As a Canadian, I have no "skin in the game", but, for decades been an interested observer of US politics. I generally take the position that everybody is lying to you, especially when politicians are involved. The entire "hate" Nixon narrative never struck me as having any real basis. It's not like he ordered the break-in, and was, evide…
As a Canadian, I have no "skin in the game", but, for decades been an interested observer of US politics. I generally take the position that everybody is lying to you, especially when politicians are involved. The entire "hate" Nixon narrative never struck me as having any real basis. It's not like he ordered the break-in, and was, evidently, astonished when some of his internal directives were ignored, meaning his public statements were a "cover up". Every politician is corrupt to some degree, but I could never understand why so much scorn was heaped on Nixon (or for that matter Reagan after making peace with the "Evil Empire"). Trump, it appears, was naive enough to think that his de-classifying JFK files would not have consequences. are we seeing a pattern yet?
As a Canadian, you do have skin in the game. You should be aware that Canada has been integral to the CIA's coup against the U.S. and the West more generally. See here, by way of introduction:
"The facts are that during January 1973, when no one in our country was yet taking "Watergate" seriously, a Miss Renaude LaPointe (member of the Canadian Senate, formerly a distinguished Quebec journalist and one-time Quebec correspondent for Time magazine in Canada) was made aware that the President of the United States would soon be politically destroyed, forced from office, and that much of his administration and many of his supporters would be smeared and incriminated beyond hope of survival. This knowledge was fairly prevalent among some government people in the Canadian capital of Ottawa even earlier than Miss LaPointe's awareness of it -- as early perhaps as the late fall or early winter of 1972. Another member of the Canadian government to hear such rumors or plans was a Mr. Barnett J. Denson (member of Canada's House of Commons, former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and former Toronto businessman). If there is a conspiracy to destroy the Presidency (and it probably would not have begun with President Nixon -- Mr. Nixon just happened to be the unfortunate incumbent at the final thrust of the conspiracy), it is possible it is operating out of the safety of Canada where, through carelessness or plan, knowledge of it seemed strong although submerged months before it became a serious matter here."
Q: How would Members of the Canadian Parliament know this?
A: Alexander Yakovlev, Soviet Ambassador to Canada, 1972-1983. The "architect of Perestroika." See also Christopher Story, "New Lies For Old" (Explaining that Perestroika was really an attack against the West).
Thanks. By no skin in the game, I meant not able to vote in US elections. As for our politicians, while there used to be some well meaning ones who actually got elected, for decades, in all parties, they have been waiters to the ZOG of the USA. Igor Gouzenko`s 1945 defection in Ottawa caused a major crack in what was then the Canada, UK, US Allied partnership. They needed something "new" to patch that up, so they created NATO. Former Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson (aka Red Mike) was named by Elizabeth Bentley in 1951 as a source, when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs. Despite his public anti-US rhetoric, he was always a globalist taking orders from his masters. The same goes for Trudeau, v1.0. I believe that every Prime Minister since Pearson has been installed by the cabal.
As for Perestroika, in the early 70s, I was overseas in university where I met several Soviet Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, and a crazy East German woman. While I was not naive enough to believe everything they said, knowing they would have been considered safe due to their families being at home, there were several comments that stuck with me. One was that the old guys would never want another war, because they had lived through WWII and seen the carnage. They were not so sure about the young guys. Gorbachev was a young guy, as was Yeltsin. What did come through loud and clear was an absolute mistrust of anything the US said or agreed to. The same for perfidious Albion. My aunt by marriage was descended from Empire Loyalists purged from the US. Discussions at the Treaty of Paris led the US to agree to pay compensation. When she died 20 years ago, the family was still waiting. The US has reneged on Treaty after Treaty, since its inception. Wilson s 14 Points were the basis of the Armistice - not surrender - of 1918. All of those points were ignored. Later, LLoyd George named Wilson as the fiercest opponent of amending Versailles. While Perestroika may have been an attack, which implies the arms limitations treaties that followed were, Reagan had Lee Wanta destroying the ruble in order to collapse the USSR. Most recently, we find out that literally occupied Germany, along with sock puppet NATO partner France, admitted that they had no intention of implementing the Minsk Accords. It is not even plausible to think that they did that on their own. The ZOGS of NATO continue the US and UK long tradition of failing to live up to Treaties and running coups. No side can claim they have clean hands. but these people just do not stop. It has been my opinion, for decades, that the intelligence services of the so-called Western liberal democracies all report to Mossad and Shin Bet, it is just that with the 5 Eyes it is more obvious. I note that, while there is some excuse for Putin being soft on the Zionists due to their being in positions of influence in Russia, that may be a smokescreen for large parts of the Russian intelligence apparatus being on board with their (((Western))) counterparts.
As someone knowledge revealed to me: There was a secret agreement between Washington and Moscow in which -- and this is what Iran-Contra was about -- the two nations would arm Israel and the Arabs respectively, but only up to a point, in the Cold War conflict. Neither the US nor Soviets would risk war with each other to rescue their proxies. This is Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" attempted to be borne out. Or Fukuyama's "The End of History." The sociological understanding is that "organizations in conflict become like one another." That was the intention of the policies.
A related example: Muskie's '72 campaign was sabotaged from within in order that Nixon win so that he -- and the silent majority -- could be defeated politically, forever. That's another of the big secrets that uncovering the truth about Watergate would reveal. The point is that the long term destruction of a major political bloc is more valuable than a short term electoral win. That's why Podesta, who had done same for Muskie, sabotaged HRC in 2016 with the purported "hack" of his emails. They weren't hacked in any real sense. Hillary took a dive, then, and it was hoped Trump would win so that he could be defeated in a more meaningful way, and -- most importantly -- the MAGA idea -- along with him.
Moynihan was able to so confidently state in Secrecy (1998) that Truman was never told of VENONA (Bentley and Chambers, e.g.) because he KNEW having worked as cable clerk at Ruislip AFB in 51. See Krogers and Ruislip. Moynihan/McMahon then in Berlin in 53. Olson. Moynihan/McMahon came up with the term" enhanced interrogation" (torture).
What, at the end, is really the point behind this? A hint, perhaps, is to be found in Moynihan's favorite poem, "The Second Coming," written during the horrors of WWI that you mentioned.
That is to say, the point is to test Prophecy. The Center Cannot Hold.
Have you ever considered the possibility that Daniel Patrick Moynihan is the center of evil in the modern world? Initially, this proposition might seem counterintuitive, I know. But consider the evidence:
1) In 1965, Moynihan writes an influential essay praising the "professionals" who would go to Washington and use the "information available for social planning" to make policy. Result: these "professionals" become the hated New Class of 'pointy-headed bureaucrats' who discredit the idea of activist government.
2) Moynihan co-authors the 1963 book, Beyond The Melting Pot, which asserts that America's ethnics aren't melting, don't intermarry, etc.. It becomes respectable for all manner of groups to define themselves by their racial and ethnic backgrounds. Result: the curse of "identity politics" is loosed on the land.
3) Moynihan drafts the "final submission" of the interagency commission that recommends the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. Result: social disaster. Thousands of pathetically ill people are freed to wander the streets and cause harm to the social order, to themselves, and to others.
4) Moynihan writes a 1965 speech for President Johnson to deliver at Howard University, in which LBJ calls for "not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result," pregnant words that lead to what we now call "affirmative action." Result: American society is riven by a rancorous ongoing debate over racial preferences.
5) Moynihan writes his 1965 report identifying a "tangle of pathology" destroying the institution of the black family, but he omits (probably for careerist reasons) a discussion of possible solutions. Result: pointing out the black family's troubles is labeled an excuse for doing nothing ("blaming the victim"); the War on Poverty gets knocked off track; and honest discussion of America's gravest social problem ceases for two decades. Welfare rolls fill up with single mothers.
6) Moynihan pushes his 1969 plan for a "guaranteed income," which tries to cure the perversity of sending checks to single mothers by sending checks to everyone. The plan fails, but its acceptance by the policy elite helps destigmatize the dole. Result: Welfare dependency continues to soar; the black ghettos become nightmarish pockets of broken families, crime, and 'opposition culture.'
7) With these social forces in place, Moynihan urges a racial policy of "benign neglect."
8) When Jimmy Carter proposes reforming welfare, Senator Moynihan helps defeat the plan, while whining about the need for fiscal relief for New York state ("[T]he time has come to think of ourselves," he says.) Result: the welfare crisis goes unaddressed for another decade, while the ghettos get even worse, and Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich get the issue that lets them to sweep into power.
An impressive record. Now comes Alexander Cockburn, writing in the N.Y. Press about the massacres of East Timorese by pro-Indonesian militias. Cockburn points out that -- it's too eerie! -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan had a hand in that disaster as well. It seems that as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, he helped snuff out any opposition to Indonesia's invasion in 1975 of what had been a Portuguese colony seeking independence. In his U.N. memoir, A Dangerous Place, Moynihan boasts "the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."
Brilliant, blindered egomaniac, or satanic force? You, the reader, be the judge!
You have to understand the deep and almost psychotic hatred and long term grudge holding that is a hallmark of leftism. Nixon ran against Helen Douglass in the late 40's for a Congressional seat. He made reference to Ms Douglas having a pink slip or something that implied she was a Communist. Leftists went crazy and marked Nixon for relentless attacks over the years. Just like Trump he set off a type of mental craziness where leftists and liberals just lose every perspective and carry their soul rotting hatred for generations. It is like a flaw in their DNA.
The deep and psychotic hatred and long term grudge holding is not restricted to "leftism" - a term that, in practice, died decades ago. What you describe is the reaction of ideologues, wherever they fall on the the now outdated political spectrum, but found mainly in the neo-cons and Israel-firsters. They are single issue types that will not tolerate what they see as a threat to their political objectives. There were plenty of anti-Nixon Republicans, just as there are Never Trumpers.
Might try explaining that to the abortion on demand mob. Those "outdated" terms might rankle you but I can assure you what many really think about the leftist and ANTIFA crowd can be expressed in more modern language but probably not in the comments sections. Were all those anti-Nixon Republicans voting Democrat in 1968 & 1972 when he won big. The Democrats did not have their "election" rigging act together yet.
Well, using today's terminology, the abortion on demand mob are Nazis, because abortion is a part of the eugenics movement, and the Nazis were into eugenics, just as Margaret Sangster was. The ANTIFA types would be pissed on by Lenin and Trotsky. There is no question they are demented along with being the useful idiots of globalists like Soros. In Nixon's time, Republicans were more loyal to the brand, but still less than the cultist Democrats. As for election rigging, it's been done by both parties forever. Johnson wasn't "Landslide Lyndon" in the 40s and 50s for nothing. It was the Republican Tom Feeney, who was named by Clint Curtis in 2000, as the one who wanted him to create a program to rig elections. According to Curtis the program would do just what Dominion and others were alleged to have done. Politics is dirty business, and no one's hands are clean.
As a Canadian, I have no "skin in the game", but, for decades been an interested observer of US politics. I generally take the position that everybody is lying to you, especially when politicians are involved. The entire "hate" Nixon narrative never struck me as having any real basis. It's not like he ordered the break-in, and was, evidently, astonished when some of his internal directives were ignored, meaning his public statements were a "cover up". Every politician is corrupt to some degree, but I could never understand why so much scorn was heaped on Nixon (or for that matter Reagan after making peace with the "Evil Empire"). Trump, it appears, was naive enough to think that his de-classifying JFK files would not have consequences. are we seeing a pattern yet?
As a Canadian, you do have skin in the game. You should be aware that Canada has been integral to the CIA's coup against the U.S. and the West more generally. See here, by way of introduction:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/%28est%20pub%20date%29%20misc%20re%20th%5B15132638%5D.pdf
"The facts are that during January 1973, when no one in our country was yet taking "Watergate" seriously, a Miss Renaude LaPointe (member of the Canadian Senate, formerly a distinguished Quebec journalist and one-time Quebec correspondent for Time magazine in Canada) was made aware that the President of the United States would soon be politically destroyed, forced from office, and that much of his administration and many of his supporters would be smeared and incriminated beyond hope of survival. This knowledge was fairly prevalent among some government people in the Canadian capital of Ottawa even earlier than Miss LaPointe's awareness of it -- as early perhaps as the late fall or early winter of 1972. Another member of the Canadian government to hear such rumors or plans was a Mr. Barnett J. Denson (member of Canada's House of Commons, former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and former Toronto businessman). If there is a conspiracy to destroy the Presidency (and it probably would not have begun with President Nixon -- Mr. Nixon just happened to be the unfortunate incumbent at the final thrust of the conspiracy), it is possible it is operating out of the safety of Canada where, through carelessness or plan, knowledge of it seemed strong although submerged months before it became a serious matter here."
Q: How would Members of the Canadian Parliament know this?
A: Alexander Yakovlev, Soviet Ambassador to Canada, 1972-1983. The "architect of Perestroika." See also Christopher Story, "New Lies For Old" (Explaining that Perestroika was really an attack against the West).
Thanks. By no skin in the game, I meant not able to vote in US elections. As for our politicians, while there used to be some well meaning ones who actually got elected, for decades, in all parties, they have been waiters to the ZOG of the USA. Igor Gouzenko`s 1945 defection in Ottawa caused a major crack in what was then the Canada, UK, US Allied partnership. They needed something "new" to patch that up, so they created NATO. Former Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson (aka Red Mike) was named by Elizabeth Bentley in 1951 as a source, when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs. Despite his public anti-US rhetoric, he was always a globalist taking orders from his masters. The same goes for Trudeau, v1.0. I believe that every Prime Minister since Pearson has been installed by the cabal.
As for Perestroika, in the early 70s, I was overseas in university where I met several Soviet Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, and a crazy East German woman. While I was not naive enough to believe everything they said, knowing they would have been considered safe due to their families being at home, there were several comments that stuck with me. One was that the old guys would never want another war, because they had lived through WWII and seen the carnage. They were not so sure about the young guys. Gorbachev was a young guy, as was Yeltsin. What did come through loud and clear was an absolute mistrust of anything the US said or agreed to. The same for perfidious Albion. My aunt by marriage was descended from Empire Loyalists purged from the US. Discussions at the Treaty of Paris led the US to agree to pay compensation. When she died 20 years ago, the family was still waiting. The US has reneged on Treaty after Treaty, since its inception. Wilson s 14 Points were the basis of the Armistice - not surrender - of 1918. All of those points were ignored. Later, LLoyd George named Wilson as the fiercest opponent of amending Versailles. While Perestroika may have been an attack, which implies the arms limitations treaties that followed were, Reagan had Lee Wanta destroying the ruble in order to collapse the USSR. Most recently, we find out that literally occupied Germany, along with sock puppet NATO partner France, admitted that they had no intention of implementing the Minsk Accords. It is not even plausible to think that they did that on their own. The ZOGS of NATO continue the US and UK long tradition of failing to live up to Treaties and running coups. No side can claim they have clean hands. but these people just do not stop. It has been my opinion, for decades, that the intelligence services of the so-called Western liberal democracies all report to Mossad and Shin Bet, it is just that with the 5 Eyes it is more obvious. I note that, while there is some excuse for Putin being soft on the Zionists due to their being in positions of influence in Russia, that may be a smokescreen for large parts of the Russian intelligence apparatus being on board with their (((Western))) counterparts.
As someone knowledge revealed to me: There was a secret agreement between Washington and Moscow in which -- and this is what Iran-Contra was about -- the two nations would arm Israel and the Arabs respectively, but only up to a point, in the Cold War conflict. Neither the US nor Soviets would risk war with each other to rescue their proxies. This is Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" attempted to be borne out. Or Fukuyama's "The End of History." The sociological understanding is that "organizations in conflict become like one another." That was the intention of the policies.
A related example: Muskie's '72 campaign was sabotaged from within in order that Nixon win so that he -- and the silent majority -- could be defeated politically, forever. That's another of the big secrets that uncovering the truth about Watergate would reveal. The point is that the long term destruction of a major political bloc is more valuable than a short term electoral win. That's why Podesta, who had done same for Muskie, sabotaged HRC in 2016 with the purported "hack" of his emails. They weren't hacked in any real sense. Hillary took a dive, then, and it was hoped Trump would win so that he could be defeated in a more meaningful way, and -- most importantly -- the MAGA idea -- along with him.
The "secret agreement" would have been Harriman's doing, I reckon.
Moynihan was able to so confidently state in Secrecy (1998) that Truman was never told of VENONA (Bentley and Chambers, e.g.) because he KNEW having worked as cable clerk at Ruislip AFB in 51. See Krogers and Ruislip. Moynihan/McMahon then in Berlin in 53. Olson. Moynihan/McMahon came up with the term" enhanced interrogation" (torture).
What, at the end, is really the point behind this? A hint, perhaps, is to be found in Moynihan's favorite poem, "The Second Coming," written during the horrors of WWI that you mentioned.
That is to say, the point is to test Prophecy. The Center Cannot Hold.
kaus files
A Modest Proposition
Is Daniel P. Moynihan the Devil?
Posted Thursday, September 23, 1999/Slate.com
Mickey Kaus
Have you ever considered the possibility that Daniel Patrick Moynihan is the center of evil in the modern world? Initially, this proposition might seem counterintuitive, I know. But consider the evidence:
1) In 1965, Moynihan writes an influential essay praising the "professionals" who would go to Washington and use the "information available for social planning" to make policy. Result: these "professionals" become the hated New Class of 'pointy-headed bureaucrats' who discredit the idea of activist government.
2) Moynihan co-authors the 1963 book, Beyond The Melting Pot, which asserts that America's ethnics aren't melting, don't intermarry, etc.. It becomes respectable for all manner of groups to define themselves by their racial and ethnic backgrounds. Result: the curse of "identity politics" is loosed on the land.
3) Moynihan drafts the "final submission" of the interagency commission that recommends the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. Result: social disaster. Thousands of pathetically ill people are freed to wander the streets and cause harm to the social order, to themselves, and to others.
4) Moynihan writes a 1965 speech for President Johnson to deliver at Howard University, in which LBJ calls for "not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result," pregnant words that lead to what we now call "affirmative action." Result: American society is riven by a rancorous ongoing debate over racial preferences.
5) Moynihan writes his 1965 report identifying a "tangle of pathology" destroying the institution of the black family, but he omits (probably for careerist reasons) a discussion of possible solutions. Result: pointing out the black family's troubles is labeled an excuse for doing nothing ("blaming the victim"); the War on Poverty gets knocked off track; and honest discussion of America's gravest social problem ceases for two decades. Welfare rolls fill up with single mothers.
6) Moynihan pushes his 1969 plan for a "guaranteed income," which tries to cure the perversity of sending checks to single mothers by sending checks to everyone. The plan fails, but its acceptance by the policy elite helps destigmatize the dole. Result: Welfare dependency continues to soar; the black ghettos become nightmarish pockets of broken families, crime, and 'opposition culture.'
7) With these social forces in place, Moynihan urges a racial policy of "benign neglect."
8) When Jimmy Carter proposes reforming welfare, Senator Moynihan helps defeat the plan, while whining about the need for fiscal relief for New York state ("[T]he time has come to think of ourselves," he says.) Result: the welfare crisis goes unaddressed for another decade, while the ghettos get even worse, and Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich get the issue that lets them to sweep into power.
An impressive record. Now comes Alexander Cockburn, writing in the N.Y. Press about the massacres of East Timorese by pro-Indonesian militias. Cockburn points out that -- it's too eerie! -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan had a hand in that disaster as well. It seems that as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, he helped snuff out any opposition to Indonesia's invasion in 1975 of what had been a Portuguese colony seeking independence. In his U.N. memoir, A Dangerous Place, Moynihan boasts "the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."
Brilliant, blindered egomaniac, or satanic force? You, the reader, be the judge!
http://www.kausfiles.com/archive/index.09.23.99.html
You have to understand the deep and almost psychotic hatred and long term grudge holding that is a hallmark of leftism. Nixon ran against Helen Douglass in the late 40's for a Congressional seat. He made reference to Ms Douglas having a pink slip or something that implied she was a Communist. Leftists went crazy and marked Nixon for relentless attacks over the years. Just like Trump he set off a type of mental craziness where leftists and liberals just lose every perspective and carry their soul rotting hatred for generations. It is like a flaw in their DNA.
The deep and psychotic hatred and long term grudge holding is not restricted to "leftism" - a term that, in practice, died decades ago. What you describe is the reaction of ideologues, wherever they fall on the the now outdated political spectrum, but found mainly in the neo-cons and Israel-firsters. They are single issue types that will not tolerate what they see as a threat to their political objectives. There were plenty of anti-Nixon Republicans, just as there are Never Trumpers.
Might try explaining that to the abortion on demand mob. Those "outdated" terms might rankle you but I can assure you what many really think about the leftist and ANTIFA crowd can be expressed in more modern language but probably not in the comments sections. Were all those anti-Nixon Republicans voting Democrat in 1968 & 1972 when he won big. The Democrats did not have their "election" rigging act together yet.
Well, using today's terminology, the abortion on demand mob are Nazis, because abortion is a part of the eugenics movement, and the Nazis were into eugenics, just as Margaret Sangster was. The ANTIFA types would be pissed on by Lenin and Trotsky. There is no question they are demented along with being the useful idiots of globalists like Soros. In Nixon's time, Republicans were more loyal to the brand, but still less than the cultist Democrats. As for election rigging, it's been done by both parties forever. Johnson wasn't "Landslide Lyndon" in the 40s and 50s for nothing. It was the Republican Tom Feeney, who was named by Clint Curtis in 2000, as the one who wanted him to create a program to rig elections. According to Curtis the program would do just what Dominion and others were alleged to have done. Politics is dirty business, and no one's hands are clean.