Do we want to win?
I was watching the news the other day and a reporter asked a question. He wanted to know if the war in Afganistan was winnable? Can we win, and he was told we could win, if we made it into a home game. Meaning don’t treat it as an away game, make it into a home game. I was watching that clip, and thinking, Wolf Blitzer is asking the wrong question. The question is not can we win, the question should be, do we want to win?
For me that answer is no, not at any cost. Not because I am a defeatist, not because I want the other team to win, but because I am a realist and I know the price that winning is likely to be too high. Not at the continued loss of life of the troops, not at the continued loss of moral, and democratic freedoms that I see being eroded in these democratic countries. The economic cost of the war is also not great, the monies being spent to secure these victories, could have secured a hundred small victories for those in need at home. Feeding the poor, helping the sick and homeless, but instead those monies are put into the war machines. I personally believe that that price is too high.
Do the people want to win this war? I don’t think they care to, I think what concerns the people most is getting the troops home, that’s what they really want. I don’t think they care if it’s a home game, away game, or whatever. There is no victory when the cost is so high for both sides, and the cost has been high. Not just financially, but in freedoms.
These wars began with the premises that if we don’t go in there and don’t destroy the enemy on their turf, they will destroy us. I include the U.K., Canada, and all the other allied countries in this. The problem is that Iraq was not invaded due to the 9/11 terror scare. It was very much invaded on the false premise that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which was false, but regardless, he is gone, some troops are still there, the situation is still messy, and though battles can be fought and won, the question with the remaining war is do the people want to win?
The last time I checked the American election was won not based on can we win, but it was won on the promises of we will end this war. We will get the troops home. That is where the hearts and minds of the American people were, it was not on can we secure a victory in some far away land. The other factor is not even if a victory can be secured in some far away land, because while that battle is being fought far away, the war at home is being lost. It is being lost in freedoms and liberties. These wars were supposedly fought to secure freedoms, but if you look at these democratic countries several years later it’s hard to recognize some of the freedoms that are supposedly being fought for, when these countries are starting to resemble mini fascists states in various ways. It makes no sense to secure a victory abroad, if freedoms are lost at home.
Is the other side going to benefit from this great war? Are we really securing freedom for these people? Do these people really want these occupying forces in their land? Looking at the Iraq war, things were not great under Saddam Hussein, but several years later have things truly been made better in the long run? When all is said and done, the people have been brutalized, their spirits were broken, the women raped, children tortured, civilians killed, lives destroyed. Out of this sick and sin, they have been infected with an informant network, which will destroy the internal character of their country, the way it is destroying the internal character of these countries, and will the end results be worth it? Will the ends really justify the means, there or at home in these democratic countries?
Do the people really want to win? Soldiers are coming home from these wars, and getting into conflicts with these militarized police forces that have sprung up, they are coming back to cities that they don’t always recognize. I have read of a few different cases where men who have served abroad came home, only to be brutalized, humiliated, or killed by some of the newly militarized forces at home. Is this truly what they are off fighting for? There is no victory, there is no win, if the freedoms that are supposedly being fought for are evaporated. We can win, but at what price, and at the end of the day, do we want to win?
Iraq is being rebuilt. From this great sick and sin a great city will be spawned, but will the price have been worth it? Someday the great city of Babylon will be rebuilt and rebirthed, if rumours are correct. Will the loses be worth a true victory?
When WWII was being fought, the danger was real for many people. They knew that if the Germanic forces were not stopped, they might well lose their way of life. The threat and danger was very real for people in the U.K., and in other nations. The war was coming to those shores and if victory was not won, the way of life would change. During that time, people were engaged, the objectives were clear, and the threat was very real, and securing the victory was the only option.
Today people are not as engaged as they were in many ways. Most kids care more about their Xbox 360 than if this war will be won. Some people are so far removed from this war, that they probably have trouble remembering that there is war ongoing. The world has changed, people’s views, values and perspectives have changed, and today, I am not sure that the question is can we win? I think the question today is do we want to win?
This article has nothing to do with Gang Stalking, but I felt it was worth commenting on.
I came across this article the other day, and the wording of it surprised me. It was not vulgar, the language was not racist, yet it’s one one of the most hard hitting critiques of the American President I have come across.
I am at times not too bad with checking the temperature of the net, and this article surprised me. It was a recap of what the writer felt was an unforgivable action and that is the American President bowing to the Japanese Emperor and Empress.
[quote]A little traveling, like a little learning, can be a dangerous thing. Barack Obama on the loose in a foreign land is enough to frighten protocol officers and embarrass the rest of us.[/quote]
I did notice that American’s were upset with his bowing before foreign royalty.
See I think Americans see the president in their own way as royalty. Sure the ties to monarchy on the outside have been removed, but inside American’s want to feel proud, they want to feel that the person that is representing them will do so well. They want to know that American views and values will be upheld.
I was surprised by some of the comments, but the general consensus on some of the forums is that the President should bow to no one.
I think in my personal opinion a bow of respect can be given, but it’s all about how it is delivered that makes the difference.
In the above file footage of his meeting with the King and Queen of England, he does bow, but it’s a moderate bow and it is respectfully returned in kind. Equals of sorts and I don’t recall hearing any recriminations about this bow.
I also suspect the country he was bowing to did play a role. I know many mentioned the War time dead of WWII and felt that it was disrespectful to them as well.
I believe with this President people very much wanted back the good old days. The days they felt proud, the days that they felt that they had their own royalty. The Kennedy years.
I think in part one of the reasons Obama was a shoe in for president is that he did remind many of the Kennedy days. Jackie was queen and it felt as if there was royalty. The Kennedy’s wore no crown, but many felt that they were royal in their own right.
Americans came off of feeling embarrassed at times by the last Administration, I recall many times where the last president did something goofy, or made and error, and the American people cringed with him. When the world hated his policies, they felt hated right along with him.
With this administration one of the things that was promised not overtly, but in it’s own way was good representation. People liked that fact that he had come from a good school, had a degree, and wanted to be represented well. Americans are known for being a proud and arrogant people. Most would deny it, but many in the world want to come to America and be American and that is part of the reason.
After the horrible stimulus package, where they felt that they were violated, but were not quite sure, (You were violated.) they wanted to feel secure again, proud, they don’t want more debt or wild spending being tacked on to themselves or their kids. I think that is in part why they are so cautious with this health care bill. The last previous eight years was a lot for many Americans to deal with.
With this Administration they wanted to put the wars behind, the some degree of shame they might of felt with some previous polices and actions, and I think that is why they are quick to react when they see signs of the previous admin shining forth.
The bow wounded the pride of some. Most Americans would not admit it, but they are a proud and somewhat arrogant people, which is not a bad thing. I think they just want that pride back, and this bow hurt that pride, for some.
Most people will read this article and view it as a bad thing but I don’t fully. It shows me that Americans are a loyal people, it shows me that they take their representative seriously, and it tells me that they want to feel proud and full of hope again.
It means that if the president fails to represent the American people’s well, they will be a disloyal, hurt and angry subject, but if the president represents the American people well, they have the capacity to be loyal, faithful, and to stand with him, and feel pride with him.
To me it shows that they want the president to do well, but were hurt, and again not everyone even cared about this, but some did, and those are people worth listening to. It’s struck me as one of the more strongly worded articles I had come across and I felt that it was worth noting.
Some more highlights.
[quote]This is not the way an American president impresses evildoers that he’s strong, tough and decisive, that America is not to be trifled with.[/quote]
Americans like their tough guy image. Most countries do. They want that don’t mess with our country.
It makes them feel safe, like someone will be capable of looking after their best interests.
[quote]His predecessors learned with no difficulty that the essence of America is that all men stand equal and are entitled to look even a king, maybe particularly a king, straight in the eye……
John F. Kennedy, on the eve of a trip to London, sharply warned Jackie not to curtsy to the queen.[/quote]
I take it that Jackie did not curtsy. Respecting all traditions is a fine line to walk. I know the number of times I have read that this president is narcissistic, yet a narcissist would not bow before another would they? I think sometimes it can be damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
I would highlight more, but you will have to read the rest.
I believe Americans when represented well will let a lot go, I am not sure who handles protocols for these trips, I think it’s not a bad idea to have more than one opinion, or suggestion as to proper protocol.
Traditions can be a very limiting thing, and can hold a nation back from progress, but they can also be a beautiful thing, and everyone loves when their’s are respected and adhered to.
This is a follow up to several postings that I have written lately. I was going to title it Hodgepodge 2, but it’s more specific than that. I also didn’t want to spend too much follow up time on each point, so it’s all part of one big follow up article.
The first is on Bedbugs. I can’t make them go away for you, but for people who still have bedbugs, here are some things that I have discovered that might help the bedbugs to go away.
[quote]mattress in a zippered plastic cover and greasing bedposts with Vaseline to keep the bugs from crawling up[/quote]
From everything that I have read online this is what will help to get rid of the little creatures. If you get rid of yours, it’s with the hope that the Gang Stalking community will get rid of ours.
The other topic was that of policy change. I will not bother to point to the headlines that are trying to keep the terrorist threat alive and well, but it’s clear that there does not seem like there will be any kind of policy change. I am sure the frustration is shared by many, many people. I think we saw the frustration this week expressed from some unexpected avenues.
Eg. If you were an Al-Qaeda leader hoping for change, apparently it’s not going to happen.
We are from what I am reading, seeing many aspect of the former Clinton cabinet come back into play. I had no problem with Clinton, but with the savy use of the Internet in this campaign, it would have been nice to see something fresh, new, hip and happening, but we are seeing a rehash of what’s been done before. Boring.
The last point is that of Racial Barriers. I wrote this week that it’s great that the media is being very sensitive suddenly to the issues of racial barriers. Great but maybe the measure of how far a society has come should not be if they can vote in a black or bi-racial president, but if they can address the always present issues of race that already exist in the society. I mean it cute that you are censoring people for using the word colored, but what about accepting and acknowledging those of a mixed, or bi-racial heritage?
I did some research briefly on this some time ago.
In America today if you have one drop of black blood, when you are filling out applications, surveys etc, you must claim black as your heritage. There is often no spot for people of mixed race heritage. Many in America feel stigmatized by this rule. There are many bi-racial Americans who don’t understand why all of their heritage can not be acknowledged, and why they in an open and modern society, still have to choose one part of their ancestry.
Tiger Woods made a point of not being classified by one part of his ancestry when he won at tennis, he made sure that all parts of his ancestry were acknowledged. I don’t see a change in this acknowledgement happening across the society.
(The one drop rule means that at 32 this man could go from a classification of white to black, upon learning that his father was African American.)
So how should a society really be measured? By their choices at the voting booth, or by the way they treat and acknowledge the members of their society and the multifaceted realities that exist in the heart of that society.
I woke up to this headline. Al-Qaeda attacks Obama. Terrorist group uses racial slur to attack president elect.
I am going what? So I delve further into the article, because I am pretty sure, terrorist in the desert or not, whatever you want to think of them. I am hoping they know better than to use the other N word.
Ayman al-Zawahri’s message appeared mainly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies.
He said in the message that Obama is “the direct opposite of honourable black Americans” like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.
In al-Qaida’s first response to Obama’s victory, al-Zawahri also called him – along with former and current secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice – “house Negroes.” [/quote]
So he didn’t use the unforgivable word. Also this argument is one that I have heard from several other people, black or white. Some people do think that there is no change. Democrat or Republican, black or white it’s the same agenda.
I also remember recently that Jesse Jackson had to apologize for his remark where he said he felt that Obama was talking down to black people.
[quote]“Barack, he’s talking down to black people,” Jackson said in a short clip the network aired this afternoon on “Special Report with Brit Hume.”
Now it’s not as flattering as being called the Magic Negro, which I still don’t see how that was meant to be flattering, but apparently it was, when used by the L.A. Times.
But it’s clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the “Magic Negro.”
The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. “He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,” reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .
This follows on the heals of Lindsey Lohan, getting some heat for using the term Colored. I didn’t watch the video, but even if she used the term colored, it’s antiquated, but not generally in many circles considered racist.
[quote]Lindsay Lohan is happy Barack Obama got elected after campaigning for him this year. But, she referred to the President-Elect with a mumbled adjective at the beginning of an interview with Access Hollywood’s Maria Menounos that some say is offensive. Does she say “good” or “colored?”
“It’s an amazing feeling. It’s our first [mumble] president.”
So let’s recap here people, so I don’t keep seeing those crazy headlines.
Colored is an antiquated word, but at the time of it’s popularity was I don’t think primarily a negative word. (Though it was used as a divisive word)
Black the preferred term outside of America, and the Afro American term. In Canada, the UK, and many other parts of the world Black is the preferred term.
Negro, Not a popular term in this time period, but still not considered a racist word. In fact the term is still used by the United Negro College Fund. Because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
The last and final word which I will not debate here, but I still think falls into the unforgivable word category. The N_gger word. Used by some urban kids and some adults, the word has throughout history had a negative connotation. It still does in many circles. Urban culture has tried to reclaim and recapture the term and often use it amongst themselves, much to the shagrin of people like Oprah and many others in the black community and outside, who find the term highly offensive.
The term is a dubious one, because depending on who uses it, it’s often over looked in some cases, Eg. If used by a black person, vs if used by another race. Some people think that the term should be not used by anyone. (I am in agreement with this.)
[quote]The city council of New York has voted to ban the use of the word “nigger”.
The resolution to ban the so-called “N-word” is largely symbolic as it carries no weight in law and those who use the word would face no punishment.
But it reflects a growing unease that the racial slur is now part of everyday conversation and that the taboo against its usage has been swept away.
The word is in common usage among sections of the younger generation in the United States.
‘Throwback to slavery’
For many years the “N-word” has been used by young African Americans who have appropriated it as a, perhaps ironic, term of endearment.
Now, other ethnic groups have started to use it in a similar context, and those who insist it should be banned are growing increasingly outraged.
Many African American community leaders, with the backing of fellow lawmakers, say it is offensive in every context and that is a word which should never be said.
So that’s a little bit of a history lesson on words that are popping up left right and center and dubious headlines that I keep coming across. Let’s not go crazy people. Obama hopefully will not be the last black (bi-racial) president ever. I think it’s great the media is taking care to make sure that he feels welcome and people are being sensitive on his behalf, wither it’s making sure that the colored term is not used again, or other precautions, but let’s keep things in context here.
Here are some pics of Obama with his grand parents.
With his dad’s family
with his mom
His mom’s family
With is family
With his grand daddy
So unless someone uses the unforgivable word, can we stop with the crazy headlines, please.
The next thing I wanted to talk about was an Interview Greg Syzmanski did with Ramona Lopez. The interview is from a couple of years ago.
She was a regular mom who saw kids in her community doing drugs. She wanted to help these kids, so she started with some others in the community to help try to get the drugs stopped.
What happened to her was a nightmare. Along the way of trying to stop drugs, she learnt that the officials in the community were actually trying to push drugs on the kids. There she was trying to get the kids off drugs, and the police and others were trying to keep them on drugs.
Well she started to make this known and that is when the trouble started. Her and her friends started to get set up, several of the woman who had tried to help her were set up with narcotics, arrested and placed in jail. She herself was almost set up, but she had tapped the conversation.
She was gang stalked, she actually walked into one of the community policing meetings where they were trying to set her up and demonise her. They didn’t realise that she was the one that they were going to be following around, so they spoke openly about her, saying things that were not true. When they realised it was her, they stopped talking at the meeting.
Her family would later be harassed, they started to electronically harass her, she was drugged with needles, she was gang raped in her home, when she went to file a report about it, they did not want to perform a rape kit, when she reported it to the police, the report when no place. She was constantly stopped by the police, demonised, she even eventually lost her home because of the harassment.
They used everything to silence her and the rest of the people that had tried to help these kids. What she discovered is what many others have discovered, the authorities in these areas were the ones trying to push drugs on the kids.
She also when she went to the doctor found that she had been chipped. She has x-rays of this, and other documentation.
She awoke in the middle of the night on more than one occasion when they were in her home, thinking they had her in a drug like state, she could hear them talking above her. (The scene she described reminds me a lot of what some of the abducties have said about waking up, with people around them. I do think there is a tie in to these scenarios.) She talks about how they can make you pass out. What she is referring to by this is how the electronic pulses can put you to sleep, many targets including myself have experienced this. We will be fully awake and if we are not cognizant of the electronic harassment beginning, we will just fall asleep and awake later. Your energy is just zapped, and you just fall asleep, as if you have no energy. Kind of like a small child being instantly rocked to sleep.
She was still being stalked and harassed, they had gone after her family. She is very credible when you listen to her, and there was no reason for the government to do this to this woman, but they did. The drugs in the community never stopped and she became just one more target of the state, who stumbled upon the truth and was silenced for it.
Please take the time to listen to the full audio interview of what they did to this woman.
- Above top secret
- Abu Ghraib
- Active denial
- Active Denial Weapons
- as the world turns
- Asain Male
- Asian Female
- Astral Plane
- Background records checks
- bad luck
- Black female
- Black Females
- Black Male
- black women
- Brain reading device
- Britney Spears
- brown coats
- Buffy The Vampire Slayer
- changing vibrations
- Citizen Informants
- Civilian Spies
- Community harassment
- community mobbing
- community policing
- concentration camps
- constitutional change
- Controlled society
- Covert investigations
- Cultural diversity and multiculturalism
- david icke
- devinci code
- domestic spying
- East Germany
- electromagnetic frequency
- Electronic harassment
- Emotional Vampires
- False Prophets
- files updated
- Gang Stalking
- government corruption
- GPS tracking
- Guantanamo Bay
- Health and Safety
- Heath Ledger
- High technology
- Honey Trap
- Indigo Ribbon
- Informant System
- Intimate Infiltarations
- Jeremy Blake
- Joan of Ark
- John Lennon
- Kilmeer Gill
- Lord Of The Rings
- Marian Fisher
- Mark M Rich
- Markus Wolf
- Martin Luther King Jr
- Meat production
- mental concentration camps
- metropolitan police
- militarized police force
- Mind Control
- Mind Reading
- Minority women
- Naomi Ebersole
- National Security Letters
- Neurolinguistic programing
- New World Order
- one handed signals
- Online Stalking
- Passive Aggressive Manipulative
- Personal Identifiers
- Police Abuse
- Police Corruption
- Police State
- Production Company
- psychological harassment
- Quantum Physics
- Record keeping
- records updated
- Red Squads
- Robot Sentient Project
- Rosa Parks
- School Shooting
- sexual harassment
- sign language
- Skin Heads
- Social Control
- Spiritual Based Products
- Spy cameras
- spy satellites
- State target
- Stop snitching
- Targeted Individual
- The Matrix
- Theresa Duncan
- Third wave
- Thought Police
- Threat Assessment Teams
- time travel
- twilight zone
- violent persons registry
- Voice to skull
- walls of jericho
- whistle blower
- white female
- White Male
- workplace mobbing
- Young and the restless
- zero tollerance