than giving your word?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, Brad, if we get to the point where we have a framework, where we have an agreement, I’m sure we will have a discussion about how things will be implemented.
QUESTION: I’m just asking for the concept of political commitment. What does that mean, beyond giving your word?
MS. PSAKI: I just gave you additional examples of how that has been implemented and how it has worked in the past.
QUESTION: The Iranians have talked about this, whatever it is, that if anything happens, that it being – the idea that the UN Security Council would at least endorse it if not enshrine it in some kind of a resolution. Is that something that you think would be useful?
MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to get ahead of how this would be implemented at this point in time.
QUESTION: So —
MS. PSAKI: Obviously, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done between now and then.
Last week, Armin Rosen of Business Insider reported that the non-binding nature of the deal was “one of the more curious yet least commented-upon aspects” of the nuclear negotiations with Iran.
In October, the New York Times reported that the Obama administration was pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran that would avoid the Senate altogether. That means that the deal would technically be an “executive agreement” in which the president reaches an understanding with a foreign government that doesn’t require any changes in US law — rather than a treaty, which requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate and could supersede certain laws.
The trouble is that Congress has passed numerous sanctions bills relating to Iran. And while Obama has the right to grant sanctions waivers under certain circumstances, he doesn’t have the power to just take them off the books by decree.
“An executive agreement never overrides inconsistent legislation and is incapable of overriding any of the sanctions legislation,” says David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator with Baker Hostetler, LLP who served in the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations. “A treaty that has been submitted for Senate’s advise and consent and if it’s self-executing could do that.”
There is strong bipartisan support for Congressional oversight of any nuclear deal reached with Iran, both within Congress and among voters. The non-binding aspect to the deal is a way to bypass that oversight.
It is almost March and catching wind of the new ruling called “Net Neutrality,” I am beginning to be frightened.
Some may be reminded of the opening line of a story; just borrowed it. It’s a story about what happens toward the end of the road down which today’s ruling has just pushed us. Call it… Book Burning 2.0, with a technocracy update, in a muted, camel’s-head-in-the-tent fashion, pardon the mixed metaphor.
But that story’s dystopia may not even be as hideous as reality can become.
A number of fantasies and sci-fi stories about children and adolescents have become more and more popular in recent years, following the jet stream created by Harry Potter and The Hunger Games.
Obama the neo-Marxist “community organizer” gets with the racists of the Hispanic world. Via CNN, “President Barack Obama addresses the National Council of La Raza annual conference Monday in Washington,” AFP photo
“The lawless one,” in the White House. President Antithesis (it’s like what Antichrist is to Jesus, but different… well, sort of different).
“Critical Theory” — excellent! someone said it — at 6:42, to be exact. Well done, Mr. Whittle and Mr. Klavan too.
Two more observations:
There really is still an unsettling residue of racism in America, among numerous whites and numerous blacks, and many of whatever shade one decides to notice — also among many “progressive” collectivists, in the Planned Plantation Parenthood (and Nazi) traditions. In the occult schemes of neo-Marxists it is much more effective to wrap their poison pearls of deceit around even a tiny grain of truth.
The extreme and violent behavior of the newly rehashed protesting provides a sort of Overton Window extension of the Marxist dialectic, in the Marxstream media controlled hive mind of way too many Americans. It is an imposed image that allows the likes of Mr. Dark Ops in the White House, Barack Obama (no racial pun intended) and his likes to pose as peacemakers, proposing whatever solutions by means of Marxian synthesis.
Should we elaborate on that? Feel free to tell us in comments, if so.