Nuclear Threat et. al

I have to admit I’m a bit confused by a couple of things…and I am not a stupid man. 

1)  On January 14th 2010, the board of directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago moved the Doomsday Clock away from destruction for the first time since 1991.  It was the first time they felt new information dictated a move in the hands of the clock since 2007, reemphasizing… towards the lesser threat, citing worldwide cooperation to reduce nuclear arsenals.   Only three months later, President Barack Obama stands in front of the 47-country Nuclear Security Summit and says that the risk of a nuclear attack is on the rise.

So my question is:  “Who is correct… The scientific organization who have been monitoring this since 1947 or our current President who was born in 1961?”  Has that much changed in the last 3 months?  And if so, what caused such a rapid reversal in the past 3 months?  Do the scientists not have all the facts, and if not, why are they being kept out of the loop?  I would guess the scientists have fully considered the threat of terrorism in their analysis.  Follow the link by the way, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded by former Manhattan Project physicists.  You know, the ones that helped invent the atomic bomb to begin with.

2) Since there have been comparisons of President Obama to Adolph Hitler, it has been suggested the Obama’s were directly quoting Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” (Alinksy was a Chicago Community Organizer as well) and the fact that many people are starting to personally believe that President Obama has a socialist agenda, I’ve started reading some of the books in question myself.  It is amazing how parallel some of these things seem to run, and yet how much confusion there is to what they are making a comparison to.

I guess my question is:  “Why do we always think ”This time is different!’?”  Why do people not seem to be able to figure out what the picture is, until every last piece of the puzzle is in place.  And they seem to take pieces of the puzzle that came in the box, and decide to throw some pieces out as irrelevant as if the manufacturer somehow threw in some extra unnecessary pieces in order to put the puzzle together.  If you throw out just the one piece of the puzzle that has the red armband, you’re left with a picture of an old German man waving to the crowd…and that wouldn’t be the whole picture, now would it?   You need all the facts.  You certainly don’t need someone else telling you to put the pieces together in a way in which they don’t fit, leaving lots of weird gaps and holes, the result of which doesn’t seem to make any picture at all…and therefore trying to convince you there is no picture to see.

Looking at the rules in “Rules for Radicals,” it does seem to be as much of a playbook for the Obama administration as Mein Kampf appears to have been for the Hitler administration.  My quick synopsis:  Create crisis, act like the mediator of the conflict,  polarize the oppositions at their extremes through the guise of neutrality, create continued disorganization until it all collapses, offer hope and change to the masses, come in with a reception of open arms and organize what’s left while the people believe you are the ultimate savior.  But please, don’t take my interpretation of it to heart, or that would be contrary to my whole point in this blog.  Please read it for yourself and make  your own judgment as to whether or not the last few years seem to have any corrolation to the book.   You may come to a different conclusion.  One thing  is clear though, Hitler documented someone using these exact same rules 100 years ago and appears to have gone on to use them himself with great success. 

I want to make one thing very clear first, I am NOT an anti-semite.  That said, I’m half way through Mein Kampf, and other than saying that at this point it is nothing like what I’ve been taught to believe the contents of the book contains, I will not give my final assesment until I’ve read the second half.  I did receive a few ugly comments when I said I was reading Mein Kampf, upon which I asked the people making the derogatory statements toward my intent if they had ever read the book, to which I got a resounding “NO.”  I do want to point out one GLARING ABSURDITY that I noticed immediately upon receipt of the book.  The introduction to the book, and thus the synopsis on the back cover,  is written by a Jewish man and was done so, in his own words “Almost sixty years after the end of WWII.”  The book, however, appears to have been originally published in 1927 before WWII.  I’m not trying to point fingers at the Jewish ethnicity / religion directly, but having a Jewish man write the introduction to Mein Kampf sixty years after the “hollocaust” would be like letting Fred Goldman write the introduction, in 2010, to the reprint of an O.J. Simpson autobiography originally published just after he left the NFL.  It can provide nothing but EXTREME BIAS to skew the perceptions of the eventual reader, using events of the present to tarnish your perception of the past, though they have no relevance to the content of the publication at the time it was written.  In fact, this is the EXACT type of thing Hitler said was happening prior to WWI  by Jewish owned publishing houses and why he developed problems with the Jewish people to begin with…that certainly makes you ponder a few things, doesn’t it?   

At present, the irony of his book is not in his foreshadowing of what was to come, it is in his description of his perceptions of what happened which led Germany into WWI and their ultimate defeat in the first World War.  If you look at the chain of events he describes, it is an overwhelming eye opener to what appears to have been happening, and is currently escalating in the United States…eye opening like a baseball bat to the back of the head.   My understanding of his argument:  A group of people who were following, based on Hitler’s description of the tactics, the exact same set of rules which Alinsky later outlines in “Rules for Radicals” for organizing a group of people, had an agenda to push Germany away from German Patriotism and towards a somewhat socialist and integrative world society.  People are correct in that Hitler and Obama are pushing for virtually the exact same set of causes, the major difference is that Hitler’s socialist ideas were geared towards improving the lives of “Germans” while Obama’s seem to be less “American Patriotism,” and more integrative  by comparison…which is exactly what Hitler despised!  Remember, we are not “Americans” anymore, we are Native-Americans, African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans.  Hitler had one thing correct, the majority of occupants of the United States will not give their lives to preserve the United States of America as a concept, we will only do so as a means of survival of our “American” species.  Since we have always been a melting pot, the belief in an “American Species” has really been mostly a facade over the past 200 years, and someone appears to be attempting to crush the last pieces of it into oblivion.  You don’t fight for American land, you fight to preserve “American” as a species.  If they convince you there is no true American Species, what is there left to fight for but political control of a bit of dirt…which honestly, isn’t going anywhere one way or the other?  I know more than one Canadian born Jew, living in the United States, who swear upon life and limb that they would fight to the end for Israel against all others, including Canada and the United States…because they have been educated to believe that (by fighting for Israel) they are fighting for the existence of their species , not some dirt in Canada, the United States or the Middle East.  

I’m not saying either “Pro American” or “Pro Integrated-American” is the right path, that will be for each one of us to decide.  And in the very near future, decide you must.  What I am saying is don’t buy all the bullshit you’ve been told to believe as fact, pick up a book and read it for yourself.  You are going to be extremely surprised at how truth has somehow been twisted into fallacy in order to misdirect your perceptions….by both sides of the equation.  You need to read these things yourself, and come to your own conclusions before you choose which path to support.  Read what Socialism is, the world has yet to see an example of it attempted, but you won’t realize that until you read it yourself directly from Marx.  Read, from their own words, what most of our founding fathers thought about religion when fighting for this country’s sovereignty, it is not what you are being taught in school…or church for that matter.   How the Supreme Court made an interpretation concerning the Bill of Rights does not necessarily apply the intent of those who created it.   Read what those who debated the Second Amendment actually said about it at the time, not just the sentence they finally settled on after great debate or 200 years of waxing and waning political majorities in the courts.  Read directly from the religious scrolls of history…oh wait, the Catholics won’t let you do that will they…nevermind.  They have clearly learned the secret to changing people’s perceptions by rewriting history!      

I was speaking to someone the other day, who was talking about all of the benefits of Socialism.  While talking they were professing their American patriotism, and that Americans deserved better than what a Capitalist economy has lead us into.  They went on and on about how more governement intervention and socialist philosophies would be better for American citizens.  So I asked them, “you mean kind of like a “National Socialism” of sorts as opposed to a “Global Socialism”?”  The response was a joyful, relieving huff of a “YES.”  I mentioned that there was a term for that ideology…though I dared not say what it was…seeing as how the person professing the ideology was Jewish and all.

Anyway, there are books full of information directly from the horse’s mouth readily available for purchase, or lending at your local library.  Then you are reading the author’s perception of the facts and not someone else’s spin of what they want you to believe were the author’s interpretation of the facts.  If you find those books, I’d suggest you not read the introductions until AFTER you have read the book, so that you aren’t being biased in advance to what you are about to read.  If you base your decisions by the misinformation you’ve been given by a 3rd party, by the time you realize you’ve been misinformed, you are on the “Train to Auswitch” wondering how the hell it all happened and why you are the lucky one that is being ostracized.