Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Charley Reese

When Charley Reese goes wrong, he goes wrong terribly (as in a column on LewRockwell.com where he described the UN not just as worthless but as weak because it doesn't have its own army). But when he gets things right, he, too, hits the nail right on the head. Here are two Charley Reese columns, and old one and a new one. The old one is just plain common horse sense regarding the manipulation of the American public to produce unthinking sheeple. The new one revisits the saber-rattling between Iran and the "international community" (read: neocons, the UN crowd) which we've been neglecting here of late. What would the effects be of an attack on Iran by the U.S. military doing the bidding of the Israeli or Jewish lobby? It wouldn't exactly make us any more friends in the Middle East, and could well trigger World War III. (Possibly it will soon be time to revisit Albert Pike, the celebrated Freemason of the 19th century and his infamous "Three World Wars" letter to Mazzini which just might turn out to be authentic.)

Has anyone noticed how all the threats against Iran's nuclear program--which could be aimed at building a power station, for all anybody has proven or offered evidence for--is an assault on Iran's national sovereignty, just as "agreements" such as CAFTA and "partnerships" such as the SPP are assaults on U.S. sovereignty? National sovereignty is under attack the world over!

HOW TO CONTROL PEOPLE

Monday, 08-Jan-01 01:21:59

24.14.28.77 writes:

HOW TO CONTROL PEOPLE
by Charley Reese
http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html


The difference between true education and vocational training has been
cleverly blurred. Here are a few tips on how smart people can control
other people. If any of this rings a bell - Well, then wake up!

The first principle of people control is not to let them know you are
controlling them. If people knew, this knowledge will breed resentment
and possibly rebellion, which would then require brute force and terror,
and old fashioned, expensive and not 100 % certain method of control.

It is easier than you think to control people indirectly, to manipulate
them into thinking what you want them to think and doing what you want
them to do.

One basic technique is to keep them ignorant. Educated people are not as
easy to manipulate. Abolishing public education or restricting access to
education would be the direct approach. That would spill the beans. The
indirect approach is to control the education they receive.

It's possible to be a Ph.D., doctor, lawyer, businessman, journalist, or
an accountant, just to name a few examples, and at the same time be an
uneducated person. The difference between true education and vocational
training has been cleverly blurred in our time so that we have people
successfully practicing their vocations while at the same time being
totally ignorant of the larger issues of the world in which they live.

The most obvious symptom is their absence of original thought. Ask them
a question and they will end up reciting what someone else thinks or
thought the answer was. What do they think Well, they never thought about
it. Their education consisted of learning how to use the library and cite
sources.

That greatly simplifies things for the controller because with lots of
money, university endowments, foundations, grants, and ownership of
media, it is relatively easy to control who they will think of as
authorities to cite in lieu of doing their own thinking.

Another technique is to keep them entertained. Roman emperors did not
stage circuses and gladiator contests because they didn't have
television. We have television because we don't have circuses and
gladiator events. Either way, the purpose is to keep the people's minds
focused on entertainment, sports, and peripheral political issues. This
way you won't have to worry that they will ever figure out the real
issues that allow you to control them.

Just as a truly educated person is difficult to control, so too is an
economically independent person. Therefore, you want to create conditions
that will produce people who work for wages, since wage earners have
little control over their economic destiny. You'll also want to control
the monetary, credit, and banking systems. This will allow you to inflate
the currency and make it next to impossible for wage earners to
accumulate capital. You can also cause periodic deflation to collapse the
family businesses, family farms, and entrepreneurs, including independent
community banks.

To keep trade unions under control, you just promote a scheme that
allows you to shift production jobs out of the country and bring back the
products as imports (it is called free trade). This way you will end up
with no unions or docile unions.

Another technique is to buy both political parties so that after a while
people will feel that no matter whether they vote for Candidate A or
Candidate B, they will get the same policies. This will create great
apathy and a belief that the political process is useless for effecting
real change.

Pretty soon you will have a population that feels completely helpless,
and thinks the bad things happening to them are nobody in particular's
fault, just a result of global forces or evolution or some other
disembodied abstract concept. If necessary, you can offer scapegoats.

Then you can bleed them dry without having to worry overly much that one
of them will sneak into your house one night and cut your throat. If you
do it right, they won't even know whose throat they are cutting.

Charley Reese
E-mail: OSOreese@aol.com

Israel - The Dead Roach In America's Salad
By Charley Reese
4-18-6
Rense.com (original here)



The Israeli lobby and the neoconservatives are beating the drums for war with Iran. I hope the president is not that dangerously stupid. The betting on whether he is that stupid is about even.

The neocons ­ who, being self-centered, seemingly have no concept of human nature ­ are advancing the premise that a military attack on Iran will cause the people to lose faith in their government and result in regime change.

A military attack on Iran will have the opposite effect. The people will rally to their government, and any hope of regime change will be dead. That people will rally around their existing leaders in the face of an attack by a foreign power is as certain as sunrise. Neither Israel nor the U.S. could do a greater favor for the ruling mullahs and Iran's president than to launch an attack. It would cement their hold on power.

The neocons' fallacious premise has already been disproved. In the first Gulf War, the first Bush administration confidently incited the Shi'ites and the Kurds to rebel after Saddam Hussein's forces were expelled from Kuwait. The administration thought that Saddam, embarrassed by a crushing military defeat, would fall from power in Iraq easily. Instead, he rallied his forces and crushed both the Shi'ites in the south and the Kurds in the north. Oops.

In the first place, it is not embarrassing for a Third World country with obsolete equipment to be defeated by the world's No. 1 military superpower. In the second place, the Sunnis, however much they might have disliked Saddam, disliked even more the thought of being ruled by Kurds or Shi'ites. In the third place, by President George H.W. Bush's decision to not go to Baghdad, Saddam could say he duked it out with the world's superpower and was still standing after the fight. That, in most eyes, could be counted as a victory.

Some months ago, an Iranian human-rights advocate pleaded with the current Bush administration to cease its rhetorical attacks on the Iranian government. She said, quite accurately, that such attacks make life impossible for Iranian reformers. Needless to say, the blockheads in Washington ignored her.

What did we do when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked? We rallied behind George W. Bush ­ Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. That's the natural reaction of normal human beings, and the Iranians are normal human beings. Attack their country and they will rally round the flag.

The Iranians still insist they are not seeking nuclear weapons, and there's not a scrap of evidence to contradict that claim. They still adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have often called for a nuclear-free Middle East.

Once again, the dead roach in America's salad is Israel. The U.S. hypocritically opposes a nuclear-free Middle East because Israel has nuclear weapons. We hypocritically claim the Iranians are in violation of international law when, in fact, it is Israel that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses international inspections. Given our craven obedience to Israel, we have exactly zero credibility in the Arab and Muslim world.

As I have said before, I don't care if the Iranians do develop nuclear weapons. My whole adult life was lived with 30,000 Soviet nuclear weapons aimed at me. I can certainly live with the six or seven Iran might be able to scrape together in the next five to 10 years. In the meantime, the U.S. government should kick the Israeli lobby out of the country and support Iran and the Arab League in pushing for a nuclear-free Middle East.

The Israeli lobby pushing America to fight yet another war for Israel reminds me of what the French ambassador to Great Britain said at a party: "Why does the world allow this (expletive deleted) little country to cause so much trouble?"

Why indeed? You should ask your politicians that question.

Comments:
Very nice! I found a place where you can
make some nice extra cash secret shopping. Just go to the site below
and put in your zip to see what's available in your area.
I made over $900 last month having fun!
make extra money
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?