Emptiness Part III at New Ruskin College
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
06-02-05, 08-07-05, 08-11-05
Emptiness Part III
It matters not Right or Left. For example, recently Jerry Springer and Al Franken have started bringing up John Kerry’s service record again, and maligning the Swift Boat Vets. Why? They have not had enough of it?
Because they can. Because they have radio microphones in front of them and they can say anything they want. The can repeat the vapid phrase “the discredited Swift Boat Vets” over and over, (as if they were the final arbiters of what is and is not creditable), because now they have the Power!
Al Franken can be for the war then against it. He can say he agrees with “progressive indexing” one week, (for the rate of increase in Social Security benefits), if it starts for those with “incomes over 40k”, and then the next week he can claim that the very idea is “pernicious.” (see Lecture Notes: 05-04-05) One week he can agree that we should not have to “bribe” the rich in order to have an old age pension for the bottom 60% who would be in poverty without assistance, and then the next week claim all such discussion is reactionary.
He can support the Second Gulf War then claim he did so only because he was “lied” to. Lied? As with O’Reilly the fact that arsenals of chemical and bio weapons were not found means he was “lied to” or as with O’Reilly, the war was wrong or a mistake. Franken has expressed similar disappointment with the absence of nuclear weapons. Yet before the war Saddam Hussein had admitted to making Chemical and Biological weapons, claiming that they had been destroyed. Before the war it had only been argued that Iraq was making contacts to buy “yellow cake,” a raw material for nuclear weapons, certainly not indicating a bomb program nearing completion.
These three weapons programs were the only reason Franken and O’Reilly thought we should go to war? Are they serious? Yes! Franken and O’Reilly, both Harvard educated, would judge the decision making that led to the war not based on what facts the decision makers had at that time but based on what facts were developed later.
Only after the war, after the inspections had been completed, they argued this absurd position: ‘Because after the war, upon inspection, the chemical weapons were not found, therefore we should have known and trusted Saddam Hussein before the war . . .’; an argument so obviously disingenuous as to require no refutation. But because they control the microphone their nonsense pours out and poisons the national discussion.
That a detailed report lists dozens of bio and chemical laboratories, and recounts interviews with scientists who have explained that they were paid to develop programs for bio and chemical warfare, (though they did so only in a limited manner), to say nothing of the truck loads of material moved to Syria prior to inspection, all of this counts for nothing.
In one classic example Joseph Wilson, an outspoken critic of the war, claimed that there was no evidence for the British Intelligence report that Iraq had sought contacts in Niger to purchase “yellow cake.” Only to have it revealed later that Mr. Wilson had in fact confirmed this report with a Niger government official, who said Iraq had sent a trade delegation to Niger.
(Previously Iraq had purchased 900 tons of yellow cake from Niger which was confiscated after the First Gulf War. (Bill Kristol claimed that the President used the word “recently” in his State of the Union Address, only in order to scare and panic the American people into going to war. Again Left or Right. Could it not be that the word “recently” was used to distinguish these contacts from the earlier ones in which yellow cake had been purchased? And, again, panic? Over an inquiry to purchase a raw material?))
Yet Franken continues to claim that the British Report was a lie not withstanding that Wilson, a man Franken has championed as a model of honesty, has confirmed that report. Yet his position is only slightly more ridiculous than that of John Kerry who famously supported the war before he was against it, calling it the “wrong war.” Yet Kerry had voted in favor of a resolution authorizing force.
In explanation of which he claimed that he did not know that Bush would “fuck it up” so badly. So which is it? Is his complaint that it is the “wrong war” or a poorly executed war? After a year of campaigning he never did clarify his views. Intentionally? For to do so, had he spoken clearly, he would have lost votes from one end of his party or the other.
Ah, control of the mass media! What a rush. Power! And is this not fascism? Is this not the very point I was making in The Last Letter, (see The Last Letter at the Moynihan): The mass manipulation of symbols for state control in bad faith.
And was that letter not why Michael Weiner and Ron Lowenstein had me followed and harassed me for over a decade? For example, on one occasion Michael Weiner gave a detailed account of standing outside my health club and describing the people he was watching inside. Then the very next day they had their homosexual friend follow me into the locker room at the health club. Then Ron Owens went on the radio to explain how to deal with homosexual harassment in the locker room.
On another occasion they burglarized my room at the Colonial Motel and then Michael Weiner started reading from the notebook the very next day, (see The Stolen Notebook at the Moynihan), and then the other employees of KGO started joking about it. And the employees of KQED also joined in, interfering with my life. They too followed me from AAA to Farmers, hectoring and harassing; Michael Krasney using his contacts to interfere with my employment . . .
And why? Because I had said in the Last Letter, 1991, that anyone can manipulate symbols in the mass media in order to gain state control, anyone can tell the big lie, anyone can be a fascist. (And more importantly for Michael Weiner, Ron Lowenstein, and Michael Krasney because by implication these arguments in the Last Letter could apply even to Jews who are in the mass media. Even Jews can become fascists. They thought they were exempt from such criticism. Like spoiled children they cried: Not us!
Ron Owens appears to have been a “friend” of Yvonne’s, (she has appeared on his show), and so my criticism of her in the Last Letter, my criticism of her betrayal of her client, (me), was for him personal. Yet also for him, as with Michael Weiner, the fact that Yvonne is the daughter of survivors of the Holocaust was an important factor. (see MICHAEL WEINER HOLOCAUST DENIER, Lecture Notes: 07-10-2004, Lecture Notes: 08-12-04 Silence)
(After the burglary at the Colonial Motel, where my notebook was stolen, I wrote a note to Yvonne in which I called Michael Weiner a fascist. Then shortly there after, Professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on TV, saying that there had been many prominent Jews among the fascists in Italy prior to the war. ( I think he might have been referencing a recent book on the subject . . . but . . . I wondered. . . was he referring to the that letter also? (Yvonne had a habit of circulating my letters to her. )) So not all Jews feel Jews must be exempt from all criticism? Indeed, why should we allow Michael Weiner and Ron Owens and Michael Krasney to hide behind “being Jewish?” Why allow them to speak for all Jews? Victor Frankel, himself a survivor of a NAZI death camp made the point that even the Holocaust itself can be used by fascists. Yes, not only can anyone be a fascist, but, also anything can be manipulated in the mass media in bad faith, even the Holocaust.)
But Michael Weiner, Ron Owens, Michael Krasney want to be exempt from criticism. They want to use their “Jewishness” to cover there fifteen years of harassment. They have waged a campaign of defamation against me. Simply making the charge of anti-Semitism is enough. Or simply saying, “He’s got a problem with Jews . . .” is enough. “With Jews?” This is how they hide: Weiner, Owens, Krasney, for them “the Jews,” is a get out of jail card.
And there is no reasoning with them or the credulous bystanders. You might think they know that they have been wrong, or unreasonable . . . But you have not yet grasped the point: They have the Power! They can do and say whatever they like. And their individual psychology is that they are VICTIMs and that they alone see more clearly, are free from fault, etc. This is an unstoppable combination: power and delusion.
Consider Don Imus who must have heard of the Laser Disk letters when they were first sent to the Senate in the late 1980s, (see Math Project and New Ruskin College Project Archives at the Moynihan), and then took the trouble to track me to State Farm in 1998 and then to GAB Robins in 2003. And yet as with Ron Owens and Michael Weiner he feels justified. Some aspect of his psychology says to him, “Yes, this is good, you are right to harasse and vex and destroy this man.” Ten years. Fifteen years. No limit?
Next consider all the others who knew and went out of their way to comment on all of this: Chris Matthews, David Fineman, David Gregory, Jim Lehrer, Senator Hatch, Senator McCain, on and on (see Lecture Notes) they have appeared on Imus’ show and made references to this web site to let it be known that they are in the know, and by implication that they agree with Don Imus: it is “amusing” to use your influence to destroy another’s life. David Gregory actually joked with Imus in the morning and then later that very day at a press conference with the President demanded if the President would admit his! “mistakes.” (see Imus Protests April 2004)
There was no trace, no hint, that David Gregory had the slightest self awareness that he was wrong, morally bankrupt to support and encourage Don Imus. No trace because to this day David Gregory thinks Don Imus’ use of his power and influence to destroy another person is acceptable. Like Senator Hatch, who said to Imus, “I have heard what you do to some of your listeners,” all of these individuals think their conduct acceptable, even something to boast about, (as did David Lowery the editor of National Review).
And here today, eight months after the election, I say after the election, we still have Jerry Springer and Al Franken who have not had enough of Kerry’s war record and want to go over the facts again? NO, not the facts! They want to malign the veterans again.
They do not want to go over the facts, have a review of the evidence, a reasoned discussion, they control the microphone, it is for them another display of their power, to show how they too can abuse others with impunity, they simply want to posture, to have it both ways . . .
And was this not the Vietnam War itself? Fighting the war . . . yes, but . . . not too much war please? The Vietnam War was a case of having it both ways.
The fellow officer who was on the boat with Kerry that night, December 2, 1968, --- I say was “on the boat” with Kerry, ---- says Kerry was not engaged with enemy forces. Kerry himself, writing in his journal, December 11, 1968, nine days after the incident, said, “A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.”
(Purple Hearts are awarded for only those injuries sustained while engaged with the enemy. So therefore if as his fellow officer stated, and as Kerry here appears to confirm, they were not under fire, then his first Purple Heart was not justified, something he had been advised when he first made his request.)
Both Springer and Franken disparaged the Swift Boat Vets as a NAZI on air personality might tell lies about the Jews; knowing full well that the Jews would not have the opportunity to rebut the claims, argue against the charges, present evidence, reason, etc. Indeed why bring it up again? Because they can!
Their candidate twice requested a medal he was not entitled to receive and they continue to argue the matter even eight months after the election in perfect psychological equanimity because they really believe not withstanding the facts as set out in their candidate’s own hand. They really believe . . . this is the Emptiness. Not bad faith, (that which we attribute to others), no! They truly believe.
Don Imus, Michael Weiner Springer and Franken are beyond the reach of reason. There is no philosophy, no religion that will reach them. And what is more, this is humanity. Would that it was just these few . . . but I live on a planet where as I am destroyed by the likes of Imus and Weiner a crowed gathers round to jeer and ridicule . . . and they all feel perfectly comfortable with what they are doing, see nothing wrong with it, would be surprised if you asked them why they were not ashamed . . . might come after you if you were so rude.
I’m sure they have many rationalizations.
Springer and Franken know the power of mass media, the mass manipulation of symbols. They do not have to deal with the facts, reason, discuss the evidence, they can simply malign the character of the Swift Boat Vets and there will be no answer . . .
And what is this but fascism?
The officer who was with Kerry that night was a Lieutenant Junior Grade who later retired from the Navy at the rank of Admiral. When asked at the time if he would support Kerry’s claim for a Purple Heart, he said that he could not as they had not been engaged with the enemy that night. (http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document200408280010.asp )
Ironically it was only after Lanny Davis, on CNN’s Crossfire, questioned his credibility, that Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, Jr. (USNR), came forward to explain the facts publicly. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40180 )
I say ironically because Springer, Franken, Davis, could have simply left the subject alone. Mr. Davis did not have to question Mr. Schachte’s credibility. Springer and Franken did not have to bring it all up again. Kerry himself could simply have said, ‘I had turned against the war, and there was this rule, that if you get three Purple Hearts you can leave, so I availed myself of this opportunity and returned home to try and help end America’s involvement with that war which I had come to see as mistaken.’
Not only does this approach avoid the controversies but it seems to be in accord with the facts and explains and connects Kerry’s subsequent acts seamlessly, i.e. the truth. (I previously made this point in a posting here at this site and John O’Neill appearing on TV a few days later made the comment that Kerry could have simply said he availed himself of this rule, “if he had no honor.”. . . coincidence . . . I’m sure . . . pretty sure . . .)
But Springer, Franken and Davis know the power of the big lie, the lie amplified by the power of the mass media and can prevent any reply.
Prevent? How prevent?
Well there are many other things that can be done. You could persuade the marriage counselor to betray her client for example. You could get the pill popping, trash talking, Scott Bobro to harasse your enemy while working at Farmers Insurance. You could get Michael Weiner to organize a burglary with the help of his friends at the ADL and the San Rafael Police Department and take the notebook and read it on the air. (see Intel Operations) Give copies to the other employees at KGO and they too can read from it, make comments about it, harasse, vex, torment. (see Stolen Notebook: http://www.newruskincollege.com/moynihanmemoriallibrarynewruskincollegecom/id7.html )
Don’t stop there. The former Mrs. Dr. Dean Edel at AAA can help Michael Krasney harasse there. Mrs. Jack Swanson can report where your enemy has been seen and also use her contacts at CENCAL insurance to harasse there as well. Don Imus can use his contacts to harasse at State Farm and at GAB Robins. (And if you are thinking that this is a digression think again, for something very much like this was done to the Swift Boat Vet Gardner, also an insurance adjuster, (see Lecture Notes: 02-14-05 Trophy Hunters, The Heart of Darkness,(http://www.newruskincollege.com/id28.html ), when Gardner came forward and dared to disagree with Kerry, Springer, Franken, Davis, et al.
Truth? Reason? Fairness? What do you need of these things when you have such power as this: the mass media?
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
06-02-05, 08-07-05, 08-11-05
Emptiness Part III
It matters not Right or Left. For example, recently Jerry Springer and Al Franken have started bringing up John Kerry’s service record again, and maligning the Swift Boat Vets. Why? They have not had enough of it?
Because they can. Because they have radio microphones in front of them and they can say anything they want. The can repeat the vapid phrase “the discredited Swift Boat Vets” over and over, (as if they were the final arbiters of what is and is not creditable), because now they have the Power!
Al Franken can be for the war then against it. He can say he agrees with “progressive indexing” one week, (for the rate of increase in Social Security benefits), if it starts for those with “incomes over 40k”, and then the next week he can claim that the very idea is “pernicious.” (see Lecture Notes: 05-04-05) One week he can agree that we should not have to “bribe” the rich in order to have an old age pension for the bottom 60% who would be in poverty without assistance, and then the next week claim all such discussion is reactionary.
He can support the Second Gulf War then claim he did so only because he was “lied” to. Lied? As with O’Reilly the fact that arsenals of chemical and bio weapons were not found means he was “lied to” or as with O’Reilly, the war was wrong or a mistake. Franken has expressed similar disappointment with the absence of nuclear weapons. Yet before the war Saddam Hussein had admitted to making Chemical and Biological weapons, claiming that they had been destroyed. Before the war it had only been argued that Iraq was making contacts to buy “yellow cake,” a raw material for nuclear weapons, certainly not indicating a bomb program nearing completion.
These three weapons programs were the only reason Franken and O’Reilly thought we should go to war? Are they serious? Yes! Franken and O’Reilly, both Harvard educated, would judge the decision making that led to the war not based on what facts the decision makers had at that time but based on what facts were developed later.
Only after the war, after the inspections had been completed, they argued this absurd position: ‘Because after the war, upon inspection, the chemical weapons were not found, therefore we should have known and trusted Saddam Hussein before the war . . .’; an argument so obviously disingenuous as to require no refutation. But because they control the microphone their nonsense pours out and poisons the national discussion.
That a detailed report lists dozens of bio and chemical laboratories, and recounts interviews with scientists who have explained that they were paid to develop programs for bio and chemical warfare, (though they did so only in a limited manner), to say nothing of the truck loads of material moved to Syria prior to inspection, all of this counts for nothing.
In one classic example Joseph Wilson, an outspoken critic of the war, claimed that there was no evidence for the British Intelligence report that Iraq had sought contacts in Niger to purchase “yellow cake.” Only to have it revealed later that Mr. Wilson had in fact confirmed this report with a Niger government official, who said Iraq had sent a trade delegation to Niger.
(Previously Iraq had purchased 900 tons of yellow cake from Niger which was confiscated after the First Gulf War. (Bill Kristol claimed that the President used the word “recently” in his State of the Union Address, only in order to scare and panic the American people into going to war. Again Left or Right. Could it not be that the word “recently” was used to distinguish these contacts from the earlier ones in which yellow cake had been purchased? And, again, panic? Over an inquiry to purchase a raw material?))
Yet Franken continues to claim that the British Report was a lie not withstanding that Wilson, a man Franken has championed as a model of honesty, has confirmed that report. Yet his position is only slightly more ridiculous than that of John Kerry who famously supported the war before he was against it, calling it the “wrong war.” Yet Kerry had voted in favor of a resolution authorizing force.
In explanation of which he claimed that he did not know that Bush would “fuck it up” so badly. So which is it? Is his complaint that it is the “wrong war” or a poorly executed war? After a year of campaigning he never did clarify his views. Intentionally? For to do so, had he spoken clearly, he would have lost votes from one end of his party or the other.
Ah, control of the mass media! What a rush. Power! And is this not fascism? Is this not the very point I was making in The Last Letter, (see The Last Letter at the Moynihan): The mass manipulation of symbols for state control in bad faith.
And was that letter not why Michael Weiner and Ron Lowenstein had me followed and harassed me for over a decade? For example, on one occasion Michael Weiner gave a detailed account of standing outside my health club and describing the people he was watching inside. Then the very next day they had their homosexual friend follow me into the locker room at the health club. Then Ron Owens went on the radio to explain how to deal with homosexual harassment in the locker room.
On another occasion they burglarized my room at the Colonial Motel and then Michael Weiner started reading from the notebook the very next day, (see The Stolen Notebook at the Moynihan), and then the other employees of KGO started joking about it. And the employees of KQED also joined in, interfering with my life. They too followed me from AAA to Farmers, hectoring and harassing; Michael Krasney using his contacts to interfere with my employment . . .
And why? Because I had said in the Last Letter, 1991, that anyone can manipulate symbols in the mass media in order to gain state control, anyone can tell the big lie, anyone can be a fascist. (And more importantly for Michael Weiner, Ron Lowenstein, and Michael Krasney because by implication these arguments in the Last Letter could apply even to Jews who are in the mass media. Even Jews can become fascists. They thought they were exempt from such criticism. Like spoiled children they cried: Not us!
Ron Owens appears to have been a “friend” of Yvonne’s, (she has appeared on his show), and so my criticism of her in the Last Letter, my criticism of her betrayal of her client, (me), was for him personal. Yet also for him, as with Michael Weiner, the fact that Yvonne is the daughter of survivors of the Holocaust was an important factor. (see MICHAEL WEINER HOLOCAUST DENIER, Lecture Notes: 07-10-2004, Lecture Notes: 08-12-04 Silence)
(After the burglary at the Colonial Motel, where my notebook was stolen, I wrote a note to Yvonne in which I called Michael Weiner a fascist. Then shortly there after, Professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on TV, saying that there had been many prominent Jews among the fascists in Italy prior to the war. ( I think he might have been referencing a recent book on the subject . . . but . . . I wondered. . . was he referring to the that letter also? (Yvonne had a habit of circulating my letters to her. )) So not all Jews feel Jews must be exempt from all criticism? Indeed, why should we allow Michael Weiner and Ron Owens and Michael Krasney to hide behind “being Jewish?” Why allow them to speak for all Jews? Victor Frankel, himself a survivor of a NAZI death camp made the point that even the Holocaust itself can be used by fascists. Yes, not only can anyone be a fascist, but, also anything can be manipulated in the mass media in bad faith, even the Holocaust.)
But Michael Weiner, Ron Owens, Michael Krasney want to be exempt from criticism. They want to use their “Jewishness” to cover there fifteen years of harassment. They have waged a campaign of defamation against me. Simply making the charge of anti-Semitism is enough. Or simply saying, “He’s got a problem with Jews . . .” is enough. “With Jews?” This is how they hide: Weiner, Owens, Krasney, for them “the Jews,” is a get out of jail card.
And there is no reasoning with them or the credulous bystanders. You might think they know that they have been wrong, or unreasonable . . . But you have not yet grasped the point: They have the Power! They can do and say whatever they like. And their individual psychology is that they are VICTIMs and that they alone see more clearly, are free from fault, etc. This is an unstoppable combination: power and delusion.
Consider Don Imus who must have heard of the Laser Disk letters when they were first sent to the Senate in the late 1980s, (see Math Project and New Ruskin College Project Archives at the Moynihan), and then took the trouble to track me to State Farm in 1998 and then to GAB Robins in 2003. And yet as with Ron Owens and Michael Weiner he feels justified. Some aspect of his psychology says to him, “Yes, this is good, you are right to harasse and vex and destroy this man.” Ten years. Fifteen years. No limit?
Next consider all the others who knew and went out of their way to comment on all of this: Chris Matthews, David Fineman, David Gregory, Jim Lehrer, Senator Hatch, Senator McCain, on and on (see Lecture Notes) they have appeared on Imus’ show and made references to this web site to let it be known that they are in the know, and by implication that they agree with Don Imus: it is “amusing” to use your influence to destroy another’s life. David Gregory actually joked with Imus in the morning and then later that very day at a press conference with the President demanded if the President would admit his! “mistakes.” (see Imus Protests April 2004)
There was no trace, no hint, that David Gregory had the slightest self awareness that he was wrong, morally bankrupt to support and encourage Don Imus. No trace because to this day David Gregory thinks Don Imus’ use of his power and influence to destroy another person is acceptable. Like Senator Hatch, who said to Imus, “I have heard what you do to some of your listeners,” all of these individuals think their conduct acceptable, even something to boast about, (as did David Lowery the editor of National Review).
And here today, eight months after the election, I say after the election, we still have Jerry Springer and Al Franken who have not had enough of Kerry’s war record and want to go over the facts again? NO, not the facts! They want to malign the veterans again.
They do not want to go over the facts, have a review of the evidence, a reasoned discussion, they control the microphone, it is for them another display of their power, to show how they too can abuse others with impunity, they simply want to posture, to have it both ways . . .
And was this not the Vietnam War itself? Fighting the war . . . yes, but . . . not too much war please? The Vietnam War was a case of having it both ways.
The fellow officer who was on the boat with Kerry that night, December 2, 1968, --- I say was “on the boat” with Kerry, ---- says Kerry was not engaged with enemy forces. Kerry himself, writing in his journal, December 11, 1968, nine days after the incident, said, “A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.”
(Purple Hearts are awarded for only those injuries sustained while engaged with the enemy. So therefore if as his fellow officer stated, and as Kerry here appears to confirm, they were not under fire, then his first Purple Heart was not justified, something he had been advised when he first made his request.)
Both Springer and Franken disparaged the Swift Boat Vets as a NAZI on air personality might tell lies about the Jews; knowing full well that the Jews would not have the opportunity to rebut the claims, argue against the charges, present evidence, reason, etc. Indeed why bring it up again? Because they can!
Their candidate twice requested a medal he was not entitled to receive and they continue to argue the matter even eight months after the election in perfect psychological equanimity because they really believe not withstanding the facts as set out in their candidate’s own hand. They really believe . . . this is the Emptiness. Not bad faith, (that which we attribute to others), no! They truly believe.
Don Imus, Michael Weiner Springer and Franken are beyond the reach of reason. There is no philosophy, no religion that will reach them. And what is more, this is humanity. Would that it was just these few . . . but I live on a planet where as I am destroyed by the likes of Imus and Weiner a crowed gathers round to jeer and ridicule . . . and they all feel perfectly comfortable with what they are doing, see nothing wrong with it, would be surprised if you asked them why they were not ashamed . . . might come after you if you were so rude.
I’m sure they have many rationalizations.
Springer and Franken know the power of mass media, the mass manipulation of symbols. They do not have to deal with the facts, reason, discuss the evidence, they can simply malign the character of the Swift Boat Vets and there will be no answer . . .
And what is this but fascism?
The officer who was with Kerry that night was a Lieutenant Junior Grade who later retired from the Navy at the rank of Admiral. When asked at the time if he would support Kerry’s claim for a Purple Heart, he said that he could not as they had not been engaged with the enemy that night. (http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document200408280010.asp )
Ironically it was only after Lanny Davis, on CNN’s Crossfire, questioned his credibility, that Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, Jr. (USNR), came forward to explain the facts publicly. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40180 )
I say ironically because Springer, Franken, Davis, could have simply left the subject alone. Mr. Davis did not have to question Mr. Schachte’s credibility. Springer and Franken did not have to bring it all up again. Kerry himself could simply have said, ‘I had turned against the war, and there was this rule, that if you get three Purple Hearts you can leave, so I availed myself of this opportunity and returned home to try and help end America’s involvement with that war which I had come to see as mistaken.’
Not only does this approach avoid the controversies but it seems to be in accord with the facts and explains and connects Kerry’s subsequent acts seamlessly, i.e. the truth. (I previously made this point in a posting here at this site and John O’Neill appearing on TV a few days later made the comment that Kerry could have simply said he availed himself of this rule, “if he had no honor.”. . . coincidence . . . I’m sure . . . pretty sure . . .)
But Springer, Franken and Davis know the power of the big lie, the lie amplified by the power of the mass media and can prevent any reply.
Prevent? How prevent?
Well there are many other things that can be done. You could persuade the marriage counselor to betray her client for example. You could get the pill popping, trash talking, Scott Bobro to harasse your enemy while working at Farmers Insurance. You could get Michael Weiner to organize a burglary with the help of his friends at the ADL and the San Rafael Police Department and take the notebook and read it on the air. (see Intel Operations) Give copies to the other employees at KGO and they too can read from it, make comments about it, harasse, vex, torment. (see Stolen Notebook: http://www.newruskincollege.com/moynihanmemoriallibrarynewruskincollegecom/id7.html )
Don’t stop there. The former Mrs. Dr. Dean Edel at AAA can help Michael Krasney harasse there. Mrs. Jack Swanson can report where your enemy has been seen and also use her contacts at CENCAL insurance to harasse there as well. Don Imus can use his contacts to harasse at State Farm and at GAB Robins. (And if you are thinking that this is a digression think again, for something very much like this was done to the Swift Boat Vet Gardner, also an insurance adjuster, (see Lecture Notes: 02-14-05 Trophy Hunters, The Heart of Darkness,(http://www.newruskincollege.com/id28.html ), when Gardner came forward and dared to disagree with Kerry, Springer, Franken, Davis, et al.
Truth? Reason? Fairness? What do you need of these things when you have such power as this: the mass media?
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home