The GAME

[Time for change]

About five months ago I wrote an article for DU titled “Unmentionable Things in U.S. Politics”. It started with this paragraph:

There are numerous things that absolutely cannot be mentioned by American politicians because they are …. well, “embarrassing to our country”. Mere mention of these things brings down the wrath of conservative pundits and moderates as well, and even some who consider themselves to be liberal or progressive. The wrath is likely to be so intense that few U.S. politicians dare mention these things because of the risk of being booted out of office – or worse. Three such things are: 1. the stealing of a U.S. presidential election; 2. referring to American military or covert actions as immoral, rather than merely as “misguided”; and, 3. imputing bad intentions, rather than mere incompetence, onto a U.S. president.

I then went on to give several examples, and I ended the post by talking about what I considered to be the bad consequences to our country’s of refusal to shine the light of day on these things.

Since then, I’ve thought a lot about this. Why? Partly because it’s a very interesting puzzle to me, but more important is the fact that I find the whole thing terribly repressive. What’s repressive is not that I and my fellow DUers can’t mention these things. As a matter of fact, we do so all the time – and thus far I’ve suffered no ill effects from it, except that sometimes when I try to talk to even my liberal friends outside of DU about them they think I’m a little loony. But no big deal.

What’s repressive about it is that our elected representatives don’t mention these things either. We elect them to represent us and our nation, and they fail to even talk about some of the very most important issues. There are some rare courageous exceptions, like Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney, but I get the impression that even they are muzzled to a significant extent.

Anyhow, as I said, I’ve been thinking a lot about this. Mainly I’ve been thinking about what is the reason for so many unmentionable things. And it’s occurred to me that this provides the backdrop for a huge GAME that has been foisted upon us. One of the prerequisites of the GAME is to create an alternate reality that must be believed by a critical mass of people in order for the GAME to proceed. Why is that necessary? I believe it’s necessary because the reality is so terrible that if enough people consciously recognized it they would rise up and simply refuse to play the GAME.


Some questions and those who have provided some answers

I’ve read a great many books that have touched on the GAME in one way or another (though they don’t call it by that name), and some books that attempt to zero in on it. Needless to say, there is a tremendous amount of difference of opinion, even among those who seem to have some kind of a handle on the GAME. It’s so hard to know what to make of it all. About all I can say of the GAME’s purpose is that I’m almost certain that it is very nefarious. That’s why the GAME’s supervisors go to such length to hide the outlines of the GAME from us.

But here are so many questions that I want to see answered. What is the purpose of the GAME? When did it start? What are its rules and boundaries, and how have they changed over time? Who makes the rules? Who enforces the rules? How do they enforce the rules? Who are the insiders who know more about it than anyone else? What does the U.S. Congress know about it? What have our Presidents known about it? So many questions.


Some books I’ve read that I believe shine some light on the GAME

In the realm of fiction, “The Wizard of Oz”, “1984”, and “Alice in Wonderland” come to mind. In the realm of non-fiction, I would like to single out six authors who I believe have shone an especially bright light on the GAME, at least for me. I also include here the titles of posts that I’ve written about those books because those titles convey my beliefs about the purpose of the GAME:

Naomi Klein: “The Shock Doctrine – the Rise of Disaster Capitalism”. I’ve written about this in:
“The Relationship Between Torture and Occupation/Dictatorship”
“The Demise of Russian Democracy: A Lesson in the Perils of Allowing a Tyrannical Precedent”
“Connection between State-Sponsored Terror, Corporate Greed and Economic “Shock Therapy”
And on a more optimistic note: “The Countering of U.S. Imperialism – A Light at the End of the Tunnel”

John Perkins: “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man – How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Treat Poor Countries out of Trillions” and “The Secret History of the American Empire – Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption”. I’ve written about these in “The Moral Transformation of an Economic Hit Man”.

Antonia Juhasz: “The Bush Agenda – Invading the World, One Economy at a Time”. I’ve written about this in “The Purpose of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq”.

Bill Moyers: “Moyers on Democracy”. This book is a collection of Moyers’ speeches, in which a major focus is how our news media has been taken over by those who control the GAME. I’ve written about this book in:
“Bill Moyers’ Insights on Addressing the Perilous State of our Democracy”
“Bill Moyers to U.S. Military Academy: Before you Assume that I am Calling for an Insurrection…”
“Bill Moyers on How Money Is Choking our Democracy to Death”

Chalmers Johnson: “Blowback”, “The Sorrows of Empire”, and “Nemesis – The Last Days of the American Republic”. I talk about these in “The Last Days of the American Republic”.

William Greider: “Who Will Tell the People – The Betrayal of American Democracy” I haven’t written a DU post about this book, mainly because I read it many years before I joined DU and before DU even existed. I’ll just excerpt a blurb from the jacket to give you an idea of what it’s about.

Here is a tough minded exploration of why we’re in trouble, starting with the basic issues of who gets heard, who gets ignored, and why. Greider shows us the realities of power in Washington today, uncovering the hidden contours of relationships that link politicians with corporations and the rich and subvert the needs of ordinary citizens…

An example of the GAME – Stumbling into war in Iraq

The official story – the one we use to play the GAME
I think that the vast amount of poppycock surrounding the Iraq War provides a good example of the GAME in action. We have an official story from which our elected officials are not allowed to deviate very far:

The Bush administration honestly believed that Saddam Hussein, with his “weapons of mass destruction” and ties to al Qaeda, presented an imminent danger to our country. Through a combination of incompetence by our President and misleading intelligence presented to him by his intelligence agencies, the Bush administration was mislead to believe that Iraq presented an imminent danger, and in turn the Bush administration misled Congress into believing that.

But when the war commenced and no WMD were found, they had to find another story to provide an excuse for staying there. For that purpose they came up with “spreading democracy to the Iraqi people” (for the benefit of Americans with warm hearts) and “if we don’t fight them over there we’ll have to fight them over here” (for the benefit of those frightened souls who are dim enough to believe that our troops in Iraq are preventing terrorists from coming here).

The absurdity of the official story
But these official stories have so many holes in them that if we open our eyes we could drive a truck through them.

First, the Bush administration began planning the Iraq War from the first days of the administration.

Second, to the extent that intelligence agencies provided poor information, it was mainly because the Bush administration pressured them to do so – in order to enhance their war propaganda.

Third, there was plenty of information publicly available that contradicted the case for war that the Bush administration tried to make, thereby proving that it was lying. But in accordance with the rules of the GAME, no “respectable” news source dared to point that out. For example, when on September 7, 2002, Bush claimed that a new U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report stated that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon, no such report existed. There are several other similar examples in this post.

Fourth, with respect to the claim that we were “bringing democracy” to Iraq, what possible sense did it make that we had to kill over a million innocent Iraqis, ruin their country and create more than four million refugees in order to bring them democracy? And if that wasn’t enough, opinion polls clearly showed that the Iraqis hated us and wanted us out of their country. Thus, in order for the GAME to continue, none of these things can ever be discussed – Not by our elected representatives; not by our “respectable” news media; not by the 9/11 Commission.

And finally there is the most obvious problem with the official story of all: Even if Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, the idea that he could have posed a danger to us was still absurd. I love the way that Mark Danner explains this in “Words in a Time of War – Taking the Measure of the First Rhetoric-Major President”:

If anyone had found those leaky old shells, what would have been changed thereby? Yes, the administration could have pointed to them in triumph and trumpeted the proven character of Saddam’s threat… But in fact, the underlying calculus would have remained: that, in the months leading up to the war, the administration relentlessly exaggerated the threat that Saddam posed to the United States… And it would have remained true and incontestable that… the case for attacking Iraq was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors…”

Which is to say, the weapons were a rhetorical prop and … we forget this underlying fact at our peril. The issue was never whether the weapons were there or not; indeed, had the weapons really been the issue, why could the administration not have let the UN inspectors take the time to find them? The administration needed, wanted, had to have, the Iraq War. The weapons were but a symbol, the necessary casus belli… Had a handful of those weapons been found, the underlying truth would have remained: Saddam posed nowhere near the threat to the United States that would have justified …. war.

Three Presidents who perhaps didn’t fully play the GAME

It seems to me that we’ve had three Presidents since World War I who, at least to some major extent, decided not to play the GAME. My list could contain omissions or commissions. But it’s the best I could do with the information I have.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Just prior to the Great Depression, the level of wealth inequality in our country was perhaps as great or greater than it had ever been. FDR made it clear that he intended to even the playing field, in pursuit of bringing his country out of the depression. I don’t know precisely who the controllers of the GAME were in those days, but I think it’s safe to say they included some of the wealthiest men in our country. They probably didn’t consider evening the playing field to be within the rules of their GAME. Consequently:

In the summer of 1933, shortly after Roosevelt's "First 100 Days," America's richest businessmen were in a panic. It was clear that Roosevelt intended to conduct a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Roosevelt had to be stopped at all costs. The answer was a military coup. It was to be secretly financed and organized by leading officers of the Morgan and Du Pont empires. This included some of America's richest and most famous names of the time.

And how did that work out? Well, the coup failed, and FDR became even more brazen about his disdain for the GAME and its rulers. He gave a speech at the 1936 Democratic National Convention in which he explained the rationale for his New Deal, and in the process had a few combative words for those in charge of the GAME:

Out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital … the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service. There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer…

The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property…. And as a result… the hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor – these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family – other people's money – these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

The controllers of the GAME hated FDR more than ever. But after the failed coup they couldn’t touch him. He lifted his country out of the Great Depression, in the process creating social programs that are still considered sacrosanct to this day. He was re-elected President by a landslide a record three straight times, and to this day most presidential scholars consider him the second greatest president of our history. Because of what he accomplished, our country experienced what Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman calls the greatest sustained economic boom in United States history. It wasn’t until almost a half century following FDR’s rise to the Presidency that his New Deal began to be dismantled, by a nation in which a new generation of voters had little or no memory of him.

John F. Kennedy
Kennedy started off his political career and his Presidency fairly far to the right on questions of U.S. militarism – as were most Americans during the Cold War. He escalated our involvement in Vietnam (which he inherited from Eisenhower), and he began his presidency by invading Cuba. But he exhibited an extraordinary ability to learn from his mistakes.

A few months before he was assassinated, he gave a great and radical speech on behalf of peace that probably seemed terribly threatening to the military industrial complex. Here are some excerpts:

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament -- and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must re-examine our own attitude -- as individuals and as a Nation -- for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every… thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward -- by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the Cold War and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many of us think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable – that mankind is doomed -- that we are gripped by forces we cannot control…

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace -- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions -- on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned…

Six weeks later, Kennedy announced to the American people the first nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. He then undertook secret negotiations with Fidel Castro in an attempt to come to an accommodation with him. And, he began talking with his close associates about pulling out of Vietnam.

Four months later, Kennedy was assassinated.

Jimmy Carter
On the campaign trail in 1976, Carter was an outspoken critic of U.S. imperialism:

We’re ashamed of what our government is as we deal with other nations around the world… What we seek is … a foreign policy that reflects the decency and generosity and common sense of our own people.

Morris Berman, in his book “Dark Ages America – The Final Phases of Empire”, discusses Carter’s commitment to human rights as President:

Carter never stopped talking about the subject… He cut out aid to Argentina, Ethiopia, Uruguay, Chile, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, and Uganda because of human rights abuses.

Berman discusses the hopes engendered by Carter’s 1976 election to the Presidency and how the American people turned out not to be ready for that kind of change:

For a brief moment in American postwar history, the position of sanity found an echo… We would work for a more humane world order in our international relations, not seek merely to defeat an adversary; military solution would not come first; efforts would be made to reduce the sale of arms to developing countries…

But… the Carter morality was, within two years, heavily out of step with the return to the usual public demand for a more muscular and military foreign policy… Out-of-office cold warriors closed ranks, forming organizations such as the Committee on the Present Danger… Their goal – to revive the Cold War – was ultimately successful; Ronald Reagan and CIA-assisted torture in Central America were the inevitable results. And in the course of all this, a picture was formed of Jimmy Carter as weak, bungling, inept… That Carter would be perceived as weak, and presidents such as Reagan and Bush Jr. as strong, says a lot about who we are as a people…

But was Carter’s morality really out of step with the American people? Or was it rather that those in charge of the GAME worked hard to get Jimmy Carter thrown out of the GAME for his refusal to follow the rules – for example by making sure that the U.S. hostages being held in the U.S. embassy in Iran were not released until within five minutes of Ronald Reagan being sworn in as Carter’s successor?


A few more thoughts about the GAME

A fellow DUer, abq e streeter, recently quoted the comedian Bill Hicks, referring to President-Elects as follows:

No matter what promises you make on the campaign trail, blah blah blah, when you win, you go into this smoky room with the 12 industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down...and its a shot of the JFK assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously like the grassy knoll, and then the screen comes up and the lights go on, and they ask the new president "any questions?

Some may see this post as written in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner. But it really wasn’t. I’m dead serious about it. I have many questions about the GAME’s precise nature, as I noted in the beginning of this post. But I truly do believe that the GAME is aggressively played, that it casts a giant shadow over our nation, that it poses a tremendous threat to the world, and that the scenario quoted by Bill Hicks above may not be too far from reality. I hate the GAME, I feel oppressed by it, and I fear it. For that reason, I love people like Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney for challenging it and fighting back.


What does President-Elect Obama know about the game and what is his role in it?

One of the biggest questions about our new President, for those of us who believe in the reality of the GAME, is where he fits in with it. On the one hand, he has given many indications since his election victory that he intends to play the GAME to the hilt. On the other hand, he often seems very likable to me, which makes it hard for me to imagine that he would do that. Maybe he’s just pretending to play the GAME now, so as to increase the likelihood that he will last at least until his historic inauguration. But on the third hand, it probably takes a tremendous amount of courage for a President to refuse to play the GAME. FDR refused, in the process doing wonders of good for our country. And he got away with it. Maybe the GAME’s leaders learned something from that. Kennedy apparently refused to play the GAME towards the end of his Presidency, and he ended up dead. Carter apparently refused to play throughout his whole Presidency, and … well, they didn’t need to kill him.

So the bottom line is that I have very little idea to what extent Obama will play the GAME, though all the indications are, I hate to say, that he is already participating in it.

But I can think of one very good indicator: Prosecuting high level members of the Bush administration for war crimes and crimes against our Constitution and our people. It is crystal clear that for the sake of our democracy – for the sake of the American people – that needs to be done. To fail to do so is to condone those crimes and to set the stage for it to happen again.

Yet it is just as crystal clear that to do so would be a great broach of the rules of the GAME. That was evident when Nancy Pelosi took impeachment “off the table” and kept it off, as well as when Congress failed to pursue Bush administration officials who refused to honor lawfully executed Congressional subpoenas.

The reason that it would be against the rules of the GAME to pursue high level Bush administration figures for war crimes I believe is this: The GAME depends above all else on maintaining the widespread belief that the United States is – as “super-patriots” are so fond of claiming – “the greatest force for good in the world”. I mean, what kind of person would be willing to volunteer to risk his life fighting in his country’s war if he didn’t have great confidence in the benevolence and motives of his country? Convicting the highest leaders of the U.S. government for war crimes would shatter that confidence to hell and would therefore radically change the fabric of American society. If the GAME were to continue at all, its rules would have to be changed beyond recognition.

If Obama pursues investigations into these criminals, that will be pretty solid evidence that he’s not a real GAME player. If he fails to do so, which I’m afraid might be the case, that will be good evidence that he intends to play the GAME – at least to some significant extent, and at least for now. It will be very interesting to watch this play out.

[PM Martin]

1. Kick for others to see.

I will have to go into this in more detail.
From what I have read, Obama is taking FDR's course so far in that he is not doing anything to rock the boat until he takes the oath of office.

[Time for change]

105. I'm hoping you're right

[leftstreet]

2. Wow. Lots to see here

Thanks for all these links

K&R

[angrycarpenter]

3. I had the thought

that when Obama and bush met in the oval office that first time and when they were alone George turned casually to him and said "If you come after us our buddies will kill you and your entire family, want some coffee?"

[Fire1]

6. That wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[SammyWinstonJack]

102. Wouldn't surprise me either.

[balantz]

11. I think that "conversation" may have occured long before. n/t

[Fire1]

4. Believe me, you're not crazy and there are thousands who

think the same thing. They just don't say it out loud. The sad part about this 1)The game players actually think they have the vast majority of the public fooled, and they don't. 2) These free market neo-conservative companies avoid paying taxes by taking their companies to tax haven countries and leave the workers (the back bone of this country)as the losers in this 'game.' It never fails.

[RandomThoughts]

52. Emperor without clothes

I think most people see it, they just think they can't be seeing what they think they are.

Its why talking to people outside of your own bubble is so important.

[glitch]

5. You and posts like these are one of the main reasons I am still a DUer. K & R nt

[Time for change]

106. Thank you so much.

I very much appreciate your saying that.

[madfloridian]

7. Recommended. Playing dangerous GAMES

And destroyihg those who do not play the GAME well.

[anigbrowl]

8. You just lost it

[lightningandsnow]

24. ...

[Greyhound]

9. I should just be able to set up an "auto-kick and recommend" for your posts.

Here's another one.
& R

[Time for change]

107. Thank you.

I've asked Skinner to work on that.

[soulcore]

10. Love the BIll Hicks quote, he's one of my favorites.

And I honestly belive he wasn't too far rom the truth of it. People tend to forget that the Bush Dynasty OWNS the intelligence apparatus in this country.

I fear you are right though, in that Obama already appears to be playing THE GAME. His choices so far show a very different tone than his campaign was run on.

I too hope that he will do what is RIGHT as opposed to what THE GAME says is right, but I won't hold my breath.

K&R.

[Greyhound]

143. Obama received "The Talk" after his speech at the 2004 convention.

Both Ms. and I noticed this, and we had not yet met. It was mentioned in some "news" broadcasts at the time and then lost down the memory hole. Among the attendees were Schumer, From, and H. Clinton.

[Jambalaya]

163. We have seen the enemy

"We have become a Nazi
"We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world, a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us. No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you. Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush? They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us; they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them."

Hunter S. Thompson
Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century (2004

[Dystopian]

12. KandR.

Had to bookmark this one...much to read and absorb.
Thank you.

peace~

[Time for change]

118. Thank you -- I hope you like it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. Bravo.

K & R

[Wednesdays]

14. K&R

[Jackpine Radical]

15. I sometimes think you're my unacknowledged twin.

The industrious one, the one who actually documents and writes all the weird stuff I think.

[kenichol]

74. Yeah, and says it all so eloquently! nt

[Time for change]

109. Cool

I have to write these things down because my brain isn't big enough to hold them, and all my ideas just seep out of it if I don't write them down. Thanks to DU, I now have them all in a secure place.

[jazzjunkysue]

16. Obama needs to rescue the economy. He probably doesn't give much value to prosecuting

the bush crime family. He needs enough support to pass legislation to rescue the markets. Trying, probably futiley, to prosecute cheney et al will doom his presidency.

So, although I agree completely with your premise of the game, we need to remember what trouble we're in now.

And they know it. They calculated every move to tie the democrats hands. While they were doing it all, they thought it was Clinton who they'd be handcuffing. And I think she's one who knows the game so well she's more likely than most to continue it. That's why they proclaimed her the winner years ago.

The interesting question is not how Obama managed to wrestle the dem. nomination, but why the GOP didn't find a slam dunk puppet replacement for the bush crime family to continue the game.

If they had invested so much in the game, why on earth didn't they prepare a viable candidate for the future?

Perhaps, those who know where the bodies are buried didn't want to be found holding the keys to the vault. Maybe none of them could withstand the public vetting that comes with candidacy.

That's ultimately why Obama won: His hands are clean ,and he really didn't know just how festering and vile the septic tank called washington is.

[defendandprotect]

20. ...'cause guess stopping corruption isn't a worthy pursuit . . . ??

Obama is a lawyer --- and taught Constitutional Law . . . which is where we get

our notions of justice and prosecution from --- including impeachment!!!

You're forgetting that on the other end of the "Bush crime family" are all those

he has tortured -- including our own nation --- and Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, helping Israel in what looks now like near-Genocide of Palestinians.

At the other end is our bankrupted Treasury --

High level corruption probably still in place ---

For you, these may not be important considerations, but for our Constitution

and for much of the world -- and for many thinking Americans -- they are highly essential.

In fact, we are in this "trouble" because of the failure of elected representatives to act

to control rampant corruption. Failure to act to end two wars bankrupting us.

Bush had nothing to do with Pelosi/Reid/Democrats re-financing the two wars for two years!

And when it came to supporting our FISA laws which have stood for almost 30 years ...

who gave support to Bush?

This is really naive . . .

The interesting question is not how Obama managed to wrestle the dem. nomination, but why the GOP didn't find a slam dunk puppet replacement for the bush crime family to continue the game.

How many corporations do you know who let the public pick who will head their corporation?



Perhaps, those who know where the bodies are buried didn't want to be found holding the keys to the vault. Maybe none of them could withstand the public vetting that comes with candidacy.

And maybe they're simply cocksure and simply walking off with the spoils?

If this is true . . .

That's ultimately why Obama won: His hands are clean ,and he really didn't know just how festering and vile the septic tank called washington is.

and Obama has no idea of the corruption in DC . . . then we're in big trouble!

[jazzjunkysue]

25. It's naive to think Obama can take on the entire GOP and still pull us out of this recession.

Go ahead and blame me, if that gives you a target for your rage.

But I wouldn't put up $20 that Obama's going to try to prosecute the bush crime family.

I'd really like to be wrong, because no one's deserved it more than they do.

He's been given an unbelievable responsibility, and he's going to dedicate himself totally to it, and it's not putting bush and cheney in jail.

[defendandprotect]

36. There's a difference between "will" and "should" . . .

Many of us are saying the new administration SHOULD prosecute --

that there is an inherent responsibility to end corruption/crime -- treason.

To end the war on the Constitution by criminals.

[Stardust]

101. Maybe Obama can publicly acknowledge that he's aware of the crimes

and while he would dearly love to go after them, right now, thanks to them, he has more urgent concerns. Toss us a bone ~ give us some hope again. Then maybe most of us (myself included) would stop gnashing our teeth for a while. Terrible predicament, isn't it?

[defendandprotect]

208. That's why we have a DOJ . . .

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

40. I hope you are wrong

and here is the post I sent to Gov. Kaine hoping some prosecution will take place;
This was sent to Gov. Kaine via:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/welcomekaine

> Gov. Kaine,
> I want to know what the Democrats plan to do about the Sept. 11, 2001
> investigation (coverup) and how quickly they will open a New
> Investigation that looks into who controlled the demolition of world
> trade center buildings 1, 2 and 7. If there is no new investigation,
> I believe it will just be a revelation of how involved the democrats
> were in the events of that day themselves. There is No other issue
> more important to this nation than seeing that the governing body of
> this nation represents the people of this nation and Not the
> Corporations and Rich who scam the public for personal profit. I
> believe that the reason half of the population will not even turn out
> to vote is because those in office have shown they do not care one bit
> about the public, but only their own wealth and power.
>
> There are many websites in the 9/11 Truth movement, but you may start
> here: http://firefightersfor911truth.org /
>
> This issue should bring about the prosecution of Bush and Cheney, and
> all their con men, for their crimes against Humanity.
>
> Sincerely,

[defendandprotect]

85. Wonderful letter . . .

The Firemen represent for me the stabbing truth and the saddest reality of
what actually went down that day. Their information is so essential to
understanding the truth of that day --- and I understand a lot of that
official testimony was destroyed!

IMO, the odd results of our elections are not due to faulty reasoning by voters
but by vote stealing which has undermined our society probably since 1959--!!!
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[Time for change]

29. I see your point, and

I think it's a reasonable point of view.

But I mostly disagree with the idea that prosecuting Cheney and Bush will doom Obama's presidency.

Certainly he has many great challenges on his hands, and straightening out the economy is extremely important. Maybe it's even as or more important than prosecuting the Bush administration war crimes.

But I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Why not hand the job of prosecuting the Bush administration war crimes to the Attorney General and his Justice Department. The Justice Department doesn't have much to do with straightening out the economy, so prosecuting war crimes shouldn't detract from fixing the economy.

With regard to the idea that Republican Congresspersons won't go along with Obama on the economy and his social programs if he prosecutes the Bush administration for war crimes, I don't buy that. I believe that the main thing determining whether Republican Congresspersons support Obama on any of his programs is what they need to do to keep their jobs. The Republicans got beaten badly in the last two elections. Some of them must be getting the idea that the American people like the Democrats' ideas better than the Republicans' ideas. With large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, it won't taken many Republicans to enable Obama to get his programs passed. Republicans will cooperate with him because they want to keep their jobs, and compared to that consideration, prosecution of the Bush administration for war crimes will mean very little.

Furthermore, prosecuting for war crimes will bring a great many things to the attention of the American people. It will further discredit the Republican Party, and it seems to me that that will make Republicans more likely to cooperate with Obama, not less likely -- in order to keep their jobs safe.

At least, that's the way I see it.

With regard to why they didn't find a slam dunk puppet to replace Bush, I think that there are a lot of possible reasons for that. Whereas I believe that the GAME masters have lots of power, I doubt very much that they have infinite power. Finding a candidate to beat Obama in this environment would have been a very difficult task IMO. One of the strongest factors convincing people to vote for McCain in this election was the belief that he would NOT continue the Bush administration policies. Those who believed that he would continue those policies voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

The GAME masters are very powerful IMO, but they also have weaknesses. One very important weakness is that they don't have the truth on their side. The American people want things like universal health care, and many other things that the Democratic Party stands for and the Republican Party doesn't. Trying to convince voters that they would be better off with McCain's stupid health plan rather than Obama's was a very difficult task indeed. It could very well be that no amount of power could have enabled them to pull that one off at this point in time.

[Ghost Dog]

47. A powerful antidote to the Corporate Media Spin Machine will be required

if we are to see your optimism vindicated, Time for change.

(Edit: "Spin Machine" == "Alternate Reality Generator").

[Baby Snooks]

140. But they DID have a puppet...

They just didn't plan on Barack Obama coming out of nowhere and knocking Hillary out of the race. Although she wasn't knocked out of the White House, was she? Her or Bill.



People need to wake up to the game which I grew up watching with LBJ and both Democrats and Republicans wheeling and dealing with him. The titans of industry as they were once called. One of whom was my great-uncle. The wheeling and dealing was easier after the assassination. LBJ never knew when he might be hit in a motorcade. Or walking in the Rose Garden. He did as he was told. As everyone else has as well. The grey eminences of Washington. The advisors. The shadowy figures of a shadow government. That indeed began in the 1930s. A group of men who believed oligarchy was the better way. And still believe it. And don't think after the failed coup that FDR didn't do as he was told. They all have.

Eisenhower warned us when he warned us about the "military-industrial" complex. Few realize he was warning us about what was unfolding in Vietnam. And what would unfold eventually in Iraq. Few realize he was warning a new president. Just as some are warning a new president now. Kennedy didn't listen. Will Obama?

There has always been just one party, one game. The matter of party was simply a matter of demographics and whether the population in one area would vote for a Democrat or Republican. The party system may seem like the party system to the people in the party. But not to the people who manipulate it. They know the trends. And plan for them. They are always in power. No matter which party is.

As I like to say, the only Democrats and Republicans in this country are the fools who believe there are Democrats and Republicans on the ballots. They are all Republicrats.

The Republican Party is theirs as is the Democratic Party if the Democrats don't wake up.

[Missy Vixen]

199. The Internet

>If they had invested so much in the game, why on earth didn't they prepare a viable candidate for the future?

The PTB severely underestimated the ability for large numbers of people to read and research on the Internet. Those who don't read and research thought John McCain was a great guy. Those who didn't knew what he was, knew what Sarah Palin was, and were able to discuss it with others.

Of course, I could be wrong.
Julie

[bvar22]

202. Or, it could be simply that TPTB decided....

...that to keep up the illusion of a Two Party System it was time for an acceptable Democratic face to occupy the White House. Obama was Plan B for the Democratic face. (Hillary Plan A).
Like the Clinton administration, nothing will really change.

[calimary]

17. Kick!

VERY thought-provoking. VERY.

[Hannah Bell]

18. "One of the prerequisites of the GAME is to create an alternate reality"

the voice of the zeitgeist.

i think more & more folks are coming to feel the same.

[undergroundpanther]

43. Alternate realities

anyone who abuses people does a dirty trick
they seek to get their victims to believe in an
alternate reality the abuser creates for them.
Battered wife syndrome,Stockholm syndrome..
Imagine this trap of abuse happening
to an entire nation.
We are a nation acting like a person
living in an abusive relationship.
The parallels to domestic abuse
and the people's 'relationship' to those
game players with power are strikingly similar.
I think systemic abuse,corruption and threats
Always flowing down from above. Systemic
Abuse only benifits the abusers.

Systemic abuse of citizens by politicians
and the uber wealthy pigs is the real 'glue'
holding the game, this hierarchy of shit(society)
in place and letting the players depending on how
ruthless they are,
they will get away with anything they want.
If Obama fails to investigate,put on trial
and prosecute bush and all his buddies
for war crimes, he is not only playing the game,
He is believing in the 'alternate reality'
the abuser wants him to believe in, and
he is also making the entire nation a
victim of the players.Again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whenever you have a situation in which you have one person
standing in authority over another you have potential for
mental abuse. There are many such situations in society:

- a master standing in authority over a slave
- a boss standing in authority over a worker
- parents standing in authority over children
- a teacher standing in authority over a student
- a husband standing in authority over his wife
- an officer standing in authority over a soldier
- a prison guard standing in authority over a prisoner

The person in authority may be just generally overbearing and
abusive by personality, a person in the habit of riding
roughshod over other people, or he may simply be a person who,
for one reason or another, dislikes someone under him and is
out to make life miserable for them.

What do you do if you find yourself in a situation where you
are the object of abuse by someone over you? The first
inclination is to get out of that situation and away from that
person. However, that is usually not so easy. How does the
slave get away from the master who is abusing him? How does
the child get away from the parent who is abusing him? How
does the soldier get away from the officer who is abusing him?
In these cases it is impossible without doing something illegal
(i.e. it is illegal to just run away). In other cases it may
be possible to get away from the person abusing you but the
cost may be very great and you might not be willing to pay the
cost.
http://www.freewebs.com/healingminds/kindsofabuse.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is why the Game is allowed to continue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If this is not an age of decay and declining vitality, it is at least one of headlong and arbitrary experimentation - and it is probable that a superabundance of bungled experiments should create an impression as of decay - perhaps even decay itself."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 1901, 58

And what are all these 'rules' other than arbitrary experiments ? They are certainly never tested scientific theories (such 'moralities' are, by definition, outside science) and as a result have all sorts of destructive side-effects ! These 'rules' are, in fact, simply used as a (supposedly unchallengable) smokescreen for institutionalised bullying on a massive scale, in other words to support what we must regard as criminal behaviour (demanding 'compliance' with 'menaces') by the 'authorities'. In so far as the people at large oppose these 'laws' (these thefts of power from the individual members of the populace and its transfer into uncontrollable and unaccountable alternative individual hands), all such 'laws' are totally illegitimate, and therefore criminal acts within any 'democratic' state.

"A state is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also, and this lie creepeth from its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people'. It is a lie ! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life. Destroyers are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state; they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them. Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs... But the state lieth in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it saith it lieth, and whatever it hath it hath stolen."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Part I, 1882, 11

There is no 'authority' present here at all, since the people didn't explicitly vote for any such laws or 'control', and if they did not (and they actually 'oppose' it no less !) then we have here only a series of deceitful and disgraceful 'con tricks' - we see this (always) as soon as the 'people' flex their collective muscles, their democratic 'will to power', these opportunist 'bullies' then quickly back down, their shallow bluff at claiming any 'authority' having been easily called 'fake'.

http://www.calresco.org/lucas/will.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Survivors tell us that verbal abuse always lowers self-esteem, no matter how much they may try to ignore it. _The survivors of verbal abuse consistently reported that they came to believe what they were hearing."


"The abuser is often so good at control that he can turn his intimidating displays on and off in order to continue to "look good" to the outside world."

"By withholding, the verbal abuser is saying, I've got something you want and I can withhold it from you. Therefore, I am in control. Or, If I don't respond, if I refuse to answer, I can control the outcome, that is, I can maintain the status quo. I can be sure that there will be no change. I don't have to ask. I don't say "no." I don't have to say "yes." I don't have to be vulnerable. I can stay in control and therefore risk nothing."

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/v_abuse.html

[Ani Yun Wiya]

54. Once again, a post that I wish could be recommended for itself.

Once again you accurately state a most powerful truth.

Thank you.

[knitter4democracy]

79. Like gaslighting.

Convincing the one you're trying to control that their perceptions of reality are wrong and that you're right, even if all the evidence is to the contrary.

[Baby Snooks]

152. Absolutely...

And as a stalking victim who had a vendetta conducted against them by a politician, and to a degree by a local party that continued to back the politician, after I filed two documented stalking complaints against a friend of his who is a prominent attorney and whose father is a prominent lobbyist in Washington I can tell you "gaslighting" works.

Maybe not on the victim but on everyone else. Suddenly the victim is not a victim. Just a little crazy. Not to be believed.

Eventually people realize the victim isn't just a little crazy. But then they get frightened. They might be targeted next if they say something.

That is what has happened in this country. Everyone is afraid they will be targeted next if they say something. The sad reality is they usually are.

We are a country of not only silent victims but in a way complicit victims. Believing if we are silent we are safe. We are not.

[knitter4democracy]

159. If I could recommend a post, this one would be it.

That is spot-on. Totally. That's exactly what's been going on in this country.

[Baby Snooks]

166. Kay Graham....

I often think about her. And about Watergate. And about what would have been the headlines of the Washington Post the past eight years. And about the impeachment and conviction and removal from office that would have followed. Probably four years ago. And yet here we are. Eight years later. And no headlines in the Washington Post. None that Kay Graham would have been proud of.

She risked it all for what was right. Truth. Truth in a way died along with Kay Graham. The last of the real newspaper owners/publishers who knew what journalism was all about and what our First Amendment was all about. Truth. I use past tense on purpose.

She shamed the Republicans into forcing the matter with Nixon. Few people realize that. But that is what she did. That is what Truth does.

She shamed the Republicans into forcing the matter with themselves as well. Few people realize that. But that is what she did. That is what Truth does.

She would have shamed the Democrats as well as the Republicans to force the matter with Bush. To force the matter with Madame Speaker.

We are a falling empire I'm afraid. We no longer have anyone willing to risk it all for Truth.

Everyone credits Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and Ben Bradlee with bringing down Nixon. But it was Kay Graham. Who could have said no. And that would have been the end of it.

She respected the Truth. And didn't fear it. We do for some reason. Which is why we are no longer a democracy.

[Hannah Bell]

179. yes, the husband who cheated on her died here: mkultra site.

http://carantics.com/chestnutlodge /

being as her daddy was the money in that family, the post a spook hangout, and woodward a spook -

i don't buy the inspiring little story.

nothing personal, just mo. hubby's mental illness & death a bit - sudden?

"Graham eventually met Australian journalist Robin Webb, and in 1962 they began an affair. In 1963, he and Webb flew to Arizona; he appeared at a newspaper publishing convention inebriated and/or manic. At the microphone he made a number of provocative comments, including the revelation that Kennedy was sleeping with Mary Pinchot Meyer. His assistant, James Truitt, called for his doctor, Leslie Farber, who flew in by private jet, as did (subsequently) Graham's wife. Graham was sedated, bound in a straitjacket, and flown back to Washington. He was committed for five days to Chestnut Lodge, a psychiatric hospital in Rockville, Maryland.

Graham then left his wife for Robin Webb, announced to his friends that he planned to divorce his wife and immediately remarry, and indicated that he wanted to purchase sole control of the Post Company. In June, in a fit of depression, he broke off his affair and returned home. On June 20, 1963, he entered Chestnut Lodge for the second time, and was formally diagnosed with manic depression (now called bipolar disorder). He was treated with psychotherapy.

On August 3, 1963, after Graham had made repeated requests of his doctors to be allowed a short stay away from the hospital, and "quite noticeably much better", according to his wife, he was permitted to go to their farmhouse in Virginia, Glen Welby, for the weekend. While his wife was in another part of the retreat, Graham committed suicide with a 28-gauge shotgun."

[Hannah Bell]

178. It works wonderfully, if the folks doing it hold more power than the victim.

99% of the time, I'd say.

Social tendency to give more credence to those in power & be on the "in" team, fear of speaking out against the powerful or standing with the weak, that's enough to make it work.

[glowing]

19. Ultimately, that's what gets me... Is he playing us or them.. and you know they know..

and Obama knows most of us know... or have a clue that the govt in present form is one big lie factory that does more harm than good.. which is why conservatives got away with trying to "drown govt".. but people have finally wised.. they still pay a lot of taxes and watch a bunch of people loot their hard work away... So, is he going to play for us or them.. with his by-passing the media and going to the internet, he is capable of killing off their game.

[loudsue]

41. No he can't bypass them. And if you've read his books, you would know

he believes in conservative (corporate) government. The only difference is that he also wants to throw us peasants a bone every now and then.

[glowing]

71. I'm in the process of reading now.. I think he went thru a period of "learning",

then proceeding, and now, I'm not sure. He's got more at stake with a family and two little girls. There was a period of can't, then can. He believes in jobs and stability; losing everything at once would throw the entire world into chaos.. it may take 1000yrs to leave a "dark age" with the technology we currently have. I think he's worried about what a collapse of society would do.. He's already seen inner cities and devasted towns that have loss manufacturing bases. AND there is nothing wrong with thinking globally. I too think globally. I could do with less if it means one less child in China has to work a 16hr day or another girl-child is sold into sex slavery. He speaks in code.. I just don't know if it means he's working for us or them?

[loudsue]

93. I understand what you mean, and I also know that campaigns of this magnitude

seems to change people who are capable of opening their hearts. They have to listen to so many stories from town-hall meetings to Q & A sessions, that a decent person has to understand what hardships voters are going through.

That said.... Obama has spoken about Lieberman being his "mentor". He has ALWAYS, since entering the national stage, been under the wing of the NDN (the "mentoring" arm of the DLC). In his books, he talks about how the voting machine problem is conspiracy theory. In other words, he BELIEVES corporate bullshit. Either that, or he is totally complicit. Either one is dangerous in this environment.

Obama has already associated himself closely with some VERY republican-leaning Democrats. Rahm Emmanuel is one of those, and is in the #1 position next to the president elect.

Voters who want change have been putting WAY too much faith in an image of Obama that just does not reflect where Obama is really coming from. He is a CONSERVATIVE democrat with a few liberal ideas, but not ones that he would risk his political future for.

Obama IS a politician. And a good one. People here keep trying to make sure everyone is in love with him. I'm not in love with him. I'm glad he won. But he is a million miles from an FDR democrat, and I'm going to be on him, Pelosi & Reid, like a chicken on a June bug, just like I have been on the elected officials for the past 35 years.

[Ghost Dog]

103. He's close (literally) to "Chicago School" economists, too,

although not, apparently, to the most far-right Friedmanite nutcases, so we'll need to be on his case. For example, here's Naomi Klein writing in The Nation (and in The Guardian (with comments)) last June:

Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the race to declare, on CNBC, "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."

Demonstrating that this is no mere spring fling, he has appointed 37-year-old Jason Furman to head his economic policy team. Furman is one of Wal-Mart's most prominent defenders, anointing the company a "progressive success story." On the campaign trail, Obama blasted Clinton for sitting on the Wal-Mart board and pledged, "I won't shop there." For Furman, however, it's Wal-Mart's critics who are the real threat: the "efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits" are creating "collateral damage" that is "way too enormous and damaging to working people and the economy more broadly for me to sit by idly and sing 'Kum-Ba-Ya' in the interests of progressive harmony."

Obama's love of markets and his desire for "change" are not inherently incompatible. "The market has gotten out of balance," he says, and it most certainly has. Many trace this profound imbalance back to the ideas of Milton Friedman, who launched a counterrevolution against the New Deal from his perch at the University of Chicago economics department. And here there are more problems, because Obama--who taught law at the University of Chicago for a decade--is thoroughly embedded in the mind-set known as the Chicago School.

He chose as his chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that stops at the center-right. Goolsbee, unlike his more Friedmanite colleagues, sees inequality as a problem. His primary solution, however, is more education--a line you can also get from Alan Greenspan. In their hometown, Goolsbee has been eager to link Obama to the Chicago School. "If you look at his platform, at his advisers, at his temperament, the guy's got a healthy respect for markets," he told Chicago magazine. "It's in the ethos of the , which is something different from saying he is laissez-faire."

And, most illuminatingly, here's Bloomberg.com on the Chicago School and Obama (notice that there is no room, overtly, here for any discussion of a systematic GAME being played, and yet it does seem quite implicit):

<snip>

‘Systemic Orgy’

On Oct. 14, about 250 students and professors debated an administration-backed plan for a $200 million research center to be named for Friedman. The protesters argued that the institute would enshrine policies that have brought economies near collapse.

“When Friedman’s Platonic ideas of free-market virtues are put into practice, they have too often generated a systemic orgy of competitive greed -- whose remedies, ironically, entail countermeasures of nationalization,” Marshall Sahlins, an emeritus professor of anthropology, said during the debate, speaking in a room adorned with murals of female students parading through the campus in medieval gowns.

...

Joseph Stiglitz, who won one of Columbia’s economics Nobels, says the approach of Friedman and his followers helped cause today’s turmoil.

‘Bears the Blame’

“The Chicago School bears the blame for providing a seeming intellectual foundation for the idea that markets are self- adjusting and the best role for government is to do nothing,” says Stiglitz, 65, who received his Nobel in 2001.

University of Texas economist James Galbraith says Friedman’s ideology has run its course. He says hands-off policies were convenient for American capitalists after World War II as they vied with government-favored labor unions at home and Soviet expansion overseas.

“The inability of Friedman’s successors to say anything useful about what’s happening in financial markets today means their influence is finished,” he says.

Instead, Galbraith, 56, says policy-makers are rediscovering the ideas of his father, Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith, and economist John Maynard Keynes of the University of Cambridge.

Keynes, who died in 1946, argued that governments should spend to combat the unemployment that free markets tolerate. Galbraith, who died in 2006, rejected mathematical models and technical analyses as divorced from reality.

Obama’s Role

Barack Obama, who will referee the laissez-faire versus free- market debate as U.S. president, has pledged the largest spending on infrastructure since the 1950s to save or create 3 million jobs.

Obama, 47, has deep roots on the university’s campus in Hyde Park, a middle-class enclave 7 miles south of downtown Chicago. His Victorian house is a five-minute walk from the school’s northern edge. He taught constitutional law there for 12 years, stepping down when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

Obama tapped fellow Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee as staff director of his President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which will propose ways to revive growth.

Goolsbee, 39, who was Obama’s chief economist during the campaign, has taught at the business school since 1995. Goolsbee says Obama’s top priority is to prevent the crisis from spiraling into a depression. Yet he insists Obama won’t overregulate.

‘Chicago School’ Democrat

“If the president-elect were not a ‘University of Chicago Democrat,’ then the natural response would be to just try to turn back the clock to what was there before,” he says.

“Because Obama comes out of a framework where the market is not the enemy, there’s a possibility we can create new institutions to guard against excess without going back to what was wrong in the old regime.”

Goolsbee supports bigger capital requirements for banks and other institutions that can borrow from the Federal Reserve, and wants expanded monitoring of hedge fund firms and ratings companies. Derivatives may need to be traded through clearinghouses, like those used in Chicago wheat pits, which act as counterparties for each trade and can suspend traders with insufficient collateral.

“Getting us out of the hole we’re in, promoting oversight and making investments so the economy can grow doesn’t make you anti- market,” Goolsbee says. “It’s totally pro-market.”

Already, some of the university’s top economists have abandoned hard-line Friedmanism for the middle ground.

<snip>

They all seem to be talking around the GAME being played: as if you can call "non-intervention" the policies since Reagan, for example, to actively set those huge corporations free to be as corrupt and greedy as they like. To unfetter that kind of capitalism is to intervene to upset the pre-existing 'order' at the very highest level, to say the least.

Of course, to return to an oligarchic and autocratic slave-owning imperial system must appear highly logical and desirable to the GAME-playing elite(s).

[Time for change]

111. His choice of his economic team is one of my greatest concerns.

[valerief]

133. In this world, crumbs are all we can hope for. nt

[undergroundpanther]

46. But will he risk it

He is aware of the cost of ending "the game" more than most of the citizens are,but question is,are enough citizens aware of the game,and ready to deal with the fact that this entire nation has been abused by politicians ,authorities and the rich for generations,exploited and fed a "alternate reality" from cradle to grave?

[Time for change]

110. Yes, I believe that Americans are beginning to wise up

The replacement of corporate delivered news is the Internet is helping a great deal IMO

[Truth2Tell]

21. K&R. William Blum wrote this

last month. Take it with a few grains of salt, but it does sound very Confessions-of-an-Economic-Hit-Man-esque:

http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer65.html

The Anti-Empire Report
January 3rd, 2009
by William Blum
...

The question that may never go away: Who really is Barack Obama?

In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Fathers", Barack Obama writes of taking a job at some point after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as "a consulting house to multinational corporations" in New York City, and his functions as a "research assistant" and "financial writer".

The odd part of Obama's story is that he doesn't mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation. Equally odd is that the Times did not remind its readers that the newspaper itself had disclosed in 1977 that Business International had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960.

The British journal, Lobster Magazine – which, despite its incongruous name, is a venerable international publication on intelligence matters – has reported that Business International was active in the 1980s promoting the candidacy of Washington-favored candidates in Australia and Fiji. In 1987, the CIA overthrew the Fiji government after but one month in office because of its policy of maintaining the island as a nuclear-free zone, meaning that American nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships could not make port calls. After the Fiji coup, the candidate supported by Business International, who was much more amenable to Washington's nuclear desires, was reinstated to power – R.S.K. Mara was Prime Minister or President of Fiji from 1970 to 2000, except for the one-month break in 1987.

In his book, not only doesn't Obama mention his employer's name; he fails to say when he worked there, or why he left the job. There may well be no significance to these omissions, but inasmuch as Business International has a long association with the world of intelligence, covert actions, and attempts to penetrate the radical left – including Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) – it's valid to wonder if the inscrutable Mr. Obama is concealing something about his own association with this world...

Even without the tinfoil, from just what we can clearly see, it's obvious Obama has been playing the Game. Our only hope seems to be that he intends to accumulate enough power and then begin to turn the tables on the Game Masters. I give it a maybe.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

42. Yikes, (but, thanks for that info...)

Guess I'll give it a "maybe" too.
And wonder if I live far enough out in the brush to survive whatever comes our way...

[Time for change]

112. William Blum is one of the great shiners of light on this mess

I quoted from him just a few days ago:

Since we are a democracy, the consequences of our failure to recognize the bad things that our government does means that our government will therefore be enabled to continue to do those things with impunity. William Blum explains in “Freeing the World to Death”:

This is the main reason that the U.S. can get away with what it does all over the world – the lack of awareness of the American people about US foreign policy. These Americans are not necessarily stupid, but there are all kinds of intelligence in this world… There’s political intelligence, which might be defined as the ability to see through the bullshit which every society, past, present and future, feeds its citizens from birth on to assure the continuance of the prevailing ruling class and its ideology.

[OwnedByFerrets]

22. Thank you so much for this writing. One can tell that much work

and thought went into it. It was wonderful to read.

[lightningandsnow]

23. This thread made me lose the game.

And you all just did, too.

[Time for change]

114. I don't think so

The more people who even think about the GAME, the better equipped we'll be to overthrow it.

[wildbilln864]

26. ***k&r! nt

[DemReadingDU]

27. Obama's playing the GAME because...

There is going to be a global economic collapse. And Obama needs the support of as many people as he can get behind him...political, non-political, rich, poor, conservative, liberal, independent, black, white, North America, South America. Europe, Asia, Africa, everyone and everywhere. Because

The world needs a LEADER, someone who can lead and guide us through the global depression about to befall us all.

Obama is smart, and very intelligent. He sees what's coming. He's already telling us:

"And there will be some "sacrifice'' ahead, he says - "everybody's going to have some skin in the game.''." Obama's remarks come in an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos airing Sunday morning. Ever the promoter, Georgeo released excerpts of his talk tonight. "Our challenge is going to be identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don't work, and making things that we have more efficient,'' Obama says in the interview, according to ABC News.. "But I'm not suggesting, George, I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped.''
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01...

Obama has to play the GAME, for now. He's setting up all the pieces on the chess board. With everyone's support, he can then make his moves.

[Time for change]

115. That's an optimistic view. I do hope you are correct

I have written several criticisms of Obama on DU, and I have also posted several articles praising him. Needless to say, I have very ambivalent feelings about him.

[DemReadingDU]

160. It's optimisitc, for now

If (when) there is an economic collapse this year, I may not be so optimistic next year, depending on Obama's leadership thru the depression.

[wildbilln864]

28. this reminds me of....

"The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' "
link

[Time for change]

116. Yes -- I was just reading about that in Mark Danner's article

Guess who he says the quote from that anonymous source came from? None other than Karl Rove.

[wildbilln864]

156. 9/11 and the al CIAduh is a reality they've created I've long believed...

One they even wrote about in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" published by the PNAC sociopaths. And here we are almost eight years later still studying it as they're preparing another reality to be studied.

[IsItJustMe]

30. Smoke and mirrors my friend. Smoke and mirrors. But many of us still buy into it. How do I know?

We vote.

[bertman]

31. You are absolutely right, Time for change, it is ALREADY very interesting watching this

begin to play out.

Another excellent post. I'd like to thank Jackpine Radical for expressing my sentiments perfectly in reply #15.

Recommend highly.

[Time for change]

117. Thank you bertman -- Now I have two twins

[msatty99]

32. Conspiracy Theory

is also an 'unmentionable' topic. To marginalize a speaker, all one need say is he is a conspiracy theorist. Yet, in the weird
reality we live in, we all agree there is a huge conspiracy underway. For example your observations that the conspirators were
planning the Iraq war long before 9-11.

As for our president-elect, No one has greater hope than I do that he is a phenomena and will be a 'game changer'.

My greatest fear is that he is the opposite. To illustrate, just imagine the mind set... the world view, of a game master.
Do you imagine he/she honestly cares about something so trivial as party affiliation? I don't think such a ruthless and
Machiavellian person would have any concern other than expediency to obtain power.

But, I doubt very many will want to imagine Obama as a just another power hungry tool of some set of elites.
I know I don't. But we will see what DOES. So far, it is not reassuring. It seems pretty obvious to me
that you don't have to be a moral paragon to look at the Gaza situation and say. "It is not right to bomb
so indiscriminately that you kill innocent people (including children)." That looks to me like a simple
truth we all know on a gut level.

But, from Obama...silence.

It would seem obvious that no sane person would suggest that a bailout of rich bankers from taxpayers is
reasonable or desirable. Does it make sense for some waitress in Des Moines who makes 12 bucks an hour
is 'bailing out' wealthy Wall Streeters? No. Obviously not.

But, in the teeth of both these obvious facts we will swiftly be pulled into the 'Game' of wasting our time
debating. Dialog. Discussion. Looking at all sides. Meanwhile, powerless nobodies like you and me
die and suffer.

[Time for change]

119. Yes, we will see what he DOES

in the next 4 years before coming to a final judgment.

My belief though is that the truth is somewhere in between the extremes. I think that Obama wants to do the right thing, but he faces tremendous pressures and obstacles against doing so. There is so much we don't know. Maybe his family has been threatened. Maybe, as some have suggested, he is now just pretending to play the GAME, until he is in a position to be a GAME changer.

[defendandprotect]

33. We're still in the same gene pool --

There are numerous things that absolutely cannot be mentioned by American politicians because they are …. well, “embarrassing to our country”. Mere mention of these things brings down the wrath of conservative pundits and moderates as well, and even some who consider themselves to be liberal or progressive. The wrath is likely to be so intense that few U.S. politicians dare mention these things because of the risk of being booted out of office – or worse. Three such things are: 1. the stealing of a U.S. presidential election; 2. referring to American military or covert actions as immoral, rather than merely as “misguided”; and, 3. imputing bad intentions, rather than mere incompetence, onto a U.S. president.

While you are highly observant, IMO, most Americans don't have the noses they should have for fascism.
And, often stop well short of understanding the depths of corruption/evils of capitalism.

Unfortunately, while 2000 was probably the noisiest steal since JFK/Nixon - where the
good guy won -- election steals have likely been going on 40 years or more, with
increasing capability via computers for larger steals from greater distances.
I'd highly recommend this website for all those unfamiliar with these facts--
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

Over the last 40 years it has been thoroughly explained/proven that our government and
government officials have been bought/sold, yet, we still seem not to know that, somehow.
And, with the assassination of JFK, "the myth of our free press also died."
Today, there are no longer any questions about that for most of us.

What’s repressive about it is that our elected representatives don’t mention these things either. We elect them to represent us and our nation, and they fail to even talk about some of the very most important issues. There are some rare courageous exceptions, like Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney, but I get the impression that even they are muzzled to a significant extent.

Agree -- and there is but one explantion, IMO, complicity between the parties ---
corporate control over both -- and levels of intimidation/political violence that are often fatal.
That's something else we don't want to acknowledge... the political violence America has
suffered.

The "Game" is certainly about moving all assets from the many to the few.
And turning human beings into slave labor as easily as possible.
The rules for capitalism are similar to those for organized crime --
Kill the competition -- destroy your enemies by any means.
When did it start? When did violence start?
When did we get violent "gods" as examples?
There are patterns to this which have been followed over eons --
Consider what you would think about if you desired power OVER other individuals.
While it does matter to some degree who has known about it, what we have to understand
is that few have tried to do anything about it -- and the question is WHY.
My response again is violence/intimidation/oppression.
Some, of course, will always move willingly to the side of power -- preferring not to
be controveresial, to be comfortable. Though I think often their brains must finally
explode?

Ah, books . . . at tender ages we all probably read "The Emperor Wore No Clothes!"
We sat in second grade classes and heard that our government stole the land and murdered
the Indians. By third grade we knew that our government had protected slavery --
a compromise that probably led to the Civil War. Many of us grew up in the age of
Segregation. Were we being told about "Games" or about insanity and its violence?
If you were female, you were quite aware that there was something wrong with celebrating
"equality for all" because we didn't have equality. Jews, Homosexuals, People of Color?
They also understood. And, understand, now . . . we are still in the same gene pool--!

William Greider: “Who Will Tell the People – 1993
"Secrets of the Temple" -- 1989

And how could we ignore Ralph Nader who has been telling us what political/elite reality
is for more than 40 years? And many other organizations tracking the corruption/crimes?
And Howard Zinn, Noam Chompsky. Michael Moore.

Many have stood up to say publickly . . . "this is fascism!" --

C-span has very often SHOWN us these realities --


9/11 -- is one of the most frightening acts of violence -- 350 firemen killed---
They could protect themselves from fire -- they only needed "one line" to put out
the fire from the plane . . . which was contained and already burning out.
The Firemen could not protect themselves from cowards/sneaks who planted bombs and
explosives in the WTC towers to bring them down.
The WTC were failures, outdated -- and were going to have to come down. But . . .
demolition would not be permitted. They would have to be dismantled. Scaffolding built
and actually dismantled. Very expensive!

Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- Assassination plan by elites/establishment exposed by
Brig. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler . . . who also told us all about capitalists,
capitalism and their use of government armies to steal worldwide. Butler also wrote:
"War Is A Racket!" (1935) Hearings were held in USHR on the assassination attempt but
very hush-hush.
The small book can be read here:-http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

I take exception, however, to the idea that what FDR was doing was "massive redistribution
of wealth from the rich to the poor." The wealth and assets of every nation belong to all
the people -- not the few. And those assets/wealth had already been usurped/stolen by the
few.

John F. Kennedy -
Just want to comment on JFK and Cuba. The original plan was Operation 40 which VP Richard
Nixon worked on. Perhaps while Ike was hospitalized with a heart attack?
This project turned into the plan for invading Cuba at the Bay of Pigs.
It was poorly planned and later JFK enforced a rule that the CIA could not bring about
any military action, covertly or otherwise. It would have to be under the direction of
the military - Joint Chiefs? Further, he was going to "tear the CIA into little pieces
and toss it to the wind." JFK fired Allen Dulles -- who later headed the investigation
into his murder! And, Bissel and a few others who also appear prominently in the coup.

Note that WH plumber E. Howard Hunt worked in the WH basement to forge cables trying to
suggest that JFK had approved the assassination of the Diem Brothers in Vietnam. This
was untrue. These attempted forgeries were later found in Hunt's White House safe.
This was not the first or last time that a president was betrayed by the CIA/intelligence/
Joint Chiefs!


Jimmy Carter

True, Americans weren't ready for the truth that Carter had to tell but only because
the right-wing were so thoroughly in charge by that time, including of the networks.
And were manipulating reality, even to the point of exploitating the hostages held by
Iran . . . in the beginning using the new Ted Koppel/Nightline Show to dramatize it
every night. In the end, making a deal -- October Surprise - to have hostages released
ONLY AFTER Reagan was sworn in. And, in the middle, crippling Carter's attempts to
rescue the hostages by destroying the missions -- the helicopters were not outfitted
with the necessary equipment to keep SAND out of the helicopter engines in
the desert. OLLIE NORTH WAS IN CHARGE OF THESE MISSIONS . . .
and I believe Secord, as well.

Like 9/11, the "hostages" were used to push for bombing Iran.
Again, heavy r-w propaganda was used successfully. "ABC" = "Anybody But Carter"

It was some while later before Gary Sick/? began to put the pieces of the betrayal
together -- indirectly, someone had asked him to join in, but he didn't get it at the
time. Whatever Carter may have suspected, he would have been unable to prove.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html - "October Surprise"
Gates was active in this treasonous mission.

Yes -- they did everything to show Carter as "weak, inept."
At one point, Carter spoke on TV ... and then said he had something important to say
to the American people. After that, the sound went off. For 20 minutes, Jimmy Carter
spoke with no sound coming out. Americans were left to think that it was another sign of
just how badly things were run in that administration.


Therefore, given all of this information, facts, how do we fail to believe the reality
of political violence and the agenda? For Jim Garrison, "Hamlet" came to mind!

[Ghost Dog]

51. "At one point, Carter spoke on TV ..."

First I hear of that. Is this recorded on video? Surely someone would have been able to lipread and provide a transcript?

[defendandprotect]

80. Well, I personally watched it as it happened . . .

Probably someone has it on video if it hasn't been destroyed --

Something I read mentioned this -- probably a book. Don't recall at moment.
At the time, I don't think Americans would have sat around trying to "lip read,"
but recently I wondered about the tape and rescuing the message. At the time,
I probably expected the press to follow with explanations and a replay with sound.

However, I don't think that there was any such follow up on it. IMO, it was just
dismissed as Carter was being dismissed for incompetence. While the failed rescue
missions also seemed very odd at the time, again, I think it was attributed to Carter's
bad luck and his "failed administration/presidency.

While I didn't think I was ever truly naive as to the possibilities of a fascist
take-over of our nation after the JFK assassination which was actually a coup on a
"people's government," in looking back, most of that reality --- and acknowledgment
of the political violence in America -- was being blocked from discussion in the main
by our "press." Therefore, unlike the internet, it was impossible to see how many were
questioning these events and the answers being found weren't as out there as they are on
the internet. As you can see even today, the great cover up of the JFK assassination
is still in play.

But I was naive and not sufficiently suspicious.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

94. Check Carters presidential library website?

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org /

Youtube has some old videos up also.

[defendandprotect]

165. Thanks --

I made a request for info on the tape if they have any info on it --

I'm quite sure Carter would remember it--!!!

[defendandprotect]

209. And I just got this reply from the Carter Library . . .

Thank you for your inquiry of January 11, 2009. There were no audio mishaps during President Carter's administration. The only audio problem that occurred with President Carter was during the first presidential debate with President Ford during the 1976 presidential election campaign (September 23, 1976). Neither candidate spoke during the 27 minutes of audio silence.

Of course, occasionally memory does play tricks on us . . .

However, I would certainly recall if it were the duo Carter/Ford . . .

vs Carter alone. Also, this is mentioned by at least one other person --

in a book, I think -- and they certainly weren't talking about a debate.

They spoke of it as I remembered it.

This may have no solution -- but I tried.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

210. My memory plays tricks on me too, I remember New Years eve of 1976

and doing my hair and make up certain I looked just like...
Blondie? or was it Oliva Newton John?
I was 11.
Glad you got a response so promptly from the Carter site. Still on the ball Carters, after all these years!

[defendandprotect]

216. Can't deny it's a "prompt" response ...

[Time for change]

120. Wow! So much there.

It seems that we basically agree on the vast majority of things.

I do believe that capitalism has some legitimate place in our system -- in a much different form than it is now practiced. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

Nader, Moore, Chomsky, and Zinn. All very good examples. Maybe I should have included Nader in this post -- but I didn't think of him because I haven't read anything from him in quite a while. He has written some excellent books on the subject. Chomsky and Moore have many excellent things to say. But their books come across as so angry that I'm afraid they lose a lot of moderates who otherwise might be swayed by what they have to say. But I've quoted them in some of my posts. When I read Zinn he came across as so angry that even I was turned off by it. Not that there isn't a tremendous amount to be angry about. But he lambasted every single American President -- even Lincoln and FDR. That was too much for me. It made me feel that there was some lack of balance there -- though he certainly did shine a bright light on a lot of very important things. Maybe I should go back and re-read him -- maybe I'd feel differently about it now.

I agree that describing what FDR did as a "massive distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor" is a poor choice of words, and I don't use that phrasing. But I was just quoting from another source regarding the plot against him.

I did not recall that 20 minute erasure of Carter's speech, and I have never read about it. Wow, they really gave it their all to discredit him. Nor did I consider the possibility that his rescue mission was sabataged by North, as you seem to be suggesting. It all makes sense though.

[defendandprotect]

189. You are a great asset . ..

to the website in getting people thinking -- in getting information out --

I do believe that capitalism has some legitimate place in our system -- in a much different form than it is now practiced. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

What FDR did was the easiest thing to do about capitalism . . . REGULATE it.
Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.
FDR also added social programs. All of this is either under attack or already overturned.

IMO, we need to "move on" . . . We have bailed out capitalism over and over again.
They continue to walk away with the goods; we continue to pay the consequences for their crimes.

BTW, capitalism was invented by the Vatican when Feudalism became insufficient to run their Papal
States.


Nader, Moore, Chomsky, and Zinn. All very good examples. Maybe I should have included Nader in this post -- but I didn't think of him because I haven't read anything from him in quite a while. He has written some excellent books on the subject. Chomsky and Moore have many excellent things to say. But their books come across as so angry that I'm afraid they lose a lot of moderates who otherwise might be swayed by what they have to say. But I've quoted them in some of my posts. When I read Zinn he came across as so angry that even I was turned off by it. Not that there isn't a tremendous amount to be angry about. But he lambasted every single American President -- even Lincoln and FDR. That was too much for me. It made me feel that there was some lack of balance there -- though he certainly did shine a bright light on a lot of very important things. Maybe I should go back and re-read him -- maybe I'd feel differently about it now.

My reading of your posts doesn't suggest you are in the middle of the road --
And, no one can go in two directions at the same time. A path has to be chosen.
What would have been the "moderate" position on Civil Rights -- ?
Lifting half of Segregation? Integration in half of the schools?
And re female equality -- ? Letting women have the vote, but not letting them attend college?
Not letting them enter the professions? Keeping a lid on women in Congress at 17% or less?

I am a little confused at your seeing "anger" in the works of these men.
Though I do think if you were Muslim, Jewish, female, homosexual, African-American,
native American that it would seem unusual not to see some justified anger.

One of the most effective weapons against rulers is humor -- and Moore wields it well.
That's why we haven't seen "SICKO" on TV --
Can't think of a more effective argument for Single Payer Health Care for all.

Howard Zinn is telling the history that was only hinted at in our schools.
And he is a continuing activist who, IMO, easily inspires others to activism.

Chomsky has long been successful in waking people up re our CIA, etc.
And, especially in regard to opening up discussions re Israeli warmongering/wars.
Chomsky loses many liberals, however, because he has never acknowledged the coup on
JFK and supported the 9/11 official myth in a book of his own.

Nader has long been telling us of the "buying of government" and "legislators" making
clear the direction was toward corporatism which is fascism.
This is the man who is so dangerous in a debate that they had to bar him even from
observing the debates -- with threat of arrest!
This is the man who fought auto manufacturers for safety and, in return, GM hired
private investigators to spy on him in a search for "dirt" which was revealed at one
of the hearings.
This is the man who the Democratic Party finds so dangerous to their futures that they
blamed the 2000 election steal on him, while ignoring all other third parties, Buchanan,
600+ illegal ballots counted for Bush, fascist rally by GOP and US Supreme Court decision.

The Democratic Party also then increased their infiltration and co-option of the Green Party.


I did not recall that 20 minute erasure of Carter's speech, and I have never read about it. Wow, they really gave it their all to discredit him. Nor did I consider the possibility that his rescue mission was sabotaged by North, as you seem to be suggesting. It all makes sense though.

Actually, this wasn't an "erasure." Carter sat talking for 20 minutes with no sound.
I never thought about it again, but have now read something which caused a ZING in my brain.
All I can remember is that it wasn't in the same area where I picked up info on hostage missions
run by Ollie North/Secord.


Hope you looked at the Votescam link -- important subject because so many think these steals
began in 2000-!!

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[Kip Humphrey]

34. My 3 things politicians won't ever mention:

1. The world's population must fall below and remain below ~4.5 billion people.
2. Our ultra-competitive culture is interfering with human advancement and, thereby, human evolution.
3. The war against global fascism is going very badly.

[lostnfound]

53. Great list; the third one especially is succinct.

[defendandprotect]

82. Agree, and . . .

We're still struggling to rescue reproductive freedom from the influence
of organized patriarchal religion -- !!
Post-Bush, Dems are financing "abstinence"-!!

Population is headed towards 7 Billion -- but planet is suffering Global Warming
and overwhelming pollution -- air, water, soil. A disastrous mix!

Globalization is about "harvesting slave labor."
The underlying economic system for this is capitalism which is basically
organized crime!

[Time for change]

121. Those are good ones.

[CoffeeCat]

35. One of the most intriguing DU posts EVER...

Anyone who doesn't realize that our Dems are in on whatever they've got going on (the "GAME" as you define it), isn't
paying attention.

How many times on DU, have we moaned and sighed because our Dems in Congress are so weak ? They give Bush
everything he wants, take impeachment off the table and never hold him accountable. Our Dems aren't weak. They're
in on it.

One thing that has always stuck with me, is the Jan 1996 letter from PNAC to then-President Bill Clinton. The letter
begged President Clinton for war with Iraq. It was signed by neocons who would eventually gain the highest positions
in the Bush administration. These guys had been shopping around the Iraq war for years. Clinton wouldn't give it
to them. They would have to wait for a neocon-friendly Republican administration and they certainly found that
in Bush Jr. (Copy of letter--- http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm )

One other thing about this is stunning. Bill Clinton often speaks off the cuff. I sometimes feel that he
sometimes lets the truth leak out. He was discussing the neocons asking him for war with Iraq and Clinton
said (paraphrasing), "Look, I can't go to war now, because it will look like I'm 'wagging the dog'." Clinton
was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal at the time. So, apparently, Clinton wasn't shocked at the suggestion
of war and didn't have a problem with the neocons getting their foothold in the Middle East. He just didn't
think it was a good PR strategy at the time. This demonstrates, at least to me, that Clinton is a major
"GAME" participant. I do think that Clinton was pulled into it, and that he was pretty pure when he
came into office. The neocons have greatly increased their power in the past decade, and I think most of
the powerbrokers in politics were folded into the fray.

It's like...the assimilation is almost complete.

Something else I sense...the "GAME" banked on the notion that one of them would become President in 08. Clinton
and McCain are both playing for the GAME team. I think Obama's rise was unanticipated by the GAME. Like you,
I an unsure about whether or not Obama will play the game. However, I don't think Obama is at the epicenter
of the GAME. He wasn't in the Senate that long. Many have said that Obama didn't do the DC cocktail circuit.
He didn't socialize with the mucky mucks after work. He worked out and kept to himself.

I find it interesting that the real, solid good guys in the Senate--Kerry,Kennedy--were on Obama's side and
leveraged him immensely. I get the sense that these stalwarts--have seen the rise of the neocons, and they
urged Obama to run because they know that he is probably the last hope to get it under control.

Also, look at how Rove tried to destroy Obama in the media during the primary. The GAME establishment was
very much against Obama.

My sense is that Obama was in DC long enough to see just how malignant our country is, and to understand that
a GAME is being played. His decision to run for President, so early in his career, might have to do with
really wanting to enact political chemotherapy on our country--and turn the country back over to the people.

My sense is that he is one of the good guys, but I'm not totally sure. On one hand, some of his appointments (neocons)
have me wondering if he's just purposely surrounding himself with those that he must change. Or, is he really making
these appointments? Is someone forcing him? How much power does he really have?

Your OP sparked so many thoughts!

Like you, I have some of the same questions. What are they doing? Why? I'd also like to know how they expect to control
an entire nation of citizens, once it becomes obvious to more people, that our democracy has been hijacked. They do have
a web set in place to control all of us. Each of us can be spied upon, labeled an "enemy combatant", detained indefinitely, denied
Habeas Corpus and disappeared without any accountability.

One last thing. I've always sensed that the real shit will hit the fan when the Democrats finally realize that their guys
are in on this. Democrats expect that Republican administrations will be Fascist nightmares. However, when it becomes
apparent that Democrat power will unravel NONE of this--that's when the real revolt begins. So you wonder...is Obama
complicit or not? Time well tell.

Thanks for this important post. It's really the only thing that matters in politics right now.

[Time for change]

122. Thank you. Yes, time will tell

I hadn't heard that quote by Clinton before. I do hope that he didn't mean it the way that it sounds.

So many questions, so few answers.

[Kablooie]

37. Whether O will play the game or not I can't say, but I don't think evidence is there either way yet.

He doesn't have the power yet. Bush is still president.
The chess pieces he's setting up now may look like one thing
but once he actually starts to move them we may find that
they are part of a dramatically different strategy.

Or they could be part of the obvious srategy they seem.

We can't know yet.

After the 20th we will begin to see whether he plays the game
or invents a new game and forces others to play his way.

[Time for change]

123. Yes, I agree. We don't know yet.

[OnyxCollie]

38. Game theory.

I wrote an essay on game theory and the US Attorney firings last semester for grad school.

The game is played by a set of rules that all players are familiar with. bushco chose to play by a different set of rules. The Dems in Congress continued to play by the old rules, giving bushco full knowledge of all future moves by Dems. Dems either had to give up any moral high ground and play by different rules or perish. (Unless both players decide to collude for their benefit, in which case we're fucked. See Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Rockefeller.)

Check out articles on rational actor models and Man the State and War by Kenneth Waltz.

[Time for change]

125. That's interesting. Do you have a link to your essay on the US Attorney firings?

[OnyxCollie]

154. I just posted it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I wanted to bring it up to date with the appointment of the special investigator, but I was already over the limit for pages, so I had to wrap it up quickly.

[undergroundpanther]

39. I hate the game

And I hate the evil pigs playing it.This is one reason I hate super wealthy people their lifestyle is offensive immoral and violent.it is Violence to make poverty a weapon,they use financial abuse to oppress people.People suffer because we ARE being abused by the game players in many ways besides financial.And we should not tolerate it.

The game needs to be destroyed along with the ones playing it.

Machiavelli was right about this part.. you just can't take out the few dynastic leaders,the super rich tyrants themselves only, you have to take out all possible heirs or successors too if you want to end the game.

You have to put an end to the game and find the players. End it by either by dis-empowering them or 'watering the tree of liberty'.

Obviously these thug rich players are playing the ruthless way.That proves they have NO scruples,are sociopaths,and they will try to kill or dis-empower anyone that gets near the levers of power who has scruples.

So, it is important people forget about utopian scruples temporarily ,if or when it comes to facing off with these high powered thugs,for this ethical introspection that made sense years ago now handicaps us when it comes to stopping "the Game". We have to be ethical to the ethical and monsters to the monsters.

The players have raised the ante higher and to succeed in stopping the game means being as evil to them as they are to us..To the people who are not players or victims of the game,we should be as gentle as doves to them. And we need to switch in an instant and become a river of venomous snakes ,stinging scorpions and vicious lions to get at the corrupted players who are so cowardly,arrogant 'clever' covert,greedy worms to their rotten cores..

[Time for change]

126. I hate it too

But I don't believe that we have to play it their way.

For example, someone recently suggested to me that we throw them all in prison without charges and keep them there indefinitely. I'm totally against that. Give them all fair trials. And then throw them in prison for life. That's what we did with the Nazi war criminals. If it was good enough for the Nazi war criminals, it's good enough for Bush and his gang IMO.