... WHERE THE HELL IS THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT?
The David Icke Newsletter, May 17th 2009
Hello all ...
You can tick them off by the day now. They are coming thick and fast and you can easily predict them.
All you need to do is run through everything Barack Obama said he stood for during his election campaign, and all that he said he would do, and then reverse every single statement. Hey presto! you have the real Obama listed before your eyes.
One of those you can tick off this week is Obama's claim that he would introduce 'transparent' government. The only thing that's transparent about him, however, is that he is a liar on the make.
People like Obama, the Clintons and Blair are trained and schooled in the art of delivering deceit and one of the major techniques they are taught to develop to lie so convincingly that they believe their own lies at the moment they are telling them. As one British politician said of the legendary mendacity of Tony Blair: 'He believes it when he says it'.
They are taken through training programs and courses away from public sight to learn the techniques of manipulation through word, delivery and gesture. It is like a School for Liars and this is essential because if they told the truth they would (a) not be elected and (b) it would start a revolution. Therefore, they have to spend their entire political careers lying and so they better be good at it.
Obama was elected because he scammed the minds of millions of people with his mantra of 'change', but his biggest political asset was that he wasn't George Bush. This is one of the Illuminati modus operandi when it comes to securing the leaders they desire. If you want candidate or party 'A' to win, then make sure candidate and party 'B' are seriously unpopular at the time of the election.
This technique was used in Britain in 1979 to smooth the way for the Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher to become Prime Minister and, together with Ronald Reagan and Father George Bush, make fundamental economic changes known as Thatcherism and Reaganomics (same thing, different names).
The problem was that Margaret Thatcher was not an easy sell because her personality and cold, arrogant demeanour ensured that, to say the very least, most British people didn't warm to her at all.
But in the run-up to the election widespread strikes were orchestrated through the Trade Union movement over the winter of 1978-79 that became known as the 'Winter of Discontent'. This included a strike by grave diggers in Liverpool that meant the dead could not be buried; strikes by refuse collectors that saw rubbish piled up in the streets; and blockades by health workers that reduced some hospitals to emergencies only.
The then Labour Party government and its Prime Minister James Callaghan became highly unpopular as you can imagine and all Margaret Thatcher had to do was keep repeating that she would 'stop the unions running the country'. In other words, she told the people what the majority wanted to hear and she swept to victory.
Her biggest asset and the very reason she won was that she wasn't James Callaghan and his Labour government, just as Obama wasn't Bush.
The difference between Thatcher and Obama, however, is that Thatcher really did believe what she said and even though I didn't agree with much of it, you have to give her that, at least.
Obama is something else entirely. He only believes it when he says it, just as good actors believe their lines when they deliver them. Robert Redford became the Sundance Kid while the cameras were rolling, just as Anthony Hopkins became Hannibal Lecter.
In the same way, as his eyes scan his teleprompter screens and the words of his scriptwriters, Barack Obama becomes the man who puts people first, believes in transparency and freedom, and ending the power of big government and big Wall Street.
But when his minder and handler, the Zionist fanatic, Rahm Emanuel, announces the political equivalent of 'cut, thank-you everybody, it's a wrap', Obama becomes again what Obama is - a vacuous placeman who serves the same masters that Bush did.
This is why my Obama Golden Rule is don't listen to what he says, watch what he does. He is not a president of substance standing for what he believes in; he is an actor playing the part of a president. It's like re-runs of The West Wing. Tony Blair once said of himself that he had 'no reverse gear', but in his first months in office that seems to be the only one that Obama has.
He said over and over that he would bring transparency to government, which is rich coming from a man who is fighting lawsuits to force him to reveal his birth certificate to prove that he even qualifies to be president. But Mr. Transparent, like Mr. Hope and Mr. Believe, is a fraud.
Mr. Change, another of his multiple fake personalities, stepped in this week to ensure business-as-usual when he blocked the publication of hundreds of pictures exposing the widespread abuse of prisoners by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had initially agreed that the Defense Department should release them, but then someone, probably Emanuel, had a word in his shell-like.
Obama announced that he was 'strongly opposed' to making the images public because they would inflame 'the theatres of war', jeopardise US forces, and make the life of troops based in Iraq and Afghanistan 'more difficult'.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has campaigned for the release of the pictures for five years, said they 'provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by US personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib'.
To a genuine man who truly cares about justice and transparency that would be the very reason why he would not hesitate to make the photographs public and clean out the cesspit at the heart of American military operations.
But to a fake like Obama, the latest Establishment Man in the White House, what the photographs reveal is the very reason not to publish them. It would be bad for the agenda that he represents and so never mind justice for the abuser and abused.
In the same way, he has refused to prosecute the Bush administration and its accomplices in the CIA for their policy of torture and other crimes against humanity or their illegal wiretapping of the American population. 'This is not a time to look back, but to look forward', was his lame justification. But of course if you don't address what has happened in the 'past', you are condemning the 'future' to be the same. Then again that's what Obama and his masters intend it to be.
Obama told his adoring crowds of unquestioning sycophants that it was appalling and unacceptable to have the indefinite imprisonment of 'terror suspects' and yet this week it is reported that he is considering just that for some of those currently held in Guantanamo bay.
So this is Obama 'justice'. I'll close Guantanamo Bay because it's great for the image, but I'll just move inmates to the US mainland and hold them without trial there. I guess that's what he meant by 'change'. But what can you say about the morality of a man who appointed the bankers' boy Larry Summers to a key post in his 'economic team' when Summers once advised the World Bank to dump toxic material in 'Third World' countries because the death and ill-health that ensued would cost less in compensation?
Three days ago the Obama administration announced that it was retaining the Bush military commissions to 'try' terrorist suspects, so denying them the right to a jury trial. Obama signed a much-ballyhooed executive order immediately after his inauguration calling for a 120 day halt to all legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay while a review was conduct. The reaction from the sycophants: 'See - Barack is for change and justice'. Well, they've had their review now and decided that nothing of substance is going to change at all.
'The Obama administration shouldn't tinker with a fundamentally flawed system', said the Human Rights Watch counter-terrorism adviser Stacy Sullivan. 'Reviving the military commissions would strip much of the meaning from closing Guantanamo.' But that's the idea, Stacy. 'Closing Guantanamo' is little more than a publicity stunt.
Tom Parker of Amnesty International said the president was making 'a disastrous misstep' by reviving the commissions after blasting them as 'an enormous failure' on the campaign trail last year. Oh, but that was the campaign trail, mate, when Obama was lying his way to power. He's President now, it's a new game.
As John Pilger, a real journalist, wrote three months into Obama's presidency:
'In his first 100 days, Obama has excused torture, opposed habeas corpus, and demanded more secret government. He has kept Bush's gulag intact and at least 17,000 prisoners beyond the reach of justice. On April 24, his lawyers won an appeal that ruled Guantanamo prisoners were not "persons" and therefore had no right not to be tortured. His national intelligence director, Adm. Dennis Blair, says he believes torture works. One of his senior officials in Latin America is accused of covering up the torture of an American nun in Guatemala; another is a Pinochet apologist. As Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out, America experienced a military coup under Bush, whose secretary of "defense," Robert Gates, along with the same warmaking officials, have been retained by Obama.
All over the world, America's violent assault on innocent people, directly or by agents, has been stepped up. During the recent massacre in Gaza, reports Seymour Hersh, "the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of 'smart bombs' and other high-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel" and being used to slaughter mostly women and children. In Pakistan, the number of civilians killed by American missiles called drones has more than doubled since Obama took office.
He is the BBC's man, and CNN's man, and Murdoch's man, and Wall Street's man, and the CIA's man. The madmen did well.'
That's all true and so next comes the question: where the hell is the 'anti-war' movement? If Bush had done what Obama is doing there would be an outcry and people with banners on the streets. But where are they since Superman parked his rear in the Oval Office?
Answer: nowhere to be seen.
Obama is not only Mr. [fake] Change, Mr. [fake] Hope and Mr. [fake] Yes-We-Can; he's also Mr. Untouchable. Most of the anti-war 'left' bought the Obama propaganda down to the smallest syllable and they are either getting deeply embarrassed by now or resorting to cognitive dissonance to kid themselves they were right.
Cognitive dissonance is that filter in the head that explains away contradictions to confirm the original belief. It's a powerful form of lying to yourself, so powerful, in fact, that you don't know you are doing it. 'We must take our freedoms away to protect our liberties' is a classic example of cognitive dissonance in action.
The effect of this can be seen in a report by the Huffington Post:
'Obama's presidency has not only complicated the anti-war message, but has also made it more difficult to turn out the large numbers that the movement enjoyed during the latter Bush years. Over the weekend, Code Pink held their annual 24-hour Mother's Day Vigil for Peace in Lafayette Park across from the White House. It was the first time since 2006 that they asked people from outside the Washington area to attend. Just over a hundred people showed up to the event according to organizers, a stark contrast to the thousands that Code Pink enjoyed in 2006.'
Most of the left have convinced themselves that Obama is anti-war, a man of peace, and so there is no need for the campaigns of protest that we saw under Bush. But this is patent nonsense. Obama is not 'anti-war' at all.
This myth comes from a speech he apparently made in 2002 opposing the invasion of Iraq, although, as with everything surrounding Obama, the spin is at odds with the substance. The very opening line of that speech said: 'Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances'.
Clearly, because his very first act in office was to sanction US bombing raids in Pakistan and you are going to see him (his masters through him) increase American military action in that country.
And look at Afghanistan. By the end of this year the United States will have more than 68,000 troops deployed there - around double the number at the end of the Bush presidency. And with this 'Man of Peace' in (apparent) power, the US military are burning Afghan civilians alive with white phosphorus, which is illegal when used as a weapon. This is one report describing Obama's 'new' world of 'change':
'Life as 8-year-old Razia knew it ended one March morning when a shell her father says was fired by Western troops exploded into their house, enveloping her head and neck in a blazing chemical. Now she spends her days in a U.S. hospital bed at the Bagram airbase, her small fingernails still covered with flaking red polish but her face an almost unrecognisable mess of burnt tissue and half her scalp a bald scar.
"The kids called out to me that I was burning but the explosion was so strong that for a moment I was deaf and couldn't hear anything," her father, Aziz Rahman, told Reuters.
"And then my wife screamed 'the kids are burning' and she was also burning," he added, his face clouding over at the memory.
The flames that consumed his family were fed by a chemical called white phosphorous, which U.S. medical staff at Bagram said they found on Razia's face and neck. It bursts into fierce fire on contact with the air and can stick to and even penetrate flesh as it burns.'
Imagine the reaction if that had come to light under Bush.
The core of Obama's anti-war image comes, of course, from his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But that 'anti-war' speech was made before he became a US Senator and from the moment he arrived in Washington he supported Bush on Iraq, as he did with the Orwellian Patriot Act.
Obama vowed before being elected to the Senate that he would 'unequivocally' vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for the war. But he went on to support four separate war appropriations, totalling more than $300 billion. He voted against a proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007 and supported a Republican resolution stating that the Senate would not remove funding for the US military in Iraq.
From his first day in the White House, Obama was retreating from his election pledge to withdraw all US troops from Iraq and now says that up to 50,000 will be left there indefinitely. Of course they will. As I said before the invasion in 2003, there was never any intention of leaving.
The newly-opened US Embassy in Iraq is the biggest in the world, spanning 104 acres and housing 1,200 diplomats, soldiers and government staff from 14 federal agencies.
And the US government, under Obama or anyone else, was ever planning to leave??
But where is the response from the 'anti-war movement'? During the Bush era there were protests wherever he went, but all Obama gets is cheers for doing the same thing. It is crazy double-think and extraordinary hypocrisy. The Huffington Post even reported this in an article on the neutered anti-war protests since Obama came to office:
'Some want "protests" at presidential events to be transformed into "rallies" where activists thank the president rather than picketing. They suggest peace activists bring signs that convey a positive message, such as, "Thank you for your efforts toward peace," rather than the more contentious signs that have been routinely brandished by protesters on the nightly news.'
Pass the sickbag before I make a mess.
This image encapsulates what has happened to most of those who took part in mass protests against Bush. They have been Obamatised. It is a form of hypnotism which programs the mind to filter reality to see the Great One only in positive terms and puts their capacity for reason into a comatose state.
Phrases like 'I love you, Barack', spoken slowly as if half asleep, are one of the major symptoms to look for. But the most obvious confirmation of Obamatisation is to condemn Bush and applaud Obama. Here's an example of this mind-scrambling disease from the Huffington Post article:
'"It's not about disagreeing with Obama. It's about the way we disagree. How we, as progressives, are perceived by the rest of the Democratic Party," said one local activist who was concerned that if local chapters of Progressive Democrats of America protested against Obama, their message might be lost. "Even worse," she said, "the group could be seen as the fringe wing of the party".'
And there you have it in the proverbial shell of the nut. Their prime allegiance is not to truth or justice or to what is the right thing to do. It is to a political party and how its members perceive them. They call themselves 'progressives' and yet they are, behind the bullshit and the slogans, just more architects of the status quo.
The difference in their bewildered minds is that now the status quo is their status quo, as distinct from Bush's. It's the same status quo, but now they have taken ownership through the coronation of King Barack and so they perceive it differently.
'Impeach Bush' becomes 'Barack is doing his best in difficult circumstances'. Oh I'm sure that will be a lot of comfort for little Razia Rahman as they try to reconstruct her face in that Afghanistan hospital.
The 'progressive left' ('progressing' to what?) is the mind-set that I have long called the 'Robot Radicals'. They are so manipulated and confused that they think they are challenging the system when it is playing a violin concerto in their psyche.
It is the Robot Radicals who tend to vehemently dismiss any suggestion that there is a global conspiracy because they still see the world in terms of progressives and reactionaries, right and left, when the same force is controlling all of them.
That's why nothing changes when 'far-right' Bush is replaced by 'man-of-the-people' Obama. But the Robot Radicals can't see the obvious because their world view is far more powerful than their sense of reason.
These are the people who go on anti-globalisation marches (everything is 'anti') and yet ridicule the idea, supported by enormous swathes of evidence, that 'globalisation' is the very centralisation of global power that people like myself and others have been warning about for two decades.
'No, it's just greedy corporations', they cry. Yes the corporations are greedy, but they are not the origin of globalisation they are the vehicles for it and, in the end, they are one corporation under many names.
Sorry, that's too much for the Robot Radical software to compute. 'You mean those controlling the right are controlling the left? That can't be, we're the good guys and Barack is one of us.'
What we are seeing from those who would protest against Bush in their tens of thousands, but are mute to Obama's lies and deceit, is that their commitment to justice is rather less passionate than they claim it to be.
People who are truly committed to justice for all don't care who stands in its way, 'friend' or 'foe'. They say and do what they know to be right - whatever. But don't expect that from the 'radicals' with the robot tendencies.
They have always been an essential cog in the technology of control, divide and rule, and the illusion that people have political 'choice'.
Clearly, nothing changes.
-Meet the men who really control the White House
These are Omaba's minders and handlers who provide the words on his teleprompter screens and dictate his policy. On the left is David Axelrod who orchestrated Obama's election campaigns and is now his senior White House 'advisor'. On the right is Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, who makes Machiavelli seem like a guy you can trust.
Both are ultra-Zionist extremists, as is much of the Obama administration, not least 'his' economic team. Emanuel, officially an American citizen, has even served in the Israeli army and his father was an operative with the infamous terrorist group, Irgun, which bombed Israel into existence in 1948.
This is why 'Obama's' policies will always track the agenda and best interests of Israel, including wars in the Middle and Near East, and also why Obama stayed deathly silent over the slaughter of the innocent in Gaza in the early months of the year.
They are agents of the Orwellian conspiracy that includes a world government dictatorship and so all Obama's policies will be in support of that. This is the reason why puppet Obama is going back on all that he pledged before taking office.
His lies were simply to win an election. Now the real deal is underway.
