Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • An article in the Washington Post has raised the alarm that Hillary Clinton may have been poisoned.((Cindy Boren, The man who discovered CTE thinks Hillary Clinton may have been poisoned. Washington Post, September 12, 2016. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned/))I’ve been thinking the same thing.  It’s disturbing to even be thinking such things let alone writing about them so I’m glad someone else said it first.

    The Post article proposed that the Russians or Trump might be the culprit. I disagree. Another analyst thinks it could be the people in her campaign. My suspicion is worse than that. My suspicion is so horrible I hope it’s wrong.

    The toxicology tests should be done by a trusted lab leaving nothing to chance. In the meantime, Hillary should be given a new team of caretakers just to be safe.

     

  • Christine Lagarde’s strange occult speech given on January 15, 2014 inspired this article.  In this speech, she purposely called attention to numerology and then gave a series of misleading instructions on how to use it. This was during the time she was Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Because of the role the IMF plays today in our politics and economics, and because Legarde went to such trouble to call attention to numerology, it’s clear that the IMF is ‘The occult IMF’.

    Comparing Numerology in Orpheus the Fisher

    I’m using Robert Eisler’s book Orpheus the Fisher 1 to examine Lagarde’s references to numerology.  On page 267 Eisler begins a section entitled Number Symbolism in Aberkios’ Epitaph. This section is in the chapter entitled The ‘Fish’ caught by the ‘Virgin’ in the Mystic Epitaph of Bishop Aberkios.

    Who Was Aberkios?

    Eisler tells us that Aberkios was probably bishop Avirkios Markellos of Hieropolis in Phrygia Salutaris. According to the Church History of Eusebius, Aberkios lived towards the close of the 2nd century A.D. His epitaph incudes a number of words that are used in an unusual metaphorical sense. In other words, he uses a Christian mystery-language. He focuses on the various mystic epithets given to the ‘fish’ (p. 251). In these epethets we can distinguish between the reference to the Leviathan and the reference to ‘the suffering Messiah himself. Eisler says he intended the latter meaning.

    However, Eisler councils against insisting on the meaning, as ‘these expressions are intentionally mysterious.’ Instead, he believes we can guess the principle meaning of the document without knowing what dogma the poet had in mind. But even under these limitations, there is another surprise in store.

    Eisler thinks Aberkios Invited Christians to ‘Count the Number’

    Eisler thinks it can “be proved  that where Aberkios invites him ‘who understands this’ to pray for his soul, he means, even as the author of Rev. 13:18, also him ‘who has understanding to count the number,’ not only him who knows how to explain the mystery-words.” And  if we want to study this meaning, we should use the system found on inscribed tablets of the Dodonean oracle-priests and familiar to readers of Homer.

    Numeral Mysticism in Early Christian Literature

    Whatever had been known previously of numeral mysticism in Early Christian literature–e.g. the famous 666 in Revelations, the 888 for the name of Jesus (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ) in Marcus, the 801 = Omega-Alpha for the Dove (ΠΕΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ) of the Hoy Spirit, etc. –was al based, as well as the Pagan parallels of ‘Mithras’ (ΜΕΙΘΡΑΣ) or ‘Abraxas’ (ΑΒΡΑΞΑΣ) = 365, etc., on the so-called Milesian or common Greek system of expressing numbers by the letters of the alphabet, namely, A = 1, B = 2, Γ = 3 …Stigma = 6 …I = 10, IA = 11, …K = 20 …Koppa = 90, P = 100, etc.

    Yet Carl Robert had shown years ago that there existed another system of number-writing, anterior to this decimal mode, found e.g. on inscribed tablets of the Dodonean oracle-priests, etc., which is quite familiar to every reader of Homer as the twenty-four cantos of the Iliad and the Odyssey are simply numbered with the twenty-four sequent letters of the Greek alphabet

    These twenty-four sequent letters of the Greek alphabet are Α = 1, Β = 2, Γ = 3, . . . Κ = 10, Λ = 11, . . . Φ = 21, Χ = 22, Ψ = 23, Ω = 24—, without the supplementary signs Stigma, Koppa and Sampi used in the other series. Eisler tested the hypothesis of Wolfgang Schultz in his own book, Weltenmantel und Himmelszelt,[efn-note]On. ii. 70, pp. 164-166 (Hercher).[/efn-note] and he identifies it as the system used by the Orphic and Pythagorean mystics to conceal their innermost mystery-secrets.

    On the one hand, Eisler calls this method of deriving meanings from numbers ‘ridiculous futility’, but he thought it provided enough information for anyone ‘who had understanding to count the number’. This was important because they could prove to an adept of Pythagorean lore that the ‘name’ of Jesus, ‘into which’ the Christians were baptised, could be ‘put on’ even as a heavenly ‘garment’, instead of the ‘old man’ (Col. 3:9).

    “Putting on the Heavenly Garment” is Pagan, Not Jewish

    This concept comes from the Pagan mysteries. It was alien to the old Jewish cult-system. However, Paul used this simile himself. (Eisler assumes he was under the influence of Hermeticism.) But the concept was also used in John 21, and possibly his source in Mark.

    Eisler concludes that it is worthwhile to study this system ‘if it is in keeping with other features of the narrative, for example the precise numbers full of symbolic bearing that are given for the cubits over which Peter has to swim from the boat to the Lord Jesus, and the multitude of ‘great fishes’ caught in the Apostle’s net. Eisler lists many other examples, but to include them all in this article would be getting off the subject.

    The Magic Number 7 in Lagarde’s Occult IMF Speech

    At the beginning of Lagarde’s occult IMF speech she mentions the ‘magic number 7’, saying that it’s ‘in all sorts of themes and religions’. She also explains that the numbers should be compressed. However, if she was serious about counting the number, she should have explained which system she was using. Her method made no sense.

    My Calculations Find the Magic Number 7 In Events She Mentions but Doesn’t Calculate

    Beginning with the date of Lagarde’s speech, both January 15 and 2014 equal 7: 01 + 1 + 5 = 7 and 2 + 1 + 4 = 7. In other words, the entire date equals 14, not just the last two digits of the year as she claimed.

    If we use the Greek letters for January, we get the same result. January in Greek is Ιανουȧριος, or 9 + 1 + 13 + 15 + 20 + 1 + 17 + 9 + 15 + 18 = 118. Compressing 118 gives 1 + 1 + 8 = 10. So again that’s: 1 + 0 + 1 + 5 = 7.

    The 100th Anniversary of World War I

    Next she tells us that 2014 will mark the 100th anniversary of World War I. The date of the beginning of World War I, June 28, 1914, doesn’t give us a 7 in the same way that January 15, 2014 does. Perhaps it’s not relevant. However the number 28 is important as the fulfillment of the number 7: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28.

    The 70th Anniversary of the Bretton Woods Conference

    Then she says 2014 is also the ‘70th anniversary of the Bretton Woods conference which gave birth to the IMF’. The 70 compresses to 7.  International Monetary Fund compresses to 7.

    The 25th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

    Next she says, it’s the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. 2 + 5 = 7.

    The Berlin Wall fell November 9, 1989. November in Greek is Νοεμβριος. This is 13 + 15 + 5 + 12 + 2 + 17 + 9 + 15 + 18 = 106, which compresses to 7.

    1989 is 1 + 9 + 8 + 9 = 27. (Compressed this is 9, however the number 27 may be important in itself.)  November 9, 1989 is 106 + 9 + 27 = 142. 1 + 4 + 2 = 7.

    The 7th Anniversary of ‘Financial Jitters’

    Next, she tells us that 2014 marks the 7th anniversary of the ‘financial jitters that turned into the greatest global catastrophe since the Great Depression’. The 7th anniversary comment looks to be the main relevance of this date as well.

    It’s not hard to guess why she chose January 15 for an occult speech in the year 2014, but what do the correspondences mean? Is she hinting that her cabal had a hand in those events? Unfortunately this system can be used to ‘prove’ just about anything, so it’s anyone’s guess.

    Lagarde Emphasizes ‘Weakness’

    However there several things in this speech we can talk about without feeling ridiculous. I’ll deal in this post with one interpretation of Lagarde’s emphasis on weakness. She described the previous 7 years as ‘weak and fragile’.

    By coincidence, I was researching the relationship between the theories of Joachim of Fiore & secularism and found an article about Gianni Vattimo that seems relevant.  2Gianni Vattimo, (1936–) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: a peer-reviewed academic resource.[/efn-note] I realize the connection of Vattimo with the IMF is random but it’s amazing how well it fits.

    Gianni Vattimo

    Vattimo is an Italian philosopher and cultural commentator, who is currently a Member of the European Parliament and a gay rights activist. He is influenced by Joachim of Fiore, but also by the works of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Gadamer and Kuhn. His ideas have influence across disciplines such as feminism, theology, sexuality studies, and globalization.

    Vattimo is “well known for his philosophical style of ‘weak thought’ (pensiero debole). ‘Weak thought’ is an attempt to understand and re-configure traces from the history of thought in ways that accord with postmodern conditions. In doing so, the aim of ‘weak thought’ is to create an ethic of ‘weakness’…” But what does this entail?

    The Ethic of Weakness is Vattimo’s Versions of  the Decline of the West Theme

    Vattimo, an ‘End of History’ type of philosopher, believes there is no longer a coherent narrative which is accepted in the West. In his view this process is a positive thing–it was initiated by Jesus Christ who  came to expose society’s propensity for sacrificial religion.

    Vattimo posits that history has lost its unilinear character in three principle ways: theoretically, demographically, and through mass communication. To explain the theoretical process he uses Walter Benjamin, who argues that unilinear history is a product of class conflict. Vattimo thinks demographic effects in modern Europe, in particular mass migration, have acted to undermine the notion of Europe’s unilinear history. This process is aided by mass communication which facilitates the rebellion of previously ruled peoples. In his view, the chaotic aspect of mass communication will lead to ‘emancipation’.

    This view contrasts with that of Adorno, Horkheimer, and Orwell, who thought that a homogenization of society would result from mass communication. As a result of Vattimo’s reading of Nietzsche, he thinks mass communication will lead to an increase of interpretations rather than facts.

    The Contradictions and Hypocrisy in Vattimo’s Diagnosis of Late Modernity

    Vattimo’s philosophy is not free of contradictions and hypocrisy. In spite of his supposed acceptance of a variety of interpretations, he firmly believes that his diagnosis of the situation of late modernity makes the best possible sense of this interpretative plurality.

    In another example he accepts the wearing of a cross as part of the secular furniture of the West but he rejects the wearing of the chador, which he thinks is an example of strong thought.  Never mind that the chador could be worn out of choice in a ‘weak’ sense. (Vattimo is an atheist but he was educated as a Catholic.)

    Weak Thought is an Agenda

    Weak thought is Vattimo’s philosophical style but it’s also his agenda.  It has lead him to posit that the only plausible late-modern, Western philosophical outlook is ‘hermeneutical nihilism’.” According to Vattimo, one must weaken the traces of the tradition into which one is ‘thrown’, and this can be done by twisting the old traces of Being. (Hermeneutics is a branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.)

    “Determined in this manner, Vattimo’s philosophy of ‘weak thought’ involves a withdrawal from metaphysics by avoiding new foundations or complete assent to any position.”

    Conclusion

    Although this philosophy is all wrapped up in a new package, it’s not new at all.  In fact it’s been proven over and over again to be harmful.   Unfortunately our illustrious leaders have no objection to it.

    Lagarde’s speech was part of an abusive relationship. She is a powerful representative of a powerful institution who gives us false and misleading information and then allows us struggle to understand.

    The abuse continues today.  We’ve seen the destruction of Syria, blatant disrespect for the US electoral process, and the bulldozing of tribal burial grounds in North Dakota, all directly related to out-of-control corporate power.

    Philosophy is one thing. Imposing one’s philosophy on the physical world and then teasing people with this magical nonsense is another thing entirely. It should go without saying that this behavior is not acceptable.

  • Considering the injustice done to Bernie Sanders and his supporters by the DNC, it is not sufficient for Wasserman Schultz to resign. Everyone knows she was working for Hillary Clinton. And if Clinton replaces her with Castro we’ll have exactly the same problem and Clinton won’t have given up anything. And in my opinion it is too much to ask Sanders’ supporters to sit by as yet another humiliation goes unpunished.  Clinton should lose something for this, and Bernie should get more than the belated resignation of Wasserman Schultz.

    Bernie Sanders should be the new chair of the DNC.  Or I should say he would be a good chair.  However, I don’t know if he even wants that position.  Tulsi Gabbard might be a more logical pick.  She’s already served on the DNC and she’s demonstrated her integrity by resigning in order to support Sanders.

  • I realize now the false claim that Senator Sanders is an atheist has contributed to a major blind spot regarding the meaning of his campaign—at least for me. In fact, it could be argued that the Sanders campaign has been making a religious statement about the nature of our times—a statement that has not been articulated for two thousand years.

    When he spoke at Liberty University Bernie quoted the prophet Amos:

    “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.” (Amos 5: 24)

    Perhaps this association between Sanders and Amos can explain how Sanders could wage such a devastating battle against his opponents and yet accept his losses with equanimity. Perhaps his desire to win is not mutually exclusive of the focus on getting his message out.

    According to Robert Eisler, this verse in Amos refers to the Messianic water of life in its original spiritual sense. ((Orpheus the Fisher: Comparative studies in Orphic and early Christian cult symbolism. Rare Mystical Imprints, Kessinger Publishing)) However it has also been interpreted literally. Eisler says this tug-of-war between the mystical and the literal is a characteristic of religious experience.

    Many of you will be aware that the last person to be influenced politically by verses like this one from Amos was John the Baptist, and this may not seem like the most encouraging of associations for Senator Sanders.  But I would argue that we are not re-enacting that old drama. While scriptural verses might give us clues about its nature and meaning, the phenomenon itself is fresh and new for our time.

    Some might also be concerned that this view is in conflict with the views of one of our friends in this conversation, Pope Francis. But it is not at all. These ideas represent the meeting of all religions, especially Christianity and Judaism, but also Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, among others.

    Eisler speculates that Ezekiel 47: 9-10 is another passage that influenced the doctrine of the Baptist and he presents this passage as an example of the way in which literal interpretations compete with allegorical interpretations.

    The Jewish exegesis of the scriptures haven’t been handed down to us, but Eisler thinks it’s possible to reconstruct them from the commentaries of the Christian Fathers by eliminating the specially Christian features of their symbolism and retaining those elements which clearly correspond to Jewish ideas. He begins with Theodoret’s Commentary on Ezekiel:

    “The Church Father refers the prophecy about the mystic stream to the sacrament of baptism, by saying ‘all those that are washed in the redeeming waters will reach salvation’. He means of course the Christian baptism, but the words could quite as well be used by a disciple of John, since the latter’s baptism is intended to save the repentant and regenerate new Israel from the ‘wrath to come’.”

    And he provides a direct quote from Theodoret:

    Ezekiel says also that the water will be full of fish and frequented by many fishermen: for many are they who through these waters will be fished for redemption, and numerous are they to whom the catching of this booty is entrusted…And Ezekiel says also that the multitude of fish will not resemble the number contained in a river but in the largest ocean; for the new people will not be equal in number to the old, but similar to the ocean of the nations, and it will fill the habitable world.

    Also, Jerome identified the mystic stream running down from the threshold of Ezekiel’s temple to the desert with the pure water of regeneration, which God Promises to sprinkle over Israel in Ezekiel 36:24.

    This water signifies, as he says several times, the grace of God to be obtained through baptism. By the fishermen, however, that stand on the river’s banks the same fishers are meant, to whom the Lord Jesus said, “I will make you to become fishers of men,” of whom we also find written in Jeremiah [16:16] ‘Behold I shall send many fishers that shall fish you’.

    Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis seem to be carrying on the tradition of John the Baptist with the content of their teachings as well. Jesus said of John that he came in the way of righteousness. (Matt. 21:32) And Josephus put it this way:  “[H]e taught the Jews to practice virtue both as to justice towards one another and piety to God.”

    According to Eisler this means that John’s ideal was the old Jewish ṣedākah, the legal principle of justice, a religious ‘suum cuique’ involving faithfulness to our duties both towards God and our fellow-men. Eisler cites Luke for single examples of his moral teachings:

    “The publicans shall exact no more than that which is due to them; the soldiers shall be content with their wages and not abuse their function as police by doing violence to people or bringing false denunciations against them; whoever has the least superabundance of clothing or meat, shall give of it to his brother in need.”

    I think it is important in the context of this election, to also mention important differences of opinion that exist in Judaism regarding the proper approach of said fishermen. First, there is the conviction that men could accelerate the coming of the Kingdom and force it down immediately by certain actions, either of obedience or of disobedience to the commandments of God. John thought fervent repentance would be strong enough to bring the kingdom of heaven down by force, and Jesus indicated that he thought God approved of this when he said of John:

    “But from the days of Jonah—the Baptist—until now the Kingdom of Heaven is being stormed and the violent appropriate it by force.” (Matt. 11:12 and Luke 16:16)

    In the notes on page 158 Eisler explains the second approach.  Speaking of taking the kingdom by force he says:

    “That such an apparent violation of the Divine plans of Providence was not always considered as sinful…may be seen from the repeated saying in the Talmud, that God loves to be conquered by a sinner through repentance. For the contrary view, cp. the Rabbinic comments on Canticles 2:7: ‘I conjure you…do not stir up, do not awake love, until He pleases.’ This double entreaty is said on the one hand to charge the Israelites not to cast off the yoke of the secular powers by force and not to return by means of a revolution into the promised land, on the other hand to warn the Gentiles against making the yoke of Israel unbearable. For in both cases the wrongdoers would be guilty of forcing the Messianic Day to dawn before its time.”

    This is from the chapter in which Eisler compares John the Baptist to Jonah, who ‘quarrels with Jahvé because He defers again and again in His forbearance the foretold Day of Judgment’. We know Jonah was punished. In addition, Eisler cites Rabbi Oniah’s statement that ‘four generations have already perished, because they tried to invade the kingdom’. Rabbi Oniah specifically mentions the generation of Bar-Kokhba.

    Speaking of literal interpretations, some of Sanders’ followers think he should have strong-armed his way to the presidency.   I would argue that this background suggest the importance of balance at the Democratic Convention.

    I don’t know if Sanders would agree with the associations I’ve made in this article.  I think they are reasonable based on the evidence, but either way I’m content to let things unfold however they will.  I’m confidant that the ultimate meaning of this campaign will not be decided by the hard facts of this election.

  • The YouTubers are still plying their trade, dwelling on sob-stories, ominous polls, and adding to the general rudeness and confusion any way they can. My concern is that we can be led astray regardless of where we look for our news, so we have to be clear about why we’re supporting our candidate and not be swayed by bad news. I for one, have had enough of the turmoil.

    I’m surprised to find that Bernie’s endorsement has had a remarkable effect on my mental state. It’s not what I wanted, but I can see it’s what had to happen. And I also realize that nothing that has taken place in this election should have surprised anyone the way it did.

    I saw some positive signs when Hillary spoke at Bernie’s endorsement news conference and I’m hopeful that she and Bernie will be able to work together. However, it occurred to me that Bernie Sanders will have very little influence if Donald Trump is elected. And that’s where we’re headed if we fall for the third party diversion.  The U.S. system was not set up for multiple parties.  A third party vote never works the way their voters hope it will and in this case it will probably lead to a Trump presidency.  While Trump may not end Bernie’s movement, he will set it back. Trump is a big price to pay for a protest vote.

    By the way, what do you suppose the odds are that just when we find a miracle-candidate with integrity and know-how, we also find a spare just waiting to save us in case he doesn’t work out–Jill Stein! Unfortunately Stein is a member of the party that gave the presidency to George Bush, back when Ralph Nader ran against him.  Of course they say she wasn’t the reason Bush won, but that’s not exactly a great recommendation for trying it again.

    We knew things were bad when Bernie’s campaign started. We knew our democracy was under threat. We didn’t dare to hope he would actually win, but we had to try. Then when it looked like we might succeed we suddenly forgot everything we knew about the forces arrayed against us—forces that have been gathering strength for at least a century. (And so not created by the Clintons.) We forgot for a moment how outrageous our success really was…and still is, and we have yet to fully understand how far we’ve come.

    You could refresh your memory by listening to Bernie’s conference call with his delegates.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na7kjo6VGuw

    For a discussion of third parties in America versus reforming the Democratic Party see: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html.  The following is an excerpt from that article dealing with Nader’s motives and errors:

    Nader Explains The Nader Campaign

    Thanks to a highly detailed post-election book that Nader wrote to chronicle and justify his 2000 presidential campaign as a candidate of the Green Party, it is possible to show how the critique in this document applies to this most recent incarnation of the egalitarians’ quest for their own third party. Although Nader is now irrelevant as far as future elections, his mentality and rationalizations live on in all those leftists who insist on building a third party despite what Nader wrought in the 2000 elections.

    Nader’s main claim is that the two parties are increasingly the same, and thus there is a need for a new third party that offers voters a real choice. This claim has two dimensions to it. First, the Democrats are far worse than their liberal supporters imagine. They have been collapsing on major issues since the 1970s, forsaking their “progressive” past, and matters only got worse in the Clinton-Gore years. Nader delivers a detailed indictment of these Democratic failures, including all the rejections of his own efforts by Gore and even the Progressive Caucus in the House.

    Second, and even more importantly in terms of justifying a third party, Nader argues that the Republicans are not as dangerous as the liberal Democrats claim. Bush is not exactly “Genghis Khan,” he notes at one point, and then lists the various ways Bush moved to the center in his first year in office. This point was of course laughable by 2005, which is another reason why it is worth reminding everyone of how Nader justified his campaign.

    Nader’s lack of concern when contemplating a Republican presidency is very different from the usual egalitarian view of Republicans as their main opponents. It can be appreciated more fully when it is contrasted with right-wing views of the Democrats. Due to their abhorrence of “big government,” labor unions, and/or liberal social values, right wingers generally avoid third parties at all costs because they genuinely fear the Democrats as the worst of all out-groups. A Clinton or a Gore looks tame to left-wing third-party advocates, but not to right wingers, who believe that the Democratic coalition, with Clinton and Gore representing its moderate wing, spells trouble for their worldview. Gore is Genghis Khan to conservatives, but Bush is not Genghis Khan to most left activists, including Nader, and therein lies an important part of the political equation in America. The energy of zealous right-wing activists is used on behalf of the Republicans, thereby uniting all those who are right of center when they step into the political arena, but the great energies and moral fervor of the egalitarians are often used in attacking Democrats as sell-outs, leaving those who are left of center divided among themselves and often demoralized.

    But it is not only that the two parties are about the same according to Nader. He also claims that it is useful for the Democrats to lose if activist groups are to be energized enough to realize their goals through nonviolent direct action and lobbying pressure. Democrats take activist groups for granted once the activists endorse them, and the activists tend to sit back when Democrats are in office. The result, says Nader, is disastrous. The Democrats put activists to sleep; they “anesthetize” activists. Thus, he argues that activist groups often do better when the Democrats are not in power.

    Furthermore, he continues, it may be good for the Democrats to lose once in a while so that they don’t take the citizen groups and social movements for granted. This is necessary because “The only message politicians understand is losing an election.” This comes fairly close to saying that it was time to sink Gore, especially when read in the context of the many extremely negative things he has to say about Gore on a wide variety of issues, and most pointedly environmental issues. Here Nader’s reasoning is based on the-worse-the-better theory.

    The likelihood that Nader wanted to cost Gore the election also can be seen in the fact that he chose to go to Miami to campaign the Saturday before the election. He says that’s because he hadn’t spent much time in Florida, but he did so knowing the race was very close there, and despite the fact that some of his political scientist and sociologist supporters wanted him to draw back in Oregon, Wisconsin, and Florida to assure a Gore victory in those crucial states.

    Although Nader never publicly said that punishing Gore was his motive, that’s the impression one disillusioned supporter received when he talked to a leader in the campaign about withdrawing from swing states like Florida, or asking Nader supporters in such states to hold their noses and vote for Gore in exchange for Nader votes by Democrats in safe states. The idea was that such a move would help defeat Bush while increasing the Nader vote in safe states. This would also vividly demonstrate the importance of Nader and his constituency to a Gore Administration and Democrats everywhere, or so some of his supporters reasoned. In response to this suggestion, one of Nader’s top aides abruptly said “We are not going to do that.” When the surprised supporter asked why not, the aide replied, “Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them.”

    Thus far, few analysts have closely examined Nader’s motives, but a staff writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer also reported that Nader wanted to punish Gore and the Democrats. After meeting with Nader in the Spring of 200l, he wrote: “He (Nader) is not coy about his motives. Just as he ran for president to punish Gore and the Democrats for allegedly betraying their progressive traditions and currying favor with global corporate power, now he wants to knock off congressional Democrats who have committed the same sins.” The journalist is referring to Nader’s plan to run 60 or so Greens in the congressional elections in 2002, which failed completely.

    Nader also claims there are virtues to third parties. They introduce new issues and they bring out new voters, some of whom vote for Democrats in races where the third party does not have candidates. He claims there were a million new voters in 2000 thanks to his campaign, and takes credit for the victory of Democratic senatorial candidate Maria Cantwell in the state of Washington, where she won by 2,300 votes over the incumbent Republican. He also draws on the relative successes of the third-party presidential campaigns by John Anderson in 1980 and H. Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 to support his brief for third parties.

    Nader’s specific arguments about the Democrats and Republicans do not address the structural problem that he understands, but discusses as a mere “obstacle” to be overcome in the slow process of building a movement and a third party. He does not admit that the everyday, short-run interests of the supporters of the Democratic Party, such as low-income workers, women who work outside the home, disadvantaged people of color, and religious liberals, are likely to be ignored as more and more Republicans assume office while the third party is being built. The slant of the Bush tax cuts to favor the top few percent is the most brutal evidence of how shortsighted Nader was on this point.

  • We know there were probably many factors in Comey’s decision not to recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton—the possibility that Bill Clinton blackmailed Loretta Lynch or her independent investigators for example. Knowing the background, you could interpret Comey’s press conference several ways, most of them having to do with bowing to the demands of his superiors. I’ve had some doubts about my own interpretation of it. For example, I listened to an interview by Mike Malloy on Saturday in which his guest said something about political maneuvering. That made me wonder, for a while, if Comey was influenced by his concern that an indictment would result in a Sanders presidency. However, I still believe that the main problem was that Comey was not free to recommend an indictment. The question is, why would he bow to this pressure?

    I suspect many Republicans in Congress were concerned about the effect of an indictment on the presidential race but I don’t think that explains Comey’s decision. I’m not holding my breath that the men and women in Congress will make good on their promise to revoke Clinton’s security clearances or re-investigate her private server but we’ll have to wait and see what comes of it. I strongly suspect they’re torn between revoking her clearances and kissing her feet. You see, I think Clinton may have pulled off the coup they’ve only dreamed of.

    There was a discussion on Morning Joe Sunday about whether the Clinton camp knew Comey was going to give this press conference. They concluded that the Clintons must have known. I disagree. They may have known Clinton wouldn’t be indicted but I don’t think they knew about the press conference. I doubt they would have taken the chance that Comey would frame it the way that he did. If I’m right about this, there’s really only one important question that we need to answer: why would James Comey agree to not press charges? I think he would need a good reason for going along with this part of the plan—something more important than saving his job. What if he was trying to give us a clue about what’s going on behind the scenes?

    There’s a theory being tossed around on right-wing YouTube channels that Clinton’s series of private servers represents a parallel government. In this government, Hillary and Bill have been wearing all the hats—including some of the hats normally worn by the commander in chief. The same people say that at this point it wouldn’t matter if the Clintons were taken out of the picture because the Clinton foundation is a spider’s web that covers the entire globe. That would explain why Hillary never seemed worried about the implications of the email scandal for her candidacy. Her nomination was already a done deal. She deleted the emails mainly because they contained privileged information about the workings of the new world government.

    I hope this is not true, but no doubt the current administration would have liked to avoid the mere suspicion, which it would have been able to do if not for the hacker, Guccifer. But while we can’t know if the theory is true I think we need to seriously consider it, as it explains what we’ve seen in this election better than any theory I’ve heard. It even explains the roller-coaster of Bernie Sanders’s campaign during which he was clearly the rightful winner, and yet failed to make a ripple in the final result. However I suspect we will eventually come to understand that winning isn’t everything, as Bernie has been trying to tell us. His campaign has indeed made ripples although we haven’t had the time to recognize them yet. And the very idea that we have to judge the worth of our efforts on the outcome of this election, after seeing its sordid character first hand, is sheer nonsense.

    Before we go on, we need to understand that this is just politics, meaning that we don’t have to like the eventual nominee. I personally will never forgive the Clintons for what they’ve done to us in this election, or for what they may have done to our nation. However, as a citizen of a democracy (of sorts) my rejection of the Clintons doesn’t relieve me of my obligations to Bernie Sanders.

    The Clintons ‘victory’ changes nothing about the realities we face. We still have the same tasks ahead of us and they are just as urgent as they ever were. However now we have someone in our corner who has Clinton’s ear—Bernie Sanders. It would have been better for us if he were the nominee, but it seems that was never in the cards, and now that Bernie has endorsed Hillary I’m taking my cue from him.

    In my opinion, the bloggers who are behaving as if this is still undecided are just prolonging the anguish. Furthermore, I think they’re proving themselves to be fair-weather friends. This one says he’ll vote for Jill Stein.  That one argues that we need a Republican administration to assure a progressive in the next election. I ask you, what will become of Bernie’s movement in that case?

    I’m not going to tell anyone who to vote for. I will ask people to at least think strategically.

    But I’ll ask for more than that. In the big picture there are other considerations besides strategy.  Where did Bernie come by all this influence, you ask? He got it from us. If we abandon him now we destroy his influence and leave him without the clout that he needs to be taken seriously in the future. I think that regardless of how confident the YouTubers seem that they can single-handedly recreate the wheel as far as Bernie’s movement goes, Bernie is still our best bet for the future. If we listen to them not only would we be abandoning Bernie, we’d be abandoning those members of Congress who supported him at great personal risk. This is no way to go about building a new civilization.  And it might indicate a serious flaw in the way people are thinking about this process.

    After hearing Bernie’s words over the last year and knowing that he’s been saying the same things throughout his career, there’s really no excuse for doubting him now. This behavior says more about one’s lack of self-confidence than it says about Bernie. The end result is to make them look just like the Clinton camp, which apparently believes winning is the only meaningful outcome regardless of what they have to do to make it happen.

    I’m still not ruling out a miracle but I’m extremely concerned about the comments I’ve read from these supposed Bernie supporters. Whatever happens before the convention, continually going over Clinton’s crimes and her lies about those crimes, will have no effect on the outcome.  What’s more, it will set people up for another disappointment. If some sort of ‘miracle’ does happen it won’t be because of her offenses while in office. The FBI investigation was our last hope on that count and that didn’t pan out. So please, let’s not go flying off the deep end just when Bernie needs us the most.

    So what are we to do in the election? Again, I won’t tell you who to vote for, but I will suggest some things you should not to do. You should not get all wrapped up in some alternative outcome just because things didn’t turn out the way you hoped.  Don’t vote for a candidate because you’ve been told he or she is just like Bernie. I won’t say the other candidates’ names because their supporters can get spiteful, but they are nothing like Bernie. Therefore, the argument, ‘if not Bernie then one of these other candidates’ makes no sense to me. Furthermore, their parties have no relation to Democratic Socialism, no matter what they’ve told you. Vote for their candidates if you think that will help, but not because you feel pressured to make something happen.  You don’t have to do anything you’re not sure of.

    I’m sick about the way this election has gone and I would not have the heart to make these arguments if I didn’t think the worst has already happened.  On the other hand, that doesn’t excuse us from continuing to fight, especially when our champion is still in the ring.  Let’s not throw away what we’ve accomplished here.

  • I can’t count the number of hopeful articles I’ve read and YouTube videos I’ve watched about how much trouble Hillary is in over her private server. Now I see it’s all been a cruel illusion. As usual the Clintons have everyone tied up in a pretty bow—Loretta Lynch, the President, the FBI.  Until Lynch and Obama decide to serve the American people instead of their own political expediency, Hillary will be in no trouble whatsoever. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of the American people. For the people of the world the situation is as grave as it gets. Read the article on WND. ((Jerome R. Corsi, Loretta Lynch’s Law Firm Tied to Hillary Clinton, wnd, March 28, 2016. Available: http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/loretta-lynchs-law-firm-tied-to-hillary-clinton/#!)) It was written back in March of 2016 and yet this disaster continues to creep steadily forward.

    Loretta Lynch should recuse herself from the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server. If she is not willing to do so, President Obama should appointed a special prosecutor. If he is unwilling to do his duty in this he should be impeached. It’s that serious. This is the real deal. This is as serious as it gets.

  • A private meeting took place Wednesday between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport. ((Christopher Sign, Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton Meet Privately in Phoenix, ABC15 News, June 29, 2016. Available: http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meet-privately-in-phoenix)) ABC15 questioned Lynch about this meeting during her news conference at the Phoenix Police Department. The news conference was purportedly the reason for her trip to Phoenix. According to Lynch it was the most spontaneous meeting ever experienced by two public figures. The fact that one of them is currently being investigated by the other had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all. The following was reported by ABC15’s Christopher Sign:

    The private meeting comes as Lynch’s office is in charge of the ongoing investigation and potential charges involving Clinton’s email server.

    The private meeting also occurred hours before the Benghazi report was released publicly involving Hillary Clinton and President Obama’s administration.

    Lynch said the private meeting on the tarmac did not involve these topics.

    “Our conversation was a great deal about grandchildren, it was primarily social about our travels and he mentioned golf he played in Phoenix,” said Lynch Tuesday afternoon while speaking at the Phoenix Police Department.”

    So it seems that neither of them mentioned the investigation.  Nor did they mention yoga.

    “There was no discussion on any matter pending before the Department or any matter pending with any other body, there was no discussion of Benghazi, no discussion of State Department emails, by way of example I would say it was current news of the day, the Brexit decision and what it would mean.”

    The meeting took place in Lynch’s private plane on the west side of Sky Harbor Airport and lasted about 30 minutes.

  • Here’s a video of Bernie Sanders’s speech to his supporters Thursday evening.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqAhcuihMHM

    I also have to report that there will be a people’s summit in Chicago this weekend, June 17-19.  Sorry about the short notice.  The link can be found at the end of this article. ((www.thepeoplessummit.org))  Its purpose is to convene organizations and individuals committed to social, racial and economic justice and to develop a people’s agenda that can enhance and expand issue campaigns and hold all elected officials accountable to popular demands for justice, equality and freedom.  The organizers envision the summit as further deepening the relationship between participating organizations rooted in principled anti-corporate politics, development of community leaders, direct action not based on partisan identification, and strategic organizing to build power.  The summit will be held at McCormick Place.

  • There’s good news and there’s bad news. The bad news is President Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton. The good news is Bernie Sanders turned down the vice presidency, in part because Obama refused to remove Wasserman Schultz as chair of the DNC.  This was a good move for Sanders.  As for Obama’s part, it made me see that the U.S. government has nothing worthwhile to say to us. I’ve decided it will no longer be part of this conversation.

    I admit that I considered condemning the government outright, but I won’t because Bernie Sanders is part of it. It’s like that old legend where God promises Lot He won’t destroy the world for the sake of one righteous man.  I do know this is not a perfect analogy—the U.S. government is not the world and I’m not God. And we’d all be very sorry if the world were destroyed.

    But back to the good news. Already I can identify two gifts that we’ve received as a result of Sanders’s campaign. We’ve discovered that the majority of Americans share the same vision of the way forward, and we’ve heard the gospel of Bernie Sanders enough times that we can recite it by heart. May his vision become part of our common understanding of morality.

    Now if I’m sounding like this is over, it’s not over. After everything that’s happened, Bernie Sanders is headed to the last primary in Washington D.C. and as long as he’s in there fighting we have no business getting discouraged.  When this is over we’re going to owe him big time.

    P.S. I was going to stay cool and collected but I’ve changed my mind. I’ve been aware for quite some time that when the powers that be need someone to do their dirty work they make a woman do it. Consider Maricopa County Clerk and Recorder Hellen Purcell, Arizona’s governor Jan Brewer, and Nevada’s Roberta Lang.  It’s occurred to me that Hillary will be the worst bot of all and I’m sorry to say I may be right about that. Check out this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ5d-CZSYSU

     

error: Content is protected !!