Our Season of Creation

  • Reading Time: 5 minutes

    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.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    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.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    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.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    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.

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    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

     

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    It looks like the Clinton camp is working its magic in California, however it might still be possible to undo the damage. Poll workers in California are being told that independent voters must vote on provisional ballots. This is wrong. California is an open primary, which means Independents can vote on a regular ballot. If they accept provisional ballots their votes won’t be counted. So…perhaps the Sanders campaign could make a radio announcement aimed at the voters as well as the poll workers? Thanks to Mike Malloy on YouTube for this information and to his source, Greg Palast.((Greg Palast with Denis J. Bernstein, Placebo Ballots: Stealing California from Bernie. Greg Pallast Journalism and Film, June 2. Available: http://www.gregpalast.com/placebo-ballots-stealing-california-bernie-using-old-gop-vote-snatching-trick/#sthash.jp7yNlEv.dpuf)) (Many of the poll-workers are clueless so don’t blame them.  Print the following PDF and take it with you to the polls: http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ccrov/pdf/2016/january/16036em.pdf)

    It is not a pretty sight to see our leaders behave this way, but I suppose a Sanders presidency is just not an option for our globalist masters and so they’ve been forced to show their hand more than usual. It’s my theory that this is all about getting Bill Clinton and his foundation back into the White House. Therefore, I imagine that if something should happen to Hillary’s presidential prospects Bill would sell her out in a heartbeat. If that were to happen the Democratic establishment types who threw their lot in with Hillary would go the unenviable way of opportunists everywhere who chose the wrong side. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    If we believe the media, this election is a battle between individuals and their parties. The media is lying. It’s really a battle between global finance and the people. This would put the supporters of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and the third party candidates on the same side.  A case in point is that the National Resources Development Council has endorsed Hillary Clinton.  ((Jay Taber, A Fixed Mentality. The Wrong Kind of Green. December 1, 2015. Available: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/tag/natural-resources-defense-council/)) The NRDC is represented by the likes of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, and its policies are endorsed by the Green Party. ((III Ecological Sustainability. Available: www.gp.org/ecological_sustainability))

    The most chilling thing about the establishment media’s support of Hillary Clinton is its ability to ignore the threat she poses to the people. However, there’s no need to demonize Hillary. What the establishment is supporting is a takeover by the globalist financiers.

    Hillary Clinton would not have set up a private server without the permission of those she serves. Therefore, we should assume that her masters didn’t care if the Russians, the Chinese, the hackers, and perhaps the tech-savvy ISIS, knew of her business dealings. Obviously, her dealings were beneficial to these parties, or at least they were no threat to them. On the other hand the globalists did object to the American people seeing her emails. Therefore, we should assume that the Clintons’ business dealings were detrimental to the people’s interests. The same arguments can probably be made for the Clinton Foundation.

    At one time we hoped that the FBI would take these pretenders out of the picture, at least for the duration of this election. Who knows, Hillary might welcome this intervention. If she were indicted for following her masters’ orders, they couldn’t blame her for failing to win the White House.

    But what if we were wrong to give up on the FBI? There was that story about how certain agents threatened to resign if nothing came of the investigation, and hints that they might leak information to the press. Of course the leak could easily be denied…

    On May 29, an article on Huffington Post alleged that the FBI recommended an indictment of Hillary Clinton on federal racketeering charges. It was promptly deleted and denied, and the author’s Huffpo account was suspended. But to quote a well-known public figure, ‘what difference could it possibly make at this point?’ Because evidence of racketeering is already in the public domain. The only thing in doubt is the FBI’s recommendation.  And lest Donald Trump get overly excited by this argument, he’s every bit the servant of the globalists that Hillary Clinton is.

    In the end, the most important lesson of this election is almost never mentioned. It’s a measure of whether our leaders value their own legitimacy. A ruler’s legitimacy has always been inseparable from the will of the people, or at least the appearance of the people’s will. If the establishment no longer recognized this, it wouldn’t have bothered with an election at all. And it certainly wouldn’t have negotiated with Bernie Sanders. It’s our job to strengthen these limits.

    As for the global financiers, they actually believe they operate under some kind of immunity. They honestly think standards of accountability don’t apply to them. They’re wrong. Accountability is not something one agrees to. It’s a fact of life. Therefore, not only is the entire premise of the global elite pathological, its new world order is built on sand.

  • Reading Time: 4 minutes

    It’s time to explain my general approach—again. I’ve been rethinking it due to the new developments in this conversation—for example our inclusion of Pope Francis—or maybe I should say his inclusion of us—and my support of a candidate in this presidential election. In the case of the election, I’ve wanted to avoid confusing my opinions with Senator Sanders’s platform. In the case of the Catholic Church I’ve become aware that there are many among us who don’t understand its relevance to the American conversation. But I haven’t given up on women’s rights. The unspoken question remains, can we talk about patriarchy?

    I’ll begin by explaining why I think Americans are fortunate to be invited into the Church’s conversation. I will end with a mention of Plato and his effect on both the Church and women.

    The Church Can Enrich the Conversation

    I’ve already mentioned the biography of Albert Gleizes. After much study and thought I’ve come to the conclusion that without the presence of the French Church and especially its priests, this story wouldn’t have been so rich and meaningful. Of course the same can be said of the artists and writers.

    The priests didn’t lead this conversation—they were a natural part of it because of their closeness to their communities and their interest in the art and culture of those communities. They listened, they invited the artists to teach in a church setting, and they commissioned work. Since reading about this process, the entire French conversation has had a hallowed place in my imagination. Sadly, that world is gone now. It died in World War II. Many people fear that the pre-war confidence in a restoration of order died with the old world. But fortunately, the Church didn’t get the memo. It continued the conversation.

    Vatican II

    “In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War there was a widespread desire within the Roman Catholic Church for a change in the way in which the Church was presented to the world—a desire for greater openness and ‘relevance’ to the conditions of modern life. Its most radical expression in France was the ‘worker-priest movement—the movement of priests who, acutely aware of the divorce of working-class life from the Church, became workers, as indistinguishable as possible from their fellow workers, often actively engaged in the political struggles of the class led by the Communist Party.

    “In art, the post-war period was characterized by a willingness to use well-known, sometimes controversial, artists, giving them considerable freedom, regardless of their own religious beliefs. The two names most prominently associated with this tendency were Fathers Marie-Alain Courturier and Pie Raymond Régamey, both Dominicans. They were to be behind the church at Assy, in the Haute Savoie, built between 1948 and 1950, with work by Léger, Lurçat, Matisse, Chagall, Bazaine and (especially controversial) a crucifix by Germaine Richier. They were also responsible for Matisse’s chapel—realized for the Dominicans—at Vence (1948-51), and for Le Corbusier’s church at Ronchamp (1955) and his Dominican priory at La Tourette (1960).” 1

    A Pattern for Dealing With Disagreement

    Previously I mentioned the theological disagreements that arose from Gleize’s adherence to Rene Guenon. However, it’s important to also mention that these disagreements didn’t end the interaction of Gleizes and the Church. Today, many people associate theology with the Inquisition. I’ve read their articles online.  While the the Inquisition was indefensible, some of the worst events in our history have been a result of getting the theology wrong, so I would argue that it’s a force that must be reckoned with. Whatever hope we have of building a new and better world, it will have to be built with an awareness of the relevance of theology, for better or for worse.

    Authoritarianism Always Finds a Way

    I can argue this another way. When I wrote about our Ayn Rand episode, I argued against her tendency to define her philosophical machinations as morality. I think it’s shocking that we were being fed the doctrines of Ayn Rand by financial institutions that have no concern for us.   Today there are many people slinging a new and improved world view and hoping to get followers. My point here is that none of our current ideas can be taken for granted simply on the claim of rationality or secularization. And if not for our cultural history I would have had no basis for my argument against Rand.

    The Exception of the American Catholic Church

    On a negative note, one concern I have is that the Catholic church takes on a different character depending on its setting and circumstances. I imagine the interwar period in France was a humble time for the Church, and I don’t know if the American Church shares any of the same characteristics, or if it ever did. Thanks to the U.S. bishops, our conversation with the Church has already had a some rude shocks. First we learned that the bishops believe it’s okay to risk the lives of mothers who trust Catholic hospitals to care for them. Second, there was a recent headline about a meeting between the U.S. Bishops and the Mormon Church to discuss shared concerns. Neither of these things increases my confidence in the bishops.

    America’s Use of the Occult in its Medical System

    Hermes in India convinced me that the Devil presides over the medical system. Therefore, I can’t take this news about hospital policies lightly.

    Can We Talk About Patriarchy?

    Here’s my suggestion for an approach to the discussion of patriarchy. One objection to patriarchy is its economics, which I call ‘trickle-up economics’. I would argue that greed was the original motivation for the denigration of women. As long as large amounts of unattached wealth exist in the world, as opposed to being owned by communities (and passed down through mothers), there will be an endless struggle for control of it. I’m sorry to say, Plato’s philosopher-king isn’t coming—just an endless stream of shady characters in expensive shoes. This is the aspect of patriarchy that has to end.

    But is a rejection of Plato the same thing as a rejection of the church’s theology, which depends on Greek thought? Not necessarily. Not unless economic inequality is more of a central tenet of our culture that I realize.  I think you have to look at the whole theological process rather than a single set of ideas from twenty-five hundred years ago.

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    When I brought up a previous post, [intlink id=”985″ type=”post”]The American Diamond in the Rough[/intlink], I wasn’t trying to reintroduce the subject of patriarchy. I was focused on campaign strategy. I was looking for a non-confrontational way to respond to the criticism of my objections to the diverting of Sanders’s supporters to Jill Stein. Because the problem with this approach seemed so obvious to me, the personal, confrontational nature of the criticism led me to believe that the problem was more than a simple difference in strategy.

    The critics acted as if this was a question of whether third parties have a place in American politics. (I’ll ignore for now their doubts about the voters’ ability to choose.) For me, this wasn’t a question about third parties. I was objecting to the assumption that Jill Stein is the same as Bernie Sanders, and that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Bernie. Since they are not the same as people or as politicians, this makes no sense as a strategy. Bloggers who claim to be Sanders supporters should be telling people to write in Sanders, not to write in someone else. In fact, they should be telling Jill Stein’s supporters to vote for Sanders. Considering Bernie Sanders’s success so far, it’s more likely that this would lead to his nomination and therefore to the success of the progressive agenda.

    As I write a certain blogger is scolding Senator Sanders again on YouTube for not solving the shocking behavior of the Democratic Party at the Nevada Democratic convention. Unfortunately, I believe she’s laboring under a misunderstanding of what’s really happening here. Does she really believe there’s a simple remedy available to Sanders after party officials revealed themselves to be thugs and called out law enforcement to enforce their thuggery? If so, I’m sorry to be the one to tell her this, but instead of railing against Sanders we should be mourning the end of our democracy because that’s what we’re witnessing here.

    Those who talk about how common sense will prevail and go on about how this must be the end of the evil party, are also mistaken. We’re seeing the fruits of the decades since World War II with numerous treacherous men at the helm of this country.

    On the other hand, if those who are still waiting to vote in their state primaries are too discouraged to vote as a result of what I’ve just said, that would be a mistake. The only other choice we have at this point is to hand it over now rather than in July, and I’d advise against that. Even though I have less confidence now than I’ve ever had before in the FBI’s coming to our rescue, I say let’s finish this. There will be plenty of time to talk about what we’ve learned at the end.

     

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    See also: [intlink id=”985″ type=”post”]The American Diamond in the Rough[/intlink]

error: Content is protected !!