US Capitalist Oligarchy - Journo-Lobbying - James K. Glassman

ministry of tokyo JOURNO-LOBBYING Nicole S. Cohen, Alexander Kirshner, and Zachary Roth contributed to the reporting of this article. http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/december-2003/meet-the-press/ http://archive.is/cFEPU December 2003 Meet the Press How James Glassman reinvented journalism — as lobbying. by Nick Confessore Magazine In the fall of 1999, journalist James K. Glassman and economist Kevin A. Hassett published a book provocatively titled Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market. The New Economy was not a high-tech version of tulipmania, they argued, and the stock market was not overvalued. Properly understood, wrote Glassman and Hassett, the Dow–then upwards of 10,000–was actually undervalued: “Stock prices could double, triple, or even quadruple tomorrow and still not be too high.” It was a bold thesis, and more than a few skeptics disputed it in op-eds and book reviews. But this was the height of the boom, the authors were telling Wall Street exactly what it wanted to hear, and Dow 36,000 was a sensation. It rapidly became a New York Times bestseller, sparking incessant water-cooler conversation and wide coverage on the nation’s business pages. Glassman, having already been a chat-show host and nationally syndicated financial columnist for The Washington Post, became a bona fide celebrity, widely profiled in the press and invited on television shows across the country to predict that the party, far from being over, was just getting started. So optimistic was Glassman, in fact, that a few months after the book appeared, he launched a dot.com, Tech Central Station, based on just the kind of vague-but-intriguing business plan that attracted so much venture funding at the height of the tech boom. TCS would be “a cross between a journal of Internet opinion and a cyber think tank open to the public,” as Glassman described it in a press release accompanying the site’s New York launch party, held in Grand Central Station. TCS would be part Slate, part Red Herring, articulating “a high-tech agenda of freedom and opportunity” with a libertarian conservative bent. Within a few months, of course, Glassman was forced to eat a certain amount of crow. The market peaked, then plunged 3,000 points over the course of two years, before struggling back to slightly below where it was when Dow 36,000 was published. Meanwhile, the dot.com bubble burst, burying thousands of Web ventures and billions of investor dollars. Many of Glassman’s peers were ruined. (Conservative high-tech guru George Gilder, for instance, lost over 90 percent of the subscribers to his newsletter and still has a lien on his house.) But Glassman not only survived the crash–he also thrived. He was soon back on The Washington Post‘s business page dispensing stock picks and earning sizable fees on the lecture circuit. Last year, he even published another investment tome, this one titled The Secret Code of the Superior Investor: How to Be a Long-Term Winner in a Short-Term World. Most surprisingly of all, Tech Central Station is one of the few Internet magazines to grow into middle age. Today, the hybrid venture enjoys a monthly readership approaching that of Web sites for more established public affairs journals. It has around 100 columnists and semi-regular contributors, and runs smartly-written think pieces by the likes of Newt Gingrich, James Pinkerton, and Michael Fumento. Glassman’s triumph owes, in part, to his quick mind, deft prose style, and telegenic presence. But the real secret of his success is that the market Glassman writes about is very different from the one in which he thrives: the burgeoning world of Washington influence-peddling. As a writer and public figure, Glassman has, over time, aligned his views with those of the business interests that dominate K Street and support the Republican Party; he has also increasingly taken aggressive positions on one side or another of intra-industry debates, rather like a corporate lobbyist. Nowhere is this more apparent than on TCS, where Glassman and his colleagues have weighed in on everything from which telecommunications technologies should be the most heavily regulated to whether Microsoft is a threat to other software companies. But TCS doesn’t just act like a lobbying shop. It’s actually published by one–the DCI Group, a prominent Washington “public affairs” firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called “Astroturf” organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot. The two organizations share most of the same owners, some staff, and even the same suite of offices in downtown Washington, a block off K Street. As it happens, many of DCI’s clients are also “sponsors” of the site it houses. TCS not only runs the sponsors’ banner ads; its contributors aggressively defend those firms’ policy positions, on TCS and elsewhere. James Glassman and TCS have given birth to something quite new in Washington: journo-lobbying. It’s an innovation driven primarily by the influence industry. Lobbying firms that once specialized in gaining person-to-person access to key decision-makers have branched out. The new game is to dominate the entire intellectual environment in which officials make policy decisions, which means funding everything from think tanks to issue ads to phony grassroots pressure groups. But the institution that most affects the intellectual atmosphere in Washington, the media, has also proven the hardest for K Street to influence–until now. More Kemp than Bork Glassman has always had a knack for seeing opportunities before others do. After graduating from Harvard in 1969, he and his wife moved to New Orleans and launched Figaro, an early harbinger of the urban alternative weeklies that would proliferate in the coming decades. After selling the paper in 1978, he moved to Washington and up the media food chain, with stints as an editor or publishing executive first at Washingtonian and The New Republic, then at Atlantic Monthlyand U.S. News & World Report. In the mid-1980s, he also began to pen an occasional column on business for TNR and other publications. Most business writing of the time was dull and technical, but Glassman’s articles had charm and flavor. They ranged from a satirical look at corporate tax evasion (titled “How to Beat the I.R.S.: With llamas, Scottish stamps, and rent-a-cows”) to a lacerating profile of Lee Iacocca, the former Chrysler executive (“Something about Lee Iacocca,” he wrote, “inspires exaggeration”). His next business success was with Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper bought by Arthur Levitt in 1986, when it was little more than a sleepy newsletter with four employees and an unpaid circulation of 5,000. Hired as the paper’s editor, Glassman quickly amassed a group of energetic young reporters and pushed them to cover the Hill less like a legislative sausage factory and more like a community. Several former staffers describe him as a laid-back boss who strolled the offices with a golf putter and threw raucous election night parties at his house on Capitol Hill. “He was a great story editor, and a spectacular editorial writer,” says Levitt. “His mission, when he signed on, was to create a paper which screams, ‘Read me.’ And he did that.” Just as importantly, Glassman–with his wife, Mary, who served as publisher– figured out how to make Roll Call a financial success. Through the 1980s, Washington’s lobbying industry had grown massively, as businesses rushed to extract favors from a sympathetic Reagan administration. Glassman convinced individual corporations and trade associations to supplement their handshake lobbying with advertisements in the pages of Roll Call, promoting or attacking pending legislation. “It was a singular business insight,” says Glenn Simpson, an early Glassman hire who now writes for The Wall Street Journal. “You have a captive audience of 535 of the most powerful people in the world and their 10,000 staff members who all read you closely, and then you have all these people who want to influence those people.” Within a year, circulation more than doubled andRoll Call‘s ad pages increased sevenfold. Levitt eventually awarded Glassman equity in the paper, which by all accounts made him a wealthy man when he sold it in 1993. As he became more successful, the onetime student radical and McGovernik also moved right. In 1995, by then a business columnist for The Washington Post, Glassman began moonlighting for the op-ed page; there, during the height of Gingrichism, he assailed federal student loans, defended high C.E.O. pay, and agitated for the flat tax. Articulate and irreverent, Glassman was also a hit on Washington chat shows. In the fall of 1996, he was named a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a leading conservative think tank and a kind of government-in-exile for Republican officials from the first Bush administration. But though he had become increasingly conservative, Glassman was more Jack Kemp than Robert Bork; as a pundit, he usually favored the shiv over the cudgel. During fierce congressional debate over the National Endowment of the Arts, for instance, many conservatives appeared to consider the likes of “Piss Christ” a portent of American decline. Glassman’s objection to the NEA was more practical: Based on the available evidence, he noted, “Government money makes bad art.” Like most pundits, of course, his predictions were not always borne out by events. In a column shortly before the 1996 election, for instance, he wrote that the stock market might “nose dive” if Bill Clinton were re-elected president. Nor was Glassman always consistent. In a 1994 column, he attacked those of his colleagues “who give speeches to trade associations and corporations and get paid $2,000 or $5,000 or even $30,000 a pop” and confessed to giving up his own then-modest lecture schedule because he felt “uneasy” about the potential conflicts. Later, his conscience balmed, Glassman would rejoin the speakers’ circuit, commanding up to $15,000 a pop. Glassman was extraordinarily prolific–and increasingly influential. By the late 1990s, his financial column in the Post was nationally syndicated; he was a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal and other publications; and he hosted two different television programs, “TechnoPolitics” on PBS and the Sunday show “Capital Gang” on CNN. And as the stock market continued to climb, he found his next niche: tribune of the New Economy. Until then, Glassman’s financial advice was invariably prudent and middle-of-the-road; like most sensible investment columnists, he told his readers to avoid day-trading, to buy and hold for the long-term, and to diversify their holdings. But in 1998, in the Journal, Glassman and Hassett published the first of several op-eds arguing against the notion that stocks might be overvalued. “We are not so foolish as to predict the short-term course of stocks,” they wrote as the Dow was approaching 9,000, but “[w]orries about overvaluation…are based on a serious and widespread misunderstanding of the returns and risks associated with equities.” A year later, with the Dow breaking five figures and a book advance in their pockets, the two were somewhat less circumspect, predicting in a follow-up column that the Dow would hit 36,000–“tomorrow, not 10 or 20 years from now.” When Dow 36,000 was finally published in book form, a number of reviewers took exception to the book’s thesis on stock valuation. The Journal‘s concluded that Dow 36,000, while well-argued, was “dangerous” to investors; Jeremy Siegel, a University of Pennsylvania economist on whose work Glassman and Hassett had based part of their argument, at one point complained that they had misinterpreted his data and drawn erroneous conclusions. But Glassman had become a prophet. By October 2000, with the Dow sinking, reported the New York Observer, Glassman was making over 100 speeches a year promoting his vision. “We are on the verge of a tremendous wealth explosion, the likes of which has never been seen,” he told one group of New York investors. The New New Journalism Some months before the publication of Dow 36,000, Glassman’s PBS show was cancelled, and he began to look around for a new gig. With his longtime friend Charles Francis, a prominent Republican lobbyist and public relations maestro, Glassman began approaching funders with a new pitch. Taking a nod from “TechnoPolitics,” he envisioned an entity that would cover “the nexus between science and technology on the one hand and public policy on the other,” as he later described it to me, with assorted “sponsors” and himself as the site’s “host.” Tech Central Station was launched in early 2000, with a smattering of content and one sponsor, AT&T. But Glassman had bigger plans. As he explained during a speech in Los Angeles not long after the launch, “We concentrate on such issues as Internet taxation, broad-band dissemination, privacy, biotechnology, high tech trade, and so on,” serving as “a kind of watchdog in an area in which few people seem to be doing long-term principled thinking on public policy.” Glassman exulted, “I think in a sense we kind of invented a new sort of institution.” But what sort of institution, exactly? At first glance, TCS does resemble a think tank-cum-opinion magazine–indeed, a successful one. Each day, the site publishes a new batch of brisk, topical articles. In style and substance, TCS’s content is an intellectual descendent of the rapid-response policy briefs pioneered by conservative think tanks during the 1980s, and as influential: The site’s articles and contributors have been cited hundreds of times in the mainstream media and reprinted on op-ed pages across the country. TCS brings all of this off with a relatively small staff, drawing on the brainpower of established think tanks rather than housing and paying its own fellows and scholars, and publishing their arguments in its own “magazine” rather than hawking sound-bites to print reporters and columnists. “We can get the word out much more quickly [than a traditional think tank],” says Glassman, “and it’s a lot less expensive not having a lot of bricks and mortar.” If TCS combines all the strengths of a modern advocacy think tank with the reach and accessibility of a successful political magazine, it has succeeded largely by rejecting the conventions that traditionally govern journalism and policy scholarship. Most think tanks are organized under the 501(c)(3) section of the tax code and must disclose many details of how they are financed, being–at least in theory–expected to justify their non-profit status with work in the public interest. Even think tanks of an acknowledged ideological bent seek to insulate the work of their scholars and fellows from the specific policy priorities of the businesses or foundations that provide their funding. Likewise, traditional newspapers and magazines, whether for-profit or not, keep a wall between their editorial and business sides; even at magazines of opinion, the political views of writers are presumed to be offered in good faith, uninfluenced by advertisers.  [comment:  Traditional newspapers convey nothing but propaganda.] Unlike traditional think tanks, Tech Central Station is organized as a limited liability corporation–that is, a for-profit business. As an LLC, there is little Tech Central Station must publicly disclose about itself save for the names and addresses of its owners, and there is no presumption, legal or otherwise, that it exists to serve the public interest. Likewise, rather than advertisers per se, TCS has what it calls “sponsors,” which are thanked prominently in a section one click away from the front page of the site. (AT&T, ExxonMobil, and Microsoft were early supporters; General Motors, Intel, McDonalds, NASDAQ, National Semiconductor, and Qualcomm, as well as the drug industry trade association, PhRMA, joined during the past year.) Each firm pays a sponsorship fee–although neither Glassman nor any of the sponsors would disclose how much–and gets banner advertisements on the site. When I contacted a few of the sponsors, each described their relationship to TCS in a slightly different way. An Intel spokeswoman said that TCS was “a consultant” to the computer-chip maker. AT&T’s representative said her firm was “a funder.” A Microsoft representative explained that the company “is constantly looking for ways to educate on some of the critical and important issues in the technology sector.” On closer inspection, Tech Central Station looks less like a think-tank-cum-magazine than a kind of lobbying practice. Which makes sense: Four of the five co-owners of TCS are also the co-owners of the DCI Group, the Washington public affairs firm founded by Republican operative Thomas J. Synhorst. TCS’s fifth owner is Charles Francis, who is also a senior lobbyist at DCI and is listed on TCS’s phone directory. And as it happens, three of TCS’s sponsors–AT&T, General Motors, and PhRMA–have also retained DCI for their lobbying needs. (Both DCI’s spokeswoman and TCS’s chief executive officer declined to be interviewed for this article. However, after I requested comment, the Web site was changed. Where it formerly stated that “Tech Central Station is published by Tech Central Station, L.L.C.,” it now reads “Tech Central Station is published by DCI Group, L.L.C.”) Like its publishing arm, DCI’s business is to influence elite opinion in Washington. But instead of publishing articles, DCI specializes in what’s known as “corporate-financed grass-roots organizing,” such as setting up front groups to agitate for a client’s position, placing letters to the editor with key newspapers, and using phone banks to generate calls to politicians. TCS, for its part, includes a disclaimer on its site noting that “the opinions expressed on these pages are solely those of the writers and not necessarily those of any corporation or other organization.” But it is startling how often the opinions of TCS’s writers and sponsors converge. Last July, for instance, PhRMA retained DCI to lobby against House legislation that would permit the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs from Canada and elsewhere. The same month, TCS put out a press release announcing that it planned to cover an upcoming bus trip taken by Canadian patients to “access prescription drugs and medical treatment” in the U.S. (The trip was sponsored in part by the Canadian subsidiaries of many of the same pharmaceutical companies that belong to PhRMA.) A few days after the press release was issued, TCS columnist Duane Freese published an article touting the bus trip and attacking the legislation; other contributors also wrote columns for the site attacking reimportation. The articles on Tech Central Station address a broad range of issues, some of concern to its sponsors, many not. And most of the site’s authors are no doubt merely voicing opinions they have already reached. But time and time again, TCS’s coverage of particular issues has had the appearance of a well-aimed P.R. blitz. After ExxonMobil became a sponsor, for instance, the site published a flurry of content attacking both the Kyoto accord to limit greenhouse gasses and the science of global warming–which happen to be among Exxon-Mobil’s chief policy concerns in Washington. TCS’s articles have also complemented work being done by DCI. During 2000, Microsoft contracted with DCI to perform various services, among them generating “grassroots” letters opposing a breakup of Microsoft and launching Americans for Technology Leadership, an anti-breakup group funded in part by Microsoft and run out of DCI’s office. Meanwhile, down the hall, Tech Central Station went on the offensive, inaugurating an “anti-trust” section that over the coming months would publish little except defenses of Microsoft and attacks on the software maker’s corporate and governmental antagonists, with occasional detours into the subject of lawsuit reform. (Microsoft smartly plugged some of the articles on its own Web site.) Kill the Bells But the greatest asset Glassman offers his site’s sponsors is himself. “He’s conversant in many different topics,” says an admiring former employee, “and he also knows how to talk like an expert on something even if he doesn’t know anything about it.” (For the record, AEI lists Glassman’s research interests as “Social Security, economics, technology, politics, federal budget, interest rates, stock market, taxes, and education.”) Glassman is not a registered lobbyist. But with his credentials as an AEI fellow and Post columnist, his knack for colorful writing, and his easy access to chat shows and op-ed pages across the country, he is an effective advocate for whatever side he chooses to take. And since becoming the “host” of TCS, he has often taken the side of the site’s sponsors. Until 2000, for instance, Glassman had written about the government’s case against Microsoft on precisely one occasion. (He opposed it.) After Microsoft became a sponsor of TCS, he inveighed against the suit in nearly two dozen columns for the site. He also penned op-eds for another dozen or so publications and appeared on TV to attack a Microsoft breakup in vivid, even strident terms. (On “Crossfire” Glassman argued that one court decision in the suit placed “in jeopardy not just high technology, but, I think, the entire U.S. economy that’s been booming.”) When it came to the subject of climate change, on which he had seldom remarked before TCS was launched, Glassman became equally prolific, attacking Kyoto or the science of climate change in 40 columns for the site, many of them syndicated elsewhere. Meanwhile, he also took to the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal, the St. Louis Dispatch, and The Washington Times to trash Kyoto; in none of them did he disclose TCS’s connection to ExxonMobil. All of these positions are, in theory, perfectly compatible with Glassman’s generally libertarian, anti-regulatory politics. But in at least one area–telecommunications–the only discernable consistency to Glassman’s opinions is the degree to which they track those of AT&T, the original sponsor of TCS. During 2001, in a string of columns and in an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Glassman criticized legislation that would have relaxed the requirement that regional Bells rent their phone lines to other companies, including AT&T, seeking to offer local services to the Bells’ customers. Identifying himself as a journalist, think tank fellow, and host of TCS–but not disclosing the Web site’s sponsorship by AT&T–Glassman told Congress that the bill, known as Tauzin-Dingell, would “kill” the Bells’ competitors. Though this was perhaps the only area of policy in which he favored more government regulation, and though his position was similar to that of congressional Democrats and liberal public interest groups, Glassman argued his was actually the true expression of free market principles. “I have devoted much of my professional career to advocating deregulatory, free-market solutions to economic and social problems,” he insisted. “I know deregulation when I see it, and the Tauzin-Dingell bill is not deregulation.” As it happens, however, AT&T was not merely an aspiring provider of local phone services. At the time, it was the largest owner of cable systems in the United States. During 1999, America Online, the Internet service provider, lobbied aggressively for legislation to force cable companies like AT&T to offer its services on their cable systems at government-mandated rates. But when Glassman later wrote about this issue, he took a very different view of government’s requiring companies to open up their expensive hardware to competitors–although he again presented his position as a defense of high principle. “Common sense tells you that government has no business dictating the terms under which you rent your property to other people,” he wrote on TCS. “But somehow, thanks to an aggressive lobbying campaign…many reporters took seriously the idea that cable companies could be forced to rent out their property at prices set by government.” The real principle, it would appear, is that government has no business forcing companies to share their wires with competitors–unless the competitor happens to sponsor a web site one hosts. During my brief phone interview with Glassman–he declined a follow-up–I asked him whether or not TCS published opinions that contradicted the policy views, of, say, AT&T. “Frankly, we think that other points of view are well represented everywhere else,” he responded cheerfully. “To have one point of view on an issue like telecom is something that we don’t have a problem with.” He added, “We’re an advocacy group. There’s no doubt about that. I don’t think we ever had pretenses of being an academic think tank.” The Rise of Idea Laundering Government decision-makers are subject to a cacophony of opinions–from paid lobbyists, think-tank scholars, academics, newspaper editorials, consumer groups, and letters from ordinary citizens. And in the past decade, corporate lobbying has evolved to influence–and, where possible, control–the arguments emanating from each of these sources. It’s why corporations have put so much money into think tanks, issue advertisements, and consulting arrangements with economists and other academics. It’s how firms like DCI have flourished by orchestrating pseudo-grassroots movements to simulate or amplify constituent opinion on behalf of corporate clients. After all, it’s only human nature to put more trust in the arguments of seemingly independent observers than those of paid agents of an interested party. And that’s why a journalist willing to launder the arguments of corporations and trade groups would be so valuable. A given argument, coming from such a journalist, would have more impact than precisely the same case articulated by a corporate lobbyist. Glassman certainly has impact. Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission considered whether regional Bell companies should continue to fully share their wires with competitors like AT&T–the position Democrats favored. The tiebreaking vote was cast by a conservative Bush appointee, Kevin Martin. Martin sided with his Democratic colleagues, a surprising position, but one made easier, say observers, by the fact that a few prominent conservative pundits, chief among them Glassman, had taken AT&T’s side in the argument. “Glassman’s clueless,” opines an economist who specializes in telecom and supports relaxed regulations on both cable and phone systems. “But he gives good cover.” As he has so many times in his career, James Glassman has recognized a new and largely untapped opportunity for his journalistic talents. If his past is any guide, two things are likely to happen. Other journalists and pundits will follow suit, touching off a growth market in Washington journo-lobbying–and then that market will crash. Nicole S. Cohen, Alexander Kirshner, and Zachary Roth contributed to the reporting of this article. http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/december-2003/meet-the-press/ http://archive.is/cFEPU K Street (Washington, D.C.) major road in Washington DC /  numerous think-do tanks, lobbyists, advocacy groups ie.  Washington's lobbying industry COMMENT The more I learn about capitalism, the more I like North Korea's Kim Jong-un. Capitalist society does not serve the interests of the little people. No time to look any more.   Must throw together a meal. Plan on: Chicken Paprikash with Sour Cream Final recipe choice undecided, at this point. No time for slow cooker ... or too much messing with recipe choice.  Going with this:  here. Easy.  Quick.  Perfect.  Done.  LOL

Video: Gilad Atzmon - 'Jewish Controlled Opposition'

ministry of tokyo H I T  M E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjkQbMdTs0Q LOL ... I can hear Gilad  on saxophone at about 1:55.  Assume it was Gilad, as he would have been in the band at this time.  GILAD ATZMON Gilad Atzmon born Tel Aviv secular, right-wing conservative family 1994 - migrates to UK University of Essex master's degree in Philosophy British citizen in 2002 renounced his Israeli citizenship defines himself as "a British, Hebrew Speaking Palestinian" philosopher / Jazz musician / member Ian Dury and the Blockheads (joined 1998) critical of Zionism and various other Jewish related issues/subjects Video:  January 2016 Gilad Atzmon in NYC 'Jewish Controlled Opposition' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbx23Ygj3YM COMMENT I was interested in the 'controlled opposition' in terms of media, public discourse, intelligentsia talking heads etc. in general, before I stumbled on this video. Not sure I've really understood what this is about. Perhaps there is a video that precedes this?  *Edit:  it looks like Gilad Atazmon wants people to have the courage to speak up regarding the Israel-Palestine issue?  It also looks like a prediction of dire consequences of some kind.  It sounds like he's predicting war. Ian Dury's in here because Gilad Atazmon was/is in the group and I like 'Hit Me'. LOL Now I'm distracted checking out oldies I like ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ4QoCskBN4 This is a bit earlier.  I love the SUDDEN STOP, pause ... and the B I G  R U S H. The climbing guitar thing is very nice, too. What I got out of Gilad Atzmon is the following, if I've understood correctly. History is the opposite of telling what has happened:  it is, according to Atzmon, an institutional attempt to conceal shame by building a zig-zag narrative around shame. I'm not entire sure what he's referring to. I see history and the official narrative as a matter of power and control, rather than shame. I'm not sure if my perspective is skewed, because I tend to see power (or lack of power) in just about everything. Atzmon says that there is a holocaust every 70 to 100 years. Said it was important to look at historical events in perspective.  By that I think he means looking at a wide picture; like a panoramic view of history.  But I'm not entire sure, as he didn't elaborate in this clip. Conveyed that there's not much difference between the left and the right, between the Cultural Marxists and the 'enlightened individualism' brigade.  Mentioned Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand) who was the icon of 'enlightened individualism'.  Talked about a 'brotherhood' of the 'most horrible Zionists' and what sounded like the 'JDP'.  But I can't find 'JDP', so I'll have to listen again to see what he's talking about, if I can make it out.  *Edit:  I'm not certain what he is saying, but going by the Greta Berlin entry in Wikipedia, it could possibly be JDL that he is referring to - although it still sounds like he's saying 'JDP' or something. Discusses the silencing of his voice, that of Greta Berlin, Ken O'Keefe (I think it was). Refers to Greta Berlin, pro-Palestinian activist motivated by 1967 Six-Day War. Began non-profit charitable organisation to send medicine and aid to Palestinians.  Internal Revenue & FBI then began getting involved.  Jewish Defence League caller allegedly told her her children would be killed if any passengers were murdered in airline hijackings that were going on at the time.  Greta Berlin withdrew from activism for 15 years, for the sake of her children. Asks: don't we believe in free discourse? Refers to the neocons: refers to Jewish sounding names and says "It's a Zionist synagogue; it's not a secret." Refers to a 'chain of disaster' and mentions factors in history, going from Cold War, Frankfurt School, bankers, capitalists, the 'Palestinian story', 2008 Crisis, Lehman Bros, Larry Summers, Deregulation, Alan Greenspan. Then asks what they have in common.   Assume he's referring to the Jewish role in these various factors. Says if we don't talk about it, there will be a disaster. Says when the chain is seen and understood as being "Jewish related", you become more clever than the system. This is when the real global disaster will happen. Gilad Atzmon says that the 'cognitive elite' are very quick to escape and says that they get bailed out. However, what he refers to as the 'cognitive elite' might, in fact, be the economic and political elite, to my way of thinking. Predicated disaster, I think.  Friends in Turkey feel it is coming, says Atzmon.  Said that there will be a lot of innocent people dying - not only Jews.  So he is predicting a war? Atzmon asked if Palestine is the problem, how is it possible that all the doctors are Jewish and will 'we' reveal the problem if 'we' are connected to the problem? Whether it is Finkelstein, Chomsky, Gidon Levy, Gilad Atzmon (himself) ... and others mentioned. Asks how it is possible that they are the prime doctors? I'm not sure why he thinks Palestine is such a problem that it will lead to world disaster.  Or, perhaps, this is just one of the problems.  Not clear to me. That lecture was in January of 2016, so it's current. I think what he's trying to say is that public discourse on the subject (or subjects?) is dominated by Jewish representatives. At some stage of the lecture, Atzmon referred to: George Orwell - saw it coming (Spanish Revolution?) Wrote '1984' controlled opposition = Emmanuel Goldstein character - Emmanuel  (Heb.  'god with us') - righteousness - Atzmon says:  righteousness totally fictional George Orwell understood there was something there; a controlled opposition. Why did Orwell pick a Jewish name, Atzmon asks.  Orwell fought in Spain. referring to:  1936 Spanish Revolution (?) (I think ... will have to double-check that) Atzmon says:  25% of International Brigade were Jews /  lingua franca was Yiddish We are not allowed to talk about it. His friend doesn't talk to him because he wants to talk about the Spanish war. We are not allowed to talk about Emmanuel Goldstein being a Jew. And why? Atzmon says: the element that sustains this regime is called: post-political correctness What is 'political correctness': political correctness is politics that does not allow political opposition Politics that does not allow political opposition is called: tyranny or dictatorship. But in the case of political correctness, it is far worse - far more dangerous. And why, he asks. Because it is self-imposed. Atzmon says: it is small evil planted in each of us that starts to censor us, as soon as we think freely. First time, it hurts; second time, we just avoid thinking; and the third time, we just get used to the idea that we better not think. AND THIS IS WHY in America you have 'activism'. ACTIVISM IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THINKING / Thinking is being creative; thinking is understanding all of that on your own (ie points to board / material discussed) / INSTEAD we subscribe to cultural slogans - eg. BDS - are academics not free type point, I think it was. / to be a thinker is to lift every stone and to be courageous to look under / we owe it to ourselves and owe it to the Jews, because they don't do it for themselves / recommends speaking openly against all odds as remedy to doomed situation we have brought ourselves into. End. Aside from Orwell, Atzmon mentions 'mentors', as follows (look-ups from Wikipedia): Martin Heidegger German philosopher a most original & important philosopher of 20th C. Continental tradition philosophical hermeneutics hermeneutics (theory and methodology of interpretation - biblical, philosophical) René Descartes: located essence of man thinking abilities Martin Heidegger:  thinking is thinking *about* things / originally discovered in our everyday practical engagements Heidegger, contends: capacity to think cannot be most central quality of our being b/c thinking is a reflection upon discovering the world Heidegger argues human more fundamentally structured by Temporality / concern with & relationship to time existing as structurally open 'possibility for being' / importance of authenticity in human existence / finitude of time / being towards death argued truth: original meaning was UNCONCEALMENT language = house of being criticism of technology's instrumentalist understanding in Western tradition as 'enframing' / treating all of nature as standing reserve on call for human purposes Heidegger affiliation with German National Socialism Rector University of Freiberg / did not publicly apologise nor express regret / Wikipedia states he privately regretted his decision No time to look any more at this guy / interesting stuff ... like 'being' etc. But not very practical.  To my way of thinking, this is interesting and all well and good as mental gymnastics.  But the rest of us don't want to live according to the conclusions of these thinkers and their theories and ideals, no matter how impressive their mental gymnastics may appear to academics and intelligentsia devotees. I don't accept the universal and I think what's important must be defended, regardless of any appeals (be it emotional appeals or what presents as 'logical' argument). So my guiding 'principle' (or whatever driver) would be instinct?  Not sure.  It could be:  lunacy?  LOL [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB'] Martin Heidegger- philosopher stone-and-tile chalet at Todtnauberg, Germany [wikipedia] I can almost feel Martin Heidegger looking at this image.  Enlarge it and feel him on the slopes. todt = dead nau = ??? berg = mountain Jean-François Lyotard French philosopher, sociologist, and literary theorist modernist and postmodern art, literature CRITICAL THEORY music, film, time and memory, space, the city and landscape, the sublime elation between aesthetics and politics / articulation of postmodernism after the late 1970s analysis of the impact of postmodernity on the human condition co-founder:  International College of Philosophy (Paris) under the trusteeship of the French government department of research /  financing is mainly through public funds 'College recognizes that philosophy is better served by being located at "intersections"': Philosophy/Science Philosophy/Law Jacques Derrida is the driver behind the 'intersection' re philosophy approach non-governmental origin *** international span *** not destined to oppose itself supposedly:  designed to to balance and to:  question, open, occupy margins - new this and that WHERE WE WOULD TREAT MORE OF INTERSECTIONS THAN OF ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES {comment:  I don't like the sound of that / stand-alone disciplines sound preferable to me} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll%C3%A8ge_international_de_philosophie Lyotard member of Socialisme ou Barbarie, 1954 socialist org / offshoot of Trotskyist mob (I think) deviated b/c Trotsky analysis could not explain:  new forms of domination in the Soviet Union Socialisme ou Barbarie: objective to conduct a critique of Marxism from within / during the Algerian war of liberation writings focus on Algerian situation & ultra-left of politics Lyotard:  hoped to encourage an Algerian fight for independence from France played an active part in the May 1968 uprisings 1974:  distanced himself from revolutionary Marxism - book:  Libidinal Economy felt that Marxism had a rigid structuralist approach / imposing 'systematization of desires' / via emphasis on industrial production as the ground culture [comment:  what about the capitalist 'systematization of desires' and emphasis on consumption/production?] - early 1950s:  taught at the Lycée of Constantine, Algeria - early 70s taught University of Paris VIII (to 1987) *next two decades* lectured outside France Professor of Critical Theory at the University of California, Irvine +  visiting professor at universities around the world incl: Université de Montréal in Quebec (Canada) University of São Paulo in Brazil founding director and council member Collège International de Philosophie, Paris split his time between Paris and Atlanta (taught philosophy & French, Emory Uni) CHARACTERISED BY: persistent opposition to universals, meta-narratives, and generality fiercely critical of many of the 'universalist' claims of the Enlightenment several of his works serve to undermine the fundamental principles that generate these broad claims Rejected theological underpinnings of: 1.  Karl Marx 2.  Sigmund Freud {comment:  I had to check that again.  Thought 'theological' was a typo.  It's not.  That's what it says in Wikipedia (unless they made a mistake).  What theology?  I would have thought all Marxists are atheists and that even a psychiatrist would have to separate himself from the superstition of 'god'.   What if they're right and I'm wrong and there is this god thing?  LOL} Rejected Theodor W. Adorno's negative dialectics Lyotard is a skeptic for modern cultural thought / impact of the postmodern condition was to provoke skepticism about universalizing theories / due to post WWII advancement of techniques & tech: / we have outgrown our needs for grand narratives grand narratives grand, large-scale theories and philosophies of the world, eg. progress of history, knowability of everything by science, and possibility of absolute freedom Jean-François Lyotard argues against the possibility of justifying the narratives that bring together disciplines and social practices, such as science and culture "the narratives we tell to justify a single set of laws and stakes are inherently unjust." / loss of faith in meta-narratives = effect on perception of science, art, and literature. "Little narratives have now become the appropriate way for explaining social transformations and political problems." [wikipedia] {ie. versus 'meta narratives' } "As metanarratives fade, science suffers a loss of faith in its search for truth, and therefore must find other ways of legitimating its efforts" /  +  world where technology has taken over grand narratives grand, large-scale theories and philosophies of the world, eg. progress of history, knowability of everything by science, and possibility of absolute freedom ceased to believe that narratives of this kind are adequate to represent and contain us all points out: no one seemed to agree: -  on what was real - + everyone had their own perspective and story we:  alert to difference, diversity, the incompatibility of our aspirations, beliefs and desires thus:  postmodernity characterised by an abundance of micronarratives {comment:  I disagree with relevance of these 'micronarratives'} from concept of 'abundance of micronarratives': Lyotard draws from the notion of 'language-games' found in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein /  is based on mapping of society according to the concept of the language games Language-game (philosophy) German:  Sprachspiel philosophical concept - Ludwig Wittgenstein - Friedrich Waismann =  examples of language use and the actions (into which the language is woven) forms of language simpler than the entirety of a language itself (Wittgenstein) rejected the idea that language is somehow separate and corresponding to reality speaking of language is part of an activity / or a form of life =  gives language its meaning Lyotard's discussion re language-game =  primarily applied re contexts of authority, power and legitimation > concerned to mark distinctions between a wide range of activities in which language users engage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game_%28philosophy%29 Lyotard re language-games "The development of history is seen as a steady progress towards civilization or moral well-being" "...  thought that universality is a condition for something to be a properly ethical statement: 'thou shalt not steal' is an ethical statement in a way that 'thou shalt not steal from Margaret' is not. The latter is too particular to be an ethical statement (what's so special about Margaret?); it is only ethical if it rests on a universal statement ('thou shalt not steal from anyone'). But universals are impermissible in a world that has lost faith in metanarratives, and so it would seem that ethics is impossible. Justice and injustice can only be terms within language games, and the universality of ethics is out of the window. Lyotard argues that notions of justice and injustice do in fact remain in postmodernism. The new definition of injustice is indeed to use the language rules from one 'phrase regimen' and apply them to another. Ethical behaviour is about remaining alert precisely to the threat of this injustice, about paying attention to things in their particularity and not enclosing them within abstract conceptuality. One must bear witness to the 'differend.' In a differend, there is a conflict between two parties that cannot be solved in a just manner. However, the act of being able to bridge the two and understand the claims of both parties, is the first step towards finding a solution."  source {comment:  I'm bored now ... might leave it here} source ------------------------------------------- What is the obsession with 'morality'? I never give morality a thought.  Or very rarely. The part about the development of history as steady progress towards 'moral well-being' sounds like crap to me. 'Civilisation' is not a universal benchmark, even from within 'civilised' societies ... let alone the not so civilised. Man is uncivilised. 'Civilisation' is a veneer. Even where civilisation exists to some level, civilisation is fragile.  Chaos is never far away.  And the fall of civilisation is maybe even inevitable. Morality is what?  It is structured by man and it is PARTICULAR to the social order of particular people etc. There can be no 'progress' or progression to what is a particular developmental and historic accident of a particular people, when this is not a universal path or truth.  They're my initial thoughts. So how can you have 'progress' to something that does not exist outside of Frame A Civilisation or Frame B Civilisation, which are not one and the same? Screw 'morality':  I'm thinking it's really is over-rated. What is the point of morality, if the world is full of sociopaths who will screw you at any opportunity, and if the system itself is sociopathic?  LOL I'm starting to think what they call 'morality' is just a secular means of controlling the sheep. It's a huge disadvantage being saddled with 'morality'.  But I think it might be very difficult to cast off whatever sense of 'right' or 'wrong' people are raised with. As for these philosophers:  they lecture in French, American and Canadian universities of capitalists.  So how independent can they possibly be?  LOL Getting back to the Gilad Atzmon video:  I was surprised there was criticism of Naom Chomsky.  I think he's wonderful. And he's sort of cute, like a puppet. Got me wondering whether Gilad Atzmon is some form of 'controlled opposition'  ... LOL Not sure what point he's making. I would argue that non-Jews are not out of the 'debate' loop because they stand back from public debate they consider to be taken care of by the Jewish opposing sides of the debate: few are (a) game or (b) independent or (c) professionally immune from consequences of speaking out and (d) few would be afforded a platform to express contrary viewpoints. If anyone of note is even mildly critical of, say, Israel or Zionism, there is strong opposition, condemnation and international media/public drama coming their way from pro Israel/Zionist organisations, Western media, Jewish journalists and talking heads (as well as the whole of mainstream media ... LOL), various 'progressive' keepers of Western morality etc, along with non-Jewish political allies (which would be probably be just about all the Western mainstream politicians and talking heads).  For an example of the drama politicians can expect for, say, supporting the Palestinians:  look at the drama in the UK, where Jeremy Corbyn was targeted for a political take-down as Labour leader, while Ken Livingstone was crucified by all and sundry.  LOL So (in my opinion) it's not exactly the way Atzmon depicts it, where there's two opposing Jewish sides to a debate, and because they're engaged in this debate, non-Jews willingly step back from a debate, on the basis that the Jewish opposing sides are 'taking care of it' or whatever. There is nobody to engage in such a debate, because there's probably few non-Jewish talking heads that are independent in terms of politics, or 'professional immunity', or independent in terms of ideology, and there's maybe few that can afford the flack. Also, there appears to be concentration of mainstream American media (and entertainment) that is under Jewish control.  Jewish journalists have (proudly) conceded the media and entertainment control in articles, for anyone that wants to look this up.   So that doesn't exactly support the likelihood of presentation of alternative viewpoints or opinions in mainstream media. On top of this, Western journalists, politicians and officials from various countries make official visits to Israel, which is bound to lead to a projection of Israeli influence. If any Western politician is considered to have spoken 'out of turn' (ie be critical in some way of Israel's actions or policies, however mildly), there's a guaranteed hue and cry in the media. I don't think Noam Chomsky is deserving of the criticisms in this video.  Whatever he has said in the videos I've viewed has been sound.  And I don't see him as part of the 'controlled opposition'.  Nor do I see Chomsky as a 'Zionist' (unless Atzmon was kidding, or something?).  Chomsky sounds like a left-leaning academic to me.  But I'm not sure if he is; I've not really taken an interest in his political leanings. As much as I admire Chomsky, Chomsky and I diverge sharply when we enter into refugee territory:  I see absolutely no responsibility on the part of Europeans for taking 'remedial' actions that (a) disadvantage Europeans or (b) divest Europeans or (c) destroy European nations, regardless of what European capitalists and their US-Anglo capitalist partners have done, and however 'responsible' these capitalists and their politicians are for any consequences of foreign policy or intervention abroad. For me, that 'responsibility' does not translate to some follow-up action and the 'responsibility' does not transfer to the European people.  For me the 'responsibility' is simply theoretical:  it's not practical and is not an obligation.  It ends there.  It does not translate to destruction of European society to make 'amends'. I don't know how much of this I'll remember.  Pathetic, considering this isn't even really scratching even the surface.  But I'm just an average person with limited intelligence. Some of this might eventually sink in with repeat exposure on my travels. I'm finishing up with Marc Bolan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYUkAXrqWvY P.S.  ...  I'm not really big on reading about the finitude of time.   It's so depressing being aware that your being - your very existence and your every action - is so pointless and that you are so close to being extinguished eternally. I've added in a couple of key points I missed out on, while I got side-tracked with the philosopher look-ups.

Video - Snowden: Controlled Opposition?

ministry of tokyo “Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.”   ― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin / goodreads Edward Snowden: Controlled Opposition or Double Agent? https://youtu.be/DawLf8AEj44 “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”    ― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin / goodreads COMMENT Just watched this. Got to wondering if this guy is part of the American capitalist controlled faux 'opposition', that is , in fact, acting to reinforce the 'legitimacy' of capitalist rule by playing the part of a 'dissenter' in relation to what is merely one aspect of the function of the capitalist-controlled, capitalist agent, totalitarian, criminal and corrupt US government, which is then publicly being seen to 'correct' itself with useless new legislation, pardons, declarations, awards etc. - thereby,  returning to the status quo that has always been in force, amid applause for pseudo 'democracy', applause for the CIA complaint 'Fourth Estate' American media (that is, in fact, a capitalist-controlled censorship, lies, propaganda and indoctrination organ), followed by awards all round and praise of its agents, upon return to the status quo ... dispensed by the sponsoring capitalist establishment and its applauding controlled 'opposition'? Will think about that while I make another Chicken Terikayki with my wonderful DIY Teriyaki sauce + coleslaw and baked potato with garlic butter.  Potato is done in microwave (wrapped in paper towel, skin on, pricked (abt. 4 mins either side, depending on size). Will fry up chicken fillets whole in cast iron pan, then I'll slice them thinly & throw them into Teriyaki sauce in same pan.  That's the plan. Dessert will have to wait until tomorrow. Craving red jelly, which I haven't had for years.  But that's an overnight job. Wanted to know more about the 'controlled opposition'. Was listening to Gilad Atzmon about the 'Jewish Controlled Opposition', while I was cooking.   But he's hard to understand.  I don't think I understood a thing I was listening to.  Might have to listen to him with headphones on. The Teriyaki Chicken thingy doesn't really go with the European foods.  Not the potato & sour cream, at any rate.  But it's edible.  LOL [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB']  We're having a senseless argument because I got annoyed with being interrupted ... and because I then had another wobbly at being guilt-tripped for getting annoyed.  LOL I can't take decent photos.  I can't keep still and something's wrong with the light.

Tokyo Rose | Hail Kim Jong-un

Planet Tokyo source [It's sending me nuts not being able to centre this. Not sure why.] Need to stop the no-sleep stuff I keep doing. I've woken up feeling like death. Even my face hurts (like a sinus feeling). My eyes feel like they're swollen shut. My back hurts. Everything does. I feel like I'm dying. LOL Woke up to too much light.  I'm not into the light.  I have preference for gloom, wet and darkness these days.  I'd be happy if it was permanently a stormy night. Having a luke warm coffee from the pot that Mr Chinese Water Torture made some time today and left wrapped up on the bench.  Too wrecked to walk to the microwave to warm my cup of coffee or bother making another one. Might check out some news. Same-sex plebiscite 'debate' propaganda that is a homosexuality promo and social engineering, disguised as 'debate'.  Debate about f*cking what?  There's is nothing *to* 'debate'.  Since when is thousands of years of European heritage up for 'debate'? How about an apartheid plebiscite? I seriously think separating disparate groups in capitalist engineered consumer cattle-stations is the ideal solution for normies that want to be left alone in capitalist holding pens with their own kind and their own social and institutional systems etc.  Problems solved. I don't give a f*ck what the indoctrinated, censored and propaganda-fed ignorant masses vote for.   As a normie, I want to live in a traditional normie European society, and fully and irrevocably reject the malevolent, exploitative, political and social system of this hypocritical, lying, indoctrinating, propaganda deploying, nation-destroying US-Anglo Capitalist controlled European and normie divesting 'open societies' (undeclared war on European society) cattle station. And that's not all:  I want thousands of years of traditional European heterosexual, social and institutional, heritage to be preserved and maintained, rather than dismembered and dissolved by US-Anglo Capitalist genocidal social engineers who are destroying European all societies. I can't look at this sh*t any longer, without wishing I was North Korean. Save us, Kim Jong-un. E V R O P A Nordfront | Hu,ha Antifa! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtqLdzHagDQ Sturm 18 Hasta la Vista https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPB9RwMpJX8 Can't find lyrics.  But it's still good. MUSIC | Sturm 18 Deutschland Angela Merkel Willkommen liebe Mörder Vergewaltiger Diebe und anderes Gesindel Song  {Welcome Dear Murderer Rapist Thieves & Other Riff-Raff Song} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccOfJQlc330

Planet Tokyo | Early Morning Wake-up Call

Planet Tokyo EARLY MORNING WAKE-UP CALL Listening To EARLY MORNING WAKE-UP CALL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo9fzsbwTS8 Trying to find music I can get into.   Vaguely like something about this.  I like the constant repetitive percussion bits.  I always do.   And the sort of growling, 'climbing' guitar's nice.  High pitched guitar pisses me off.  I'm more into percussion and bass. Dorky sounding overall.  Too many different sounds.   Someone needs to rework this. I like the repetitive echo sort of thing.   But don't like what seems like the Japanese sound to it.  I think.  Sounds vaguely Japanese with some of the 'thin' music.  The Japanese sounding thing also reminds me of Billy Joel and I don't like Billy Joel.  Think there's only one song of his I like. The value of this lies in the driving beat reverberating.  Does that sound like a Louisiana or Boer South African back-beat?  OMG.  It's the Boer beat.  I love the Boer beat. Germans have done a version: here. I can't decide which one I like better.   I like the deeper sound of #1, I think.  No.  I like both.  I think. Prepared an impromptu Teriyaki Chicken & veg stir-fry with DIY Teriyaki sauce. Used Sweet Sherry instead of Saki.  Varied recipe somewhat. Teriyaki Sauce     1 cup Mirin     1/2 cup Sake     1 cup Japanese shoyu (soy sauce)     1/2 cup dark brown sugar US-ANGLO CAPITALISM RAPES EVERYTHING "popularity of modern, synthetic mirin dates to the post World War II, when Japan’s tax on the authentic, boozy version of mirin rose to 230 percent"  [source] mass reliance on:  "cheaper synthetic stuff" Japanese were probably paying reparations to the US-Anglo capitalists that would have taken control of defeated Japan ... after nuking the Japanese. Think I added more sugar in my version.  And a splash of water because it seemed very strong to me.  I can't remember ... I tasted as I went along and just did whatever.  Also added garlic & ginger paste in mine. Like this recipe, too.   That was so bad I almost threw up.  It was stir-fry with chicken thigh cutlets.  I don't like lumps in my food. It makes me feel like gagging.  Had to spit the chicken out.   Thighs are OK in curry.  But I don't like them stir-fried. That was bad.  Another bad meal.  But at least I didn't burn this one. Side-tracked looking for traditional Boer music.  Found Celtic instead. This is nice.  Very different to the Boer music.  Mood totally clashes with what I was listening to.  This one's a downer. Siuil A Run https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHDPIJbWYpk I don't have a feel for Gaelic (as a language), but I like the sounds. I'm depressed enough already. Changing pace. Highlanders of Holland Afrikaans (West Germanic language - Holland Dutch) folk song c. 1880 - First Anglo-Boer War or 1900 - Second Anglo-Boer War  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw4bSbyiWaw Breton Bagpipes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MrpwtKcl5g I like the feel of this drumming and pipes. When the music stops, I can hear US-Anglo Capitalist TV indoctrination about 'racism'. Wake up, plebs. F*cking capitalist assh*les.  It's just lies.  Nothing but lies from propagandists to the hostage, sitting duck European public in destroyed nations. I want to take a sledgehammer to the TV. CHECK OUT THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF EUROPEAN DIVERSITY US-ANGLO CAPITALISM HAS DESTROYED EXPLOITING THE INFORMATION-CENSORED, INDOCTRINATED, & THE GULLIBLE WITH PR-MAN CRAFTED MANIPULATION & LIES PROMOTING ILLEGITIMATE AND INHERENTLY ANTI EUROPEAN CAPITALIST-SERVING EUROPEAN DESTROYING IDEOLOGY   Irish (Gaelic), Ireland Boer (white Afrikaners) (white South Africans; lang. Afrikaans - derivative of West Germanic, Holland Dutch, settled Africa) Bretons (Brittany, France, Brittonic speakers emigrated from southwestern Britain, incl. Cornwall to avoid invading Germanic peoples) Brittonic speakers (ancient Celtic language). Europeans don't need capitalist 'diversity' that destroys European heritage, identity and existing European diversity.  Don't fall for the lies and manipulation.  Take pride in your unique European heritage. WHY AREN'T THE US-ANGLO CAPITALISTS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAVING THE WHITE SOUTH AFRICAN FARMERS BEING MURDERED BY BLACKS? MIGHT IT BE BECAUSE THEY'RE LYING TO YOU, PLEBS. WHERE'S THE WILLIAM HAGUE & ANGELINA JOLIE US-ANGLO WAR MACHINE 'ANTI-RAPE' IN WAR CAPITALIST PROPAGANDA TEAM WHILE WHITES ARE BEING SADISTICALLY TORTURED & MURDERED IN SOUTH AFRICA? WHY AREN'T WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS RELOCATED TO WHITE NATIONS? Europeans are destroyed by the lie that is anti-European capitalist 'diversity' that destroys European heritage, identity and existing European diversity.

Planet Tokyo | Undeclared War & Insomnia

Planet Tokyo Early morning, Rakotz Bridge (Rakotzbrücke), Germany I've just been told "I can't believe you're up again to steal my coffee". I can't believe it either.  I haven't slept.  At all. We just finished friendly bickering over who's going to have the coffee that was good to go.  I wasn't suppose to be up, so there was only one cup made (and I'm desperate). It's turned out a compromise:  I've got some. I feel really dreadful. It's like my body's in overdrive and I feel so hyped it's like I've been hit by a truck. That probably doesn't make sense. It's like an exhausted super-hyped tension and tiredness feeling. Floaty anxiety when I try to sleep. But it's free-floating anxiety about nothing immediate that I'm aware of. I'm bound to come good one I get some sleep. Right now, I'm too hyped to sleep and too wrecked to do anything useful.  Or even anything useless.  And there's not enough time in the world for all the useless things I'd like to do ... I've got several half finished summaries of things I find interesting. No wonder I don't get anything done.  It takes forever to do my summaries, and my summaries are pretty detailed. I don't know how I got so weird about summarising things I could just read and (hopefully) remember.  It's like I'm afraid if I don't summarise things I won't remember anything at all, which is a strange 'compulsion', or whatever it is, to develop.  Funny thing is, it's not like I remember much, anyway. I'd get through so much more with less messing about with summaries.  So my compulsive thing is counter-productive. US is providing its proxies, ISIS, with bombing raid advantage ahead of ISIS offensives against the Assad government Syrian loyalists ... during a ceasefire (going by the headline). Syria should be able to use any means of force to defend itself.  I'm talking anything:  chemical, nuclear, whatever.  If I were Syria, I'd go Israeli on all the proxy attackers.  Syria is fighting for Syria's very existence, and Syria has the right to defend itself. Nine Americans stabbed in Maceys by a Somalian offender; FBI investigating if terrorism: ... the attacker, who was armed with a knife, reportedly made references to Allah during the attack and asked at least one person whether they were Muslim. But Anderson pointedly declined to call the attacks an act of terrorism, saying the motive isn't yet known. [sctimes] Imagine what the US would be like if they had an intake of the risk demographic the size of Europe's. Speaking of which: German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives have suffered their second electoral blow in two weeks, with Berlin roundly rejecting her open-door refugee policy. Voters turned to the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) on Sunday, which with 12.2 per cent of the vote will enter its tenth regional assembly of the country's 16 states. A year before a federal election, the result is likely to raise pressure on Merkel and deepen divisions within her conservative camp. [here] LOL ... suck it up, Merkel. As entertaining as this is, voting for any political party will not make ANY difference whatsoever. What is called for in all capitalist countries is revolution. European women are getting raped day in day out by foreigners, and raped brutally in gang rape attacks: Three men arrested for gang-raping woman near Eiffel Tower September 19, 20166:39am FRENCH officials say three men have been charged and jailed after a woman was allegedly lured on Facebook by one of them and then gang-raped near the Eiffel Tower. A police official said Friday that three Algerian men were arrested earlier this week in a Paris hotel under suspicion of taking part in the rape of the French woman in the Champ-de-Mars garden, close to the famous tower.  [here] This is an undeclared war. We are at war. Look at this: New York explosion: Governor says blast was ‘act of terrorism’ September 19, 20166:41am ... dumpster blast that hit New York, wounding 29 people, as the governor declared the attack an act of terrorism. Law enforcement sources told The New York Post an unidentified man called police, claiming to be standing at 23rd Street and Seventh Avenue in the aftermath of the blast. “I’m looking at the explosion down the block. There will be more,” he reportedly said. The news comes as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called the Chelsea explosion “an act of terrorism”, but said there was “no evidence” of ties to an international group. The bombing is one of three “terror attacks” on US soil in one day, including a mass stabbing at a Minnesota shopping centre claimed by Islamic State and a pipe bomb explosion in New Jersey ahead of a charity race. [here] Great.  I've already got a sort of phobia about leaving the house.  I don't even like going outdoors — at all — anymore.  That's (partly) why I've been sneaking cigarettes indoors. How am I supposed to want to leave the house ever again? Not that being at home is much better ... but hopefully my 'palatial' abode won't attract home invaders. But ... you just never know your luck in Warlord City. Different devices used in the US attacks.  Might have to go back and read that one properly. Found this amusing, because I don't think it's a real notice.  I bet it's the media and intelligentsia maligned 'right wing' 'neo-nazis' (that aren't really right wing or neo-nazi) that have posted this for laughs: COPS INVESTIGATE SUSPICIOUS WEBSITE Investigators are also reportedly “vetting” an online Tumblr page on which someone claiming to be “the NY Bomber” took responsibility for the blast and said the motive was a response to anti-gay “violence and oppression.” “I don’t know exactly how I feel about taking human lives,” began the post titled ‘Taking a human life.’ “However, what I do know is that if I don’t do what needs to be done nobody will pay attention.” It also said: “I did it because I cannot stand society. I cannot live in a world where homosexuals like myself as well as the rest of the LGBTQ+ community are looked down upon by society.” The website has been taken down.  [ibid] Looking at this stuff has relaxed me a little.  Hopefully, I might crash soon. Think I might go out for a cigarette.