StarshipCapricorn User Forum

Sounds wonderful, buuut I`m not holding my breath.

tiaka9 wrote:

Sounds wonderful, buuut I`m not holding my breath.

Actually, tiaka I don't think you need to hold your breath.  Election 2008 is already shattering the Cabal's plans.  The thing to do is not focus on "who wins"; focus on the process.  Kucinich is the only one I really like and the only one who has had the courage to discuss chemtrails in Congress and UFO's.  Kucinich, of course doesn't have a chance.  I like Ron Paul's plans to curtail U.S. military involvement on the globe, get rid of the Federal Reserve and his libertarian views, except of course when it comes to using the coercive power of the State to take control of women's bodies and reproductive choices, which Ron Paul supports.  But that too doesn't matter.

The political & media climate hasn't been conducive for decent, brilliant and uncontaminated people to even be able to throw their hats in the ring.  This is particularly true in the last 15 years when ownership of mainstream media has moved from I think 15 companies to the 5 or 6 current huge corporations all preaching the same lies to serve the top 5%.  It's not just cream that rises to the top, so does flotsam & jetsam and scum.  So much of the leadership of all of America's institutions - education, the media, Congress, corporations, government agencies is contaminated.  And it's not just the U.S.  Most governments worldwide are significantly to the right of the bulk of the population.

And so getting back to looking at the process, Iowa was a huge defeat for the Cabal. 
I'm tickled pink that Huckabee won, although I probably disagree with about 90% of his views.  The real win and stunning defeat was that the annoited Corporate front runner Guliani got only 4%.  Ron Paul got 10%. 

Alexander Cockburn & Jeffrey St Clair's political analysis in Counterpunch is always worth reading.  Here's their analysis of Iowa. 


January 4, 2008

Two Body Blows to the Political Establishment

A Good Night in Iowa

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

For the party establishments--Democratic and Republican--it was a bad night, as their favored candidates went down to severe defeat.......

You can finish the article here. 
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn01042008.html


Particularly encouraging is the reasons Obama and Huckabee won, again keep in mind the field of choices.  The DC class, media and "elite" are so far from the values of 80% of Americans we used to have to perennially play the "lesser of 2 evils" games.  Not any more, we can now choose the wrecking ball approach.  Remember it's the 5th Night.  All through 2008 truth is going to continue coming out.  This is also a 1 year of new beginnings.

I regard the Iowa caucus as a great start to the New Year. 

Happy New Year to all,

Amethyst

Last edited by Amethyst (2008-01-05 20:01:41)

organic wrote:

...so after reading the message again I found this jewel of a blessing about 9/11 -

Many have theorized, which is true, the only reason that the `false-flag, inside job" event known as 9/11 was allowed to occur - is because it has acted as a massive "Wake-up Call". It acted as a major catalyst to cause a massive shift in the people's need to take much more responsibility in your political process of who you allow to hold the `highest seat' in the land.

Thank you, organic.  I appreciate the compliments.  Continuing the analysis.

According to the Counterpunch article, Iraq was the main issue on voter's minds, followed by the economy & health care.  On the Democrats side, Obama who is the only one who opposed the war got 38%, Edwards who voted for the war but has since said it was a mistake got 30% and Hilary, the anointed Corporate front runner, who voted for the war and has not apologized got 29%.  The Democratic establishment has known for years that the majority of the Democratic base opposes the war & has wanted to impeach Bush/Cheney - they've just chosen to arrogantly dismiss the base.  The message from Iowa with the wrecking ball approach is you can be taken out at the primaries.  Nancy Pelosi (Impeachment is "off the table") has got to be concerned about Cindy Shehan's threat to go after her seat in California at the primary level.  I've often wondered how long Nancy thought she could get away with her AIPAC funded stance considering her district is San Francisco.  Other politicians are also going to be alarmed at the message from Iowa and I suspect are going to start shifting their votes & their war rhetoric.  Except for McCain who recently said the U.S. was going to be in Iraq for the next 100 years & he thought that was just dandy. 

911 and the "War on Terror", which is code for killing Muslims for Greater Israel are connected political phenomena.  In that sense I think Rudy Guiliani's 4% showing is incredibly significant.  This is "Mr 911", "America's Mayor", the guy who returned a check from Saudi Arabia to help New Yorkers after 911, etc.  Although it's also true that part of Rudy's fall was due to his mob connections with Kerik and his tacky sex life.  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/wypijewski  Bad Sex in the City.  "There is something untrustworthy about a man who can't conduct a decent affair."

I'm pondering the thought that Rudy's incredible 4% Iowa showing is an indicator that Americans know 911 was an inside job and Rudy was probably in on it.

Another message from Iowa is voter turnout.  Part of the reason the media run stories about the invincible power of Diebold to steal an election and it's just a tweedle-dee tweedle-dum choice is deliberately to depress voter turn out.  That was what was behind Karl Rove's push to fire the U.S. attorneys from swing states and re-stock with Republicans who would then bring voter fraud cases to court.  The problem is Diebold can only work so much magic.  You can't steal a land slide and the higher the turnout, the more difficult it is to cook the books. 

WSWS analysis of Iowa voter turn out:  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan20 … -j05.shtml

A major feature of the Iowa caucuses was a sharply increased voter turnout. Some 239,000 took part in the Democratic caucuses, nearly double the number who participated in 2004 and more than four times the number who turned out in 2000.....

Young people made up a large proportion of the new caucus attendees. The number of people under 30 increased from an estimated 2,000 in 2000 and 5,000 in 2004 to as many as 52,000. The vast majority of these voted for Obama.

The comparative turnout in the two parties’ caucuses reflects the unpopularity of the Bush administration and the candidates linked to it. Nearly twice as many people participated in the Democratic caucuses as in the Republican, although the state is nearly evenly balanced in party registration and split nearly 50-50 in the last two presidential contests, going narrowly for Al Gore in 2000 and narrowly for Bush in 2004. The disparity among young voters was even greater: of 64,000 people under 30 who attended caucuses Thursday, 52,000 went to the Democrats and only 12,000 to the Republicans.

Of course, the article goes on to state correctly that Obama is also a vetted corporate candidate designed to put a multi-racial face on U.S. imperialism and anti-democratic policies.  But it doesn't matter.  Again we need to look at the process and the forces set in motion as well as the field of current choices available during this election.  The Iowa Democratic vote was a strong measure of American rage directed toward Congressional Democrats for their refusal to follow the very clear voter mandate in 2006 to end the war and impeach Bush. 

Amethyst

Last edited by Amethyst (2008-01-06 04:41:31)

organic wrote:

Now...I'd like to go back and ask you about this comment -

Amethyst wrote:

I like Ron Paul's plans to curtail U.S. military involvement on the globe, get rid of the Federal Reserve and his libertarian views, except of course when it comes to using the coercive power of the State to take control of women's bodies and reproductive choices, which Ron Paul supports.  But that too doesn't matter.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3526/p … inguy1.gif

.....so what's wrong with Ron Paul's view that even with him as a pro-lifer, too, just keep the federal government out of the individual states' affairs which includes abortion decisions?...

Government is government.  It doesn't matter whether the coercive state control of women's bodies and reproductive choices comes from the state, Federal or local level.  Ron Paul is choosing to project his personal religious, medical or philosophical views on women and he chooses to use the coercive power of the state for this purpose.  That is not libertarian.  Period. 

Personally approving or disapproving of abortion is not the issue here.  The issue is using the coercive power of the state.  The overwhelming majority of organized anti-abortionists are also anti-women and anti-feminist.  I do not think these people are "pro life" at all.  On poll after poll, they are more likely than others to favor the death penalty, war and least likely to be concerned for medical care or anything else for live breathing children, other than their own.  That is not their agenda. 

Cliches, language and even stereotypes arise because they hold truths.  Ever hear the phrase, "Keep them barefoot and pregnant"?  One doesn't hear that so much anymore, partly because it correctly links the goal of economically controlling women with compulsory pregnancy.  Today's anti-abortionists opposed contraception a few decades earlier and for the same reason.  The Vatican still opposes both.  And what's the result?  For decades, Roman Catholics have had the highest U.S. abortion rate of any religious group. 

In 1965 Planned Parenthood of Connecticut won a U.S. Supreme Court victory in Griswold vs Connecticut that finally and completely rolled back state and local laws that had outlawed the use of contraception by married couples.  8 short years later the Supreme Court handed down Roe vs Wade in 1973.  Amazing really that state and local government were prohibiting contraception by married couples as late as 1965. 

Both these decisions occurred during the "sixties", the height of the Vietnam War and the rise of the Women's Movement.  Betty Friedan's Book The Feminine Mystique was published in 1964.  Again no accident. 

Rape, hatred of women and repression of homosexuals peak as cultures are gearing up for war and it's only partially because they want all that lovely cannon fodder.  They also need to cut the connection of love young males might have for the "mother" & life in order to turn them into killing machines.  One of the first things Hitler did in 1933 was to close down Germany's abortion clinics.  Male homosexuals were also included in the concentration camps.  I don't quite understand the dynamics but fascist regimes seem to attract/require repressed, closeted homosexuals.  Sexual choice is not the issue here, repression is.  Hitler's regime was crawling with repressed homosexuals and so is the Bush Administration.  GOP.  Gay Old Party or Grand Old Pedophiles.  Take your pick.

The Planetary Cycle of the Mayan Calendar which started in 1755 was focused on developing the Consciousness of Power.  The history of the past 200 plus years has been one of wars, ensuing revolutions & the ongoing expansion of Power through the shifting "Days" & "Nights".  The aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars was the end of monarchical power and the extension of the franchise to most males.  World War I brought women the vote.  World War II brought "Rosie the Riveter" and 25 per cent of American women remained in the work force and never went home after the war, bringing pressure on "equal pay for equal work". 

The Vietnam War brought organized feminism, Roe vs Wade, and the feminist fueled twin rise of alternative medicine and non-patriarchal New Age Religion.  There were no laws in the United States outlawing abortion until the late 19th century when 2 things happened - Large numbers of women began to survive the operation and the American Medical Association was established.  One of the first thing missionaries and colonialists did to conquer a country was to disconnect the local populations trust in their own indigenous healers and impose Western medicine.  Controlling medicine is critical to controlling any population and that includes women. 

Few people realize one of the main driving forces of the European Witchcraze was the rise of the male medical establishment.  In earlier medieval times women were the primary healers, physicians, and herbalists.  According to Starhawk in Dreaming the Dark, Magic, Sex & Politics in 1524 when the population of London was an estimated 60,000 there were only 12 licensed physicians.  By 1640 when the population was between 360,000 to 420,000 the physicians had increased their ranks to a total of 43 members.  Of course, all the physicians were men and physicians often brought charges of witchcraft against women.  "Then as now, the approved medical profession favored the heroic style of treatment: bleeding, purges, emetics and cauteries were the licensed physicians stock-in-trade.  The Witches....favored preventative medicine, cleanliness, the use of herbs, gentle, natural treatments and building up the patient's strength." 

And finally, organized religion is inextricably connected to male hierarchical religion and a male god and for this reason it's religion that is driving anti-feminism and anti contraception/abortion.  Someone has said there were 3 phases to the 20th century women's movement - The first was gaining the vote, the second was economics equal pay for equal work issues and the third was "We're going for your God".
"For if men are no longer supreme rulers on earth, how could one expect them to retain sovereignty in heaven?"  Changing of the Gods.  Naomi R Goldenberg 1979.

I am answering your question, organic on my reasoning on abortion and Ron Paul.  This concludes my discussion of this topic.  I will not engage in an ongoing debate of abortion, feminism or religion.

Amethyst

Last edited by Amethyst (2008-01-07 00:03:18)

organic wrote:

organic wrote:

The Catholic Inquisition published the book that arguably could be called the most "blood-soaked" publication in human history.  "Malleus Maleficarum" - or "The Witches' Hammer" - indoctrinated the world to " the dangers of freethinking women" and instructed the clergy how to locate, torture, and destroy them.  Those deemed "witches" by the Church included all female scholars, priestesses, gypsies, mystics, nature lovers, herb gatherers, and any women "suspiciously attuned to the natural world".  Midwives also were killed for their heretical practice of using medical knowledge to ease the pain of childbirth - a suffering the Church claimed, that was God's rightful punishment for Eve's partaking of the Apple of Knowledge, thus giving birth to the idea of Original Sin.  During three hundred years of witch hunts, the Church burned at the stake an astounding five million women.

Thank you, organic for the information on the Pink Triangles.  I had not previously read this and was not aware how bad it was for male homosexuals.  Male homosexuals were also persecuted during the witch craze.  The origins of the slang expression "faggots" referred to the use of homosexuals as human kindling to light the fires to burn the women. 

And as for women are supposed to suffer in the pain of childbirth, Queen Victoria finally concluded she wasn't Queen and head of the church for nothing and used chloroform with the birth of her 7th child, Prince Leopold in 1853.  It was widely publicized at the time and broke the taboo, at least in England. 

Amethyst