REALITY CHECK: Can we get real for 2 minutes?

The 2016 Presidential Race has nothing to do with the struggle to repair this broken, malignant and disease-ridden country. You know it, I know it, and I’m about to prove it to most peoples’ satisfaction.

Peter Klein : Independent Media Solidarity
Scott Anthony : Flash News Network
This Article in PDF Format : A New President? Try Again, America – PDF

My prediction of how people would react to the 2016 Presidential Race heating up has been very accurate. I don’t usually make such predictions, however, this year I’ve been more interested in gauging our prospects for achieving a peaceful resolution to certain key problems than ever before. Rather than looking at political promises, key events or various forecasts, I’ve been looking more carefully at the demographics of Americans to estimate those prospects.

The system is so irreparably ruined by corruption, criminality and “cronyism” that only an intervention by people on the outside can bring it to heel. The 2016 election will likely unfold according to the script while Americans of all political persuasions are relegated to spectators. Which Americans have the best strategy to regain control, and as the cliché says, “take our country back?” The following is one, possible breakdown of the American citizenry and body politic. This is what we have to deal with; the reality as I see it.

The average American has been trending toward uninformed, with heavy reliance on their State, Local and Federal Government, and their related Agencies, to fix everything for years. Based upon major media polls and research firms, it is fair to estimate that this group constitutes a majority. For the sake of this report, I’ve chosen to lump them in with the totally neutral, apathetic Americans; the “blind following sheep” we’re always hearing about. In my estimates, this combined group makes up 50%, conservatively.

It might seem that we’re half way to completing our breakdown. But from here it becomes more nuanced. Isn’t it interesting that, as people become more intelligent, informed, politically aware, grounded in their beliefs and generally more complicated, they become an increasingly smaller minority?

It would be a safe bet that these (more informed) people are better equipped to deal with a smaller peer group as well. Might these, smaller groups also be inherently more conservative, have fewer children, be more competitive and more focused on the future as well?

The remaining 50% of Americans might best be distinguished as actually giving a rat’s ass. Although the degree to which they do varies considerably. For instance, a wandering Ron Paul supporter gives the most of a rat’s ass, while the feminist sent by central casting who’s going to vote for Hillary solely on the basis of gender gives only a slender, but highly vocal, slice of a rat’s ass. But what distinction can be used to best divide this group?

Would it be more accurate to divide the group simply along left/right paradigm lines? Or, would some other factor or characteristic outweigh this entrenched partisanship? This is not to say that Liberalism and Conservatism as generally defined don’t exist, as they certainly do. However, we will need to re-define them in very new and different ways and may even have identified a revolutionary biological or even evolutionary explanation for these fluent ideologies and some of the changes that exist within them currently.

I’ve thought for years now that the appearance of vast differences between our two political parties was thinner than a wet slice of single-ply toilet-tissue paper. If one were to review the actual voting records, platform stands and talking-points, one might discover that there is no significant difference at all. Once one gets past rhetoric and scare-tactics, the “establishment” starts to look a lot more like some as yet-undiscovered secret club. Let’s call it, Jerk & Jester.

In doing some in-depth research, I have concluded that there is one factor that overwhelmingly determines a person’s political ideology or general personality. For the sake of this report, let’s call this group the “creative thinking” or “imaginative thinking” people. These two thought processes also involve how a person views the world, whether they do so in a uni-dimensional or multi-dimensional fashion. In short, it seems that “creative thinking” people tend to think multi-dimensionally. For the sake of argument, let’s assume this is better.


What really firmed up my theory was what I noticed about authors of both fiction and nonfiction. I’ve never been all that interested in fiction. I’ve long thought the reason for this was, as a creative person I don’t require creative “training wheels”. I see our collective reality and our vast history as being far more exciting and interesting than any fictional construct. By writing this, I mean no offense to the brilliant writers of fiction or even those who maybe aren’t so brilliant at it. To each their own; beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?

My working theory is that, some writers of fiction are so horribly lacking in creativity that they become authors in an effort to either build something or at least build the persona of a creative individual, even if they really aren’t. It is actually quite depressing when one thinks about it.

However, taking a look at what mass publishers try to pass-off as exceptionally well written fiction, one can’t help but wonder just how shallow the creative-well is with many an author of the next “best-seller.” I digress; rather than go too far into this area, let’s circle back to how best to divide the remaining group of Americans.

Creativity is the ability to form new images and sensations in the mind that are not perceived through the senses. Imagination is the potential of one’s creative ability, but doesn’t actually require that something be created. That is to say, imagination may or may not involve the creation of something new; it often doesn’t. It is sufficiently imaginative to consider or “imagine” a scenario that may even be a cliché. So long as it is uncommon or atypical, your thinking is imaginative. Simply having an open mind generally requires a well-developed imagination. If you happen to be creative as well as having an open mind, consider this a whopping bonus! The down side; just being imaginative doesn’t guarantee that you’re right in your thinking or any conclusions you may draw upon any inferences.

One of the techniques employed by government sponsored Internet propagandists is to take advantage of this inability to form a viable theory from what little evidence hasn’t been made secret. While debating, for instance who assassinated JFK you’re likely to be challenged to provide a comprehensive, alternative theory. You may feel guilty for even questioning the word of such political and cultural luminaries as Vincent Bugliosi, Geraldo Rivera and conspiracy-debunker, Mick West. So you may feel obliged to support your suspicion with a theory of your own. But you ARE justified in your suspicion, and DO have evidence to support it. The official account is impossible, ridiculous and amounts to painfully obvious cover story. Reject their challenge and make your argument on your terms.

Now consider imagination and creativity as it relates to what some have coined as “conspiracy theory”. This popular term is unnecessarily narrow and doesn’t fit all people with a conspiracist ideology. I’m well versed in conspiracy theory yet I don’t develop many. Maybe a better term to describe myself would be, “conspiracy considerate.” It’s significant to note, when a major event or phenomenon is viewed by many as a possible act of deception, other type of “cover-up” or the given details are contradictory, one can reasonably conclude it may involve conspiracy.

When viewing an event as a potential conspiracy, there’s no automatic ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ like theory resulting from it. It remains largely a mystery, from my experience. Some element of blame lies with most authority’s widespread practice of concealing whatever details they choose, preventing us from forming a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of events.

Today there is a larger than ever number of Americans who would label themselves, “Truthers” or otherwise self-identify as “awake.” Some are admittedly believers in conspiracies perpetrated by the US government. Others strongly suspect that the government is plagued by corruption and malfeasance, but have little to no suspicion of larger conspiracies. Given time, I think many will come to an agreement that greater conspiracies are taking place and the level of corruption is at critical levels. Of those that don’t share these views, many still share anti capitalist, anti-corporate, environmental and anti-war views that are nearly as radical as the conspiracy theorists, and nearly as revolutionary; imaginative.


In researching further, I found the next fundamental division within the American body politic is between Statists and anti-Statists. ‘Statist’ just happens to be one of those rare words that Google claims not to know how to spell. The Statists exist on both sides of the left/right paradigm. Their ignorance of the paradigm is possibly a symptom of their support of the State and all its claims. Although they’re largely just acting out roles, the current presidential candidates or their characters are all Statists.

A fair assessment is that the Statist Left makes up the second largest segment of the American body politic. Not coincidentally, it also appears to be the largest segment of politically active people. Yet, their motivations are entirely antithetical to the goals most Americans share. It isn’t clear that their motivations aren’t actually demonic or at least wholly destructive. This group comprises those who are both blind to the obvious failings and criminality of the State as well as those that are entirely aware of it. The important distinction is that they all support the State at all costs.

There’s a little known but highly popular new idea shaking up political science. As stated prior, there is an explanation of what might account for the universal polarity in politics; the left and the right. There may be a reasonable explanation for what gives rise to a Liberal versus a Conservative and better ways to define them both. The new idea is rooted in r/K Selection Theory.

To broach this topic requires a quick overview. Don’t worry. This is all very interesting and very easy to grasp quickly. Here are two short quotes from The Anonymous Conservative

“…if you provide a population with free resources, those who will come to dominate the population will exhibit five basic traits, called an r-selected Reproductive Strategy…competition and risk avoidance, promiscuity, low-investment single parenting, earlier age of sexualization of young, and no loyalty to in-group.”

“…the K-selected Reproductive Strategy…where resources are scarce, competition for resources is everywhere, and some individuals will die due to failure in competition, and the resultant resource denial that this produces. This produces the K-strategy, which is best seen in the wolf. This strategy also has five psychological traits – competitiveness/aggressiveness/protectiveness, mate monopolization/monogamy, high-investment two-parent child-rearing, later age of sexualization of young and high loyalty to in-group. This psychology is designed to form highly fit and competitive groups that succeed in group competition, all while capturing and monopolizing the fittest mate possible, as a means of making their offspring genetically fitter than those of competitors.”

The r/K Selection Theory had previously been a subject of research limited to Evolutionary Ecology. I’m very curious just how long it took before someone began to apply the theory to politics. It does seem to be a comprehensive and deeply rooted explanation for Liberals vs. Conservatives. One could easily apply this theory to events such as the mass-shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. The Sandy Hook event appears to have very strong r-selection ties as to who may have motivated it, the goals of the perpetrators and the politics of the characters visibly carrying it out.

The key thing to remember about the Statist Left, in my opinion, is that it is likely the group most responsible for the problems affecting the world today and probably throughout recorded history. Learning about what may be deeper, biological and evolutionary causes for the group’s r-selection tendencies can only reinforce one’s belief that this is a factual observation.

The Statist Right does not exclude those with r-selection tendencies, but is made up largely of people with K-selection tendencies. But, recall that both Left and Right Statists are supporters of the State. However, the Statist Right is far less likely to support the collectivist mindset of the Left and largely rejects Socialist-oriented policies.

In this group I would suggest are folks like neo-con middle-managers. The lords of Neoconservatism are almost surely Left-leaning Statists, but their subordinates are typically people who simply enjoy the authority that the State affords them. Were they to have no experience or prospects of working within the State, they might think otherwise. However, this group is still dangerous, as any group that favors unjust and unwarranted violence or respect for anonymous authority can be. One only needs to think of Erik Prince or Jack Welsh.

Those in the Statist Right are prone to achieve upper management roles using methodologies that sociopaths generally employ. What is perceived by non-sociopaths as gutsy decisiveness or coolness under pressure is quite often just a lack of concern for others and irrational arrogance. Thankfully, this group is relatively small and isn’t nearly as conniving or deceptive as the Left variety.

At this point you can probably tell this is not a personal analysis of the US government or the machinations of the ‘system.’ What IS being analyzed and dissected is the citizenry itself. There is good reason to suspect that there’s probably little, to no chance, that the government will do anything to improve our situation. To the contrary, it’s almost more reasonable to predict it will continue to worsen and may even self-destruct.

A largely understated, but important sub-group, and one I have much respect for, is the Anti- Statist Left. This group is driven by many of the same motivations of the Statist Left, but elects to achieve goals fairly and without trampling upon the rights of others. One can only imagine the amount of moral fortitude to choose not to cheat when the most effective cheating tools are within your grasp, conveniently provided by the State. Not to mention that your peers are mostly already engaged in cheating and would very likely welcome with open arms any Anti- Statist Left to join in the Statist Left gravy-train.

Why this group is relatively large in numbers, despite the inherent contradiction is possibly because anti-authoritarianism (opposition to the state) is currently more popular than ever. Considering all of this, it can be assumed that some people in this group have, and likely will, defect and join the Statist Right. In my opinion, that is a very plausible evolutionary path. However, it’s a move in the right (no pun intended) direction. I’m certain many Liberals likely would disagree, yet I don’t expect that any would actually present any convincing arguments to the contrary. Yes, in a nutshell I’m saying that I’m right and they are wrong on this particular topic.

If I were to make a prediction as to which group might ultimately make or break achievement of the shared goals of the American people, it’s this one. Numbering roughly 10% is a little misleading because this group technically includes the 3% of Creative Pioneers. SPOLIER ALERT: Creative Pioneers are Anti-Statist Right in political ideology for the most part.

Just because someone is right-leaning or conservative doesn’t require that they support a suppressive government. They are, from my experience and within the capitalist corporate structure supporters of freedom. Some on the left might argue that ‘freedom’ has veered off into negative consequences like corporate theft of public resources or environmental destruction, for example. I won’t fully disagree that this is one potentially accurate interpretation, with exceptions.

The larger question though is, should it be the role of government to legislate what the recommended daily allowance of freedom should be? Many people agree the freedoms of excess might necessitate some oversight to prevent any harm it might cause. When, how and by whom is the question, to which some suggest by default it be the government. When someone in the Anti-Statist Right supports a form of regulation or accountability, their suggestions are far less likely to include government.

Finally, we arrive at the lightest group; the Creative Pioneers. Examining this group shows clearly why it stands apart from the others, and it is from within this group that I expect to see real action to achieve our shared goals through creativity based on careful strategy. Not surprisingly, I consider myself part of this group.

Maybe now is a good time to identify what I think our shared goals are. I personally find this an odd thing to have to do. After all, our society has existed long enough to have settled on an agreeable set of goals to achieve our wants and conditions in which to live. Hasn’t it? For some of us at least, it’s not a matter of knowing what we want but remembering it often enough for it to shape our lives.

Imagine inviting a group of co-workers or neighbors over to ask each a simple/general question;

“What do you want?”

My guess is that most will be stumped initially; however, soon the answers they give will be very revealing. Money will probably be one of the first answers to emerge. Possibly a Villa in the south of France might be given as a response; Consumerist sur-Mer. Given enough time, the responses will emerge with a deeper tone after more thoughtful reflection; world peace, living forever or perfect health are often common answers.

Each time I consider that same question and the requirement that it be universally applicable, my response undoubtedly ends up being “love and happiness”. Whether those are the most agreeable American “wants” isn’t the point. The point being made is to avoid the pitfall of making compromises before even needing to. Collectively as Americans we should begin to set goals with our most wondrous and child-like mind. Then, we can back away from there and settle on more realistic and sensible goals. Clearly love and happiness aren’t specific enough to be a road map for America’s future. But they are a great place to start.

Another approach in identifying our collective goals is simply to identify the biggest problems we all face. For example, it may be as simple as deciding to elect to fix our problems. The dilemma we all face, is the unknown, or the inability to determine what exactly they are (our biggest collective problems).

The elephant in the room is the one we could call the “problem of all problems”. Let me share a secret with you, and it will become a bit clearer. The “Problem of All Problems” is that key information is routinely being kept from us, thus making it impossible for us to know what the other real problems are. Is that too Rumsfeldian? Does that make sense to you, or do you still doubt government secrecy is that wide-spread?


I once read an estimate that for every single public document published, five others are published and made secret. Try to imagine the enormity of documents published in just the past 10 years alone. Apparently, that vast mountain is but a mere hill as compared to the huge universe of secrets that exists, always just over the horizon and out of reach.

Along similar lines there’s the problem of the press failing miserably to inform the public. What is reported can easily be deemed propaganda, and totally useless as information from which to operate on, or form your world view around. What isn’t deliberate deception invented by the media for whatever reason, is likely a more harmful form propagated by government through the media.

This problem isn’t exclusively found in news media, but exists in all other forms of media. What was once assumed to be inflated claims in advertising is now understood to be multi-pronged deception campaigns. Sometimes they involve seemingly disparate business interests. However, buried deeply beneath layers of information protected by secrecy, lies the truth. For with each nugget of information the media publishes or broadcasts, there is an element of truth, with a more clandestine element of either deliberate deception or complete manipulation of the facts to craft a different viewpoint by the consumer (you).

There are long-established campaigns of deception dating back decades, so long that it becomes difficult to even comprehend how much harm it may be causing. American outrage exponentially declines over decades. One example is the vaccine industry. It began with the polio vaccine and continues to this very day with Obama’s planned 2 billion dollar Zika vaccine program. At no point has the true danger and ultimate purpose of these vaccines been admitted. What little has been leaked or uncovered is chilling. The responsible government agencies have been acutely aware of the dangers all along, and yet they’ve done nothing to inform Americans. After all, the true dangers in our world are for government to know and you to find out.

So, it would seem that one easily identifiable goal that would surely benefit every American in many ways is to take back the news media. The Free Press, as guaranteed by our Constitution, is a critical component of any free society. The continued operation of the present news media monopoly constitutes a clear conflict of interest. This effectively creates a news media void that American citizens must collaborate on to fill. Remember, this is an inherent, God given Right as protected by the First Amendment.

The US government and all 60,000+ sub agencies demonstrate with increasing clarity that they don’t view their role as servants of the people. Whatever the cause may be, the millions of people employed by the US government have failed in their duty to conduct the business of government honorably and to be responsive to the will of the people.

Hopefully at this point, we have identified two major goals shared by most Americans; to return the scope and authority of the news media to the People and to revoke the authority granted to irreparably corrupt government agencies. It’s both fair and legally right.

These practical, shared goals, when compared to our own personal goals are complementary. It is reasonable that removing the vast veil of secrecy, allowing Americans to educate themselves about history and present affairs would greatly improve our chances of experiencing love and happiness. Simply leveling the playing field by removing the privilege of concealing government’s criminality would do the same.


Ask yourself this: have you heard or read any of the current Presidential candidates claiming they will work with us toward achieving these goals? Have any at least addressed the problem of excessive secrecy? To my knowledge, that answer is no. Only one Candidate, Donald Trump, has exposed publicly that the mainstream media is corrupt. Even still, why would any of us think there was a chance they would tackle these problems once in office and woven into the State apparatus?

Let’s approach the issue from a different perspective. From the present array of Presidential candidates, are any capable of performing any better than the average American? Could you do a better job? What a strange question to ask. Am I simply being arrogant to ask it? Let’s ask a different question then. Do you personally know anyone that you think would do a better job as President than any of the current candidates? I can think of no less than a dozen.

Were I to run for President, I would not make promises, but I would have a decisive position platform that I would make known. Once in Office I would work without taking a vacation during the 4 year term. It is a very obvious way in which to demonstrate one’s respect for, and acknowledgement of, the gravity of the Office. I wouldn’t accept gifts while in Office, nor accept payment for services based solely on status once out of Office. I would spend more time listening to American citizens than probably the past 10 Presidents combined.

I would rarely speak directly to the press, rather, I would invite Americans to witness Cabinet meetings and other activities of the Administration directly. I would advise the independent press to limit their time spent reporting on press conferences where ideas are merely expressed and more time reporting on actual legislation and the voting process itself. I could go on, but you get the idea.

I know you’re concerned about what your friends and family would think were you to become a Revolutionary. That might be because you aren’t exactly sure what a Revolutionary is. Do you think they are typically concerned about the approval of friends and family? If you are, are you underestimating the political savvy and common sense of your friends and family? Every brilliant thinker is first deemed a lunatic before their revolutionary ideas are accepted and eventually lauded.

But what of YOUR common sense and political savvy? Are you stumping for Bernie Sanders? Do his economic views or apparent appreciation of subsidized health care and equality appeal to you somehow? Or are you a fan of Donald Trump? Does his corporate experience or the possibility of running the government like a business sound like a fresh idea worth trying? Does Hillary Clinton’s extensive political experience and awareness of International affairs seem to elevate her above the other candidates? Do you ever wonder why Ron Paul withdrew from the race so abruptly last time around?

It’s unfortunate that you’ll never get the chance to ask the candidates a question like, “Do you think NASA may have lied about some programs or accomplishments?” Neither you nor I will be able to ask, “Does the Federal Income Tax apply to people who don’t work for the government?” Certainly we won’t be allowed to make requests like, “Would you allow the public to audit the contract in place for telephone service at the White House?”

Therefore, all we know about the Presidential candidates is from the few sound bytes that are given to us by the Establishment’s PR Directorate. Maybe we’re just beating around the bush in the first place, since you may already suspect the President is always chosen in advance and in secret. It is only now, we are learning of some of the inner-secrets of both the Republican and Democrat parties with their Delegate electoral process without actual citizen votes (GOP) and Super-Delegates to coronate a particular candidate (DNC).

Are we just wasting our time and foolishly ignoring what is as obvious as the nose on our face? I suspect that this group, I’ve labeled “Creative Pioneers” are well aware of the obvious truths and have moved past the trap of wasting time by ignoring them. You may be among this group. But realize that, to be a part of it you must understand that the responsibility of achieving the goals I’ve outlined is in your hands. Attempting to motivate the other 97% to act or even to help is likely a fool’s errand. They may even inadvertently get in the way.

The “Creative Pioneers” aren’t interested in the Presidential race, outside of what minimal insight as political theater it might offer. Those among this group are likely to have been equally disinterested in the 2008 election, and probably suspected Obama was a well-groomed saboteur before he became the Democratic front-runner.

The “Creative Pioneers” face a daunting challenge that I doubt ever existed before in modern history. When a challenge is unique and no template for success exists, how reasonable is it for anyone to claim to know the solution? How firmly should the solution be crafted based on our past experiences? After all, those American experiences have been largely constructed to mislead us. Even our very language has been partly crafted to curb anti-establishment ideas.

I haven’t written this to admonish anyone, nor do I claim to be right about everything I’ve postulated. I’m no expert in any of the fields where it might help in this regard, like political science, government administration or sociology, for example. To what degree can we rely upon the sciences as practiced these days anyway? Ponerology, or the science of evil is so new as to barely be a blip on the radar.

What I’ve written and my breakdown of the political and personality composition of Americans is, I hope interesting and promotes further analysis and discussion. If the best assessment deems it a disjointed and sophomoric, albeit creative attempt to encapsulate the political and social landscape, I will be pleased. After all, I think solutions to the pretty nasty mess we’re in will require creativity and imaginative thinking. I hope that you will join with other Americans, avoid the pitfall of unnecessary compromise, use your imagination and create those solutions.

Leave a Reply

70 thought on “A New President? Try Again, America”
  1. Excellent written opinion piece Peter and Scott. And the “Jerk & Jester logo is hilarious, I plan to put it on a T-shirt. This paragraph says it all about my reasoning for leaving the Beltway Cesspool.
    “One can only imagine the amount of moral fortitude to choose not to cheat when the most effective cheating tools are within your grasp, conveniently provided by the State. Not to mention that your peers are mostly already engaged in cheating and would very likely welcome with open arms any Anti- Statist Left to join in the Statist Left gravy-train.”

    Creative pioneer I am..

  2. This is one of the better attempts at an overview that I’ve seen in a long time. I say “attempt” because even polls are hopelessly rigged.

    Need to re-read when I have more leisure time. It goes beyond public opinion and into public attitudes.

    1. American society, in toto, is rigged and infested with lies and liars. “We’ll know we are successful when people accept all of our lies as the truth”.
      It’s darn near all happened. Stupidity and ignorance have won out. To this day, we don’t teach critical analysis in schools and colleges. We teach “acceptance” as spit out by authority figures.

      1. Ignorance has been programmed into the population through a hijacked educational system that has chosen indoctrination over critical thinking.

        The good news is that, because of this, many parents have opted to educate their children themselves, at their own expense. These children have been somewhat equipped to deal with the present deterioration.

        There is hope.

      2. Todd, I hear your hope in Humanity.
        Gil is also Right.

        “Stupidity and ignorance have won out.”

        Sad but True.

        I just thank God my Kids get it in this mess, and I ain’t Nothing Special.

        Just an Concerned American who Loves his Country.

        Am I Bad?

        I Hope Some Hear What I’m Trying to Say.

  3. “Ponerology, or the science of evil is so new as to barely be a blip on the radar.”
    I must contradict: I think the science of evil is as old as evil itself.

    Don’t shoot the messenger, but creative thinking will only ‘fix’ things if it includes a clean sweep of the evil. Who is going to do that? You Lt. Weinberg?

  4. “The 2016 Presidential Race has nothing to do with the struggle to repair this broken, malignant and disease-ridden country. You know it, I know it, and I’m about to prove it to most peoples’ satisfaction.”

    This article may indeed be a proof thereof. Yet there exists a much more straightforward one: the failure of all candidates–including in the marginal parties–to explain 9/11 for the self-evident and transparently covered false flag that it was.

    The unanimous support of the 9/11 censorship by presidential candidates also provides an interesting measure of the success of whatever project to inflict hysteria on the public, not only in the USA, but worldwide.


    1. The title, synopsis and article itself aren’t nearly as related as would be with a research paper. Although there’s an overall critique of the Presidential contenders and the Office of President itself, the article focuses more on the makeup of the American people. The article assumes that anyone supporting the official narrative of 9/11 has failed the “litmus test” as established by Les Visible.

      Because I no longer look to institutions of authority as being interested in the people’s welfare, I assessed the American people to determine what chances they have of protecting their own welfare. You could look at it as a way to soften people up to my anti-Statist views. The sooner they get past their aversion to revolution and start working together on peaceful and sensible solutions the better.

      I used the interest in the Presidential election as a metaphor for the greater issue of reliance upon the State to fix itself. Few machines, if any are self-healing.

      1. Peter, this is off topic, but I have been dying to ask if there have been any further developments with the Google theft incident. I understand if you can’t discuss it…just asking.

        Great article, by the way!

    2. ” the failure of all candidates–including in the marginal parties–to explain 9/11 for the self-evident and transparently covered false flag that it was.”

      Daniel, you know as well I do they “Can’t” that. Trump has come the closest and has stepped over the line on this.

      Unfortunately just me saying that makes me a this and that dumb dumb who may even vote.

      I’ve tried. It’s Not all sewn up as some say and pointless.

      Landslide is the only way to stop the Fraud in voting but…..

      Anyways,.Dub said:

      “There is only one thing that is going to fix it, a polar shift of the earth’s axis”..hehe

      Can’t we just do an old fashion Massive Asteroid like the “good ole days”?

      A Polar shift would just screw up my internet connection….

      Polarity Problem…

    3. Daniel,

      I know any story from Infowars means your stupid here but this is good.

      On your subject of no Pres, contender ventures 911.

      Read the whole thing and watch the videos.

      1 does and has even gone after the Bushes and even told George”Be careful” when he started protecting “Jeb” baby brother.

      When every Govt. in the world intervenes in the US president race and All the left and neocons/rino’s hate him too it’s time to take notice.

      This is NOT a Psyop…this is Really happening….

      It’s Time to Admit: The ‘9/11 Truthers’ Were Right
      Saudi cover-up proves US government complicit in 9/11 terror attacks

      Mikael Thalen

  5. 911 should have provided all the answers people needed. A government and media wide (worldwide media) cowardly people who shut up about it all, policeman and fireman dying for no reason and no protest.

    Candidates 14 years later who still cover it up on advice of their handlers from national to small town politics.

    ABC agencies paid by the IMF and UN who go along to get along.

    False flags wherever you look and the zombies eat it up.

    Yeah it is over.

    There is only one thing that is going to fix it, a polar shift of the earth’s axis.

    1. Be sure to get to Hartford to hear the American version of Attila the Hen (Margaret Thatcher’s nickname) –
      “Clinton is continuing to push on the issue of gun violence. Her campaign said she would speak on gun violence in Hartford on Thursday and meet with gun violence victims, including Sandy Hook families.”
      This article also has photos of SH victims including Noah with news photo sources as the photographers. As it’s pro gun control there will be no lawsuits against the Guardian.

  6. I got about half way through this very thin piece of quackery, what with the silliest terms of reference being made in order for the author to direct the reader to the preconceived conclusion, which I never got to. This was a poor waste of five minutes, akin to listening to the “spin” monologues of Stephen Molyneux. In the season of political hype this article was another despite the cloak of supposedly unbiased thought. Or perhaps the author here doesn’t even realize his ideological undies are not just showing but he’s swinging them above his head for all the rest of us to see him as he actually is. My prediction: this was written by a “Libertarian-Austrian School of Economics devotee- austerity ghoul who has little understanding of economics or the role government plays in the economy if such were not in the state it is.. A status quo believer (of reviving Glass Steagall as the answer) if we were to examine his held beliefs on reforming the nation. This was piffle….

    1. “Piffle” is a severely underused term. Needs to make a comeback IMO.

      I see this as an opinion piece. And it has to be so due to the basis, brought up in the article I might add, of government secrecy and lying. This secrecy is the cause of conspiracy theories. The only option people have is to best guess at what the hidden agenda is since nobody is revealing said agenda. And that’s even if the commoner cares enough to look. I would submit that most people in what’s left of the workforce are intentionally overwhelmed with the intensity of their lifestyle to notice these trends.

      The west has become so inundated with media minutiae, obfuscation, and daily-alarming-distractions, that it is rare to see writing that attempts to discern the bigger picture. For me, this is refreshing to see as well as encouraging.

    2. There is not much to know about economics. People have things to sell and try to find those who will buy it at the highest price. Nobody really finds economics interesting. You either print your own money also or let some mafia do it and charge you interest on it.

      There are no economics books on the new york best seller list or economics movies which are box office rages, no top rated TV economic shows because everybody finds it boring.

      1. I would agree economics is less than exciting,
        but finance is at the heart of all the issues on this board,
        and I like so many others am at a disadvantage in trying to unravel the corruption due to disinterest in money,
        if all of us were educated in finance they would never be able to swindle people like they do, e.g., derivatives, pure fraud

    3. Good job, Piffle. You can sleep in the big bed with Daddy and other Daddy tonight. Your myopic focus on “economics” blinded you to the fact that this was an early drawing up of battle lines. The “status-quo” is my fist in your face.

      1. When I think about it, the purpose of all battles, physical or psychological, is to capture hearts and minds. It can be done by force (sort of). But it doesn’t really win people over. Why alienate potential allies with aggressive ad-hominem? The fifty percent in your article is of interest to many sides, especially to the media.

        Money is the world religion at the moment. A vital part of their control grid. People get real sober and serious when talking about it. And the controllers of that money use it as a tool to alter human behavior. The authorities’ tolerance of commerce disruption is lower than their tolerance of murder. As such, I can see a potential change in how people view money in the future.

        1. It was his dismissal of the 50% ‘uniformed/neutral’ that initially turned me off. I’m becoming more convinced that a % of the non-participants want to participate but don’t like the choices, see the futility of it, or ultimately see through the entire facade of politics. I think this % is substantial.

          They are not the ‘blind following sheep’ he so quickly labels them. Quite the opposite. The majority of American’s population are poor. Poor does not = stupid, nor does a lack of a college education = unintelligent. The poor are quicker to understand and learn how the ‘world really works’. Which is the few benefiting at the expense of the many. Thus they see more Truth than the middle/upper class. Because it’s stark reality for them, versus the middle/upper class who have a built in bias to avoid/deny the Truth.

          Blind following sheep? Funny, the best examples I see of this are educated peoples, in part because they think they’re too smart to be deceived. SJWs, Political Party followers, Socialist, Feminist, Statist.

          The author is deeply out of touch with a large segment of American society.

        2. Let us know how you determined that the poor “are quicker to understand and learn how the world really works”. Your cliches are nothing if not hackneyed.

        3. It was just the author’s subjective estimate. No way to know for sure since the media embraces deceit and “polls” say whatever someone wants them to say. I commend the author for attempting to assess the big picture.

          No doubt, these people exist for various reasons. I’ve found that fear is one of the biggest problems keeping people in that category.

          I once brought up a few observations about 9/11 with a government employee. His honest response was that he had just purchased a house and was starting a family. Because of this, he didn’t want to go there. He would be biting the hand that fed him.

          Can’t say that I blame him, really.

          But what if somebody loses their job and income? Suddenly the leverage to keep them in the 50% vanishes. So, as the plan to impoverish people goes forward, I can easily see an exodus from that 50% category.

        4. I found this comment on a website somewhere:

          It’s also a little-know fact that “University” is the antonym of “Diversity” and means a single culture of thought, belief and action. It’s adherents are readily recognized by their closed eyes (and minds), hands clapped over ears and the singing of la, la, la, la, la la. 😉

  7. I have been a fan of Memory Hole since it’s inception and a huge fan of Prof. Tracy but I must say that I thought this was the worst piece of dreck I have ever tried to read. Not up to Memory Hole’s standards to my way of thinking.

    Sincerely,               Lawrence             Kissimmee, FL 

    1. Memory Hole is an open forum and making judgments or expecting the chronic litany of necessary praise for all articles is presumptious and controlling to extreme. Dr Tracy cannot guarantee that articles he accepts for display will agree with your points of view. While you are free to like or dislike articles for any reason you choose, it seems like a stretch to think your standards are above Tracy’s. Articles are published and commenters are free to condemn or espouse, agree or disagree, but freedom of the press, per se, allows readers to work with the articles in any number of ways. You may not like certain articles but questioning their right to be displayed seems to smack of an innate pomposity.

        1. So did I …..what about my first amendment rights? You should have been honest and said “I hate your stuff, blah blah”. Instead, you tried to play mindreader. Are you the one who decides who adds to the discussion or not?

  8. Excellent piece! I was, however, stumped at the Jack Welsh [sic] reference. Perhaps it is overly presumptuous of me, but did you have in mind Jack Welch? There is apparently at VP at Booz Allen Hamilton by that name.

    I generally agree with your assessment. The winnowing of the pie chart is interesting. While I appreciate the Google-rarity of “statist” (I had the same problem tonight with “les enfants terribles”), I’m not sure it is the most accurate term to describe the phenomenon you are outlining.

    I do appreciate the sentiment. To the excellent Real Politik interview of Dr. Pieczenik by Dr. Tracy, I would also add Walter Benjamin’s observation that (at least during the French empire style of revolutionary terrorism”) “the state is an end in itself” [from Passagenwerk/Arcades Project].

    As I said, this was a point Pieczenik seemed to be trying to convey in said interview. It’s also essentially the gist of Mr. X’s revealing scene in the film JFK (theater cut).

    I would agree that Sandy Hook seems to be a left-sponsored event, but a careful analysis of the left/right propaganda varieties should reveal that your toilet paper metaphor is true. It is therefore cunning (and rather subtle) when Fox News aligns with the left on gun control. It may not happen often, but it does happen. It is in those moments that the core homogeneity of the ruling class can be grasped. It is almost a Freudian slip. The right breaks character.

    I wish I could give a concrete example. There was a bit of Fox News I caught the other day which had the hallmark elements of propaganda. The astonishing thing was that it was PRO- gun control. Moments like that make me open to the idea of the left/right as largely a paradigm of convenience (an idea to which you alluded).

    That said, I’ve rarely seen a more crystallized version of Operation Mockingbird than when Anderson Cooper opens his mouth. Sandy Hook really threatened Cooper. So how he was chosen to be the silver-haired poster-boy to massage the audience into a false incredulity regarding Dr. Tracy’s very well-reasoned incredulity on the Newtown matter. Any time I see Cooper’s whining attempt to lead the public astray it makes me want to vomit.

    I would say one of your strongest points involves what you call the “statist left”. I agree that to remain outside the system (while having the opportunity to join the system) is highly admirable.

    In general, I find your analysis largely compelling. I do, however, wonder about the fairness of deriding the left so heavily. I agree that even smart leftists can have an oblivious streak, but I don’t know that there is a comprehensive conservative, non-statist, creative, imaginative program which exists at this time in a cogent form such as to discount all philosophies of the left. If there is, I am not aware of it.

    That would be my one main caveat with your analysis. To paint the imaginative, creative saviors of America as right-leaning seems a bit arbitrary. Is the implication that libertarianism trumps conservatism which in turn trumps liberalism? That seems to be the logic behind the movement from dumb masses to “statists” to non-statists and beyond.

    Perhaps you are right, but I do not see overwhelming evidence that this is the case. For instance, would non-statist leftists be anarchists? I don’t know.

    As bad as things are, I’m not entirely convinced that anarchy (or even the overused “anarcho-capitalist” Chomsky blather) are viable strategies.

    Perhaps I agree most with your culmination category: creative/imaginative.

    There is, however, a potential drawback even there. Might it be said that the most creative among us are those who concocted 9/11 & Sandy Hook (to name but two frictions)?

    Granted, they are rather boring stories when you get down to it, but they do have a sort of evil panache about them (as if David Lynch or Thomas Pynchon has been enlisted in the efforts).

    One thing seems fairly certain: the real authors of those events are ethically repugnant. I do appreciate your dissection of the sociopathic trend in business and government. You are spot-on with that one.

    Thank you for your thought-provoking article. I hope you will accept my critiques in the humble spirit that they were intended convey.

    Thank you,

  9. To gloss over the differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, as this article does, shows little understanding of what is at stake in this presidential primary season. The Clintons are part of the shadowy cabal of neocons, bankers and money launderers who have been stealing trillions of dollars from the people of this country for the last half century. Bill’s early and key supporter back in Arkansas was a banker named Jackson Stephens, who not only brokered the arrival of BCCI into America, but also underwrote the IPO of Walmart, where Hillary served on the board. Along with the mysterious Indonesian and Friend of Bill, BCCI investor Mochtar Riady, Stephens opened a bank in the sleepy little town of Mena, AK….

    We finally have a candidate in Bernie Sanders who is not part of this cabal, and he has a real chance of winning the presidency. It is pretty clear that were it not for our electronic voting machines, Sanders would be the democratic frontrunner. The noted statistician, Richard Charnin has shown impossible discrepancies between unadjusted exit polls and the final outcomes in most of the democratic primaries. (Good subject for an interview James Tracy)
    If it really didn’t matter who wins, and there was little real difference between the candidates, then why would anyone be gaming these elections?

  10. Listen to Bernie Sanders’ well qualified economic advisor Bill Black describe how the Big Banks can be dismantled without any new regulation. This discussion is guaranteed to enlighten. It is well worth the time spent to listen all the way through. Black shows how Bill Clinton’s policies of deregulation were instrumental in creating the epidemic of bank fraud that led to the crash of 2008. It is an ongoing epidemic, about which Obama has done nothing, and which Hillary has no plan to address.

    1. Hillary will reinforce the stranglehold of the banks and business magnates. Address our national problems? Who are we kidding?, Hillary will choke every ounce of life out of our rapidly failing nation.

  11. Whats Scares me the most is everyone is watching the Presidential race and Nobody is Watching Chairman O’ Muslim Brotherhood Lackey!

    Watch my Right Hand…….

    1. James, Check your Spam….

      I posted the Rap Song geared at Trump that would have put anyone slightly on the right in the Custody of the Secret Service and was “Holed”

      Don’t worry Koyo, Mummy is only looking for her hand in the snow….

      Play the Video. Unless DHS is sitting in your kitchen..all Good.

      1. US action against Saudi was just a means to keep them in line. US is complicit in 911, were we thinking of pulling a Ukraine type event here by blaming the Saudis? That is, cover up one lie with another. US and Saudi are dirty to the core, we tolerate Wahhabism and head chopping while we blame Assad for gassing his citizens. We are a massively dirty entity on the face of the earth and are being played for suckers by the elites. How can Americans not hate the face we show all over the world? How can Americans stand how repulsive and disgusting this nation has become? Soon, Obama will rewrite the National Anthem and make it an ode to Rosa Luxemburg. Americans will do nothing, they are subjugated by their collective ignorance that mollfies them into believing they can buy security for freedom.

  12. Unadjusted exit polls for the NY democratic primary showed a very close race: Clinton 52%, Sanders 48%. With thousands purged from the polls, it should have been even closer, if not an outright victory for Sanders. Statistician Richard Charnin put the odds of the final outcome, 57.9% to 42.1% , an 11.8% discrepancy from the exit polls, at 1 in 260,000! This is the eighth in a series of apparently fraudulent vote tallies. Sanders should have won in MO, MA, AZ, OH, IL, IA, and NV.

    1. “The outside of the Srinivasan’s Katy home, including blue ribbons in support of law enforcement, seen in a photo posted by Jeremy Srinivasan in September 2015. (Facebook)”

      SOS Surrender to police because their feeling the heat from their “conspiracy” social media posts?

  13. Sandy Hook news provided by the Guardian features photos of the litigants against Remington and they are from ordinary news services. So will they be sued or are the parents raking in dough for the use of images that are not their kids? Here they are –

    “Victims whose families are filing the lawsuit include (clockwise from top left): Daniel Barden, Victoria Soto, Dylan Hockley, Rachel Marie D’Avino, Benjamin Wheeler, Jesse McCord Lewis, Mary Joy Sherlach, Noah Pozner and Lauren Rousseau. Composite: AP, Reuters & Rex”

    Victims whose families are filing the lawsuit include (clockwise from top left): Daniel Barden, Victoria Soto, Dylan Hockley, Rachel Marie D’Avino, Benjamin Wheeler, Jesse McCord Lewis, Mary Joy Sherlach, Noah Pozner and Lauren Rousseau. Composite: AP, Reuters & Rex

    Also of note the US version of Attila the Hen (Margaret Thatcher’s nickname) is prominent as a gun usurper. Because newspapers like the Guardian refuse to investigate the Rose law firm and Hillary’s signature on phony non-payback loans she’s a candidate, rather than in jail. By now they may have all been shredded and all witnesses deep sixed.

  14. Dr. Tracy,
    In line with this article I would like to request an article on news sources and their credibility,
    all of us struggle daily to get information that has not been edited, altered or otherwise infiltrated by government, secret societies, political/financial interests etc. to keep us from learning what the truth is;
    I stopped reading all of the mainstream news and newspapers years ago, anyone who is in the know understands that papers like the New York Times is government propaganda,
    This would be very appropriate and useful for this group of researchers
    Thank you

    1. Great idea. I would suggest one method of determining a source’s legitimacy overall is how well-funded they are and whether they are owned/funded by one of the few mega-media corporations.

      I like this site’s (Institute of Media and Communications Policy) list of the top 100 international media corporations by revenue…

        1. The motive is stated in the second sentence of TNN’s link. Beyond profit, it extends to sheer power in support of a globalization agenda.

          “As agents and moderators of globalization they have economic and opinion-shaping power.”

          Anderson Cooper attempted to flaunt this power when the voice of James Tracy threatened the established SH narrative. He immediately floated the idea of firing a tenured professor while broadcasting from the ivory tower of CNN. No doubt he was “just following orders”.

          Power is rarely, if ever, relinquished voluntarily. Truth, honesty, ethics, and accuracy have become secondary.

          A liberal application of anti-trust laws on media corporations would take away the power/profit motive. But, as long as the media supports globalization, I don’t see this happening.

          This points to the source of their funding. It no longer comes from “we the people”, directly or indirectly. And so our true opinion, separated from their programmed opinion, becomes irrelevant to them. Polls still exist to measure the effectiveness of propaganda. Nothing more.

  15. This may help to clear up confusion about what I intended to convey. I never even attempted to explain exactly what I meant when referring to “Right.” Actually, I never explained the “Left/Right” dichotomy for the purposes of my analysis. Most important to note, my use of “Left/Right” has little to do with “Democrat/Republican.”

    My intent was to write something that would be understood by people familiar with modern day politics. At the same time I wanted to inject a few of my definitions, which bend “Left” and “Right” slightly. I also wanted to, but really didn’t share what I do and don’t value about them.

    For the most part, I used the modern political definition of “Left/Right,” where the Left embraces Socialism and the Right Conservatism. Where I may stray from common views is by deeming the modern day Right as being more Libertarian/Freedom-oriented and modern day Left as being more Statism/Fascism-oriented.

    As I said, it has nothing to do with the current party rhetoric. That’s how scheming and deceptive I find both parties to be, which I think overwhelmingly influences even the arguments of lay party members. I’m also aware that how I define the present day “Left/Right” is a total reversal of what the original, French Revolutionary definition was.

    If it’s still confusing to read this knowing my views of the true, underlying “Left/Right” versus the more common definitions, perhaps the common definitions are in need of revising? If anything, they’re misleading. For now, I’ll need to do a better job of making the distinctions.

    I hope this was helpful.

        1. Me, too.

          I wrote you a post about Prince, but it didn’t make it out of mod. Look for it later.

      1. Sun,
        Your correct. I took those lines from another headline from Kit Daniels who works for…. I can’t say here.

        I’m just tripping that we lost Prince. He had the same Flu and People are wondering whats going on.

        Questions I ask are: If your a Flu Shot Warrior are you More susceptible or Protected? I warned my Father at 75yrs old and he almost died from a Flu Shot.

        But on another Road, My Heart is broken, Prince was a actually a very Cool Dude and had values and played the Game.

        All Good.

        1. Ric, I didn’t really know, but I guess you’re right; Prince was onto the game for a long time.

          Like in his song, “Sign O’ The Times.” He aggregates the events of the eighties, all of which are recognizable as the hallmarks of mass public manipulation by foundations, corporations, intelligence services, and quasi-and-not-so-quasi-governmental entities.

          He details the CIA strategy of keeping cannabis illegal in order to set up a gang structure by withholding the weed and flooding the underground distribution structure with guns, money and hard drugs.

          Pretty prescient, seeing as he wrote it 30 years ago.

          Here is the lyric:

          “Sign O’ The Times”

          Oh yeah
          In France a skinny man
          Died of a big disease with a little name
          By chance his girlfriend came across a needle
          And soon she did the same
          At home there are seventeen-year-old boys
          And their idea of fun
          Is being in a gang called The Disciples
          High on crack, totin’ a machine gun

          Time, time

          Hurricane Annie ripped the ceiling of a church
          And killed everyone inside
          U turn on the telly and every other story
          Is tellin’ U somebody died
          Sister killed her baby cuz she couldn’t afford 2 feed it
          And we’re sending people 2 the moon
          In September my cousin tried reefer 4 the very first time
          Now he’s doing horse, it’s June

          Times, times

          It’s silly, no?
          When a rocket ship explodes
          And everybody still wants 2 fly
          Some say a man ain’t happy
          Unless a man truly dies
          Oh why
          Time, time

          Baby make a speech, Star Wars fly
          Neighbors just shine it on
          But if a night falls and a bomb falls
          Will anybody see the dawn
          Time, times

          It’s silly, no?
          When a rocket blows
          And everybody still wants 2 fly
          Some say a man ain’t happy, truly
          Until a man truly dies
          Oh why, oh why, Sign O the Times

          Time, time

          Sign O the Times mess with your mind
          Hurry before it’s 2 late
          Let’s fall in love, get married, have a baby
          We’ll call him Nate… if it’s a boy

          Time, time

          Time, time

        2. I do think there is some real possibility of this being a murder, being he was outspoken on NWO agenda, I just haven’t seen any data to back it up yet
          Thanks for your posts always worth reading

        3. Thanks Sun.

          I don’t know either. but it just seems weird all these people today dying of an “Fast Acting” Cancer or this Strange Flu.

          I’m glad your a Person who wants Fact and not Bull$hit.
          Thats very Refreshing as so am I.

    1. Ric,
      You mention fast-acting cancer deaths. It’s weird, I know of three people that have died in the last month of pancreatic cancer: a friend, a friend of a friend and a colleague of a friend. So one and two degrees of separation. All here in the Valley area. They each lasted about 6 months after diagnosis.

      My friend died yesterday, on 4/20, which would have pleased her, were she still here.

  16. Hey, tyrannynews

    Sorry I’m kind of late to the game in commenting on your post.

    First of all, I gotta say, that is one beautiful pdf. It looks like it’s ready for the printer! I like that there are no quotes copied and re-printed out-of-context in huge type in the middle of the article. I find that so jarring when I’m reading. Also, your color choices are really effective, especially in showing off your graphics. Just really great typesetting. It makes the reading easy. I wish we saw this kind of care taken more often with typography.

    As far as the content, I just want to make a short comment on the whole left/right thing.

    It’s a triumph of the modern political construct that Socialism is equated with Statism in the public mind. Political discourse has cut the continuum and named the ends extremes and opposites. This is not true, as where the left and right are split is actually where they overlap.

    Autonomy of thought and action, voluntary association, the sovereignty of the individual – these are concepts enunciated not only in the founding documents of our country, but also in the Marxist philosophy of people like Rosa Luxemburg, who argued that these ideas are precursors to the class consciousness that is the best defense against exploitation by the powerful.

    Both left and right proceed from these premises. Once the conditions for liberty are established, an individual is free to follow his conscience, no matter whether he defines his values as “liberal” or “conservative.”

Leave a Reply