OUTSIDE THE BUBBLE

 Sometimes I think that the world has gone mad, but then I remember that, perhaps, it has always been going mad. Did not Thomas Middleton title his play It’s a Mad World, My Masters more than four centuries ago? Then I reflect that this time, however, it’s true, the world really has gone mad.

Friends of mine send me news items that prove it. Of course, I don’t know how representative these items are of life at large—personally, I live in a little bubble of sanity. But I am prepared to believe that outside my bubble all is worse than mere neurosis; it is outright psychosis.

I received two items from friends today that prove that the world has gone completely mad. The first was about an emeritus professor of medicine called Stanley Goldfarb at the University of Pennsylvania. Professor Goldfarb has questioned whether the fact that hospital residents of certain ethnic groups received worse assessments than others for their work as residents can be attributable only to the racism of the assessors. He was immediately denounced, including by former colleagues whom he had thought of as friends, but the real madness of all this was that the dean of the medical faculty immediately offered “mental-health counseling” to those young doctors who may have been traumatized by reading the emeritus professor’s publicly expressed question.

This suggests that everything that one reads that is potentially disobliging to oneself counts as a trauma, and that for every trauma there is an equal and opposite way of overcoming it, namely “mental-health counseling,” or some such technique known only to the professionals.

Do you want to be treated by a doctor who is himself so “traumatized” by something as trivial as this that he needs “help” to overcome it?

At the risk of appearing slightly egotistical, let me relate a trauma of my own. I had published a little book arguing that, contrary to the present pusillanimous orthodoxy, drug addiction, particularly that to heroin, is not an illness but a defect of will, no doubt encouraged by our culture and the bureaucracy that needs addicts more than addicts need it. I did not expect everyone to agree with me and accept that more than one view is possible; but when The Lancet, one of the principal medical journals in the world, published a review in which the reviewer claimed that not only was my book wrong but badly written, I was traumatized.

I didn’t mind being wrong, of course; anyone can be wrong. But in fact I rather prided myself on the style of my prose in the book, which I thought was both effective and witty. It was a terrible blow to the self-esteem to which I am entitled by virtue of being a human being and drawing breath.

The question naturally arose in my mind, as it would in that of any normal decent citizen in these circumstances, as to whom I could sue. Alas, the courts, psychologically still so primitive and retrograde at the time, would probably have ruled that this outrageous slur on my writing was what might be called “fair comment.” As it was, I was so traumatized by the review that I could not put pen to paper, or finger to keyboard, for at least a half hour after reading it.

I should point out also that the reviewer willfully and dishonestly misrepresented what I wrote. It threatened his livelihood, if taken au sérieux by those with purse strings.

The second example of the world’s madness that was sent to me today was a report that the BBC had refused to use the word he or him in its report of a case in which a transsexual man—I use the word to mean a man who is trying by various means to change into a woman—raped a woman. Instead, the rapist was referred to, somewhat ungrammatically, as they or them. Apparently, the matter was one of intense debate within the BBC, whose staff apparently have nothing more urgent to do.

The victim of the rape, a lesbian, said that “He [the rapist] threatened to out me as a terf [a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, for those not au courant with the latest correct terminology] and risk my job if I refused to sleep with him. I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so he was a woman even if every fibre of my being was screaming throughout, so I agreed to go home with him. He used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing his penis and [he] raped me.”

I confess that when I received my friend’s message, I wondered whether it was not fake news. After all, thanks to technical advance, almost anything can be made to appear real or the opposite of what it really is, or indeed anything in between. I no longer feel confident in distinguishing the real from the virtual, but in this case it seems that all is true, the BBC really did refuse to use the words he and him with regard to the rapist, or alleged rapist, who “identified” as a woman.

I recently saw that a Japanese man had spent a vast amount of his money on a collie dog costume that was really very good of its type. He wanted, apparently, to find out what it was like to be a dog, and so he now walks around in his costume on four limbs, though I have to admit that he has some way to go before anyone would take him for an actual collie, at least one that is less than 53 years old. But, as we know, if you play at being something long enough, what you play at becomes what you are (for example, Boris Johnson playing the buffoon), so that one day the Japanese man may claim actually to be a collie.

It’s a mad world, my masters. I wouldn’t mind it so much were it not so boring to have to argue against evident absurdity. If one does not do so, however, the absurdity becomes unchallengeable orthodoxy in no time at all.

Theodore Dalrymple’s latest book is Ramses: A Memoir, published by New English Review

https://michaelpsenger.substack.com/p/one-giant-fraud 

STONE AGE BRAIN (DEAD)

It is worth noting a singular example of the marketing effect on dreams and desires. Stiegler quotes a 15 year old French boy who says his peers no longer dream of a family or career, because they believe they will be the last (or next to last) generation. Insert the pre-fabricated ‘Greta’ figure, a fully corporate bankrolled symbol of ‘youth’ (with a Volkish subtext), pitching draconian green capitalist notions and appearing everywhere in media, including the covers of several major glossy magazines. This is another aspect of appropriation. The fascist sensibility is one already interrupted in a sense. (see Anders Breivik for example). The stories that come from the digital hegemonic media are ones of catastrophe: nuclear annihilation, pandemics, environmental apocalypse. Behind each there is another story, the story of profit. And like the disappearing of Khartoum or Colombo, there is the disappearing of dissent. The disappearing, certainly, of entire populations who evidence skepticism. But Stiegler is very perceptive in recognizing the absence of (what he calls) an epoch. Which is, really, another way of describing the constant de-contextualizing of digital media.

“This is what I have called, in pursuing the reflections of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, societies of hyper-control. These societies, however, are no longer quite societies, if it is true that a society is constituted only within an epoch: they are aggregations of individuals who are increasingly disindividuated (disintegrated). More and more, this is leading to the rise of that new kind of barbarism glimpsed in 1944, the contemporary realization of which is what we are here calling disruption. The reconstitution of a true automatic society can occur only by establishing a true economy of sharing – whereas what the current disruption produces is, on the contrary, a diseconomy of sharing, that is, a destruction of those who share by the means of what they share.”
Bernard Stiegler (Ibid)

“Images detached from every aspect of life merge into a common stream, and the former unity of life is lost forever’… ‘the unity it imposes is merely the official language of generalized separation… and ‘The phenomenon of separation’ is part and parcel of the unity of the world.”
Guy Debord (Ibid)

“Both Lukács and Korsch (and then Gramsci 1975; and Althusser 1971) suggest a new battleground for political struggle that goes beyond surplus value extraction and is concerned with production and reproduction of social relationships and subjectivities operating at the level of an ideological and culturally material battleground.”
Marco Briziarelli and Emiliana Armano (The Spectacle 2.0)

Taken together these quotes touch on the essential question of the destruction of the social. (and again, it was Cory Morningstar who used that term in her analysis of the ‘Great Reset’). Capital is still the engine, only now value extraction is situated within a process of extracting the human from humanity.

One of the most prominent qualities of the US/NATO/Russia discourse is that the US project, the NATO expansion as part of total global domination, does not even quite make sense to those driving it. The Rand Corporation and CATO institute et al are home to singularly myopic sociopaths. Men and women who are actually among the least aware of history and least able to grasp the contours of the destruction they cause. The CIA and Pentagon are home to equally disturbed individuals. One of the things Debord hinted at was the detachment from reality in the ruling class.

But returning to the psychic disfigurement occurring through screen habituation. I think one of the very under explored subjects in analysing the current malaise is how cyberspace affects childhood development. How the loss of attention (more on that below) in the caregiver or parent, the mediation of screens, effects social relations for the child later in life.

“In the Oedipus complex, the subject identifies with the father, who imposes the prohibition of the child’s desire for the mother. By identifying with the father, the child no longer identifies with a mirrored image or with a similar one, such as the mother or a brother. Through the father, the child identifies with a language and culture.”
Luca M. Posatti (Ibid)

Now, this libidinal withdrawal, this introversion, often the result of narcissistic fear, or of schizophrenic anxiety, is given expression through an aesthetics of sentimentality and bathos, and in the intellectual comfort of a manichean simplicity that makes clear who to cheer and who to boo. The master narrative for most NATO aggressions follows the trusted formula of enemy depravity and the redemptive quality of American violence. To use the title of Richard Slotkin, regeneration through violence. The narcissistic bourgeois culture of north America tends toward both Rockwellian sentimentality, and fetishistic visual caressing of weaponry. The sentimentality is so ubiquitous that it passes without real notice. Narratives in Hollywood TV drama, cop shows in particular, are saturated to a degree hard to describe. It is so pervasive that even the most rudimentary gesture or remark has linkage to the familiar emotions of sentimentality.

Amalia Ramanankirahina

The abdication of cultural authority to commericial product began in earnest after WW2. It accelerated greatly in the 70s. I have written of this timeline before. It was the week Freidkin’s masterpiece Sorcerer was released, a week in which Star Wars was also released. One made a lot of money and one did not. The political in art is not in the content. In fact the agit prop end of culture is among the most boring. No, the political is the unconscious, the contemplative, and the spiritual. I use political in a very broad sense, but it is the examination of otherness.

“I believe, however, that aesthetic ambition in this sense has today largely collapsed. And this is because a huge proportion of the population is totally subjected to the aesthetic conditioning of marketing, now hegemonic for the vast majority of the world, and is, therefore, estranged from any experience of aesthetic investigation.”
Bernard Stiegler (Symbolic Misery)

When I think of great film art I think of Bresson, or Fassbinder, of Antonioni perhaps, and Pasolini certainly. Of Dryer and Val Lewton and Siodmak and Welles and Ford. One of the most difficult aspects of teaching film (as I did at the Polish National Film School) is breaking down this functional stupidity in the students. The difficulty of explaining why Bresson is radical, and even political in a very real sense. Or trying to correct why these same students saw the wrong political in Fassbinder. But I am meandering again. The point is that the loss of aesthetic ambition, as Stiegler put it, is a greasing of the path to fascism. The camp and kitsch aesthetics, too, soon imploded on themselves and were unable to prevent the evolution to wokeness and the policing of opinion. The idiotic pronoun wars feed the simplistic ahistoricism of NATO/Ukraine. Virtue signaling is the backdoor of authoritarianism. Women’s sports infiltrated by men expresses a pathological misogyny. For genuine aesthetic ambition is in the mysteries of our desires and fears.

Art (and culture) also include a moral and ethical dimension.

“Deleuze defined the act of creation as an “act of resistance.” Resistance to death, first of all, but also resistance to the paradigm of information, through which power is exercised in what he calls “control societies,” to distinguish them from the disciplinary societies analyzed by Foucault. Each act of creation resists something—for example, Deleuze says, Bach’s music is an act of resistance against the separation of the sacred from the
profane.”
Giorgia Agamben (Creation and Anarchy)

Agamben notes Wittgenstein’s remark (in his notes for a preface to Philosophical Investigations) that “how having to resist the pressure and friction that an age that is lacking in culture—which his age was for him and certainly ours is for us —opposes to creation ends up dispersing and fragmenting the forces of an individual. ” (Ibid) The language of art and culture today has been trivialized, and this has made for some rather significant problems. But these problems overlap with the loss of interpretation. For the artist is always his own interpreter. The automatic reticular society, the society in which the artist lives, is (per Stigler) always too late. When philistine critics speak of artists ‘exploring’ this or that, they have no idea what they are writing. Its just filler. It means nothing, literally. Now, to back up a second, Agamben spends a good deal of time in one of the essays in the Creation and Anarchy collection on this idea of potential. I don’t want to get too far into that right here, but the superficial quality of contemporary culture speaks to a kind of creative exhaustion. Not that there is nothing to create but that artists (sic) create anything. Writers write whatever pops into their heads, painters just go about wasting paint (if they are affluent) and never contemplating that *resistance* is partly a choosing not-to.

“…tastelessness is always a not being able not to do something.”
Giorgio Agamben (Ibid)

The ethical aspect is tied to these various forms of withholding. In a culture of such absolute commodification, the reified haunts all creative endeavour. And it is worth quoting this paragraph from Agamben, because what is being said here can be extrapolated further in the social:

“What is poetry if not an operation in language that deactivates and renders inoperative its communicative and informative functions in order to open them to a new possible use? Or, in Spinoza’s terms, the point at which language, having deactivated its utilitarian functions, rests in itself and contemplates its potential to say. In this sense, Dante’s Commedia, Leopardi’s Canti, and Caproni’s Il seme del piangere are the contemplation of the Italian language; Arnaut’s sestina is the contemplation of the Provençal language; Trilce and the posthumous poems of Vallejo are the contemplation of the Spanish language; Rimbaud’s Illuminations are the contemplation of the French language; Hölderlin’s hymns and Trakl’s poetry are the contemplation of the German language.”
Giorgio Agamben (Ibid)

Rothko’s work was a contemplation of colour — but such a contemplation becomes more than just about colour. Take Bresson’s Au Hasard Balthazar, a film I think is often miss-read. And far from my favorite Bresson. But one aspect is that it’s Bresson’s contemplative unpacking of the American western. Somewhere in an interview Welles spoke of hating things, activities, artforms, that had become folkloric. He meant bullfighting in that instance but it applies to any form that has lost its social relevance (and relevance is an insufficient word but will have to do for now). Japanese Noh drama is now folkloric. The writings, the theory, the form remains exquisite, but it is no longer a part of Japanese culture. I think cinema is going through a stage of transition. The other end of which is not yet clear. But one cannot make L’Aventura today, or Out of the Past for that matter. Or The Searchers or Ordet. I am not sure ‘feature length’ films can be made that are relevant. And part of the change is because of digital technology and streaming services and how extended narratives are consumed (experienced). The ‘binge’ phenomenon became popular for a number of reasons, including economic (its cheaper to stay home) but most importantly because even if the series is terrible, the extended narrative provides relief. It may be a transitory and superficial relief, but it provides space for something resembling contemplation.

But what does it mean to say Rothko’s paintings were a contemplation of colour?

“For this reason, the crisis that Europe is going through—as should be evident in the dismantling of its university institutions and in the growing museification of culture—is not an economic problem (“economy” today is a shibboleth and not a concept) but a crisis of the relationship with the past. Since obviously the only place in which the past can live is the present, if the present is no longer aware of its past as living, then universities and museums become problematic places. And if art has today become for us an eminent figure—perhaps the eminent figure—of this past, then the question that we must never stop posing is: what is the place of art in the present?”
Giorgio Agamben (Ibid)

This is a question that I posed in the last workshop I conducted in LA about four years ago. For it is a crucial question, and this idea of an erased past, a lost sense of history, is tied into both computational capitalism and the psychic effects of media, both in an ideological sense, but also a psychoanalytic sense. Our retreat from the world, the substitution of a virtual real for the actual real, is an allegory. Kafka certainly looms as the most prescient writer of how ‘living’ allegory might work — the pandemic created an allegorical frame for wealth transference (further wealth transference) to the top one percent. It also framed a narcissistic hypocondria, and a sense of foreboding that has been a big part of the rise of this new fascism globally. And smart phone usage has intensified the repetitive compulsive part of small motor function, but it also has changed how people read, when they Adam Garfinkle, in National Affairs, has a piece on just this. Needless to say, since this IS National Affairs, the general points made tend toward the reactionary, but that said, it is more than a little interesting to see Henry Kissinger quoted and then to agree with him.

Garfinkle writes: “Deep reading alone creates the possibility of a private internal dialogue with an author not physically present.” (National Affairs, Spring 2020) And this reminds me of a very distinct memory I have of reading. I was only about 16 or so, and was reading Nietzsche. And I had a feeling of ‘knowing’ Nietzsche. Of having this conversation in a sense, with a man dead for a hundred years. And it is a profound memory, and I remember it with great clarity. Now Garfinkle quotes Ortega y Gasset, from Revolt of the Masses:

But there are a couple of points I want to address, because I wonder if they are actually true, per se. One is the idea that, what Garfinkle calls (well he quotes Richard Cytowic), ‘stone age brains ‘ were not as reflective, not as active in some fashion as our own. Actually hunter gatherer societies only spent 20% of their waking lives hunting and gathering (sic). What were they doing the rest of the time? Watching the stars I suspect, watching nature, tracking the changes of the seasons. But little is really known of those very early communities, other than they changed very little for thousands of years. But by the time of the ancient Egyptians, who were highly sophisticated thinkers, man was likely just as agile mentally as humans today. So here we have a contemporary scientist falling prey to his own critique. He is assuming technology equals progress and I have to come to suspect it doesn’t equal progress even a little bit.

“In science fiction, the typical worry is that machines will become human-like; the more pressing problem now is that, through the thinning out of our interactions, humans are becoming machine-like. That raises the possibility that the more time we spend with machines and the more dependent on them we become, the dumber we tend to get since machines cannot determine their own purposes.”
Adam Garfinkle (Ibid)

But this is pretty much just an interesting popular magazine version of this topic, though one with surprisingly cogent points.

“For absolute freedom in art, always limited to a particular, comes into contradiction with the perennial unfree­dom of the whole.”

Theodor Adorno (Aesthetic Theory) 

The Fascist and Syndicalist species…characterized by…a type of man who did not care to give reasons or even to be right, but who was simply resolved to impose his opinions. That was the novelty: the right not to be right, not to be reasonable: ‘the reason of unreason’.”

.The importance of art lies in its relationship to culture, and culture is social. There is no culture if everyone is at home staring at screens, regardless of what is on those screens. Even in film, the audience, sitting together, and together focusing their attention on that particular screen, is a kind of communal experience. And even if I sit in an empty theatre and watch that particular film, my experience is shared (unless I am the only one who ever watched that particular film). For I am aware of that absent audience. There is something in digital technology, something perhaps even beyond the manipulations of social media platforms and the like, something in the very technics of cyber experience that is isolating. It siphons off the sort of attention one associates with reading, or watching theatre, and it replaces it (without ones knowing it or being aware of it) with another kind of ersatz attention. This ersatz attention is deadening. By which I mean it is an attention that eliminates the social and the shared, and replaces it with unawareness. A kind of morbid focus from which it is actually hard to break free. Television does something like this, too. People watch in a way that makes them oblivious to the space around them. When one reads or listens to music attentively, contemplatively, one certainly withdraws from what is going on near them, but it is not a withdrawal from the world. Like my experience with Nietzsche, I felt I knew this voice, and I knew others, millions of others over a hundred some years, had known this voice as well. This is one aspect of ‘tradition’ that I keep returning to, though I fear the word tradition carries the wrong connotations. When watching a computer screen the viewer is alone, and has always been alone in a sense, and will always be alone, too. There is no cultural horizon, and today’s viewer is anyway uninterested in a shared interior discourse. Its important to note here that the real war going on remains a class war. For most of the planet don’t own screens. These people are not the target demographic for any marketing firm. They are surplus humanity in the eyes of the 1%. And increasingly in the eyes of those whose identification is with that 1%.

“Philosophical aesthetics found itself confronted with the fatal alterna­tive between dumb and trivial universality on the one hand and, on the other, arbi­trary judgments usually derived from conventional opinions.”
Theodor Adorno (Ibid)

Adorno, interestingly notes two examples of scientific discoveries launching aesthetic correctives (as it were) Piero della Francesca’s discovery of arial perspective, and the Florintine Camerata, out of which Opera originated. And pointillism and some impressionism that (wrongly but never mind) sought to manipulate retinal discoveries. But nothing has come out of digital screen experience. If anything it has simply taken much away. These reflections are to be considered in the shadow of cognitive decline — or if you are an optimist –change. The contemporary subject cannot escape consuming the junk out there. (unless you follow the Ted Kaczynski path). When I asked the question of what is the role of art, in that workshop in LA, the best non answer I could find was that we who believe in the seriousness of art are to be like Coptic monks in the desert who keep safe the sacred scrolls of antiquity. Our retreat as allegory, again. But a retreat that is not nihilistic. For computational capital IS nihilistic.

https://john-steppling.com/2022/05/stone-age-brain/

 

 

On Adam Curtis's BBC Docs

 

With his BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, Adam Curtis is another example of an intellectual who barely scratches the thin surface of Neocon propaganda, and believes the thick layer of lies under it. Curtis believes that, during the Cold War, Strauss and the Straussians wanted to provide Americans with a mythic evil enemy, as a way “to rescue the country from moral decay, . . . to re-engage the public in a grand vision of America’s destiny, that would give meaning and purpose to their lives.” Of course, Curtis then has to explain why, under this lofty patriotic rationale, the Neocons drew the United States into illegitimate wars causing irremediable damage to the nation. Curtis couldn’t convince himself that the Neocons start world wars just to lift up Americans’ spirit. So he speculates instead that the Neocons are so stupid that they fell for their own lies: “what had started out as the kind of myth that Leo Strauss had said was necessary for the American people increasingly came to be seen as the truth by the neoconservatives. They began to believe their own fiction” (episode 1). And again in episode 2: “in the 1970s . . . Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other neoconservatives had set out to reassert the myth of America as a unique country, whose destiny was to struggle against evil throughout the world. Now in power, they had come to believe this myth. They saw themselves as revolutionaries who were going to transform the world, starting with the defeat of the Evil Empire.”[16]

The Neocons are so self-delusional, according to Curtis, that they were deceived by their own lie a second time, ending up believing in the phony “War on Terror” that they had made up initially for the sole purpose of keeping the American morale high after the fall of the USSR. They had decided to create the fantasy of “a powerful network of evil, controlled from the center by bin Laden from his lair in Afghanistan . . . because it fitted with their vision of America’s unique destiny to fight an epic battle against the forces of evil throughout the world.” But again, according to Curtis, the Neocons started believing their own lie, which led them to innocently destroy the Middle East and American democracy in the process: “the neoconservatives were now increasingly locked into this fantasy, and next they set out to uncover the network in America itself.” I wonder if Curtis himself believes what he is saying, or just pretends to. Whatever the case, it shows the efficiency of the two-storied lie. It is a dialectical strategy: the first-level liars must be able to count on the second-level liars and their useful idiots—the controlled opposition—to cover them while pretending to expose them. For example, Israel-firsters need a Chomsky to shield them from the accusation of treason and tell Americans with half-a-brain that, whatever bad Israel does, she does it because America makes her do it (“The Fateful Triangle” theory)

In the case of 9/11, Israel is hiding behind two false flags: under the first-level lie—“Al-Qaeda did it”—was planted the second-level lie (or half-lie)—“America did it”—, as the late and blessed Victor Thorn explained in 2011:

In essence, the “9-11 truth movement” was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. By 2002–2003, “truthers” began appearing at rallies holding placards that read “9-11 was an inside job.” Initially, these signs provided hope for those who didn’t believe the government and mainstream media’s absurd cover stories. But then an awful realization emerged: The slogan “9-11 was an inside job” was quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised

Zionism and Machiavellianism are such twin concepts in the Straussian outlook that Strauss’s disciple Michael Ledeen, a founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), hypothesized that Machiavelli was a secret Jew. “Listen to his political philosophy, and you will hear the Jewish music,” wrote Ledeen, citing Machiavelli’s contempt for the nonviolent ethics of Jesus and his admiration for the pragmatism of Moses, who was able to kill thousands from his own tribe in order to establish his authoritys

If a nation’s spirit results from the threat—real or imaginary—of its enemy, as Strauss believes, then Israel has the strongest spirit, because she sees the rest of the world as her enemies. The Jews are “the people chosen for universal hatred,” as proto-Zionist Leo Pinsker wrote in his booklet Auto-Emancipation (1882).[24] There is a dialectical complementarity between the perceived threat of extermination and the struggle for world domination, for the latter is the only way to overcome the former. This is the essence of the Jewish paranoia inoculated by the Bible

Isaiah, the Zionists’ favorite prophet, also said: “the nation and kingdom that will not serve you will perish, and . . . will be utterly destroyed” (60:12); “You will suck the milk of nations, you will suck the wealth of kings” (60:16); “You will feed on the wealth of nations, you will supplant them in their glory” (61:6). This is the biblical blueprint of the Zionist World Order, also promised by Israel’s jealous devil in Deuteronomy: “devour all the peoples whom Yahweh your god puts at your mercy, show them no pity” (7:16); “he will raise you higher than every other nation he has made” (28:1); “You will make many nations your subjects, yet you will be subject to none” (28:12).

If we don’t dig into the biblical roots of Zionism, we cannot understand Zionism. Ben-Gurion often said that, “There can be no worthwhile political or military education about Israel without profound knowledge of the Bible.”[26] That statement should be taken seriously. If it is true for the Israeli leadership — and Benjamin Netanyahu would certainly not object —, then it is also true for all serious analysts: there can be no real understanding of Israel and its longtime goal, without knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. The Zionist conspiracy for world supremacy is written there in plain language.

Yahweh is a sociopathic god, and Yahweh is the god of Israel, therefore Israel is a sociopathic nation. This is the simple truth of Zionism, the equation from which 9/11 ultimately derives.

                               

FDR

 

 

 

 

 

How Low Can You Go?

 Remember the limbo? It was a dance fad kind of like the Olympic high jump in reverse: instead of leaping over a horizontal bar, you duck-walked under it to calypso music, with the crowd squealing, “How low can you go?” As it happens, in the culture of Western Civ, Limbo is also the name of a place on the edge of Hell. Either way, you have an apt metaphor for the spot that the USA is in as we enter the summer of double-deuce.

Lots of things are going south all at once: the stock markets and bond prices, Bitcoin is doing a vanishing act. The Colorado River reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, are so low that, by September, both water and electricity may run out for a vast region that includes Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Southern California. The housing market is tanking (suburbia’s business model is broken). Whole herds of beef cattle roll over and die out on the range. Fertilizer is scarce. Food processing plants get torched by the dozen. Shortages loom.

The oil-and-gas industry is getting killed four ways: 1) our stupid Russia sanctions queered longstanding global distribution arrangements; 2) the industry is starved for capital; 3) depletion is seriously kicking in; and 4) “Joe Biden” and the knuckleheads running the EU countries are trying to kill it so as to usher in a Green New Deal that just doesn’t pencil-out.

The car dealers have no new cars on their lots, and pretty soon they’ll run out of decent used cars — which, these days, are often priced higher than the non-existent new cars. How’s that for a business model? Plus, the financially beaten-up middle-class can’t afford cars in either case, and increasingly can’t qualify for car loans.

The airline industry reels with a sucking chest wound due to a pilot shortage (thanks to vaxx mandates) and the high cost of jet fuel. The trucking industry’s business model is also broken with diesel fuel over six dollars a gallon — the cost of delivery exceeds the value of the cargo. America runs on trucks and if they stop running, so does everything else. Replacement parts are growing scarce for every mechanical device in the land. It’s getting harder to fix anything that’s broken.

“Joe Biden’s” proxy war against Russia in Ukraine isn’t working out. It was flamboyantly stupid from the get-go. We deliberately broke the Minsk agreements for a cease-fire in the Donbas to goad the Russians into action. NATO didn’t have the troops or the political mojo to back up its US-inspired bluster. Our financial warfare blew back in our faces and actually benefited the Russian economy and its currency, the ruble. The billions of dollars in weapons we’re sending into the war are easily interdicted in transport, or else are getting loose in a world of non-state maniacs ranging from the Taliban to al Qaeda to drug cartels.

Meanwhile, Russia steadfastly grinds out a victory on-the-ground that will leave it in control of the Black Sea and will reveal the USA’s lost capacity to impose its will around the world. In other words, our Ukraine project “to weaken Russia” brought on an epochal shift in the balance of power to our enormous disadvantage. This is on top of more than twenty years of US military fiascos from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to North Africa, to Syria which demonstrated our reckless disregard for human life and a gross inability to carry out a mission. This aggregate failure and display of weakness leaves us vulnerable to Chinese aggression in the Pacific. There is even spooky chatter now about China venturing to invade Australia, Japan, and the USA mainland. Yes, really.

With all this to be concerned about, half the American public, and the “Joe Biden” regime they insist they elected, remain in thrall to the Covid-19 horror movie and at the mercy of the deadly mRNA pharmaceutical products that were magically waiting in-advance of the outbreak to profit on it. But now, all the cover stories are falling apart. It’s getting harder to conceal the deaths and injuries caused by the vaccines, including a striking drop in fertility and the permanent damage to millions of people’s immune systems that will lay them low with cancer, neurological illness, and cardiovascular disease in the months ahead.

The CDC / FDA / Pharma cabal’s strategy-for-now: keep bluffing and quintupling down on their cover up — they just sweepingly approved mRNA shots for babies. Why? To extend the emergency use authorization that shields Pfizer and Moderna from liability. It won’t work long, of course, because under settled law fraud vacates that kind of protection, and the public health officials with their Pharma cronies have orchestrated the deadliest fraud in human history.

If there is an American nation left in a year or so, with a functioning legal system, the players in this cabal are going to land in witness chairs to explain why they killed so many people. (“We were following The Science,” they’ll say. Uh-huh….) By then, no one will believe their bullshit and it will be off to the American limbo known as Palookaville for the likes of Fauci, Collins, Gates, Bourla, Bancel, Walensky and the gang.

To try to head-off anything like that, the “Joe Biden” regime just announced a second attempt to control the news-flow with a White House Disinformation Task Force, to replace the ludicrous Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board that flopped so miserably in May when its appointed chief, Ms. Jankowicz, turned out to be a prime purveyor of disinformation. The new Disinfo Task Force, led by Veep Kamala Harris — who performed so well in her previous assignment as Border Czar — is pretending to be all about online sexual harassment and gender bigotry. I’m sure….

It won’t work. “Joe Biden” is running on empty. His regime staggers on in a delirium and an odium, like one of those groaning, brain-leaking zombies on cable-TV. The voters are poised to unload two barrels of buckshot to this monster’s head in November if we are not prevented from holding elections by yet another bogus “emergency.” Until then, we’re in a race to see just how the Party of Chaos completes the destruction of the economy, which is the prelude to the people of the USA destroying the Party of Chaos.

 

 

Why are they wasting time if there's no emergency? Here's why, they have to get it on the childhood vaxx schedule to preserve immunity from legal liability. That's why they are jamming it through despite no real efficacy...they know that the jig is up

 The same guy that talks about reducing the population is pushing the poison. Think about that. You don't need a PHD to see what is going on.

 

 

Under the aegis of the World Health Organization and with financial backing from H. B., I’m starting a global dating service, Analfuck69 (H’s idea). In this era of social isolation, economic hardship, cultural degradation, screen addiction and food shortages, it’s getting harder to make friends, much less go on a date. Still, no man, woman, transsexual or child should have to masturbate alone, so stop it now! Whatever your perversion(s), you’ll find your perfect match(es), sort of, on Analfuck69. With endless virtual partners, you can stroke together until Armageddon. (Though it may come next week, there will be no refund on your lifetime subscription. Sorry!)

It all started with Hunter giving me shit, “What the fuck are you doing, man?! Sweating your balls off for chump change on SubStack! What the fuck is SubStack?! You’re what, 59, 60, and you ain’t got dogshit. That’s because you’ve been playing junior varsity whiffle ball all these years! We’ll move you up to single A, at least. You brag about eating a $15 bowl of sashimi. Shit, man, I spend more than that on a peanut! I’m just trying to help you out, dude. With Analfuck69, we can be pimps together.”

“Hey, don’t say that word! We’ll bring people together. Love, peace and all that bullshit. You’ll never stroke alone!”

“Now you’re thinking! Join Analfuck69. You’ll never stroke alone!”

As our world comes tumbling down, it’s too apt so many of us have consented to having our most gregarious orifice blocked. Not yet acculturated, babies don’t understand this fear, but they, too, have been muzzled, such is our collective madness

.